Hey, remember the Tim Curtin thread? It's now a live show:
Rsearch [sic] Seminar - Let them not eat: CO2, food and climate.
Presented by: Tim Curtin
Hosted by: Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Program
12:30-1:30 Thu Apr 29 Seminar Room B (Arndt Room), Coombs Bldg, ANU
(Via Marco)
More like this
According to the Thomson Reuters National Science Indicators, an annual database that records the number of articles published in about 12,000 internationally recognized journals:
- The Asia-Pacific region increased its global share of published science articles from 13 percent in the early 1980s…
Ok, that's not quite the headline at the New York Times, but close enough. Yes, the latest Oxfam figures that came out today say that we're back under 1 billion starving people. But yes, those figures were compiled before the Pakistani Floods, and before the 5% rise in food prices driven by the…
We have a Steacie Library Hackfest coming up and our there this year is Making a Difference with Data. And what better area to make a difference in than the environment and climate change?
I am far from an expert on this topic, so suggestions for additions (and deletions if I've added anything…
Dear Leader is away in Australia, visiting his lapdog, Oz Prime Minister John Howard and attending the Asia-Pacific economic (APEC) summit. At the summit he chatted easily with his soulmates:
U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday told reporters that talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao were "…
The years go by, and STILL the global warming bores chunter on and on about the melting icecaps, the rising seas, the encroaching deserts. Their entire worldview is based on some dubious data from some dodgy thermometers; even then it all hinges on a few lousy tenths of a degree.
With monomaniacal fire in their eyes, they claim the right to tell others how to live their lives. Meanwhile, the populace carries on regardless, dismissing these warped zealots as we have ignored their intellectual predecessors down the ages: the reds-under-the-bed fanatics; the sandwich-board crazies proclaiming the end is nigh; the Malthusian nutters; the Jeremiahs and Jehovahs who predict mass starvation every decade; the sad bewildered doommongers who are perennially disappointed that their worst fears never materialise.
Meanwhile, in the real world, li-li-li-li-life goes on.
What a pathetic bunch of losers. It may take a decade to get rid of your absurd IPCC but when we do cast them out, your belief in global warming will be something to be kept quiet. You will learn that admitting to such irrationality provokes scorn and derision in normal people. Normal people will hate you for having disturbed our children with your wicked falsehoods about the future of the Earth.
What a bunch of wallies.
Jeff, you have a habit of identifying those who disagree with you as agents of some right-wing conspiracy. Is that what they mean by "ad hominem"? Do your bosses know that the bulk of your time is spent spouting claptrap in chatrooms rather than getting some real work done?
Jeff, I'm reading a book by one of your lot: a former Reader in Ecology at the University of Wales, Dr. John Etherington. It's called The Wind Farm Scam.
Unusually for an Ecologist, instead of just doing wordy descriptive stuff he does numbers. So I expect you'll hate him, and dismiss him as a denizen of dark business interests. What's that saying: "All science is maths." Whoever coined that didn't reckon on today's plague of seminumerate bullshitters clogging up the universities.
Dammit, Chek, you got me! In the pay of Big Nuke (spit the words out with contempt!)
Let's get rid of Big Oil (polluting bastards), and Big Coal (carbon criminals) and their dastardly cousins Big Gas.
I propose to put all you tree-huggers on an island somewhere, powered only by renewables. We'll only let you back into the civilized world when you sign a declaration embracing development and energy usage, and promising to cease your hypocritical twaddle about carbon dioxide and the great Global Warming Hoax.
I realise Tim Lambert will delete this Reply to Adelady (at #10) as soon as he sees it here, so I will also post this at the one thread here where I am allowed to exercise some free speech.
[To Jarrod Welch et al, PNAS, 2010]
I am disturbed by several features of your otherwise very impressive co-authored paper in PNAS that appeared this week.
In particular I would be interested to know why the paper ignores any positive impact on rice yields from the rising atmospheric level of carbon dioxide (hereafter [CO2]) that one suspects the paper attributes to be the proximate cause of the rising temperatures that it claims will produce declining rice yields.
So far as I can see, the paper only mentions [CO2] once, and then inaccurately, as a âfixed effectâ whereby the ambient CO2 concentration is âcommon to all farms at a given site in a given season and yearâ (p.2 of online version). Sure, that is true not only for any given year but for every year, but the level of [CO2] is of course higher in every successive year, so to describe that as a âfixed effectâ is unacceptable, or so it seems to me.
That is especially the case when many thousands of papers have described both the fertilizing effect of [CO2], without which of course there would be no rice at all anywhere, and the impact of rising [CO2] on yields of all crops everywhere, whether in greenhouses, in FACE experiments, or in general, as I have myself shown in a peer-reviewed paper (2009).
Your paper assumes that the rise in [CO2] from 356.7 ppmv at end 1993 to 367.89 ppmv at end 1999 had no impact on rice yields at the locations of study, but it certainly does not verify that assumption.
To do so, you and your co-authors need to show why Krishnan et al., for example, are mistaken to have found that in eastern India while âfor every 1 °C increase in temperature, ORYZA1 and INFOCROP rice models predicted average yield changes of â7.20 and â6.66%, respectively, at the current level of CO2 (380 ppm)⦠increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP riceâ (2007:233, my italics).
Your failure even to mention the Krishnan paper when their eastern India covers your site in Tamil Nadu is not acceptable practice - except of course in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
It would also be interesting to have your explanation for how Vietnam managed to become the worldâs second largest rice exporter when reckoned in terms of exports as a % of its total production from 1990, despite both its own rising population and rice consumption, in the face of the alleged falling yields there from 1995-99 resulting from the adverse weather trends in Welch et al.
Even more interesting would be to have your co-author David Daweâs explanation for how in Welch et al (2009) he endorses your paperâs claim that the observed national yield growth in the Philippines was only 1.51% p.a. âat the end of the 20th century (Table 1), when in the book he edited and largely wrote for IRRI, he reports larger increases in rice yields in the Philippines, despite his claims that yields are falling in his co-authored with Welch PNAS paper.
Here is Dawe in the IRRI book:
âData from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) show that the average national yield increased from 2.99 tons per hectare in 1997 to 3.33 tons per hectare in 2002. How much of this yield change can be attributed to the use of quality seeds? (Quality seed as defined here includes
foundation, registered, certified, and good seeds.) Based on a large PhilRice-BAS random survey of rice farmers, the percentage of farmers who used quality seeds in at least one cropping season increased from 38% in 1996-97 to
49% in 2001-02.
The same data set showed that the average yield advantage of using quality seeds over farmersâ seeds was around 300 to 470 kilograms per hectare in irrigated areas and 500 to 650 kilograms per hectare in rainfed areas (Table 2). Thus, from 1997 to 2002, it was calculated that only around
9% of the yield increase was due to increased use of high-quality seeds. The other 91% of the gain must be due to other factors such as fertilizer or chemical
use, improved irrigation, or weather [!!!]â.
So Dawe simultaneously holds beliefs that âweatherâ can over much the same 5 years explain both rising and falling average yields in those years!
What about the rising [CO2] that in Welch 2010 causes the rising temperatures? Or do Dawe and the other authors of Welch et al. deny that rising [CO2] has ANY fertilizing effect?
Finally, please explain in what respects your paper does not fully vindicate Bernard Madoffâs version of investment analysis?
I am sorry if I appear abrasive, but, dear Dr Welch, you yourself made large claims about your paper in Science Daily, August 10, 2010: "âWe found that as the daily minimum temperature increases, or as nights get hotter, rice yields drop,â said Jarrod Welch, lead author of the report and graduate student of economics at the University of California, San Diegoâ.
That is a wholly misleading statement, and actionable had it been made in connection with an issue of shares on the NYSE.
References:
Curtin, T. 2009. Climate Change and Food Production. Energy and Environment, 20.7: 1099-1116.
Krishnan, P., D.K. Swain, B. Chandra Bhaskar, S.K. Nayak, R.N. Dash 2007.Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 122, 233-242.
PS I have since calculated the 2nd derivative (i.e. rate of change of growth of rice yields) from 1990 to 2008, and in 10 out of 14 countries in SE Asia there has been NO decline in the rate of growth of rice yields.
MAGICC models, quasi-Malthusian Wigley assumptions, teabonics, there's gotta be a joke in there somewhere...
And this is TC's abstract:
Didn't he run most of that past us hereabouts? Difficult for me to tell when he's in a kill file.
Tim Curtin? Isn't he the guy who overturned all of mathematics in Galileo-like fashion by deciding that log x1 - log x2 = log (x1 - x2)?
Maybe we can play "spot the Galileo-like innovation" with his presentation. Perhaps someone (preferably Curtin himself) can leak the slides to us beforehand.
I am so tempted to list the ways in which Curtin is so wrong that he is not even wrong, but I know that he will be reading this thread which intense interest. So no clues for preparing trite responses old chap; you'll have to think of proper replies to James Haughton.
Of course some of his errors of scientific process are dispersed throughout the eponymous thread where so many of us tried to elicit from the whacky retired economist some sign of non-refractoriness to learning, but he showed no signed then, or at any time since, of being able to think scientifically.
I really, really wish that I was sufficiently close that I could attend - I would have quite a few questions and comments to put forward.
And a DVR would be handy...
I thought he may have been in competition with the Wiggles, but those guys are waaaay smarter.
Is this a joke? Surely he's not dumb enough to think that increases in food production had anything to do with carbon emissions.
I feel it's not so much what they think Steve, but what they think they can get away with.
Steve@6: Not just that, but he is making the age-old mistake of confusing emission rates with atmospheric concentrations. Dumbass mistakes piled on dumbass mistakes.
Everything he writes is a postscript to his notion that adding CO2 drives out something else to keep the total number of molecules in the atmosphere a constant.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h…
------
"parts per million"? Lesser earthlings like me think it means that more parts per million of x mean less parts per million of y ....
Posted by: Tim Curtin | June 24, 2006 9:00 AM
(duplicated in next posting at 9:02 AM)
My first intro to Tim Curtin was just recently when bloggers here pointed me to the "Tim Curtin thread".
I will never recover the neurons I lost that day.
Attending his seminar will have the same effect as drinking a bottle of vodka, except without the pleasant hazy feeling prior to throwing up.
Tim Curtin argues that the 'growth of [CO2] is strongly associated with the increase in world food production from 1962 and 1980 to 2003.
Being based on historic outcomes they provide exceptionally strong support for the
âlaboratoryâ results from localized greenhouse and âFACEâ field trials, confirming the
unequivocal fertilizing effect of elevated [CO] on crop yields.'
Maybe, but surly the Green Revolution would have had something to do with that. If the weather becomes wetter and cooler over the next couple of decades, even as CO2 continues to rise, there is little prospect that yields will increase.
It's will be curtins for the US grain belt.
Tim Curtain is an economist that doesn't understand economics at even a cursory level. He wrote a letter to the FT, which he proudly displayed on his website, wherein he argued that, due to the fact that there is a buyer for every emission permit sold, emissions trading schemes do not lower carbon emissions.
I remember the first time I read that was after a good day or so of keyboard war on Quiggin's blog where Curtain kept popping in with oddball silliness- googling him and reading that I was just exasperated enough to laugh out loud. The man is an unreconstructed moron, and yet he is touted as a cholar by the denialatti.
And people wonder why we don't have more nice things to say bout this crowd.
Jiminy Christmas, this hole thing a mystery to me. It's a mystery to me how so many people can be duped by something so painfully obvious as the denialist scams. I mean, to anyone with a modicum of education, the vast gulf in scholarship between mainstream science and these loons could not be any more obvious if they started writing their stuff with crayons illustrated with stick figures.
Arghhhhhh!!!!
I have so much work on, but he is literally a 10 minute walk from my office. So much work.... must not waste time laughing at the stupid...
Would people be keen for a report back?
...and a another charabia of non-sequiturs from El Gordo. Perhaps it thinks obscurity is a good façade behind which to disguise its ignorance... Perhaps it's more used to dealing with its fellow-retards and doesn't realise *we* weren't born yesterday...
Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis
Authors: TAUB, DANIEL R.; MILLER, BRIAN1; ALLEN, HOLLY2
Source: Global Change Biology, Volume 14, Number 3, March 2008 , pp. 565-575(11)
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
"Meta-analysis techniques were used to examine the effect of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] on the protein concentrations of major food crops, incorporating 228 experimental observations on barley, rice, wheat, soybean and potato. Each crop had lower protein concentrations when grown at elevated (540-958ââμmolâmolâ1) compared with ambient (315-400ââμmolâmolâ1) CO2. For wheat, barley and rice, the reduction in grain protein concentration was â¼10-15% of the value at ambient CO2. For potato, the reduction in tuber protein concentration was 14%. For soybean, there was a much smaller, although statistically significant reduction of protein concentration of 1.4%."
Chris, this is on tomorrow isn't it? I think I may be in Civic until lunchtime tomorrow - perhaps I'll come along and see you there?
Steve R #6:
Not afraid to ask the hard questions, are you Steve?
I wonder if TC has worked out the difference between a derivative and a proportional rate of change?
See, I'm not afraid to ask the hard questions either.
James Haughton, Vince WHirlwind, and ChrisS.
I for one would be most interested in hearing a report, and especially of any response that Curtin provides to questions.
As [Majorajam](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) noted, Curtin is paraded as a scholarly 'sceptic' of anything at all to do with anthropogenic global warming, even in the face of the stark fact that he is completely wrong in his understanding of the physics, the photobiochemistry, the ecology, and just about anything else imaginable that is remotely associated with the sciences related to climate change. The fact that his fora for commenting are instruments such as Quadrant, the Lavoisier group, and E&E seems not to affect one iota his credibility amongst the Denialati.
As I said above, I am loathe to give Curtin any forewarning by pointing out his manifold errors, but some of his most egregious are simply indefensible. If anyone does attend the talk, ask him to explain his statistical methodology for analysing his data, including evidence that he had an a priori protocol for both selection of data, and for the methods of analysis. In particular, ask him 1) why he believes that regressions are the only (or most appropriate) method for looking at relationships between independent and 'dependent' variables; 2) how he incorporates non-parametric data into his regressions, 3) what other statistical methods are available for time-series analysis, and 4) how he establishes directly a cause/effect relationship between the variables that he correlates (inferences from loose interpretations of FACE experiments and similar are not direct evidence).
Curtin is an enthusiastic promotor of palm oil as a commodity (it is ironically used, in part, as a biofuel...). When [I challenged](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…) Curtin about the profound impact that palm plantations have on biodiversity loss, [Curtin denied the impact and called me a racist to boot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…).
Ask him how he reconciles his enthusiasm for the apparent carbon fixation potential of palm oil plantations with his hysterical concern that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide should not decrease, but rather that it continues to increase.
Point out that that Curtin apparently has no concerns about the rate of Indonesian forest destruction for palm oil production, and that he [disputes the scientific work that predicts that Sumatran orang utans are in imminent danger of extinction in the wild](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…). Ask him if he disputes the fact that [Sumatran orangs are likely to disappear within a decade](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/2877927.htm) as a consequence of habitat destruction.
Ask him if he stands by his [repeated libelous criticisms](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…) that climatologists, biologists and [scientific bodies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…) are either incompetent or involved in conspiracy, and ask him if he stands by his [slanderous claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…) that Stuart Pimm [omitted bird species from the comprehensive list of extant species](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…) in order to exaggerate the current extinction crisis, when in fact the truth is that [Curtin simply did not understand that species are continually reclassified](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…), and that [Pimm counted them under their current binomials](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…), rather than the outdated ones to which Curtin referred.
Ask him to explain how CO2 will decease below 280 ppm if humans stop emitting, how long such a decrease would take, and why there is no negative feedback between carbon fixation and the phytosphere under conditions with no anthropogenic carbon emission.
In all of this, it would be interesting to ask if Curtin can provide references to support his assertions, and if he is willing to participate in an ongoing critical public analysis of his claims in order to confirm their correctness. And be prepared - if any of these questions are put to Curtin, he will in all likelihood have read this thread first (greetings, Curtin) and prepared, so you will need to press past his attempts at glibness and bring in supplementary evidence/points for which Curtin cannot have a prepared slippery answer.
As an aside, I hope that Tim Lambert might permit Curtin at least some limited time from his ban on Deltoid, so that Curtin might respond on this thread to the most recent criticisms of his claims.
Oh, and DVR, DVR...
Further to [Vince's post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), there are also issues of the warming (of nights) that results from increased CO2 depressing rice yields, and that the lowered protein content exacerbates pest attack. Oh, and the altered dynamics (including shifted competitive advantagea/disadvantages) in natural ecosystems has profound implications for human dependence on ecosystem services.
And there's always Leibig's Law of the Minimum...
I won't link to references here (I have done so in the past, for some of these issues), because I don't want to make it too easy for Tim Curtin.
Aren't I nasty?
The Tim Curtin Thread is a spectacle. A belated thanks to those who did engage him - especially Jeff Harvey and Bernard J. I learned from your posts.
I really does take a long time to get over a thread like that, doesn't it, Bernard?
I feel your pain.
More parts per million of x does mean fewer parts per million of y, usually - though not always. If you simply double the amount of x in a mixture, for example, then every other component including y has fewer parts per million of the resulting mixture. You don't have to keep the number of molecules constant.
If you had N% X then PPMx was 10,000N and now it's 20,000N * 1,000,000/(1,000,000+10,000) and if you had M% y, now PPMy is 10000M*1,000,000/(1,000,000+10,0000).
Gack!
No, I wasn't trying to make it difficult for Curtin to read [my post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)... I simply missed the forward slash for to close the italic wivv!
[Gaz](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), yeah, that thread was torturous. Fortunately, I spent most of my time using it as a distraction from feeding and burping newborn twins, so it served a purpose. The Mattthew England thread featuring one 'Grima' Orssengo was just as painful.
[SC](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Thanks back. I think that I speak for Jeff as well as myself when I say that this is why we, and so many other folk, persisted with [the Stupid](http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg275/TheKen08/Misc%20Pics/head_bang…) in the face of inclination to the contrary.
I see the milk of kindness still absent here, especially amongst the anonymous. So thanks to Marion Delgado for putting right probably the only other real person (Hank). The Bernard Js et al are obviously computer generated by Tim Lambert himself. If Vince is real, thanks for the link, I already have that less than brilliant paper, already set aside as it has been by Long Ainsworth Farquhar et al.
What next? Tim Curtin - The Musical?
@ Bernard J.
'Grima' is off to a new good home:
I've also noted that in the open thread, bluegrue. But the post seems to be held up in the moderation queue (problem with links early this morning?)
My take on it was via Wott's Up With That though.
@ P.Lewis
But unlike you I dared to post a (sanitized) link. ;-)
I simply hadn't seen your post. Sometimes morbid curiosity gets the better of me and makes me take a brief look at WUWT. It always costs me a few brain cells.
No, you wouldn't have seen it bluegrue, as it appears to have come up only in the last 30 minutes or so, and so would not have made the recent posts lists. :-)
All Eli can say about the Tim Curtin show is how lifelike
Let's hope Tim has a puppet show interlude where he demonstrates his understanding of the prisoner's dilemma.
Sorry Tim (both of them), I won't be able to make it. Am working at the other end of town today.
Firts, thanks to Marco and Tim Lambert for publicising my Seminar, which was well attended both numerically and by quality, including the Chairman, Stephen Howes, co-author of the Garnaut report, and several professors.
Responding, reluctantly to Bernard, for just a few of his points for now.
1. "If anyone does attend the talk, [lots did, room full]ask him to explain his statistical methodology for analysing his data, including evidence that he had an a priori protocol for both selection of data, and for the methods of analysis". Read the Abstract, the paper was lergely theoretical, concerning the applicability of the Michaelis-Menten function in climate modelling.
2. "In particular, ask him 1) why he believes that regressions are the only (or most appropriate) method for looking at relationships between independent and 'dependent' variables";
I do not, but they are a major tool of analysis, even if absent from IPCC WG1 2007, chap.9, see interchange between Marco and me at Verheggen's Blog, Global Average Temperature...thread.
"2) how he incorporates non-parametric data into his regressions", How does Bernard?
"3) what other statistical methods are available for time-series analysis", like quadratics, as I did today?
"and 4) how he establishes directly a cause/effect relationship between the variables that he correlates (inferences from loose interpretations of FACE experiments and similar are not direct evidence)". Tell that to Ainsworth, Long, Farquhar et al passim.
Hi kids,
I didn't get a chance to make the seminar, enlightening no doubt, that it was. Real life and real science intervened.
Apologies. I'm sure you've heard pretty much all of Tim Curtains "arguments" before.
IS there anywhere those of us unable to attend can see the seminar online?
jodyaberdein: sure, email me (tcurtin@bigblue.net.au) and I will gladly send you a copy, with the following provisos (1) that you acknowledge it is as yet not peer reviewed (2) is in Power Point so is not a paper that is a finished product, and that (3) any comments you might make on me and/or my cited sources are not ad hominem here or elsewhere. All others here who accept those 3 conditions in writing will also gladly get a copy on request.
Don't forget:
(4) that you won't scare anyone with death!
Well I'm glad we've finally cleared that up. [Here's the link fixed, Marion, so you can see how it started](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h…)
[The first statement was here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h…) where Tim posted this:
"... If CO2 has increased by 100 ppm since 1750, then non-CO2 must have decreased by 100 ppm since 1750. ...
So for an increase of 100 ppm CO2 since 1750 we have 780 bn tonnes of CO2 increment in the global atmosphere since then and 780 billion tonnes of non-CO2 decrement since 1750. What happened to it?"
It sounded like Gresham's Law, applied to the atmosphere--bad molecules driving good ones out of circulation.
Much mathematical hilarity ensued.
Hank: why mathematical? Sure, I was wrong to use the same conversion factor from ppmv to GtC for non-CO2 as for CO2, and I was glad to be corrected on that point. But the arithmetic is incontrovertible, as Delgado stated better than I can. An extra 100 parts per Million by Volume of one gas must in non-Hank math mean 100 fewer parts per million by volume of all other gases (in this case oxygen, as the atmospheric concentration that excercises Hank & the IPCC et al is CO2, which funnily enough comprises 2 oxygen molecules that were previously up there as O2). The chemistry hilarity is at your expense, not mine.
i'm fine with 1) to 3), although ad hom can sometimes be a matter of opinion.Would you say that the below comment, just picked at random, is a good example?
Sod: I am (hopefully for the last time) breaking my self-denying ordinance not to respond to pseudonymous twerps like you, on the grounds that people like you and Dano and Jody et al are probably one or all of the following: (1) cowards; (2) wife beaters, (3) pedophiles, and (4) all of the above, so likely to lose their jobs if your employers knew you were using company time to post garbage on sites like this, as has evidently become your fulltime occupation.
Tim, I am amazed that you still don't get this. You said:
"... If CO2 has increased by 100 ppm since 1750, then non-CO2 must have decreased by 100 ppm since 1750. ... So for an increase of 100 ppm CO2 since 1750 we have 780 bn tonnes of CO2 increment in the global atmosphere since then and 780 billion tonnes of non-CO2 decrement since 1750. What happened to it?"
When things decrease in proportion they do not need to decrease in quantity - this principle is called dilution. Thus, the addition of CO2 does not mean that the non-CO2 gases have necessarily gone anywhere - they can still be in the atmosphere, but at lower concentrations.
In essence if I have 10 blue balls and 90 red balls in a jar, the concentration of blue balls is 10 parts per 100. If I now add 11 green balls they have a concentration of 11 parts per 111 i.e about 10 parts per h100. The concentration of blue balls is now 10 parts in 111, or roughly 9 parts per 100. The blue balls don't have to be removed - to go anywhere - to do this.
The fact that you cannot understand even this most simple principle says an awful lot about your "science".
Tim Curtin:
> (1) that you acknowledge it is as yet not peer reviewed (2) is in Power Point so is not a paper that is a finished product,
So you're saying your work's not "finished" enough to be formally published, but yet apparently it's "finished" enough to be presented before an outside audience with no hint of uncertainty whatever in the findings?
Galileo would've been proud. Really proud.
Mathematical hilarity:
"The ludicrous GCM models of the IPCC .... If the GCM cannot/do not account for the missing 780 billion tonnes of non-CO2 they have to be worthless as indeed they are."
that was Posted by: Tim Curtin | June 20, 2006 9:51 AM
Seriously, were you thinking of Gresham's Law?
nice that you asked. Ralph Keeling has shown that O2 (aka as non-CO2 in scienceville) has decreased as CO2 has increased, and by the way mixing ratio by volume is a much better way of comparison.
So much for that.
Decent recent summary here:
http://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/3/113/2010/amt-3-113-2010.pdf
"the atmospheric potential oxygen (APO) ... â to a good approximation â APO is unaffected by the activity of land biota and is therefore principally sensitive to ocean-atmosphere exchange of O2 and CO2 and only partly to fossil fuel combustion...."
These folks went to Keeling for personal help and got it, when they had questions. Nice to see how it works.
Nemesis, Hank, Congrats on your new science, whereby burning the carbon in fossil fuels by use of atmospheric oxygen (no oxygen no burning)and generating CO2 et al has no impact on the volume of O2, so the O2 in CO2 must be O^2! Your turn for Nobels! Hell would freeze before Hank ever admitted to an error - thanks olsame for your link to the van der Laans' paper.
Frank - I should have mentioned that my PP on 29th was actually a follow-up to my intensively peer-reviewed paper Climate Change and Food Production, but as I preferred not simply to read that out, I instead explained more fully how the misuse of Michaelis-Menten (mentioned en passant in the paper) has contaminated ALL modelled projections of CO2 concentration to 2100 and beyond, especially those in CASPI-Garnaut 2008 and Sokolov 2009 (all use MAGICC with its M-M black box).
Tim Curtin:
> I should have mentioned that my PP on 29th was actually a follow-up to my intensively peer-reviewed paper Climate Change and Food Production
Peer-reviewed by whom? Energy and Environment, which publishes grade-school-level rubbish?
So let's see. You claim that your PowerPoint presentation is not "a finished product", yet you present your 'findings' to the public with no hint of uncertainty whatsoever, and that's OK because part of the presentation -- but only part of the presentation -- has been 'published' in a crank journal.
Are you still insisting that log x1 - log x2 = log (x1 - x2)?
frank: I insist on no such thing, and long ago admitted my mistake.
Instead of attacking the journal, which is the same as the usual ad hominem here, why not address the paper itself and share your superior knowledge with us all? It's at
Climate Change and Food Production
Journal Energy & Environment
Publisher Multi Science Publishing www.multi-science.co.uk
ISSN 0958-305X
Issue Volume 20, Number 7 / November 2009
Category Regular paper
DOI 10.1260/095830509789876781
Pages 1099-1116
Online Date Wednesday, November 18, 2009
PDF (133.5 KB)
It's also at my website.
As it happens, acadamics frequently give seminars on as yet unpublished papers, I did a few myself when I was an academic in 1964-1970, all led to publication as monographs or journal papers with the benefit of comments at the seminars.
Only last week I attended a seminar at ANU's Fenner School by David Dumaresq on a topic closely related to mine, but not published, and not yet available as ppt. so I could not cite it.
Hopefully my seminar in ppt version will be up on the RMAP site and/or mine next week. Meantime email me for a copy! I eagerly await your always constructive comments and criticisms.
Whilst Tim and I have generally not seen eye-to-eye in the past, and indeed I have been critical of him, I think credit should be given where credit is due. In the past we have challenged hin to publish in the peer-reviewed literature, and he has done so, twice. Maybe the journal is not the best, but nonetheless the material is out there for anyone to read and, where appropriate, criticise.
Similarly, it is not at all unusual to present unpublished material in a seminar - indeed in my university we encourage this as a feedback mechanism. Many academics do not make their presentations available (I do, but I have been criticised in my own institution for so doing), so again Tim is actually quite enlightened in doing so.
I should stress that none of this means that I agree with the material that Tim produces - indeed this thread has amply demonstrated the limits of his capaility.
frank: Tim is right, the main purpose of seminars, like conferences, is to disseminate ideas and get feedback prior to publication, there is no reason why even a single one of your seminar topics needs to have been previously peer reviewed.
Dr Dave, MFS:
I stand corrected on that.
I see that Bernard J has not reacted to my first responses to his diatribe. Here I refer to his complaints on my views on oil palm.
Bernard said: "Curtin is an enthusiastic promotor of palm oil as commodity (it is ironically used, in part, as a biofuel...). When I challenged Curtin about the profound impact that palm plantations have on biodiversity loss, Curtin denied the impact and called me a racist to boot".
Why ironic? In fact oil palm fresh fruit bunches are about the most CO2 intensive crop you could imagine. That is why they are abhorred by Bernard and all other white men who much prefer olive oil, soy oil, and canola or rape, exclusively produced as they are by whites, from Greece and Spain to England, USA, and Australia. Who funds the WWF and FoE campaigns against oil palm? White men.
What is the preferred cooking oil etc of brown people, not to mention Cadbury? Palm oil.
Parameters Unit Tropical forest Oil palm plantation
Biomass production t DM haâ1 yrâ1 22.9 36.5
CO2 fixation t CO2 haâ1 yrâ1 9.62 25.7
Photosynthesis lmol mâ2 sâ1 13-19 21-24
Absorbed radiation MJ mâ2 yrâ1 51.4 82.9
Respiration t CO2 haâ1 yrâ1 121.1 96.5
O2 production t O2 haâ1 yrâ1 7 18.7
154
"Ask him how he reconciles his enthusiasm for the apparent carbon fixation potential of palm oil plantations with his hysterical concern that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide should not decrease, but rather that it continues to increase".
I fear this indicates only that Bernard is close to a nervous breakdown. The FACT is that oil palm yields show amazing correlation with increasing [CO2] - and at the same time soak up more of CO2 emissions than ANY other crop. That is why oil palm is hated by whites everywhere.
Bernard again: "Point out that that Curtin apparently has no concerns about the rate of Indonesian forest destruction for palm oil production, and that he disputes the scientific work that predicts that Sumatran orang utans are in imminent danger of extinction in the wild. Ask him if he disputes the fact that Sumatran orangs are likely to disappear within a decade as a consequence of habitat destruction".
Actually, B., Indonesians are not as stupid as you imagine, especially when they talk to you and tell you only what you want to hear. Without exception, their replacement of moribund old growth forests by oil palm takes up more CO2 in a year than trees ever have over their total lives.
As for my near cousins, the orang utans, their problem is that they love oil palm more than they should. If they keep to the highlands, where oil palm and logging are not economically viable, they do not have a problem.
Like most Australians, Bernard J is a racist - having spent most of my first 60 years in Africa I know one when I see one.
I am a student who went to Tim's talk. I was not familiar with Tim Curtin until searched his name in google afterwards.
Unusually, the talk was presented as a public lecture, while Tim was using it as a forum to publicise his unpublished research and his views. The talk wasn't well presented (or perhaps I got a little bit lost): Tim did not emphasise key points, slapped up too many slides, used very little motivation before putting up graphs, did not adequately justify some of his more contentious claims, talked quickly and went on lots of segues that were weakly relevant to the rest of the talk, so it was sometimes hard to get a good grasp of what he was arguing.
His fundamental hypothesis (I think) was that CO2 in the atmosphere is rapidly absorbed and stored by plants in the biosphere. Someone in the audience pointed out that Tim had not taken into account that although plants may be larger and grow faster if there is more CO2, they invariably release all of their carbon back into the atmosphere when they decompose. That is, if CO2 emissions are stopped, a steady-state ensues, which is precisely what Tim was arguing against. Tim, however, did not present any convincing evidence to show that a steady-state situation would not be reached.
Tim presented graphs to show cereal productivity over several decades, and I think he was claiming that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was responsible for these increases in productivity. He did not exclude new farming technologies as being the cause for the improved productivity.
Tim stated that CO2 reduction schemes are a bad idea, because they will reduce the productivity of the world's crops and lead to famines. He believes that increasing CO2 levels are not causing any global warming (or having any effect apart from improving plant growth), and said that he had done calculations to show that CO2 induced GW is not happening. He did not provide any evidence for the claim, nor did he show how he had done these calculations. When someone mentioned that satellite altimetry measurements showed that the sea-level was rising, and asked how the resulting land inundations would effect his projected "productivities", Tim said that he doesn't "believe that the sea-level is rising". His justification was that his memory of the sea-level at Coogee 17 years ago "is the same as the sea-level now". I have a feeling that he'd deny, without adequate justification, that the projected increased frequency of droughts in Australia's "bread-basket" will reduce productivity, and that deforestation and projected drought in the Amazon basin will decrease the amount of CO2 that will be absorbed by plants.
In summary, Tim made several claims that are contrary to what carbon-cycle experts believe, and did not provide convincing evidence for these claims.
A bit of unintended irony there Tim:
"Indonesians are not as stupid as you imagine, especially when they talk to you and tell you only what you want to hear. Without exception, their replacement of moribund old growth forests by oil palm takes up more CO2 in a year than trees ever have over their total lives."
That was what the Indonesians told you that you wanted to hear, was it?
According to the [Sumatran Orangutan Society] "When a hectare of primary rainforest is cleared and replaced with oil palms, this releases around 65 times as much carbon into the atmosphere as can be saved annually by using the palm oil as a biofuel". Remnant inaccessible highland jungle is not sufficient to maintain a viable population of Orangutans, who do not "love oil palm", they love living in rainforests which are being chopped down, burned, and turned into oil plantations.
Your embrace of ebonic science is a new tactic. Palm oil is high in saturated fat and may contribute to heart disease to a much greater extent than other vegetable oils. There's nothing "racist" about preferring non-saturated oils. Nor does your love of brown people appear to extend to the indigenous peoples displaced (and in many cases, killed) by oil plantations.
Thanks tao for the summary of the talk.
Thanks tao for your comments. My talk was NOT a "public lecture" - it was as advertised a seminar in the RMAP series, next of which is this Thursday, "Empowering women to improve climate change mitigation and adaptation", while next week's claims women will be more adversely affected by CC. A seminar is by its nature more informal than a public lecture.
That said, I am sorry tao evidently did not follow my argument, which is that rising atmospheric CO2 is associated with rising food production (over 40% of all cereals is embodied carbon). Check your own wheatie packs. Where does that carbon come from? What will be the effect of reversing the growth of atmospheric CO2? Would tao agree that at the least CO2 is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition for photosynthesis to occur? I most certainly did NOT address the issue of how far if at all rising CO2 is responsible for the minimal 0.7 oC of global "warming" since 1900 - that is being covered in my next paper. Watch this space.
James H. I normally value your comments, but this time am surprised you rely on a 2nd hand account when you could easily get my slides by asking for them (tcurtin at bigblue.net.au).
As for oil palm, when and where did oil palm estates kill anybody? I had some involvement with refinancing (on behalf of the EU's EIB) the huge estates in Nigeria (where the palm oil process was "discovered" by Unilever c 1860, in fact the locals had been extracting the oil for centuries by that very process and never got royalty, but that's another story).
I also had some peripheral involvement (on occasion I was the Government's (unpaid) alternate director) with PNG's CDC and NBPOL and Hargy estates at Milne Bay and WNB. No deaths, but many thousands of outgrowers and employees doing much better for themselves than anybody else in PNG agriculture. Yet FoE and Greenpeace have successfully scared off Cargill (who had replaced the UK government's CDC as operator) from its Oro, Milne Bay, and New Ireland estates. Cui bono? why, your old friends Monsanto of course with their white man's soy oil which is in direct competition with brown man's palm oil. My understanding is that the main habitat of the orang utan is the rainforest in the mountains - oil palm is grown on the coastal plains in Sarawak as in PNG. I confess I was overstating my case re CO2 uptakes by rainforest and oil palm respectively - but the much greater ANNUAL uptakes by the latter per hectare than by the former are worth restating:
First figure is tropical forest TF, second is oil palm OP
Biomass tDM/ha/pa: 22.9; 36.5.
CO2 fixation t/ha/pa: 9.62; 25.7.
Photosynthesis mmol per sq. metre per second: 13-19; 21-24.
Respiration tCO2/ha/pa: 121.1; 96.5;
Oxygen tO2/ha/pa: 7; 18.7.
James you seem not to appreciate that the biofuel programmes in US are aimed at replacing imports of oil and petroleum - burning palm oil or ethanol releases as much or more CO2 as gasoline. Your quote implies that forest clearing is an annual process for each oil palm crop, whereas of course many of the Nigerian estates have been in production for well over 100 years, and some of PNG's for over 40. Likewise in Indonesia, some go back to the Dutch period. You may not like using palm oil for cooking, but billions in Africa and Asia prefer it, is that a crime for which they should be punished by FoE and GP? The fetish in UK and EU for certification of "sustainable" oil palm is like FLEGT and REDD simply a means of promoting their own food oil agriculture (olive, canola, soy)and forestry by imposing costs on brownskinned producers that are not born by whities in East Anglia's canola fields or the Greek and Spanish olive oil producers.
Tim @ [54](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), [51](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…),
Why the need to mention skin colour, white vs. brown? What does it matter where olive, canola, sunflower, or palm oil are grown to the CO2 sustainability equation?
I see the need to bring in skin colour and insinuate there are racist motives to people who disagree with you to be a likely symptom of an underlying insecurity.
Finally, what do you have against Greek and Spanish olive oil producers? You bring them up [again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) and [again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)... what about those in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Lybia, Israel, Cyprus, Lebanon, Turkey, etc... Ohhh, I get it... using Greek olive oil is racist but using Turkish oil is not, since Turks are muslims and therefore 'ethnic'... wait... what?
I suspect Tim may be unfamiliar with some of the research. I'm certainly not familiar with it all, but IIRC there is certainly food for more thought:
Protein yields in many key crops diminish with rising CO2.
Some CO2 benefits, but several other potential negatives. These may include significant changes in micronutrient content and changes in wheat protein balance leading to significant reduction in bread quality.
A related news article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/scidev/126408545622.htm
Nighttime temperature increases reduce rice yields.
And (IIRC) various pests do much better as temperature rises.
Not a very useful question for food crops. A more useful question is how would a CO2 reduction scheme affect total nutritional yield taking into account all the factors - including shifting climatic zones, shifting weather patterns (e.g. rainfall), desertification, reduced protein yields, more significant pest problems, and so on. And for bonus points distinguish between mitigation schemes suitable for the very poor and the comparatively rich farmers of the world, and tie that back to the likely geographical distribution of significant negative agricultural impacts of climate change.
MFS: some fair comment. Look, all agriculture disturbs the "natural" environment. I first became aware of US soy interests attacks on Malaysia's oil palm producers back in the 1980s, now we have the "disinterested" green groups (FoE et al) campaigning against Cargill in US and against UK supermarkets that sell products containing any palm oil. I ask again, cui bono? Certainly not those earning a living on oil palm estates in the tropics.
I mention Spanish & Greek olive oil producers because they are heavily cosseted by the EU which is driving this certification fixation for palm oil and has always been adept at getting around WTO rules to obtain protection for EU producers (eg inventing some health issue on imports of say apples inapplicable to European producers). Of course it is not explicitly racist, but then neither was slavery, they just happened to be blacks.
Tim Curtin, you seem to be implying that the rising carbon dioxide levels are essential to support a burgeoning global population through increased crop productivity, but you haven't showed that
(1) we can ignore the effects of CO2 induced global warming, which, according to thousands of climate scientists, poses a serious threat to agricultural productivity world-wide.
(You need to show that GCM projections are badly flawed: one way would be to show conclusively that the increase in stored thermal energy is due to a specific natural forcing, and that there is some natural effect that "cancels out" the CO2 warming contribution which is calculated using uncontroversial physics).
The next point that you haven't demonstrated (which is only relevant if you have showed that statement (1) is true) is
(2) that the rise in agricultural productivity over the last few decades was due to increases in CO2 concentrations and had nothing to do with improved farming technologies.
(Your assertions may not be much more than correlation-causation fallacies if you simply rely on linear regressions to provide "evidence" for your claims. Wouldn't you at the very least need to provide experimental evidence to show that productivity of different types of cereals under controlled conditions will increase at the same rate [d(productivity)/d(concentration of CO2)] as actual production rates have, making allowances for latitude, altitude, temp, soil fertility, rainfall etc?)
Lotharsson: thanks. Why not ask for a copy of my seminarâs ppt slides? If you can't or won't I hope to have them up on my website or RMAP's later this week. Their main theme is the misapplication of economistsâ law of diminishing returns and biologistsâ Michaelis-Menten function. The former depends on the effect of increasing just one input, keeping all others constant â if that assumption is violated the Law ceases to hold, and is replaced by the âlawâ of constant returns to scale. Likewise with Michaelis-Menten â vary just one input, and holding all others constant, you get the hyperbolic effect, which I demonstrated in several slides. But I referred to the seminal work of Long 1991 down to 2008 as well as my own regressions showing how for example world cereals production has yet to exhibit the M-M effect with respect to rising CO2 since 1960. As for protein, check your packet of wheaties, or buy your own wheat flour, bake some bread, and measure the protein against that in your bakerâs bread. Farmers are not dumb, and some use of nitrogenous fertilisers (but not as much as you might think) fixes any possible imbalance â the paper on which my seminar was based showed the relatively greater importance of atmospheric CO2 than of fertilizers as explanations of growing world cereal production since 1960 (it also mentions the varieties issue).
You duck the question of where the 40% carbon content of breakfast cereals originates. That is what my seminar was also largely about.
All the same thanks for your comments.
Because I fail to see the point - it's obvious, and it does not lead to the reported conclusion that you reach (CO2 reduction schemes would be harmful to agriculture).
It's especially unimportant due to its focus on the micro when placed against the question I asked in response about the macro - which you have ducked.
Thanks for your comments too.
Tao said: ââ¦you seem to be implying that the rising carbon dioxide levels are essential to support a burgeoning global population through increased crop productivity, but you haven't showed that (1) we can ignore the effects of CO2 induced global warming, which, according to thousands of climate scientists, poses a serious threat to agricultural productivity world-wide...â
Thanks tao â but there also thousands of biologists (NB NOT climate scientists) who have shown that in most places extra warming (or longer growing seasons) raises output, especially in the higher latitudes. I worked in Egypt and Sudan where they can get 2 harvests a year for some cereals, try that in Scotland Siberia or Canada!
More tao, claiming I âneed to show that GCM projections are badly flawed: one way would be to show conclusively that the increase in stored thermal energy is due to a specific natural forcing, and that there is some natural effect that "cancels out" the CO2 warming contribution which is calculated using uncontroversial physics)â. Well, check out Max âManackerâsâ listing of papers today at Bart Verheggenâs blog My View on Climate Change, Global Average Temperature etc thread, that show the falsity of the positive feedback effect on which the IPCC relies for its baseless claim the climate sensitivity is 3 oC for doubling atmospheric CO2.
More tao: âThe next point that you haven't demonstrated (which is only relevant if you have showed that statement (1) is true) is (2) that the rise in agricultural productivity over the last few decades was due to increases in CO2 concentrations and had nothing to do with improved farming technologiesâ. Read my paper, itâs at my website â and do the regressions yourself, all the data are in the public domain. I did all tests necessary (eg Dickey-Fuller) to rule out spurious correlations between world food production and rising atmos. CO2, fertilizer usage, AND temperature, to show that CO2 wins big time. A regression using just improved varieties does not explain as much.
Tao again: âYour assertions may not be much more than correlation-causation fallacies if you simply rely on linear regressions to provide "evidence" for your claims. [I have done the Durbin-Wtason and Dickey-Fuller tests. Have you?] Wouldn't you at the very least need to provide experimental evidence to show that productivity of different types of cereals under controlled conditions will increase at the same rate [d(productivity)/d(concentration of CO2)] as actual production rates have, making allowances for latitude, altitude, temp, soil fertility, rainfall etc?)ââ Read my E&E paper â or anything by Stephen Long, Norby & Luo, Ainsworth, Farquhar, all cited in my seminar paper. They all went there and did that, as several of my slides showed, not to mention Robert Mendelsohn in the AER c.1995.
All same, thanks for coming and for your comments.
Best
Tim
Tim Curtin.
I did not respond to your [first reply to me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) because I haven't been closely watching this thread. On reading that post of yours though, I see that your answers do not constitute anything remotely resembling a coherent and well-argued response, and given the progress of the thread there is little to be gained from faffing around with what you said.
Except to note that you seem to be having as much difficulty with non-parametric data now, as you were [when I first queried you about the subject](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…)...
Moving on to some of your latter comments.
First, to the matter of race. My first child was of mixed race - "coloured", as your Afrikaans influences would say - so you are hardly in a position to impute any racism on my part. I've told you before to stop this grubby slander: you have no basis for saying what you do and I expect you to refrain from doing so again.
Secondly, your paragraph:
is extrememly poorly formatted and captioned/referenced. Can you restate your claims contained in your first posting of these numbers, so that I and others are able to examine what carbon fixation you attribute to oil palm plantations over the rainforest that they replace?
Thirdly, James Haughton has already touched upon the issue of orangs and plantations, but I will add a few extras points. Orangs would have no great desire to enter palm plantations if their own habitats were intact. The orangs that venture into plantations do so because they were originally displaced by the very same plantations into the remnant rainforest left after the razing of their original habitat. The forest that remains is insufficient to provide over the long-term for the animals remaining, even after the disgusting practices of poaching and mutilation that are too-frequent following the destruction of their home-range forest. Orangs are not at all inclined to expose themselves to open, monocultural plantation environments, especially as such are frequented by humans, but necessity forces them to seek food or passage through these areas.
It is hardly their fault.
It is also a very grave reflection of the profound impact that humans - whether brown, white or brindle - are having on ecosystems more generally... but then, I doubt that such could ever be explained to you, as you seem incurably refractory to any serious ecological understanding. Any biologist on the other hand (and the indigenous Indonesian forest dwellers that I have worked and lived with for weeks at a time) would be (and are) extremely concerned at the damage that is being wrought on such high trophic-level species in so many different ecosystems.
Fourthly, your comment:
is a stunning non sequitur. Are you trying to tell us that there is more carbon now in a sack of wheat used to make cereal, than there was a century ago?
I could waste my life addressing the trail of non-science nonsense that you leave in your wake, but I am restricting myself for now. It's good though to see that others are not letting you get away with your crap.
And tao, for what it's worth, Curtin's response to your critique of his presentation is weak as piss. You raised some interesting observations, and Curtin slithered past them rather than confront what he woulod rather ignore. I for one appreciate your efforts to attend, and to provide others with a précis of what you saw and heard. Kudos.
Ah, tao, I see that Curtin has returned to some of your points whilst I typed.
Interesting though that his answers are biologically naïve, and scientifically dubious. I'm tempted to start a list of how many things Curtin did incorrectly, but I'm wondering if there's any point: seriously, do many people really give his clumsy rambling in E&E any credence at all?
Surely not...
Bernard, I was wondering what had happened to you. Now I know, addling. You quote me: "[tao] ducks the question of where the 40% carbon content of breakfast cereals originates. That is what my seminar was also largely about" and add "[this]is a stunning non sequitur. Are you trying to tell us that there is more carbon now in a sack of wheat used to make cereal, than there was a century ago?" No, I am not, what I did say at length is that 6.8 billion people are today eating more cereal than fewer than 1 billion did in Rev Malthus time, or 3 billion 50 or so years ago. Is it true or false that 6.8 billion NOW ingest more carbon-based food than the 3 billion did 50 or so years ago? Your arithmetic is no better than Hank's belief CO2 really should be written C(O^2).
Secondly, your paragraph:
Bernard again: You complained about formatting of my table on respective yields of biomass per hectare p.a. of tropical forest. Please address that to Tim Lambert, computer whizz, or wordpress. Here it is again: "First figure is tropical forest TF, second is oil palm OP.
Biomass tDM/ha/pa: 22.9; 36.5.
CO2 fixation t/ha/pa: 9.62; 25.7.
Photosynthesis mmol per sq. metre per second: 13-19; 21-24. Respiration tCO2/ha/pa: 121.1; 96.5;
Oxygen tO2/ha/pa: 7; 18.7.
For reference go to my paper.
"Can you restate your claims contained in your first posting of these numbers, so that I and others are able to examine what carbon fixation you attribute to oil palm plantations over the rainforest that they replace?" Oil palm fixes more than double the CO2 per hectare per annum of tropical forest (see data above).
The truth is that oil palm trees are amazingly productive and yield of course more than just cooking oil and many other important food ingredients, they also yield palm kernel oil which has a wide range of other industrial uses.
That is why it is hated by soya producers and FoE et al, whereas standing tropical forest is not much use to anybody apart from the orangs.
Back to tao - his posts here made an impact at the University of Surrey, no less, here are my responses to the critique tao inspired there:
First: "too many slides": actually I put up "only" 32 of some 50 slides, but of course I did my best to explain each as I went along. Many Ppt slides are really just bullet points as aides memoire to the speaker in a Seminar (as opposed to a Public Lecture). But clearly I failed with tao, my fault.
Actually I did have some positive feedback at my seminar, most notably from Graham Farquhar, who is FRS, and is No.2 in our own Academy of Science. I thought he was supportive at the seminar - he has of course published extensively, and is credited with first bringing Michaelis-Menten (1913) back into mode (Tellus 1980). My Chairman Prof. Stephen Howes, co-author of the Garnaut Report (2008), was very gracious despite my attacks on that Report, with its extensive use of M-M to exaggerate the growth of atmospheric CO2 to 2100.
Obviously I should have put up the basic equation which is in my E&E paper:
delta[CO2]t = dEt - dUt, where E are emissions, and U are "uptakes" of those emissions by the biosphere.
We know delta[CO2] from Mauna Loa, and dE from the IEA etc; and dU>0 tautologically follows from the equation, otherwise delta[CO2} would be equal to dE, and manifestly it is not - hence the 'missing sinks'. Now M-M is used in virtually ALL models used by the IPCC, and above all in Wigley's MAGICC (a kind of meta model) which says that dU has already or will soon reach a hyperbolic maximum, so
d[CO2] will rapidly equate to dE (as claimed by Solomon et al in PNAS 2009 and Meinshausens, Allen et al in Nature 30 April 2009), and then grow at up to 1% pa instead of the actual 0.4% p.a.
... I definitely should have put this algebra into a slide - but the particular research school (RMAP) hosting my seminar normally is attended by people with no maths at all. BTW my paper was rejected by the Climate Change Institute, you can see why its director Will Steffen wanted no part of it.
Definitely I have to write all this more formally, but why bother? The UEA-CRU Potsdam and GISS teams will still be able to ensure it never sees the light of day, controlling as they do all journals in the field. Worse, the incoming President of the Royal Society, Paul Nurse (also ex UEA) has already made it very clear in writing that he is (1) a True Believer and (2) determined that no dissenting views on CC science get about.
Many thanks again to tao - and Bernard J - for your comments, clearly I could do better, and I will try, I promise!
Tao:
Nothing's changed then.
Gaz: you do not need to rely on hearsay any more, as I have sent the pdf of my seminar paper to Tim Lambert, so you can ask him for it (without revealing your real name to me) and see whether your conclusion is warranted.
> tropical forest is not much use to anybody
> apart from the orangs.
> Posted by: Tim Curtin | May 3, 2010 6:47 PM
Hank - why did you leave out the word "standing" from that sentence of mine you quoted? Timber is very valuable to all of us when harvested sustainably, as is perfectly possible. Go to Google Earth, Lat 8S, Long 144E, and tell us what evidence you can see of irreversible damage to the tropical forests there (Wawoi Guavi) which have been logged at the rate of around 300,000 cu.metres p.a since 1988, and similarly at Turama near Kikori at about same Lat, and Long. 144.2E, which has been logged continuously for some 30 years.
Just as you cannot grasp that fossil fuels only release CO2 if they are burned in the presence of oxygen, so also Greenpeace which last year attacked a ship taking sawn timber from Kikori or Wawoi to China (shock! horror!) cannot understand that timber is much greener - and renewable - than steel or concrete, its alternatives for buildings and furniture (that is why there is a close link between plywood prices and steel prices), but you and they neither know nor care about that (or the c4,000 Papua New Guineans employed at Wawoi and Turama).
BTW, my seminar "show' is now available at my website (www.timcurtin.com)
Good to see that my ANU seminar has apparently emerged from Deltoid scrutiny unscathed (so far).
That is good news, because my paper exposes the underlying garbage in the âOpen Letterâ of the 255 âscientistsâ in *Scienceâ linked to by TL.
Point by point:
1.âFor a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planetâ What is the actual potential catastrophe? â that say Glasgow shifts from its average mean temperature of 8oC to 11oC, which IPCC claims is the climate sensitivity (CS) of doubling of [CO2] from 280 to m560 ppm. â or Dubai from 27oC to 30oC? In the latter nobody would notice, in the former â hallelujah!
2.ââ¦there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we dependâ. Really? GISS global up by just 0.7oC since 1900 from a 40% increase in [CO2]. Arrheniusâ geometric analysis means that the next 60% might just create an extra 0.7oC, for a total of 1.4oC since 1900. Is that really a killer, in Glasgow, Canberra, Darwin, or Dubai?
3.âThe planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphereâ. Is it? Not one of the 255 signatories has produced ANY regression analysis to show this, least of all Australiaâs Karolys, Wigleys, Pittocks et al. The TRUTH is that there is not a single location on earth where the mean temperature since 1958 correlates at all with rising [CO2]. The few attempts (eg the ineffable BPL here) to show that all fail elementary spurious correlation tests (e.g. unit roots, Durbin-Watson, Dickey-Fuller). Watch this space for my next paper showing this.
4.â Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestationâ. True â but what of the huge free benefaction of free increases in [CO2] on rising food production, as documented in my unchallenged seminar (here or anywhere else so far).
5.âNatural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changesâ. Absolutely untrue. I have yet to find a location in the USA or Australia where mean temperature changes are attributable to rising [CO2] rather than changes in situ solar SURFACE radiation (NOT TOA solar irradiation), water vapour and relative humidity.
6.âWarming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidicâ. Mere armwaving. There is NO evidence whatsoever for âmore acidic oceansâ â a statement that itself shows none of the 255 has any scientific grasp whatsoever, as the oceans are not acidic now and never have been. Unlike [CO2], there is no data base for oceanic pH anywhere in the world, except at Townsville, where they tip hydrochloric acid into tanks to simulate what might happen if the oceans ever did become acidic. And even if they did, we could then use the sea for drinking and to irrigate the land. None of the 255, and especially not their leader, Paul Ehrlich, has any concept of basic science (like Hank Roberts here who thinks we can burn fossil fuels in the absence of oxygen).
7.â The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food (sic) and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far moreâ¦â drivel... Rising [CO2] is known already to have been conducive for more global rainfall and rising food supplies.
Tim, try adding paragraphs to your posts!
> ...has apparently emerged from Deltoid scrutiny unscathed (so far)
Given some of your other comments, I'm not sure that you'd recognise a scathing.
> What is the actual potential catastrophe?
People might take you more seriously if you **showed some awareness of the case for serious concern**. Instead you're arguing a strawman in classic denialist fashion. Ho-hum.
> In the latter nobody would notice, in the former â hallelujah!
I don't know why you think Dubai wouldn't notice another 3 degrees (let alone the other effects of climate change), or even why warming in Glasgow might be an cause for unalloyed celebration. I lived in Scotland for a few years. One year it hit 28 Celsius in Glasgow - and several people **died** that day of heatstroke. No, it's not proof of anything, it's anecdotal - but then your assertions that everything's going to be just fine are no stronger.
> The TRUTH is that there is not a single location on earth where the mean temperature since 1958 correlates at all with rising [CO2].
And here was me thinking the change in greenhouse gas radiative forcing is proportional to ln[CO2], not to [CO2]. And that we're talking about *global* mean temperatures, not local. Oh, well.
> ...but what of the huge free benefaction of free increases in [CO2] on rising food production...
It's a lot easier to say you're unchallenged when you ignore documented decreases in protein and other nutrient content, and decreases in productivity in places like India, isn't it?
> ...a statement that itself shows none of the 255 has any scientific grasp whatsoever, as the oceans are not acidic now and never have been.
That's a ludicrous strawman, and another example of why people don't take you seriously. "More acidic than before" generally means "lower pH than before", regardless of the current pH level. Pretending that the NAS statement implies they think the oceans have a pH level < 7 is laughable and discredits you.
> ...like Hank Roberts here who thinks we can burn fossil fuels in the absence of oxygen.
Somehow I doubt you can substantiate that statement either.
Thanks Lotharsson. Your comments in lc, my replies in CAPS.
Tim, try adding paragraphs to your posts!
MY ORIGINAL IN WORD WAS LAID OUT AS YOU SUGGEST. WHY DONâT YOU GET TL TO CHANGE TO A PROGRAMME THAT RETAINS WORD EXCEL & PPT FORMATTING?
What is the actual potential catastrophe? LOWER FOOD PRODUCTION AT 280-350 PPM THAN AT 390-450.
I don't know why you think Dubai wouldn't notice another 3 degrees (let alone the other effects of climate change),
ITâS VERY HOT ALREADY, AT NEARLY 3 TIMES GLASGOW'S ANNUAL MEAN, DESPITE WHICH MILLIONS HAVE MIGRATED THERE SINCE 1970.
or even why warming in Glasgow might be an cause for unalloyed celebration. I lived in Scotland for a few years. One year it hit 28 Celsius in Glasgow - and several people died that day of heatstroke.
HOW MANY DIE EVERY WINTER FROM THE COLD OR GENERAL DEPRESSION BROUGHT ON BY THAT GHASTLY CLIMATE? No, it's not proof of anything, it's anecdotal ITâS NOT ANECDOTAL THAT MORE DIE FROM COLD WINTERS THAN HOT SUMMERS, ALL OF MY GRANDPARENTS AND MOST OF THEIR PARENTS AND THEIR CONTEMPORARIES (DOWN TO 1560) DIED MORE OFTEN IN ENGLISH WINTERS THAN IN ITS BARELY BETTER SUMMERS- SEE WRIGLEY AND SCHOFIELD THE POPULATION HISTORY OF ENGLAND 1541 TO 1871 (CUP, 1989) FIG.8.2 SHOWING THE INCREDIBLE SEASONALITY OF BURIALS ... (MY ANCESTRAL VILLAGE'S PARISH REGISTERS WAS ONE OF THEIR MAIN SOURCES).
I had said "The TRUTH is that there is not a single location on earth where the mean temperature since 1958 correlates at all with rising [CO2]'.
Lothar. replied: "And here was me thinking the change in greenhouse gas radiative forcing is proportional to ln[CO2], not to [CO2]".
ACTUALLY USING LN RATHER THAN ACTUALS DOES NOT MATERIALLY AFFECT THE REGRESSION RESULTS, (TO BE EXPECTED AS LN(x) AND x ARE RATHER CLOSELY RELATED!). I DO BOTH ANYWAY, USING LN TO GET "RADIATIVE FORCING" AS PER IPCC.
And that we're talking about global mean temperatures, not local.
THE GLOBAL IS DERIVED FROM THE AGGREGATE OF THE LOCAL, EXCEPT WHEN THE LATTER ARE BODGED AS BY CRU IN UK AND BoM HERE IN OZ (WHOSE SIMON TORAK (ex CRU) HAS JUST BEEN FOUND OUT DOING THAT FOR CASSINO HERE, SEE REPORT BY JOHN SAYER TODAY AT JENNIFER MAROHASY'S BLOG).
...but what of the huge free benefaction of free increases in [CO2] on rising food production...
It's a lot easier to say you're unchallenged when you ignore documented decreases in protein and other nutrient content, and decreases in productivity in places like India, isn't it?
EVIDENCE? DO YOU SEE ANY ON YOUR WHEATIE PACKETS THIS YEAR COMPARED WITH LAST?
EVER HEARD OF NITROGEN FIXING BY ACACIAS ET AL, WIDELY PRACTISED FOR MILLENNIA IN AFRICA, OR BY NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS. FEW FARMERS ANYWHERE ARE AS DUMB AS MOST CLIMATE SCIENTISTS....
"More acidic than before" generally means "lower pH than before", regardless of the current pH level. Pretending that the NAS statement implies they think the oceans have a pH level < 7 is laughable
THAT IS WHAT THEY CLAIM WILL SOON BE THE CASE EG AIMS AT TOWNSVILLE.
...like Hank Roberts here who thinks we can burn fossil fuels in the absence of oxygen.
SEE ABOVE HERE AND PASSIM IN HIS ATTACKS ON ME AT OTHER BLOGS.
MEANTIME CHECK OUT
http://rutledge.caltech.edu/Caltech%20talk%202010/videos.html
FOR A SEMINAR STRINKINGLY SIMILAR TO MINE, I JUST SAW IT TODAY, HT TO JOHN AT STEVE McINTYREâS www.climateaudit.org (9th May 2010).
THANKS ALL THE SAME, LOTHAR.
Tim Curtin.
I never cease to be amazed at the degree to which you are able to come up with uneducated, inexperienced, ill-informed, pseudoscientific nonsense at a rate that precludes effective rebuttal within the timeframes available to most people with others things to do.
Your [last post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) typifies this dubious ability, and I myself will struggle to address most of it for at least a week because I actually have pressing work and family committments, but on the matter of ocean acidity I do feel compelled to say something.
Or rather, I will in the first instance [direct you to a post where I previously attempted to illuminate another chemistry ignoramus](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2157…).
And I will also leave you with a question - if, as you contend, the pH of oceans fell below 7.0, "we could then use the sea for drinking and to irrigate the land", what miracle of chemistry will remove the complex mix of ions present in seawater that currently prevents us from drinking it or irrigating with it?
Seriously, this is one of many of your completely scientifically ignorant canards that utterly renders anything to come from you absolutely untrustworthy.
And you have the hide to say "None of the 255, and especially not their leader, Paul Ehrlich, has any concept of basic science".
Of course, as with anything else to come from your mouth, you are profoundly in error...
Hi Bernard, I was wondering what had happened to you!
Thanks to the inequity here at Deltoid, your comment is up some hours after I attempted to post a response to Lotharsson, which in part anticipated your blast, but is not up yet, and may never appear.
Until it does, I would like you to explain more of your comment that "if, as [I] contend, 'the pH of oceans fell below 7.0, we could then use the sea for drinking and to irrigate the land', what miracle of chemistry will remove the complex mix of ions present in seawater that currently prevents us from drinking it or irrigating with it?". Do tell, perhaps the egregious Uwe High Garbage could help you?
Why don't YOU come up with that miracle? The truth is that of course the pH of seawater will never fall enough to make it drinkable in even the lifetimes of your amazing kids, with or without those ions.
> ...EXCEPT WHEN THE LATTER ARE BODGED AS BY CRU IN UK...
Ooooooh, look - a thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory touted as fact! That'll really convince them!
> LOWER FOOD PRODUCTION AT 280-350 PPM THAN AT 390-450.
Your claims in this area, at least as expressed on this blog, are made on apparently simplistic bases. These appear to fail to take into account a large number of factors that may significantly negatively impact both the quantity and quality of food production. As such your arguments do not appear credible.
> DO YOU SEE ANY ON YOUR WHEATIE PACKETS THIS YEAR COMPARED WITH LAST?
Right ... because Wheatie packets are scientific documents with more standing than actual research papers. It's amazing how hard you work to avoid understanding the point.
> THAT IS WHAT THEY CLAIM WILL SOON BE THE CASE
Disregarding your irrelevant misdirection by reference to AIMS at Townsville, I do believe you are ... (shall we diplomatically say) *not telling the truth* about the NAS scientists. Such outright dishonesty discourages people from bothering with your arguments - if you resort to such falsehoods in the obvious and easily checkable details, it bodes poorly for any more complex argument you might make.
> SEE ABOVE HERE...
I already looked "above here" and failed to find substantiation for your assertion.
> The truth is that of course the pH of seawater will never fall enough to make it drinkable in even the lifetimes of your amazing kids, with or without those ions.
Then the truth is that you plied a self-admitted falsehood to try and buttress your argument.
But thanks for playing anyway.
>>>Pretending that the NAS statement implies they think the oceans have a pH level < 7 is laughable
>>*THAT IS WHAT THEY CLAIM WILL SOON BE THE CASE EG AIMS AT TOWNSVILLE.*
>Such outright dishonesty discourages people from bothering with your arguments - if you resort to such falsehoods in the obvious and easily checkable details, it bodes poorly for any more complex argument you might make.
Bingo! There's your succinct and accurate review in a nutshell Tim. Impervious to facts means Tim will say his argument is "unscathed".
;)
Curtin, you say:
and in so doing you neither address the simple fact that a decrease in pH is an acidification process, whether or not the arbitary value of 7.0 is passed, nor do you explain the chemistry of why sea water acidified to below pH 7.0 suddenly becomes drinkable.
Curtin, I have a question for you. Would you drink sea water that had been acidified to pH 6.95 by the bubbling through it of your favourite gas, CO2? If yes, would you drink it as your sole source of water for a full month? If no, why not? After all, you claim that reducing the pH to below 7.0 renders it drinkable and suitable for irrigation.
And it's irrelevant whether or not surface oceanic pH falls below 7.0. It only has to decrease a few more tens of a unit for many marine species, and the ecosystems of which they are a part, to suffer severely from the increased acidity.
WTF?!?! It TC actually, seriously claiming that an acid pH (ie, less than 7.0) would render ocean water suitable for drinking and irrigation? Really?!?!?!?! Seriously?!?!?!?!
And in the same damn breath he accuses 255 members of the National Academy of Science of having "[no] scientific grasp whatsoever?"
Really?!?!?!?!
Why is this buffoon not simply laughed into oblivion anywhere he appears?
So Tim,
I did for a moment think you knew what you were talking about, until I read this:
Let us break this up into its individual components:
Let me point you out to the excellend summary of our knowledge on ocean acidification published by [The Royal Society](http://royalsociety.org/Ocean-acidification-due-to-increasing-atmospher…). It surprises me that you take this tack, since, unlike global warming, ocean acidification from increasing CO2 is basic chemistry, the equilibrium reaction between CO2, H2O, H2CO3 and HCO3-.
As pointed above, the classic strawman. I have never seen a reference that said the ocean is acidic, plenty of them report the observed acidification of the ocean surface from an average pH of 8.2 in pre-industrial times, to 8.1 by today. Funny how you accuse 255 of the top researchers in the world of not having "any scientific grasp whatsoever", yet in the same sentence you make it obvious that you have no reading comprehension whatsoever.
This again is a lie, you purposely misrepresent the science. They are not researching "what might happen if the oceans ever did become acidic", they are researching the effect of the measurable acidification already experienced, and that expected in light of atmospheric CO2 forecasts on coral. The other part of this lie is your statement that it is only AIMS at Townsville that is carrying out this kind of research, which is ludicrous. There is a wealth of published research on the effects of ocean acidification on multiple organisms, but especially corals, coccolithophires, forams and pteropods, since being calcifying organisms they are expected to be the most affected. Simply because you are not aware of it does not mean it has not been done. The [Royal Society](http://royalsociety.org/Ocean-acidification-due-to-increasing-atmospher…) report is a good starting place, though a search on Current Contents should yield more up-to-date papers, too numerous to cite here. Some starting points:
[Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes](http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/3/414)
[Southern Ocean acidification: A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2](http://210.193.216.98/cps/rde/papp/techAdvice:techAdvice/http://www.pna…)
[Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem](http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.0109…)
Finally:
This is the best piece of pseudo-scientific gibberish I've seen for a long, long time. Others have already asked you whether you think the levels of ions would be somehow safe under neutral pH. I will take a different tack, which is to say that drinking (fresh) water [ranges from](http://www.water-research.net/ph.htm) a pH of 6.5 on the acidic end of the scale (rare) to a pH of as much as 8.5 in carbonate rock areas, where the water is hard. You really ought to know this if you have studied soils... So therefore seawater is within the pH range of drinking water already!!! Hooray!!!
But then, it has been said before that any sufficiently advanced technology or knowledge appears to those who do not possess it completely indistinguishable from magic. I suppose thus your utter incompetence in the matter of oceanic chemistry might explain your comment that "None of the 255, and especially not their leader, Paul Ehrlich, has any concept of basic science"
[Arggghhh]()!
...decrease a few more tenths of a unit...
Just in case anyone was confused...
Tim Curtin,
My longer post is withheld for moderation, so a quick note here:
The pH of drinking water varies between 6.5 and 8.5. Carbonate rock areas where the water is hard often have a drinking water pH over 8, and sometimes over 8.5. The pH of seawater is in this range and this should make it, according to your statement, perfectly drinkable in this respect.
Sources:
[WHO, pH in Drinking-water](http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/en/ph.pdf)
[Excel Water Technologies](http://www.excelwater.com/eng/b2c/ph.php)
[Wilkes University, pH of Water](http://www.water-research.net/ph.htm)
Your comments in the area of ocean acidification are complete and utter nonsense and it's about high time you owned up to the fact.
> Would you drink sea water that had been acidified to pH 6.95 by the bubbling through it of your favourite gas, CO2?
You know, we could replace those expensive de-salination plants and outsource drinking water production from seawater to the Coke bottling plant. Hell of a lot cheaper! Maybe Tim should start collecting signatures for those who are happy to drink the new concoction - perhaps they could get a little tax rebate or something for going off the fresh water grid? Same for all those farmers and their water rights - sell them off and buy an industrial water carboniser instead. Much cheaper and more reliable when you can do it yourself and never run out of the raw ingredient - seawater.
1. What Lee, @79, said.
2. Is there a level of intellectual demolishment higher than scathed?
3. Am I right in thinking that it's called "acidification" because "debasicification", which is what's happening (and it is happening), is a preposterous word?
tresmal,
Generally, since one reduces the pH of a solution by adding acid to it, the process is known as acidification. This is irrespective of whether the solution is acidic or basic for starters.
Oops. My post about ocean acidification [above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), which had been held up for a bit, should have said coccolithophores, not coccolithophires... or maybe I invented a new taxonomic classification ;)
Lotharsson: Re food and CO2, do read my paper and/or seminar, both at my website www.timcurtin.com. Get back to me when you have.
Re Deâath, Lough et al at AIMS Townsville, they with Uwe High Garbageâs support published a string of lies about the GBR in Science last year, and stubbornly refuse to correct their paperâs fraudulent claims.
In general it is clear they have never heard of Charles Darwinâs seminal work on corals, whose very existence of course results from what Arrhenius called âcarbonic acidâ (unknown to any of the 255, do a search).
Thus they claim âOur data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the GBR are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records (sic) reaching back 400 yearsâ.
I accessed the De'ath-Lough-Fabricius archived data sets for their paper on or about 12th January 2009 at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ and downloaded into Excel. All I could find was ONE sampled reef (out of the 69 they claimed to have sampled in 2005) with a 400 year history to 2001. Only 12 of the 69 had data after 1990, and none after 2001. Yet Science, shonky second only to Nature, allowed them to claim that that they had 69 reefs with data that go back from NOW by 400 years, even though the link to their archive showed only one, and even that one was tenuous.
But when we talk science these days, we mean Bernard Madoff, as Phil Jones & Mike Mann have shown passim in Climategate.
One likes to suppose that Deâath et al are reasonable human beings like the rest of us, but then why can they not bring themselves to submit their work to a half-intelligent statistician to check their findings?
For the record, of the 14 GBR sites they report, only THREE do NOT yield increasing calcification rates, contrary to their claim in that comic Science, this in a paper trumpeted around the world as showing that âclimate changeâ would bring about the collapse of the GBR sooner rather than later.
Truly they are of the MBH hockey stick school like the rest of you here! What is it that impels the no doubt well-meaning scientists at AIMS to sell their souls to the devil, again and again?
Re pH, the link to WHO from MFS says it all: âIn pure water, a decrease in pH of about 0.45 occurs as the temperature is raised by 25 °C.â Even the 255 cretins of NAS not to mention all at AIM Townsville have yet to claim that global temperatures will rise by 25oC any time soon.
Said loonies including those here also seem to imagine that the extra precipitation likely to arise from increasing [CO2] always reduces pH pro rata, but rain per se is not seriously acidic, whatever MFS may say. In my experience adding freshwater to seawater may reduce pH slightly, but why is that bad for us? The trouble is that all who have commented here have a herd mentality devoid of common sense. Grow up! Guys, get your act together, even if the 255 cannot (actually that list is more notable for the absentees than for the 255; any list with Ehrlich on it is doomed to oblivion).
And Bernard J, you said: "Would you drink sea water that had been acidified to pH 6.95 by the bubbling through it of your favourite gas, CO2?" I do it all the time, my favourite noon-day drink, as a recidivist imperialist Brit, is gin and tonic, and believe me, tonic without the CO2 bubbles is a no-no.
More on Dea'th Lough and Fabricius (AIMS Townsville, Science, January 2009): "We investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia" True, the onlt truthful statement in the whole paper.
"Their skeletal records show that throughout (sic) the GBR, calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990, predominantly because extension (linear growth) has declined by 13.3%." Untrue, the majority of their samples came from the southern end of the GBR, i.e. south of Lat 18 oS, which is a small portion of the whole GBR, most of which is north of 18oS. But when Uwe High Garbage (as âanonymousâ peer reviewer) propels you into Science, who cares about precision?
â.. calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990, predominantly because extension (linear growth) has declined by 13.3%. The data suggest that such a severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least the past 400 yearsâ Really, from just a single sample out of 328 with that claimed longevity?
It is pertinent to note that Lough trained at CRU of Climategateâs UEA, and has been a co-author with Phil Jones, who has repeatedly shown (see Montford 2009, et al) he will stoop as low as you like if it promotes a fund raising agenda.
Tim [@ 71](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
[@73:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
[@75:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
[@88:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
Never in my career have I seen such equivocation and outright untruths coming from someone calling themselves a scientist. Tim, you know bugger all about ocean chemistry, and what little knowledge you have is giving you a false sense of confidence and making you believe you know better than those who work on it for a living.
Please provide references to back up your statements that:
a) The NAS letter's 255 signatories state that the oceans are acidic (as opposed to acidifying, as they wrote, two words with very clear and different meanings),
b) AIMS at Towsville says the oceans are, or will be soon, acidic, as opposed to acidifying.
More than anything, it is up to you to back up your argument that:
c) It is the pH of seawater, and not its dissolved salts content, that makes it undrinkable and unsuitable for agriculture, since it is already within the pH of drinking water as per my [links above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Finally, you state:
You are propping up a straw man to attack me, yet I have not said such a thing, have I? If I have, please link so we can read it. What I have done is provide links to show you that the pH of seawater is well within the pH range of drinking water, and that your claims that
Is completely and utterly ludicrous, in your own words ['a miracle'](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). It really is up to you to explain how this can be achieved, rather than telling us to work it out [by ourselves](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
MFS: this what the 255 said â âRising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidicâ. In plain English that means the oceans are already acid. Why did they not say ââ¦making the oceans less alkalineâ? Because like all of their ilk they wish to stir up alarm (al la Schneider, who probably with Ehrlich did the drafting).
There is in fact no evidence for a global decline in pH, as even the IPCC AR4 admits in WG1. Unlike atmospheric CO2, which is well mixed, the oceans are much less so, so the pH varies, eg at river mouths and non-river mouths, etc., etc.
Thus there is no âglobalâ measure, and none at all at Townsville, certainly none are cited by Deâath et al (Science 2009), whose only reference is to laboratory studies deploying tanks of acid. As those authors claim to be scientists concerned about acidification along the GBR, their inability to measure it and report times series thereof tells you all you need to know about their âscienceâ â and yours.
The reason they donât is no doubt because there is no evidence of the seas along the GBR becoming âmore acidicâ as you and they would have it.
Then you offer this âIt is the pH of seawater, and not its dissolved salts content, that makes it undrinkable and unsuitable for agricultureâ. You must be mad, for it is rising salinity that threatens agriculture, not falling pH.
Re Lotharsson disputing that Hank had stated here that the portion of CO2 arising from burning of fossil which remains airborne and has risen by 110 ppm since say 1900 does NOT imply that the non-CO2 concentration of the atmosphere must have fallen by 100 ppm, go to his "Mathematical hilarity" posts on 30th April. Marion Delgado confirmed my arithmetic, and Eli Rabett then confirmed that the missing 100 ppm of non-CO2 is the O2 used in burning the fossil fuels that generated the CO2: "nice that you asked. Ralph Keeling has shown that O2 (aka as non-CO2 in scienceville) has decreased as CO2 has increased, and by the way mixing ratio by volume is a much better way of comparison".
Hank still does not fully accept this although he claims (30 April again) (1)"atmospheric potential oxygen (APO) ... â to a good approximation â APO is unaffected by the activity of land biota" - without citing data source;
and (2) "there are other ocean-atmosphere exchanges of O2 and CO2 and [that are]only partly due to fossil fuel combustion....". Not a very generous acknowedgment by Hank that my original point was correct and has been confirmed by Delgado & Rabett.
Lotharsson, I see you have been mocking me on the Open Thread - not very sporting when TL does not allow me to respond there.
Tim Curtin [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
amongst so much other rubbish that it boggles the mind.
I did in fact spend almost an hour typing a detailed response to all of your wrong-headed and ignorant misunderstanding of simple high school-level science, but I clicked the bloody sitemeter button instead of the post button, and because I am still using an old lender computer, when I clicked "back" my post had disappeared from the comments window. (If only I had the admin priveleges to replace IE with Firefox...)
I have no inclination to waste another hour on your idiocy.
I will, however, mention that seawater contains approximately 35 grams of salt per litre of water. By comparison, gin and tonic contains 0.34 grams sodium chloride per litre, which is more than one hundred times less ionic content than seawater.
If you are prepared to add 35 grams of salt to every litre of G&T that you drink, and to drink nothing but G&T for the next month, then perhaps your mention of your liquid intake has some relevance to the discussion of the suitability of seawater for drinking and for irrigation. If you're not prepared to do this, then I will take it for granted that you are conceding the completely and utterly specious ignorance of your arguments on this thread.
You can add as much or as little CO2 to your Gs&T as you wish. The alcohol content of such a liquid diet is simply a problem that you will have to deal with on the side...
So, are you up for the challenge?
Curtin, you just don't stop, do you?
Get it through your thick, scientifically-ignorant head buster - "more acidic" applies to any solution whose pH is decreasing: the initial pH is irrelevant to the observation of increasing acidity (= increasing H+ concentration).
Wakey wakey you big numpty. Have a look at the primary literature. Oh... do you actually know how to find it?!
Erm, it was you claimed that it was the pH of seawater that made it undrinkable! It was I, and others, who drew to your attention the inconvenient truth of the ionic content of seawater.
Did you seriously think that you could get away with this reversal of the facts of this thread? I mean, SERIOUSLY?! Read the bloody posts above. If you can prove that the facts are otherwise, please detail them with careful reference to the chronology and the statements of the relevant parties.
Idiot.
> In plain English that means the oceans are already acid.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
Tim [@ 91](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…),
The fact that you interpret 'more acidic' to mean the oceans already have an acidic pH is just semantics and your lack of experience in ocean chemistry. Since the term alkalinity is often misused by those who don't know its correct meaning, saying the oceans are becoming less alkaline risks conveying the wrong message, as the addition of CO2 to seawater decreases the pH, but increases the acidity without decreasing the alkalinity. Similarly the word 'basic', as in 'making the oceans less basic', has so many meanings it is more likely to be confusing to a reader. However the term 'to make something more acidic' need not necessarily imply the object is already of an acidic pH, except in your own particular interpretation. I can say the sun's radiation warms the moon up, even though by common standards the moon is very cold and the sun only makes it less so.
I know this sounds unintuitive, but you may want to do some research. The Royal Society [synthesis paper](http://royalsociety.org/Ocean-acidification-due-to-increasing-atmospher…) on OA I linked to above is a good starting point. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkalinity) has a half decent explanation of the concept of alkalinity as opposed to basicity. Alkalinity is a measure of the ability of a solution to neutralise acid, and can depend less on its concentration of OH- (basicity) than its buffering capacity. Due to its ionic composition, seawater has a very high buffering capacity. The addition of CO2 to seawater lowers the pH, call it makes it 'less basic', or 'more acidic', but does not change the alkalinity, as at the same time as adding carbonic acid it adds more bicarbonate, itself a good buffer.
I hope this makes it clear to you why the term 'more acidic', which is a synonym of 'less basic', is more accurate than 'less alkaline' and has a lot less possible meanings than 'less basic'. As such, and regardless of your own personal opinion, the correct term is 'ocean acidification', and the least ambiguous way to say to laypeople that the pH of the ocean is decreasing is to say it is becoming more acidic.
As to your comments of the ocean not having a pH, they are as ludicrous as comments made previously that the atmosphere has no temperature. The ocean is a solution, and has a pH. True, it varies in estuaries and bays, but these are not the ocean. Oceanic water bodies and currents have fairly homogenous pH, and this can be measured at the surface and averaged. The average pH of the world's oceans today is 8.1, wether you like it or not, down from approximately 8.2 in pre-industrial times.
I am truly sorry that instead of educating yourself on a field that is truly interesting, you choose to justify your ludicrous comments with semantics and wilful misinterpretation, and continue to argue yourself deeper and deeper into ridicule. Sorry to be blunt but I call it as I see it.
I read an article in The Daily Mash yesterday:
[ANIMALS OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS](http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/animals-obstructing-prog…)
I instantly thought of Tim.
MFS.
Self-education has never been a Curtin strong-point. In fact, it's not really ever been a Curtin point at all - check out the eponymous Curtin thread linked a the top of this page, if you haven't already.
You have no need to apologise for your emphasis of Curtin's inclination to semantics, of his wilful misinterpretations, and of his arguments leading toward deeper and deeper ridicule.
It's par for the course; it's the nature of the beast. He can't help it: he's a scorpion's fox.
MFS: you said "The average pH of the world's oceans today is 8.1, wether (sic) you like it or not, down from approximately 8.2 (sic) in pre-industrial times". You have NO evidence for either of those claims. None is provided by IPCC AR4 WG1 or AIMS @ Townsville. Real science, unlike, yours, is about measurement. Of that there is none anywhere in IPCC, other than the fictions of Briffa, Jones, Wigley, Karoly, or Susan Solomon (the Enid Blyton of climate "science" with her endless Noddy papers).
I know a lead author of TAR who has been appalled by the refusal of AR4 lead authors to consider any corrections to their self-serving perversions of the truth on all issues. I would be more impressed by MFS if he addressed the substantive issues I raised in my seminar (now available at my website, www.timcurtin.com).
I discussed today the Michaelis-Menten function which underlies the Madoffian frauds of Wigley, Enting, Garnaut et all too many of your heroes with a real Emeritus Prof at ANU, and he was shocked to hear of their application of M-M in the MAGICC projections that more than double the actual growth rate of [CO2] from 1958 to 2009 (0.41% pa) to 1% pa for 2010-2100 (Solomon, Garnaut et all too many).
Bernard J. You are very boring. I may respond tomorrow, but why should I when you are always so rude and ad hom?
> ...why should I when you are always so rude and ad hom?
Irony is not dead.
Tim Curtin said
>what might happen if the oceans ever did become acidic. And even if they did, we could then use the sea for drinking and to irrigate the land
Tim, care to clarify why the oceans reaching a pH less than 7 (not that it's even close to likely) would make the water suitable for irrigation and drinking?
I have skimmed through the thread since you made that post, and it seems you haven't provided clear reasoning for this statement. It's left me scratching my head, I can tell you that much.
> ...Hank had stated here that the portion of CO2 arising from burning of fossil which remains airborne and has risen by 110 ppm since say 1900 does NOT imply that the non-CO2 concentration of the atmosphere must have fallen by 100 ppm...
Oh, dear, shifting the goalposts again? Or merely back-pedaling from your unjustified conlusion?
That quote is not what I was disputing - and if I read Hank Roberts correctly, the quote you chose was not the core of his dispute either. But we'll get to that later. You asserted that:
> ...Hank Roberts here ... thinks we can burn fossil fuels in the absence of oxygen.
Given what Hank said on this thread, that argument could only be valid if Hank also made a number of other assertions (e.g. perhaps that *nothing else can change* the concentration of O2 in the atmosphere except fossil fuel combustion...and still more may be needed).
Those assertions are *not in evidence* here.
Yes, of course you are correct that more ppm by volume of one molecule means fewer ppm by volume of others. But you are wrong to assert that MUST mean that some molecules have left the atmosphere. As Marion pointed out while "confirming your arithmetic", but you seem to have failed to understand:
> You don't have to keep the number of molecules constant.
You might argue that there is some reason why the total number of molecules (in the atmosphere) is constant (or not), or why the total number of oxygen molecules is constant (or not), or the total number of oxygen + carbon dioxide molecules is constant (or not), etc. You might argue from chemical reactions and/or other bases that a certain process leaves the total number of molecules constant (or not).
But (as seems to me to be Hank Roberts' core dispute, and as several people have explained to you in different ways by now) you cannot *validly* argue that **MERELY** because ppm of one substance was observed to increase that a corresponding number of molecules of other substance(s) *must have been removed from the atmosphere*.
> ...in this case oxygen, as the atmospheric concentration that excercises Hank & the IPCC et al is CO2, which funnily enough comprises 2 oxygen molecules that were previously up there as O2). The chemistry hilarity is at your expense, not mine.
Er, my chemistry was a long time ago, but isn't an oxygen **molecule** O2 and doesn't therefore a CO2 molecule comprises merely **one* oxygen molecule?
Hilarious indeed.
> Lotharsson, I see you have been mocking me on the Open Thread - not very sporting when TL does not allow me to respond there.
Given that you seem to think that "sporting" includes (e.g.) fairly standard ad homs whilst protesting that others are engaging in them, imputing racist motives on no apparent evidence, putting lies into opponents' mouths, and [comments](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/update_on_the_nine_alleged_err…) such as:
> ...people like you and Dano and Jody et al are probably one or all of the following: (1) cowards; (2) wife beaters, (3) pedophiles, and (4) all of the above, ...
...my comments over there are certainly no more "unsporting" than yours here.
And given that my comments over there are linked here so people can see for themselves if I'm misrepresenting your argument, and that they probably drive people here that wouldn't otherwise visit, and that my mockery was of an argument which has been repeatedly debunked here that you still persist with, I think it's entirely deserved.
[Tim @ 99](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
You appear to be deliberately misleading. Ocean acidification is not climate change. The IPCC does not go into it.
As to evidence, you have obviously not bothered to read my links in [this post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), particularly the [Royal Society synthesis paper](http://royalsociety.org/Ocean-acidification-due-to-increasing-atmospher…), which clearly explains the issues concerned. When it comes to the rest of your post, I wish you would stop equivocating with pointless drivel, and back up your statements on OA with references.
Nestle [stops buying Indonesian palm oil](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/18/2902503.htm?section=justin) due to rainforest clearance and orangutan deaths.
MFS: I have tried to respond to you before but was blocked. I have read the RS paper you linked to and note first that its co-authors included Ken Caldeira of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, with its VERY close links to the nuclear industry (see Wiki) which just loves all this rubbish about CO2, as you know.
Secondly, another of my blocked postings referred to the field evidence that the best pH for irrigation water is in the range 5.5 to 6.5, far below the oceanic average of 8.1. It is also necessary to remove some but not all of the dissolved salts from irrigation water - using reverse osmosis to treat half and keep the balance untreated plus reducing pH to 6.5 or less yields the best irrigation water. (From Google you should be able to find the Texas Greenhouse Management Handbook http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu).
Now your mates Raven & Caldeira certainly do not refer to any of this, nor do they care so long as nuclear funding rolls in (I merely use here Caldeira's and his friends' standard allegation that all sceptics are funded by Exxon as sauce for the goose).
As John T Everett says, "Many of our recreation lakes and drinking water reservoirs (such as most of those in some states; (e. g., 70% in Maine) have pH values so low that they are truly acidic (pH<7). There is nothing wrong
with the fish and the water in these lakes. It is often just that the lakes have less limestone and more
granite on their bottoms".
Most rainwater has pH of 5.5, what's wrong with that? So how much of the fall in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 that worries MFS is simply due to rising precipitation and not CO2? The RS-Livermore boys would not want to contemplate that would they?
BTW, that RS paper's other co-authors include none other than Uwe H-G (no comment required) and Andrew Watson of UEA (also no comment) - as both are famous (?) for their unimpeachable academic objectivity.
That bunch also are clearly unaware that Canadell et al of CSIRO and PNAS have claimed for years that the growth of oceanic CO2 which allegedly causes the falling pH (for which claim NO evidence is provided by the RS' Raven et al) is FALLING, so how can it be responsible for falling pH?
As Bernard said. IMHO TC is a manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect in its purest form. A legend in his own mind.
MFS, further to my last, I meant also to say you are quite wrong when you said (13 May):"Ocean acidification is not climate change. The IPCC does not go into it". So what is Chapter 5 (AR4, WG1) "Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level" all about, especially at 5.4.2.3 Ocean Acidification by Carbon Dioxide? Do tell. Perhaps Jeff D.K. Harvey can help you, or James Haughton (17 May).
James: you disappoint me. Can I shout you lunch to try and explain why I think you are wrong on oil palm and other issues despite your superior calculus? (mail me at tcurtin@bigblue.net.au)
I confess to being profoundly depressed by your comment after spending some 30 years working to promote 3rd world development, including oil palm in Nigeria & PNG, where it is the only employer in large areas. In fact when I look at some of the Green NGO's denunciations of oil palm, their tenor reminds me of Hitler's attacks on the Jews, in this case read Nigerians, Chinese Malaysians, Indonesians, and Papua New Guineans.
Consider just Sumatra, where the Leuser Park that is home to thousands of orangutans is huge, 150 km long and 100 km wide, almost wholly along the mountain ranges (peaks up to 3,500 metres) where palm oil production is course impossible as well as prohibited. Strangely enough, Sumatra is home to many millions of Indonesians, and palm oil production has brought them rising living standards. Are you so opposed to that you would prefer to see them all evacuated or otherwise disposed of in favour of granting more lebensraum to your beloved orangutans?
To me it seems the Leuser Park provides a reasonable balance between DK Harvey's biodiversity to the exclusion of us and recognising (unlike Bernard J) that Indonesia's PEOPLE have as much right to a place in the sun as you and said Bernard.
BTW, how strange that it is Greenpeace Mediterranean which spearheads the attack on Nestles. Nothing I suppose to do with Greek and Spanish olive oil, or that a single hectare of oil palm can produce up to 7 tons of oil, many times what could be produced from the same area of olives, corn, soy, or canola (h/t Monga Bay, but see also Lamade and Bouillet via Google).
Reverting to MSF's favourite paper, Raven et al, Royal Soc., if he would like to contact me at my email as above (or via Tim Lambert) I will gladly give him my line by line dissection of that most dishonourable paper. I doubt Tim would allow me the space here for that.
Tim,
Am I correct in assuming that your main problem with the RS synthesis paper is its authors and their affiliations? If so do you have any evidence that points to their lack of scientific integrity, or are you just casting aspersions for the sake of it?
Tim, a reduced growth rate of oceanic CO2 uptake still implies an INCREASE in oceanic CO2 concentrations. If the growth rate of the economy goes from 5 to 2%, we'll still have a larger economy. Simple, no?
This is what the Canadell et al paper in PNAS implies, Tim. The AF is getting larger, but isn't 1. An AF below 1 means that part of the excess CO2 we inject into the atmosphere is 'directly' taken up: the ocean and biosphere are sinks. An increasing AF means that the sinks are becoming less effective. But they are still sinks.
Now, try to read the RS paper with that new understanding. Show us that you have an ability to learn.
I have refrained from Curtin's, el Gordo's et al. histrionics for some time now because (1) I have been away cycling in Tuscany, and (2) either side of that I have been exceptionally busy in my research.
First of all to chubby: the US grain belt will be dealt a serious blow a lot earlier than you think if the Oglalla aquifer is drained (and water tables are in freefall due to over-extraction). Moreover, the capcity of the soil to absorb the damage done to it via intensive practices is also of profound concern, as is a general decline in numbers of insect pollinators. Given that the climate of the region is expected to also continue warming, in sharp contrast with your infantile and unscientific predictions, then this will compound the loss of critical ecological services that are vital in maintaining high levels of grain production.
To others on this thread: yes, TC apparently seriously believes that increased levels of atmospheric C02 will increase crop yields. Its utter bullshit, and ignores stoichiometric effects of increased C02 on other vital plant nutrients, especially phosphorus and also nitrogen, but TC has been childishly peddling this crap for some time now. Changes in levels of primary plant compounds will have a knock-on effect on plant quality through chnages in lveles of primary and secondary metabolites and this will impact consumers in food webs associated with plants. The anti-science brigade peddles this nonsense because IMHO it is a back door way to maintain the status quo, much like astroturf corporate lobbying groups like 'Africa Fighting Malaria' are pushing alternate political agendas that are profit related.
The fact is that we do not know remotely enough about the consequences of continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere on a suite of ecophysiological processes that determine how communities and ecosystems across the biosphere will respond and function. Curtin and his ilk write and talk as if plants did not interact with and depend upon numerous biotic interactions with organisms in the same trophic level and others higher up the food chain. These people are linear thinkers and their models are utterly useless for predicting the dynamics of non-linear systems.
This is why I routinely dispense with their rubbish. What seriously irks me is that the spectre of world hunger is being used as a tool to maintain and even increase atmospheric levels of C02. This is the same deep PR that many in the GM lobby use to push their bioengineered grains. And in my view it is an abomination.
MFS: I have already posted further but yet to be allowed comments on your previous, and there offered to provide you with a detailed dissection by email (via Tim Lambert's email address here if you do not have an anonymous email address, or directly to me at tucrtin@bigblue.net.au).(I said line-by-line, but the paper does have a few lines not worthy of comment).
Given that all climate sceptics are accused of being an Exxon shill despite never having had a penny from them, it is fair to ask about the sources of funding of Caldeira and so many other devout believers funded by Livermore and CDIAC, both offshoots of the nuclear industry.
But no, I do NOT "have any evidence that points to their lack of scientific integrity" but nor am I "just casting aspersions for the sake of it".
I am really under space limitations here, so let me just say that paper provides NO time series analysis and regressions that confirm ANY significant correlation between anthro. emissions of CO2 and changes in oceanic pH.
Think about it. The paper claims a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial (actual is still less than 40%) is responsible for a "reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions".
BTW the paper never provides the initial number of ions - 30% of not many is not many. What is the actual functional (and numerical) relationship between rising [CO2] and increasing ions (lower pH). These amazing scientists never say. Believe me, Einstein would have told them all to bugger off, FRS or not.
And as I keep repeating, what if the ocean's pH did fall from 8.1 to 5.5-6.5, WHY would that be bad? When I was frequently in Egypt (1973-1980 and continuously 1980-83) Nasser & Sadat were always talking of pumping the Med into the Qattara depression regardless of the too high pH. If true that more CO2 means less pH, then I want a plot in the Qattara.
My offer stands if you want more rebuttals of probably the very worst paper ever published by the RS (going back to its rejection of Harrison & Longitude, see Sobel).
Meantime YOU do the paper's missing calculus (Newton of the RS co-invented calculus with Leibniz; NONE of his successors
show any familiarity with the concept least of all Watson FRS a co-author of that Raven et al RS paper when it says
"In the past 200 years the oceans have absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations
based on measurements of the surface oceans and our
knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake
of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface
seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the
concentration of hydrogen ions". Come on, what is dpH/dt=d[CO2]/dt??? [where t=200 years].
Come ON, MFS, you could be the born again Newton.
>And as I keep repeating, what if the ocean's pH did fall from 8.1 to 5.5-6.5, WHY would that be bad?
Because it would kill sea life. Geez Tim, do some thinking wouldya?
PS you never answered my earlier question. Why would this make the sea water suitable for drinking and irrigation?
Curtin says, "Given that all climate sceptics are accused of being an Exxon shill despite never having had a penny from them".
Whoever said that? This is a complete strawman. Besides, many, though certainly not all, of the most prominent sceptics ARE paid-for shills for the fossil fuel lobby, as it turns out. However, one thing seems to unite them even more: that is, they promote a libertarian right wing political ideology, based to a large extent on a neoliberal (deregulatory) agenda. In my opinion Curtin and his ilk fit snugly into this category.
What annoys me, as I said above, is that many of those abusing science to promote their free-market ideologies are camouflaging their agendas under a humanitarian guise e.g. that increasing C02 emissions or GM crop production are necessary to 'feed the world'. I do not buy this for a second. Many of the economic policies these people support are driving social injustice and poverty in the third world in the first place. The answer to eliminating starvation is in creating social justice and equity. Not in belching more C02 into the atmosphere.
As I said before, IMHO the whole thing is a smokescreen (both literally and metaphorically) that masks a political agenda. And, as I also said, there is no way at all to extrapolate linear predictions of C02 production on the functioning of non-linear systems. This is why very, very few scientists (and I MEAN scientists, not conservative economists lacking pedigree in the relevant fields) take this idea seriously at all. At least those who are aware of non-linear systems.
"Nasser & Sadat were always talking of pumping the Med into the Qattara depression regardless of the too high pH. If true that more CO2 means less pH, then I want a plot in the Qattara."
As part of a hydro-electricity project NOT an irrigation project, and no pumping would be required as the Qattara depression is below sea level and evaporation would ensure a constant flow of seawater from the Med. into the Qattara depression. The proposal was abandoned because of concerns about the *contamination* of freshwater oases in the Western desert.
Stu nails it. A sudden shift in marine pH from 8.1 to even 7 in the time frame described would be catastrophic for marine biodiversity. Lower the pH further than this and we would be talking about absolute devastation and mass extinction. It is known that in parts of Europe acid rain greatly reduced the abundance of terrestrial gastropods such as snails which depended upon terrestial calcium for shell construction, and that the knock on effect on snail-feeding passerines such as song thrushes and great tits whose diet consisted largely of snails was dramatic. Marine gastropods and bivalves also utilize calcium for shell construction. Acidifying marine systems and we would be looking at a calamity, which would even dwarf the fact that coastal marine ecosystems have already been devastated by overharvesting and pollution.
As usual, Curtin expunges natural systems from his calculations. Its the same old story: if you don't understand something you downplay or ignore it. Since Curtin has no acumen whatsover in ecology, he has to stick to the tried and trusted simplicities where cause and effect relationships are forever linear. Forget the concept of thresholds or of changing states. I wonder why I even bother responding to his gibberish. I guess it is easy to be seriously annoyed by it: too easy in my case.
Tim, any plans on reacting to my comment?
Or to those who kindly point out that a lower pH is a problem for sea life (note that we're already taking about pH values below 8 being a major problem), while still not making it any better for irrigation? Ionic strength is THE problem of sea water. If it weren't for the high ionic strength, it would be easy to make sea water suitable for irrigation. You'd only need a few micromolars of acid to get the pH down.
You are an economist? What mental disorder makes you believe you know more than marine biologists?
TC:
"What is the actual functional (and numerical) relationship between rising [CO2] and increasing ions (lower pH). These amazing scientists never say."
Another eye-roller from the amazing tc.
Tim, have you ever taken ANY chemistry class, at ANY level?
Stu, Lee, MFS: even the Raven-RS paper admits that more CO2 along with falling pH is actually beneficial for phytoplankton, the main feedstock of all marine life, and then have to lean over backwards to discount this effect. That is why it is a dishonest paper. And of course CO2 is the feedstock for CaCO3, the feedstock in turn for corals, a fact of which that paper is oblivious.
Then there is cost-benefit analysis, not a strong point for Raven et al. They stress the "huge" benefits of snorkelling none of which would be lost if the pH fell, and ignore the vast benefits that would accrue to all of us if the oceans became freshwater lakes.
Bam: we are told more CO2, lower pH. Bring it on!
tim curtin, how do you know that the letter signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences is, to use your words, "garbage" because I don't think you have read it, only cut and pasted some comments that you found on some denier site.
For your information, Paul Ehrlich was not "their leader", in fact he wasn't even a signatory to the letter.
You are such a hopeless case, you are an embarrassment to any Institution which you were either supposedly a student of or that you some how became affiliated with as an employee.
Your knowledge of science is just an empty vacuum. Your level of "general knowledge" is equally vacuous. The only thing you have going for yourself is arrogance and you have more than a superfluity of that. It is unfortunate that you take up so much of our valuable time with correcting all the elementary mistakes you make.
Ian Forrester: here is an extract from list of the 255 signatories.
Dunne, Thomas, University of California, Santa Barbara
Ehrlich, Paul R, Stanford University
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
In the light of that, I see no need to respond to your other unpleasant remarks.
Well I was wrong, his name was on the letter, however he was not the leader.
The rest of my post is an honest reflection of your dubious character. You are as bad as Dave Andrews and others who crawl out from under rocks to denigrate scientists. You are pathetic. If you do not like unpleasant remarks about your character then start being honest and read up on what you are posting. You utter absolute rubbish and pretend it reflects the science.
Curtin [said at #106](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
and shows how completely and utterly unphased he is by continually demonstrating his total ignorance of even the most essential basics in the sciences, whether physics, chemistry, or biology (amongst others...).
Curtin, you obviously do not read the links provided to you. As I said [in a post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2157…) to which I linked [at #74](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Read the last paragraph again and again Curtin; a clue or several may be found therein.
It matters not that the concentrations of protons/hydronium ions are, to use [your own words](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), "not many". In the context of pH in biological systems, many functional substances are present in low concentrations. However, they are tightly controlled, or required to be relatively constant, if the integrity of biological function is to be retained. In such biological milieux an increase (or a decrease) of 25% represents a profound shift of equilibria within the system, irrespective of the actual concentration of the substance under consideration. If you dispute this, feel free to review the field of biochemistry and account for every potential example that might be used to support my contention...
As to the swigging of pH 5.5 rainwater, you are comparing apples with bubkes...
Further, you numpty, when you say "how much of the fall in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 that worries MFS is simply due to rising precipitation and not CO2" you are demonstrating staggering lack of awareness of what it is that causes acidity in rainwater in the first place. Here's a challenge for you - work out what causes rainwater to be acid, and work out how much more of this factor would be required to drop the pH of the planet's oceans by 0.1 pH unit.
Then compare this figure with the figure of "rising precipitation" that would be required to provide the extra amount of this 'factor' if all other things are constant - ignoring the fact that we know full-well that it's actually increasing in atmospheric concentration anyway, and equilibrating with the oceans.
Sheesh, in just how many ways can one senescent brain be so entirely clueless?
Which leads me to another point:
Quite a spectacular moving of the goalposts from their original location, but let's ignore that, shall we? For in fact what you are now saying is that there are many salinated acid sulphate districts that have nothing to complain about - in terms of their 17.7 parts per thousand salt water acidified to pH 6.5, it now actually provides "the best irrigation water"?!
Well blow me down.
And don't try to wiggle out of it by saying that you were only referring to the desalinated water. You specifically refer to treating "half" and keeping a "balance", followed by the comment about reducing the pH. Of course, grammatically, when you were talking about pH reduction you must have been referring to the non-desalinated half, which must surely have been implied to be added to the desalinated water, else why split the water in two? And given your comment about "reducing" salinity overall, no other interpretation is reasonable in the context.
I'm sure that you will try though.
Then [there was this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Truly, a spectacular rewriting of the principles of science.
Curtin, regression analysis is a very, very tiny part of a statistical approach to analysing data. In the matter of determining real cause and effect, science has other tools at its disposal besides quantifying two variables and drawing a line. A hint - in the matter of ocean acidification, a knowledge of chemistry and skills in isotope analysis are useful starters.
You're still fumbling with William's sharp blade, aren't you?
There was also this:
Ignoring the nonsense about "not many" that I have already addressed, there are two points to be made:
And to finish:
Un.
Be.
Fucking.
Lievable.
You are so obviously unacquainted with marine life and its biology that you would surely win the proposed Dunning Kruger award being discussed on [Open Thread 48](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php).
Seriously, I have no idea where to even start in attemtping to catalogue the effect that such a drop in pH would have on most of the life in the sea. Whole books could be written on this subject.
Here's a suggestion though. Next time you're at a public aquarium, offer to pump CO2 into their shark tanks until the pH drops to 5.5.
Then come back here and tell us what they said to you.
I am having a great day, winning at tennis, then knocking Ian Forrester for 6, and now ditto for Hank Roberts who at Real Climate says:
18 May 2010 at 10:40 PM
"Lawrence, donât forget methane oxidizes to CO2 â I donât know how fast that happens in water, but probably as fast as it does in air â and the CO2 is what definitely is increasing the ocean pH."
hallelujah!
Tim, again I will ask you, why would lowering the pH of seawater to 5.5-6.5 would make it suitable for drinking and irrigation?
Stu asked "why would lowering the pH of seawater to 5.5-6.5 make it suitable for drinking and irrigation?"
Well there are facts of life and the non-facts of the IPCC. The fact is that water with pH of 5.5 to 7 is drinkable and good for irrigation, while water with pH above 8 is not fit for those purposes. Try it next time you are at the seaside.
I have previously quoted from my source and given the link thereto, if basic commonsense is not good enough for you.
It is the Royal Society that refuses to accept that water with pH below 7.1 is drinkable, and above, not, while Hank believes (supported by Forrester) that our freshwater lakes and rivers are being made undrinkable by rising CO2. Go figure.
Tim, you did not give any proper reaction to my comment. So I repeat in different words and posed as a question: What happens to the absolute value of the parameter of which the rate of increase decreases?
If you want to learn how increasing CO2 concentrations lower pH, please take a course in basic chemistry. pH is generally one of the very first things first-year students get thoroughly established in fields like chemistry, biology, and even pharmaceutics. You could also just open a textbook, such as "Physical Chemistry" by Peter Atkins.
Last night, on reflection, I formulated the "5 laws of obfuscation" in pushing forward political agendas in distorting science. In my opinion this suits people like Curtin and bogus organizations like the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine to a tee.
1. Come up with some kind of humanitarian agenda to camouflage the real agenda. The spectre of world hunger is a good one.
2. Prepare mathematical models that are apparently mind-numbingly complex in order to 'wow' that lay reader. It does not matter if the models are utter gobbledegook or if they omit important extrinsic and intrinsic parameters. The aim is simply to convince the audience that the writer possesses immense knowledge and expertise in the field on which they write.
3. When confronted with something that is not at all understood, even in its most basic form, such as non-linear ecological processes and interaction network webs, ignore it completely. At worst, denigrate these aspects or even better still, the person discussing their importance.
4. Following on from the last point, denigrate scientists, no matter how esteemed they are in their fields of research, who happen to disagree with your views (see post 121 above). At the same time ridicule articles in top journals (e.g. Nature, Science, PNAS etc) that produce results that conflict with your own models predictions, because this gives the impression that the writer has some innate wisdom that transcends the peer reviewers of papers in these journals.
5. Publish your work wherever you can, even in right wing periodicals which are not peer-reviewed or in social science journals that do not appear on the ISI web of Science. Then make them appear as if these articles are the new standard in sound science.
I am sure that the readers her can ciome up with a few more 'laws' but this is my perspective.
> ...ignore the vast benefits that would accrue to all of us if the oceans became freshwater lakes.
That's truly a moronic statement amongst some highly dubious company. And [I'm pretty sure Tim is not a Poe](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
*the vast benefits that would accrue to all of us if the oceans became freshwater lakes*
What a pathetically ignorant remark. I will not even lower myself and go into the environmental and ecological ramifications of this were it to occur. See my point # 3 above. Why even bother with this comic-book level depth of analysis?
Hi Bam,
When you assume that everybody you converse with is a dolt, then as Jeff Harvey might conclude, you are yourself a victim of Dunning-Kruger.
What am I to make of this comment of yours âIonic strength is THE problem of sea water. If it weren't for the high ionic strength, it would be easy to make sea water suitable for irrigation. You'd only need a few micromolars of acid to get the pH downâ, when that brilliant RS paper by Raven et al. claims âIf global emissions of CO2 from human activities continue to rise on current trends then the average pH of the oceans could fall by 0.5 units (equivalent to a three fold INCREASE in the concentration of hydrogen ions) by the year 2100â (p.vi) (my caps)?
Bam, you and Raven need to get together and coordinate your alibis. You say increasing [carbonic] acid by just âa few micromolarsâ would REDUCE the ionic strength, the RSâ Raven et al say that RISING CO2 emissions (= carbonic acid per Arrhenius) INCREASE the concentration of hydrogen ions.
Clearly you are yourself a very modest FRS, shyly using your pseudonym to hide your complete knowledge of everything there is to be knowd â but do get together with Raven and work out what it is you are claiming to know.
Until you do I shall not respond to your other insulting comments, of a piece as they are with Forrester and Hank Roberts, all of you are so quick to accuse me of error when in just one period of 24 hours you all three have been found out fibbing.
Is anyone going to mention that mineral beginning with 'S', or are we just stringing Curtin along now?
Well Mr Curtin, I'm a layman and unlike these stuffy old scientists I am very interested in the vast benefits that would accrue to all of us if the oceans became freshwater lakes. Could you list just a few of them?
I think Tim should get a grant,
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/87n
zoot: Just one for starters, no need for the expensive desalination plants in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Perth, Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne et al. But another is the vast supply of irrigable water that would become available, allowing Minister always Wrong to reverse her very damaging buyback of water from the Murray-Darling.
Oh come on sunspot, that's the usual distortions expected from Jonathan Leake.
Thanks for that, sunspot, I am planning to apply to Minister Always Wrong for exactly that. Meantime at the ANU's so-called Emeritus Faculty lecture today I sat next to (never averse to name dropping as I am) none other than one of ANU's greats, Frank Fenner, rightly renowned for his work in eradicating smallpox and well on track to eliminating malaria from PNG until PC Australian governments stopped him.
Ironically, a report today suggests that the end to smallpox vaccinations that resulted from Frank's work may well have contributed to the HIV pandemic.
Be that as it may, today's lecture was by Andrew Blakers, co-inventor of the sliver cell solar technology at ANU. He predicts that within at most 10-15 years photovoltiacs will have vanquished ALL fossil fuels, which explains why Minister Wrong and PM Krudd put all their money into carbon capture and storage. Thinks of all the job losses in La Trobe, Hunter Valley and much of Queensland if solar becomes competitive with coal. It still has some way to go, needing now A$0.30 per kWh relative to the A$0.12.50 of coal etc.
As a comfortably engaged academic, such job losses are of no concern to Andrew, still less the impact of reduced CO2 on world food production, pace the Australian Conservation Foundation's specious claim also today that renewables will be a job-creation bonanza - specious because wind and solar require hardly any day-to-day jobs, and most of the manufacturing of windmills and panels is offshore.
Renewables are great if they can survive without subsidies, but when they get over that threshold, the required restructuring of the Australian economy will be epic. In general coal miners do not aspire to become merchant bankers. Oh brave new world!
Tim, I apologise, but if you continue to allow manics like Harvey to attack me I hope you will continue to allow me to respond, I admit you have been very forbearing.
Here is Jeff's latest, with my responses in CAPS.
1.Come up with some kind of humanitarian agenda to camouflage the real agenda. WHAT IS THAT? The spectre of world hunger is a good one. DOES CO2 HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH FOOD PRODUCTION?
2.Prepare mathematical models that are apparently mind-numbingly complex in order to 'wow' that lay reader. It does not matter if the models are utter gobbledegook or if they omit important extrinsic and intrinsic parameters. The aim is simply to convince the audience that the writer possesses immense knowledge and expertise in the field on which they write.
THANKS JEFF, I FIND THAT VERY FLATTERING, BUT CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS?
ALL FOOD = f([CO2]).
3.When confronted with something that is not at all understood, even in its most basic form, such as non-linear ecological processes and interaction network webs, ignore it completely.
ACTUALLY, MY SEMINAR PAPER WHICH PROMPTED THIS THREAD USED THE GREAT STEVE CRIMP'S QUADRATIC (i.e. NON-LINEAR) MODEL TO PROVE ITS VALIDITY FOR WHEAT YIELDS IN MOREE (NSW) WITH RESPECT TO JUST RAINFALL, TEMPERATURE, AND [CO2] SINCE 1960 (MY PAPER IS AT www.timcurtin.com)
4.Following on from the last point, denigrate scientists, no matter how esteemed they are in their fields of research, who happen to disagree with your views (see post 121 above). At the same time ridicule articles in top journals (e.g. Nature, Science, PNAS etc) that produce results that conflict with your own models predictions, because this gives the impression that the writer has some innate wisdom that transcends the peer reviewers of papers in these journals.
WELL, PNAS USES SCHELLNHUBER AS EDITOR OF ITS CLIMATE STUFF, BUT HE HAS NEVER NOTICED THAT WHILST CANADELL ET AL ADMIT THAT THE AIRBORNE FRACTION OF CO2 EMISSIONS IS ONLY c44%, HANSEN IS INVARIABLY ALLOWED BY PNAS TO SUBTRACT THAT FROM 1.00 TO CLAIM THAT THE AF IS 56-60% (PNAS,2005 AND PASSIM). CALL THAT SCIENCE?
5.Publish your work wherever you can, even in right wing periodicals which are not peer-reviewed or in social science journals that do not appear on the ISI web of Science. Then make them appear as if these articles are the new standard in sound science.
WELL, D-K HARVEY, HOW DO YOU RATE MY PROSPECTS AT PNAS (PROPRIETOR SCHELLNHUBER) OR ANY OF THE OTHER JOURNALS EDITED BY HIS FRIENDS LIKE SCHNEIDER ET AL ET AL?
"the vast benefits that would accrue to all of us if the oceans became freshwater lakes"
oh, good googliemooglie!
TC, I'lll ignore for now the utter ignorance of the clam taht this would be good for us, and ask only this.
Would you please tell us the mechanism by which an increase in CO2 would make the oceans into freshwater lakes?
>the vast benefits that would accrue to all of us if the oceans became freshwater lakes
Hmm, well I guess a benefit would be you could have a drink while swimming, though you'd run the risk of getting dead fish in your mouth. But Tim, by what mechanism could the oceans ever become freshwater lakes?
>Is anyone going to mention that mineral beginning with 'S', or are we just stringing Curtin along now?
I can't take stringing Tim along any more Neil, three times I've asked outright why lowering the pH would make seawater suitable for drinking and irrigation without reply. So here goes:
Tim, for crying out loud, if you hadn't already picked up on it, it's the salinity of the ocean that makes it unsuitable for drinking and irrigation, not the pH! If the pH fell to neutral or slightly acidic, it would still be highly unsuitable for those purposes because it has lots of salt in it.
There, I said it. Do you have any response, Tim?
> Would you please tell us the mechanism by which an increase in CO2 would make the oceans into freshwater lakes?
Obviously it's the same one that makes seawater potable and suitable for agriculture in soil-salinity-challenged Australia. As far as I can ascertain it owes much to the Underpants Gnome:
1. Start with regular seawater.
2. Add CO2.
3. ...
4. Drink and irrigate at will!
I urge Tim to apply for a patent on this process. And I think he's being very canny by withholding a description of what he's going to do with all the ions currently resident in the oceans. Some things should be patented but others should remain trade secrets, and clearly Tim's sitting on some sort of giant unrevealed ionic market opportunity.
Or should that be *ironic*?
;-)
Stu said: "But Tim, by what mechanism could the oceans ever become freshwater lakes?"
Well read the Royal Society paper by Raven et al which "shows" that rising atmospheric CO2 LOWERS the pH of the oceans, thereby making them less alkanine (and saline).
Argue with them, not me!
You also said: "three times I've asked outright why lowering the pH would make seawater suitable for drinking and irrigation without reply".
Stu, you have to understand that while you and the other commenters here are put up by TL immediately, he considers me to be very dangerous, and has failed to allow any of my last c6 or so posts to appear since around 12 noon today (Australian Eastern Standard time, which as I type this is 11.45 pm). That is why none of my earlier responses to you have appeared so far.
Lotharsson: you are as ever too loathsome to warrant a response.
TC @ 112
I see Lord Sidcup has already picked up on this, but how could you possibly have been in Egypt at the time and still be completely unaware that the scheme was not to use electricity by pumping, but to generate electricity? The only proposed benefits for irrigation, IIRC, was to provide power for pumping Nile water into fields and that the proposed saline Lake Qattara would act as a vast solar still, resulting in more rain in the area.
@Tim Curtin,
I'm afraid I will have to repeat my suggestion you follow a basic chemistry course. Increasing CO2 concentrations will NOT reduce the salinity of the oceans. In fact, it will INCREASE the salinity of the oceans. This is what everyone who has followed even the most basic course in chemistry will be able to explain to you. Unfortunately, it also requires a basic understanding of chemistry on your side.
And again I also like to point out that a pH below 8 is already a major problem for most species in the ocean. To get to a pH that is below 7 we would have to increase the CO2 concentrations by many, many factors. Which, in turn, increases the earth's temperature by so many degrees that Antarctica may well be the only place left to live for most land-based species.
> the Royal Society paper by Raven et al which "shows" that rising atmospheric CO2 LOWERS the pH of the oceans, thereby making them less alkanine (and saline)"
Dare I ask, where in that paper is this "shown"? Because I'm buggered if I can find the relevant passage.
I can almost make sense of Tim Curtin's chemical absurdities, if I assume that he is reading (and regurgitating without understanding) the concepts of alkalinity, salinity, and basicity as if they are synonyms.
Here is a simplified, approximately correct primer that may help TC, and perhaps any confused onlookers trying to make sense of this.
Increased CO2 causes increased acidity (concentation of H+ ions, measured as pH) and reduced basicity (concentration of OH- ions, measured as pOH). Total ionic strength is unaltered. This is called acidification, because the acidity increases, even when the pH is still higher than 7 and the solution is not 'acid.'
Alkalinity is independent of pH. It is a measure of the neutralizing ability of a solution. In the ocean most of the alkalinity is carbonate alkalinity, and the acid-neutralizing ability is carried by several ionic carbonate species. Increasing CO2 and lower pH does not change the alkalinity. It does cause a shift in the concentrations of the various carbonate species, and therefore interferes with the ability of carbonate shellfish to use the dissolved carbonates in the ocean.
Salinity is a measure of the dissolved salt in a solution. This is what makes sea water taste salty, makes it burn, makes it deadly when used for irrigation or drinking water. This, like alkalinity, is independent of pH. Increasing CO2 and ocean acification will not change the ocean's salinity.
TC's chemically-absurd ravings can be made sense of, if one assumes that he thinks these are all the same thing. They are not, and anyone who successfully completed even a semester of college chemistry would know it.
Lee, it would not surprise me if curtin is fully aware of all of this. I think that he is being deliberately dishonest. he has always been a dishonest scumbag. curtin, smarten up, everyone knows how dishonest and stupid you are so stop playing your silly games, keep them for comic books like E&E.
You are among like minded deniers there.
>Well read the Royal Society paper by Raven et al which "shows" that rising atmospheric CO2 LOWERS the pH of the oceans, thereby making them less alkanine (and saline).
I searched the 68 page document, and nowhere, not once, does it make the claim that additional CO2 makes the ocean less saline, and it certainly doesn't make the claim that acidification would turn the oceans from salt water to fresh water.
This is a serious question Tim: where did you get this info from? Did I miss it? Can you tell me what page to look on?
>I can almost make sense of Tim Curtin's chemical absurdities, if I assume that he is reading (and regurgitating without understanding) the concepts of alkalinity, salinity, and basicity as if they are synonyms.
Lee, unfortunately I read your comment after posting my latest. Now, if this is true (and the way you've put it, it seems likely), then Curtin really is in need of some real education. Salinity and acidity are the same thing? It's so divorced from reality, I'm struggling to understand where such a notion could even come from.
I don't think he will admit to Lee having hit upon the source of the problem, and nor do I think he will accept our correction. Tim, please prove me wrong!
Eep, note in the above acidity should read alkalinity.
Tim @ 142,
[You say:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
This is a simple one, and I see no reason it should be held up by TL: Where (what page), in the Raven et al, Royal Society [synthesis paper](http://royalsociety.org/Ocean-acidification-due-to-increasing-atmospher…), does it say that rising atmospheric CO2 lowers the salinity of the ocean. Not where it says it makes them less alkaline, but less saline.
Because try as I hard I just can't find it...
I just did a text search of the synthesis paper. The word 'salinity' occurs 3 times in the text, and once in the title of a paper being cited. None of the m indicate that salinity is altered at all by pH.
I also did a text search for 'alkalinity.' The authors of the synthesis paper use 'alkalinity' in a way that opposes it to acidity. This is a usage sometimes encountered - alkalinity will have an impact on acidity for a given [co2], so it makes some sense - but it increases the chance of confusing the distinction between acidity and neutralizing ability.
In any case, I suspect that TC read that, saw acidity/alkalinity' opposed, assumed that 'acid' means 'not alkaline' and therefore incorrectly deduced that an acid sea would have no alkalinity. I suspect that he further confused alkalinity with salinity, and therefore incorrectly deduced that a sea with a pH below 7 would be fresh water.
From this, I deduce - not for the first time - that TC is an idiot.
Lee @ 152,
I don't think they use alkalinity as an antonym of acidity. If you look carefully, a couple of times they use the term "acidity/alkalinity", but these are in a context where alkalinity is not implicitly being used to mean basicity. If you look beyond the front matter, they often talk about changes to the "acidity/alkalinity and pH", or "total alkalinity", or say "at constant temperature and alkalinity, the pH..."
In the correct context alkalinity can be used as a counterpoint to acidity even if its meaning is more narrowly defined, and its units are in mol/kg.
> Just one for starters, no need for the expensive desalination plants in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Perth, Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne et al. But another is the vast supply of irrigable water that would become available, allowing Minister always Wrong to reverse her very damaging buyback of water from the Murray-Darling.
Never let an economist sell you on alleged benefits when the costs are elided - and when they would be completely intolerable - let alone when the benefits are a mirage that is entirely unachievable in the first place.
> When you assume that everybody you converse with is a dolt, then as Jeff Harvey might conclude, you are yourself a victim of Dunning-Kruger.
Interesting. I think the only one who thinks *everyone else* here is a dolt is you, but I may be mistaken. Is there anyone here you don't think is a dolt?
And does anyone else think that *everyone* else here is a dolt?
> ...LOWERS the pH of the oceans, thereby making them less alkanine (and saline).
I really do think Tim should [apply for a patent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), as Tim seems to be the first to describe this revolutionary process. His earlier public disclosure means that he can't apply in Australia, but he has almost 12 months to apply in the US - which is a pretty large market. Sure, it wouldn't be the first application for a physically impossible invention, but it would provide some entertainment value for the lawyers and patent examiners ;-)
> ...you are as ever too loathsome to warrant a response.
Interesting. If you truly believe that reducing pH also reduces salinity, then I fail to see how [my mockery of the concept](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) would be considered "loathsome". I would expect it to be "a textbook display of Dunning-Kruger" or perhaps "ludicrous" or "deeply wrong" or "misguided" or "in disagreement with so-and-so's book/paper/lecture" ... but not "loathsome". Perhaps that's a revealing choice of description, or not...
Lee and MFS: at several previous posts here (eg 106) I have distinguished carefully between acidity (pH<7) and salinity: "... field evidence that the best pH for irrigation water is in the range 5.5 to 6.5, far below the oceanic average of 8.1. It is also necessary to remove some but not all of the dissolved salts from irrigation water - using reverse osmosis to treat half and keep the balance untreated PLUS reducing pH to 6.5 or less yields the best irrigation water".
curtin, stop your lying. You said in post #71 above:
That shows both your dishonesty and ignorance of very simple chemistry. Heck, I bet that a six year old kid knows after one trip to the beach that the sea is salty and you can't drink it. This proves that you don't even have the intellectual ability of a six year old. I bet most readers of this blog knew that a while ago.
So the smart alecs here (MFS et all too many) think there is no relationship between salinity and alkalinity.
A simple function of sea surface salinity (SSS) and temperature (SST) in the form AT = a + b (SSS â 35) + c (SSS â 35)2 + d (SST â 20) + e (SST â 20)2 fits surface total alkalinity (AT) data for each of five oceanographic regimes within an area-weighted uncertainty of ±8.1 μmol kgâ1 (1Ï). Globally coherent surface AT data (n = 5,692) used to derive regional correlations of AT with SSS and SST were collected during the global carbon survey in the 1990s. Such region-specific AT algorithms presented herein enable the estimation of the global distribution of surface AT when observations of SSS and SST are available.
Above is the Abstract to Kitack Lee et al GRL 2006 Global relationships of total alkalinity with salinity and temperature in surface waters of the world's oceans.
So now deduce what happens to A & S when it rains over the oceans. I look forward to your calculations for A.
You are backpedalling, Tim.
[Here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) you clearly misrepresent the Royal Society paper, as nowhere in that paper does it say, as you put it:
Are you denying that you also misrepresent the paper by saying [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Again, please show me where they say that. I have been using that paper for 5 years in my everyday work and have yet to come across such a statement.
Then there is [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Which seems to indicate a selective/goldfish memory, as I have already pointed out [several links](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), including one from the WHO, describing the acceptable pH levels of drinking water (~6.5-8.5), levels which overlap the current pH of seawater.
Finally [this one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Again, equivocating, as ocean acidification has NO BEARING on the total dissolved solids of seawater, other than the minor component that is the carbonic acid -> bicarbonate -> carbonate equilibrium. Certainly ocean acidification has no bearing on the halide content of seawater, which is the main component preventing its use for drinking and agriculture.
Perhaps we may safely assume that in your own mind freshwater means 'water of a neutral or slightly acidic pH', as opposed to the standard meaning of 'water with a low enough TDS as to not be salty like seawater, i.e. rainwater'.
In any case, you can't pretend you have not stated time and time again that lowering the pH of the ocean would make it suitable for human consumption and agriculture, when the pH of seawater is already in a range that permits those uses, and it is the dissolved salts, mostly halides, that are the problem.
'In a morning science session, for example, Craig Idso, Ph.D., presented preliminary results from his upcoming massive meta-analysis of the scientific literature on ocean acidification â the largest such analysis ever, using results from 568 research studies. âThose who continue to portray CO2-induced ocean acidification as megadisaster-in-the-making are not grounded in the real world data,â he said â but only after presenting the data proving it. And in contrast to the Climategate events outlined in Sunday nightâs keynote address by Stephen McIntyre, Idso is publishing all the data online.'
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/89n
Tim Curtins has declined to back his prior claim, even after constant [prompting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) from multiple people.
The claim is simiply true or false. Tim will you either support your claim or correct the record?
In the passage cited above my parenthesis "(and saline)" has been overlooked, but I apologise all the same for implying that the RS paper had used that phrase - if it had I would of course used "". Sorry!
But my main point remains intact, as shown by the following passage from the Dept of Primary Industry in Victoria. Testing and Interpretation of Salinity and pH, E. James March 1995:
"Most plants grow best in soils or soil-based media with pH
values between pH 5.5 and 6.5. Artificial mixes usually
require a slightly more acid pH of 5.0 to 6.5. Within these
ranges all nutrients are readily available. At low pHs in
soil-based media, aluminium and manganese can become
toxic (although hydrangeas need high levels of aluminium
to produce blue flowers) and calcium, magnesium and
molybdenum may be limiting. As the pH rises to pH 7.0
and above, manganese, boron and particularly iron may
become deficient. Plants such as azaleas and
rhododendrons are sensitive to iron deficiency and
therefore grow better at a lower pH....To lower the pH is much more difficult and expensive."
That is why rising CO2 reducing pH is beneficial, cet. par. e.g. salinity, for reducing which reverse osmosis would be necessary and/or appropriate choices e.g. of potting media and fertilisers.
More generally, wide ranges of marine life already move regularly between fresh and seawater, and most are likely to adapt quite easily to what are the marginal changes in pH likely to be seen over the next millennium. The alarm that Raven-RS strove to generate was uncalled for.
So much to which I would like to respond, but with no consistent computer access for the next day or so, I will have to wait.
Whilst I do so however, perhaps you could address the homework that [you've been avoiding, Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Tim, consider this:
>The pH is a numerical expression that indicates the degree to which water is acidic. pH measurements range between 0 (strong acid) and 14 (strong alkali), with 7 being neutral. The water quality regulations specify that the pH of tap water should be between 6.5 and 9.5. Water leaving our treatment works typically has a pH between 7 and 8, but can change as it passes through the network of reservoirs and water mains
from
What is it that makes seawater undrinkable? It's the salt, not the pH! MFS has already pointed this out to you Tim, will you please acknowledge it?
You have also said:
>Then there is cost-benefit analysis, not a strong point for Raven et al. They stress the "huge" benefits of snorkelling none of which would be lost if the pH fell, and ignore the vast benefits that would accrue to all of us if the oceans became freshwater lakes.
Do you propose that the oceans could become freshwater lakes simply by reducing the pH, or was this a dead wrong throwaway comment?
Sunpsot has to quote on eof the notorious Idso brothers (and then comically put down his degree) to support his dumb assertion.
Note that Idso calims to publish his results "online"- alsmost certainly because they would not stand the rigor of peer-review. Most importantly, IMHO Idos is one of those contrarians who specializes in disseminating "pre-determined conclusions". The links of his web site to WFA should be a dead giveaway.
Try better next time, SS.
A comment from Tim has appeared @161.
>In the passage cited above my parenthesis "(and saline)" has been overlooked, but I apologise all the same for implying that the RS paper had used that phrase - if it had I would of course used "". Sorry!
Okay - but why then did you mention salinity at all? The abstract you provided @157 is all well and good, but you can't make a quantitative statement about how alkalinity affects salinity from it because it doesn't give you the coefficients. I can't find out what they are as the paper is behind a paywall.
What should be painfully obvious is that desalinisation simply by adding CO2 is completely impossible. The ocean CO2 cycle affects OH and H ions by combining/releasing them from carbonate salts (I'm not a chemist, someone please correct me if I'm in error). Does it affect Na and Cl ions? You're yet to convince me or anyone of that, Tim!
>That is why rising CO2 reducing pH is beneficial, cet. par. e.g. salinity, for reducing which reverse osmosis would be necessary and/or appropriate choices e.g. of potting media and fertilisers.
Desalinisation is still not a cheap process. Just because the water would be in a more suitable pH range does not suddenly make it a viable option for irrigation.
Will you also acknowledge that your argument regarding drinking the water is completely superfluous, given the links showing that drinking water with a pH > 7 is perfectly acceptable?
This may be the paper that TC is referring to ([PDF](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/oceans/KitackLee_Alk_Climatology/GRL_Surface_…)).
Curtin, methinks you are a nitwit.
The Dunning-Kruger effect has been used to describe those lacking pedigree in certain fields who write as if they are experts in said field.
The last time I looked, it was clear that you have no formal qualifications in any field of Earth or environmental science.
My posts have been aimed at undermining your linear explanation of the relationship between atmospheric C02 levels and plant biomass. Unlike you, I do work with plants in my research, and unlike you I can say with assurance that there are all kinds of unknowns in trying to extrapolate such a simple relationship between cause and effect. I have laid out some of these parameters, including the effects of increased carbon (not a limiting nutrient) on plant stoichiometry, and especially on C:N:P ratios which largely determine plant quality. Any increase in plant biomass may be countered by a reduction in plant quality as C shunts out N and/or P from plant tissues; this explains why many herbivores will exhibit compensatory feeding in response to increased foliar C concentrations.
I also have argued that the effects of changing plant quality of food webs and ecological communities, including important ecosystem services, are highly unpredictable. Where do these important processes come into your models? What about plant-pollinator mutualisms? Interactions with soil biota, such as nitrogen fixing bacteria? Natural enemies of plant pests? Have you factored any of this in?
The ability of plantsd to grow in acid soils or to adapt tot them depends on their evolutionary history. But how will increased acidity affect consumers assorted with them? It is simply not possible to understand ecophysiological plant traits while ingorning effects of orther organisms in nature. You routinely do this.
Essentially, as someone with some expertise in population ecology, I am doing exactly as D-K argue that someone with expertise should: I am exercising caution. I am saying that the biosphere is not as simple as you wish it to be.
Lastly, how do you reconcile time frames in an evolutionary framework? How would you, of all people, know if one thousand years or even ten thousand years would be enopugh time for marine life to adapt to a change in oceianic pH levels? One thousand yearts for many organisms and especially systems is the blink of an evolutionary eye. And the ability of organisms and communities to respond is context-dependent. But since this is all above your head, I expect more disparaging comments from you.
Like it or not, Curtin, you are D-K effect through and through. Arrogant to the extreme, making predictions that omit important parameters because you do not understand them and have not studied them etc. To be honest, i am wasting my breath. The only reason I respond to your nonsense is because someone lacking basic understanding of environmental science might wander in here and take some of your arguments at face value.
Many thanks Lotharsson for the actual link to Lee et al in GRL 2006. A fascinating paper in the light of the abuse directed at me on this issue here, but what is much more significant is the studious neglect of this paper by AR4 WG1 Chap.5 (in Solomon et al 2007). Raven et al. 2005 came out before Lee et al but even so should have been aware of their work.
Yes, Stu you are right about pH of drinking water, but what of irrigation?
In the passage cited above my parenthesis "(and saline)" has been overlooked, but I apologise all the same for implying that the RS paper had used that phrase - if it had I would of course used "". Sorry!
Niether quotations marks nor phraseology were an issue Tim, you are the only one trying to make them an issue. Your claim was clear:
>Well read the Royal Society paper by Raven et al which "shows" that rising atmospheric CO2 LOWERS the pH of the oceans, thereby making them less alkanine (and saline).
You claimed that the RS paper by Raven et al "shows" that rising atmospheric CO2 LOWERS the pH of the oceans, thereby making them less alkanine (and saline).
Either support your claim of "(and saline)" or correct the record. You don't need to pretend anything about non existent quotations, simply support your claimed citation or retract it.
Either your claim is true or false. Simple.
>What should be painfully obvious is that desalinisation simply by adding CO2 is completely impossible. The ocean CO2 cycle affects OH and H ions by combining/releasing them from carbonate salts (I'm not a chemist, someone please correct me if I'm in error). Does it affect Na and Cl ions? You're yet to convince me or anyone of that, Tim!
The more I think about this, the more I'm sure it's the crux of the matter. If standard sea salt NaCl is unaffected by both dissolved CO2 and the pH, then Tim is talking complete bollox (rather than only partial bollox).
I see no mechanism by which NaCl concentration would be affected. Carbonate salts are affected, as the full text provided by Lotharsson confirms, but as for NaCl? I don't think so. Anyone with a background in Chemistry, please confirm or refute my suspicions.
If I'm right then the pH could change dramatically due to CO2 and it would not affect the concentration of standard sea salt NaCl.
Things might be different if large quantities of hydrogen chloride were being absorbed by the ocean...
Bernard J's comment certainly is [required reading](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Including:
> Next time you're at a public aquarium, offer to pump CO2 into their shark tanks until the pH drops to 5.5. Then come back here and tell us what they said to you.
I'd like to hear what *the sharks* would say to him.
Lothar, I went and re-read Bernard's (brilliant) comment and while I was up there spotted this from Tim (under moderation, some of his posts take a while to come up and I missed it):
>Stu asked "why would lowering the pH of seawater to 5.5-6.5 make it suitable for drinking and irrigation?"
>Well there are facts of life and the non-facts of the IPCC. The fact is that water with pH of 5.5 to 7 is drinkable and good for irrigation, while water with pH above 8 is not fit for those purposes. Try it next time you are at the seaside. I have previously quoted from my source and given the link thereto, if basic commonsense is not good enough for you.
>It is the Royal Society that refuses to accept that water with pH below 7.1 is drinkable, and above, not, while Hank believes (supported by Forrester) that our freshwater lakes and rivers are being made undrinkable by rising CO2. Go figure.
(Bold emphasis mine).
This is spectacularly ignorant. Water with a pH of 8 or 8.5 is perfectly drinkable - it's the freaking salt that makes seawater undrinkable!
The Royal Society paper says nothing at all about water with a pH below 7.1 being undrinkable.
Lotharsson and Bernard J said: "Next time you're at a public aquarium, offer to pump CO2 into their shark tanks until the pH drops to 5.5. Then come back here and tell us what they said to you. I'd like to hear what the sharks would say to him."
You guys are the sharks. If the marine variety can't cope with water of pH at say 6, and minimal salinity, that will be their bad luck, survival of the fittest say I, when barramundi and salmon seem to cope perfectly well with water at any pH or salinity.
Posted by: Lotharsson | May 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Stu @ 171,
Indeed, I have pointed this out [myself as well](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), more than once.
More on the systemic economy with the truth of the RS' Raven: "The affects of possible impacts of future cumulative CO2 emissions by 2100 have been modelled for the oceans.These models, including analyses from the GLODAP,
Raven et al (RS 2005): International Carbon-cycle Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 (OCMIP3) and the LLNL presented in this Section, rely on the same basic modelling approaches (Bryan 1969; Cox 1984). These studies show that even at a modest future projection of CO2 emissions, of about 900 Gt C, direct impact of ocean acidification is very likely (sic) to cause the Southern Ocean to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite. This would lead to severe consequences for organisms that make the aragonite
form of CaCO3 shells and plates".
That loverly man Raven criminally fails to mention that his projections rely on the Michaelis-Menten fuction used by ALL the models he cites to exaggerate the net increase in atmopsheric CO2 of anthropogenci emissions of CO2. I knew from page 1 of his RS paper that he was yet another Bernard Madoff. See my ANU paper "Let them not Eat.." at my website www.timcurtin.com for the proof.
Raven should take care, class actions are becoming le plat du jour.
Then we have Nature 279, 210 - 215 (17 May 1979); doi:10.1038/279210a0
Growth rate influence on the chemical composition of phytoplankton in oceanic waters
Joel C. Goldman*, James J. McCarthyâ & Dwight G. Peavey*
*Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
â Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
"The chemical composition of oceanic phytoplankton (by atoms) typically occurs in the proportions C106 N16 P1. Yet, in laboratory growth conditions these proportions are only observed for marine phytoplankton at high growth rates when non-nutrient limitation is approached. Thus growth rates of natural phytoplankton populations in oceanic waters may be near maximal and hence non-nutrient limited. The uniformly low biomass and residual nutrient levels in such waters does not preclude the possibility of high growth rates because Zooplankton grazing and nutrient regeneration within the euphotic zone may keep this highly dynamic system in a balanced state."
More CO2 means greater growth of phytoplankton - and uptake of various salts.
> I went and re-read Bernard's (brilliant) comment...
While we're on worthy posts, Jeff Harvey's [great comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) points out (yet again, if I'm not mistaken) that simply modeling the world as if some simple regressions/curve fits will capture all you need to know about a system is eminently silly.
> ...some of his posts take a while to come up and I missed it...
I've seen that, so when I notice one I've missed I'll sometimes link to it to help others see it.
> Water with a pH of 8 or 8.5 is perfectly drinkable - it's the freaking salt that makes seawater undrinkable!
It's astonishing that TC still doesn't get this - but is spectacularly convinced that everyone else including a whole bunch of scientists are making fundamental chemistry mistakes.
Tim Curtin [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Seriously, Curtin, you need to get a basic scientific education, and in this latest context, specifically a chemistry one, before you decide that you are able to contradict professionals in the field.
The figure of pH 7 is a somewhat arbitrary one in terms of what is an acid, compared with what is a base. As [I indicated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/moncktons_testimony_to_congres…) on the Monckton Congress testimony [sic] thread, the pH 7 value refers to distilled water and "standard" conditions, and even then it is an approximation of the actual hydronium ion/proton concentration:
To this I would add that, depending on the nature of the ion species, a solution with pH greater than 7 can nevertheless show "acidic" properties. Curtin, if you are unable to understand how this might be so, this is simply a reflection of your lack of qualification to comment on matters chemical.
And of course, this is all beside the fact that the term "acidic" is a relative descriptor: in the context of seawater, a solution with a pH of, say, 7.8 is acidic. It has a greater concentration of H+ (H3O+/hydronium) ions than has the reference solution, so by definition it is acidic, Curtin's (and Monckton's) purile semantic distortion aside.
Curtin [also said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Wrong.
The smart alecs here know exactly what the relationship is between salinity and alkalinity. This is why they know that you are confabulating very different chemistry concepts, and they know why you are, with every post, making yourself look ever more like the ignoramus that you are.
As so many of us keep advising you, go get yourself a proper education.
Then there was [this load of scarecrows](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
A question, Curtin â do you understand the chemistry behind the statements made above? More specifically, are you able to tell us what are the caveats, exceptions, limitations, specific contexts, and other modifiers to the material you quoted, thus why your conclusions following are completely spurious?
In particular, can you detail the "wide range" of taxa that you claim are possessed of diadromous ability, and most particularly what proportion of sea life these organisms represent. For extra credit, can you explain why the non-diadromous taxa are not important in your vision to render the world's ocean fresh?
One of the exchanges that I think is most telling was [Curtin's post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
This demonstrates something that absolutely permeates Curtin ScienceTM...
It's a clumsy game of pea-in-a-cup, but for any half-informed reader it underscores Curtin's profound lack of competence in any effective handling of the subject matter. It also directly leads to the conclusion that Curtin's incompetence in basic chemistry is simply an echo of his incompetences in ecology (and biology in general); in physics; in calculus, logarithms, and indeed in [calculations involving basic arithmetic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…); in the selection of appropriate statistical treatments (in conjunction with more direct scientific approaches) to analyse cause/effect relationships - amongst other incompetencies...
You're a sham, a charlatan, a flam-flam artist Curtin, and whether you are speaking about the trajectory of CO2 over the last few hundred years or the next few hundred, or whether you're pontificating about the relationship between atmospheric CO2concentration and energy/mass flux through trophic webs, or whether you're trying to ply your ecological fantasies of inextinguishable cornucopia no matter the extent of economic devastation that humans wring upon their life-support systems, you are speaking â in scientific terms - not from any informed basis, but simply from your hairy, pock-marked, and saggy old arse.
And finally:
Well, I must be "very dangerous" too, because my posts are often held up for hours as well.
Get over yourself you crazy old codger. You're as silly as a cut snake, and like a cut snake you don't realise that your brain has been separated from a functional reality.
Go sit in the sun with a blankie over your knees, Tam the lap-dog snugly tucked therein, and sip on a few more Gs and T. Your intellectual output here indicates that you are fit for nothing else but this, or for gulling those who don't know enough to know better than to believe anything that you say.
[It is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), as I [said earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), unbefuckinglievable:
Please note, one and all, that Curtin is still abused of the notion that lowering the pH of seawater reduces its salinity to "minimal" concentrations.
Please note also that he regards a decrease, for seawater, of more than 2 whole pH units to be "bad luck" for those species that don't survive!
Curtin, here's another little task for you. Catalogue the species whose pH tolerance-envelopes are such that they would not survive an increase in acidity of this magnitude, and then figure out which species would die as a consequence of the loss of the first group, even if the second group is itself able to cope with the increase in acidity. For extra credit, run the consequence analysis along increasingly higher levels of trophism.
And I note that [you're still quoting science about which you have no operational or synthesisable understanding](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)...
I am growing to really appreciate this thread. It will stand alongside your eponymous one as a permanent evidentiary record of your complete lack of qualification to comment on anything remotely pertainig to science. I await with anticipation the day that someone documents here that you have been confronted in other domains by the stark irrefutability of your incompetence as you yourself have laid bare on Deltoid for all the world to see, and for as long as there is a even a single perambulatory electron left to power the Interweb.
I have a challenge for you... get yourself interviewed on Lateline, for example to tell the world of the looming food crisis if emissions are controlled. Or, if you think that the Marxists there won't allow you fair time, ask for a debate on this subject on Counterpoint - surely Duffy and Comry-Thompson will grant you the exposure. You seem to have a dim view of Tim Lambert and his capacities for accurate science, so perhaps you could suggest to the CP duo that you skewer your Deltoid nemesis whilst you spread The Word according to Curtin.
Or will you run away from such an encounter, as you did when it was suggested that you present your theories to Jeff Harvey's scientific institution?
In response to myself saying:
>What is it that makes seawater undrinkable? It's the salt, not the pH!
TC said:
>Yes, Stu you are right about pH of drinking water, but what of irrigation?
But TC had also said:
>...what might happen if the oceans ever did become acidic. And even if they did, we could then use the sea for drinking and to irrigate the land
and
>well there are facts of life and the non-facts of the IPCC. The fact is that water with pH of 5.5 to 7 is drinkable and good for irrigation, while water with pH above 8 is not fit for those purposes.
(Bold emphasis mine, i.e. Tim thought lowering the pH would somehow make sea water more suitable for drinking - and no mention of desalinisation at all!)
You can't just gloss over the fact that you're freakin wrong on this issue Curtin, lowering the pH makes seawater no more suitable for drinking than it would otherwise be! i.e. still highly unsuitable!
Next issue, seawater with a pH tolerable for most plants would still need desalinisation. Is this viable and cost effective for large scale agriculture?
>You guys are the sharks. If the marine variety can't cope with water of pH at say 6, and minimal salinity, that will be their bad luck, survival of the fittest say I
Finally, glad to see Tim is all for letting vast numbers of animals die because of human activity. I kind of suspected he was completely ignorant that humans rely on the biosphere to survive, and now I know it.
Might I suggest an empirical test to settle this for once and all?
I volunteer to go to the ocean where I will collect two litres of sea water. We can then pump it full of carbon dioxide in any way that Tim Curtin specifies (but there must only be CO2 added to the water). I will be prepared to bet a reasonable amount of money that even after this treatment Mr Curtin will still not find the liquid potable.
Come on Tim, put your money where your mouth is - let's say $5000.
I await your reply.
At #106 on 18th May (nearly 80 posts ago over just 3 days!) I referred to the field evidence that âthe best pH for irrigation water is in the range 5.5 to 6.5, far below the oceanic average of 8.1. It is also necessary to remove some but not all of the dissolved salts from irrigation water - using reverse osmosis to treat half and keep the balance untreated plus reducing pH to 6.5 or less yields the best irrigation waterâ. All too many of the 80 subsequent posts have ignored my references then and later to the salts issue.
The truth is that the alarmism of the IPCC and the RS (Raven et al 2005) about falling pH levels is uncalled for. If the sharks do not like low pH and non-saline water, so be it, I am happy to dine out as now on Barramundi, salmon, and eel, to name just a few marine species that survive in both seawater and freshwater conditions (high/low pH, high/low salinity).
Way back I also noted that AR4 WG1 Chap.5 manages to claim that the pH will continue to fall even though it also claims (403) the uptake of CO2 by the oceans is falling, in this truly Nobel-winning statement: âAs CO2 increases, surface waters become more acidic and the concentration of carbonate ions decreases. This change in chemical equilibrium causes a reduction of the capacity of the ocean to take up additional CO2â. So what is the problem? Stu, MFS et al, please explain why pH will continue to fall despite a reduction of the capacity of the ocean to keep on taking up the CO2 that causes the falls in pH.
[Tim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…),
Can I start by saying you ought to realise that there are two explanations as to why a statement makes no sense to you: either the statement is ilogical, or your expertise on the subject of the statement is insufficient for you to understand it.
When a statement on ocean chemistry is made by an ocean chemist, and you, not an ocean chemist, fail to understand it, it says more about the state of your knowledge (or lack thereof) than about the veracity of the statement.
Tim: pH will continue to fall despite a reduction of the capacity of the ocean to keep on taking up more CO2, because a reduction in the capacity to continue taking up more CO2 is not, as you assume it to be, the same as an incapacity of the ocean to take up any further CO2. When the capacity of the ocean to take up CO2 is reduced, say from taking up 25% of current output at present [see reference here](http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/Home/Guide-to-OA-Research/), to taking up 23% of current output in a decade, 23% of next decade's output will still dissolve in the ocean on top of the CO2 that has already dissolved, further lowering the pH.
Yes Tim and @71 (9th May) you wrote:
(My emphasis)
Enjoy shifting the goalposts??
I'll change my proposition. I'll get the seawater and we can add hydrochloric acid until you deem it is potable. My $5000 says you won't be able to drink it.
An oldie, but a goodie.
Shame that the thread's eponymous oldie is not handling the rigours of aging as well....
Tim, I and MANY others have already pointed out that a reduced uptake capacity still involves an INCREASE in CO2 concentrations. I even used a simple economical example. You clearly didn't even understand that part.
This goes far beyond Dunning-Kruger, it's a case of extreme confirmation bias. Tim does not understand anything that contradicts his pre-determined desired outcome. Sometimes he picks up a point and then just shifts the goalposts, further distorting the facts. Sad.
Hap tip to thoughs making this a thoroughly enetertaining thead. The lastest perl in a long line is this from MFS:
>Can I start by saying you ought to realise that there are two explanations as to why a statement makes no sense to you: either the statement is ilogical, or your expertise on the subject of the statement is insufficient for you to understand it.
>When a statement on ocean chemistry is made by an ocean chemist, and you, not an ocean chemist, fail to understand it...
>Tim: pH will continue to fall despite a reduction of the capacity of the ocean to keep on taking up more CO2, because a reduction in the capacity to continue taking up more CO2 is not, as you assume it to be, the same as an incapacity of the ocean to take up any further CO2. When the capacity of the ocean to take up CO2 is reduced, say from taking up 25% of current output at present see reference here, to taking up 23% of current output in a decade, 23% of next decade's output will still dissolve in the ocean on top of the CO2 that has already dissolved, further lowering the pH.
Yes, but it doesn't surprise me that Tim doesn't understand this. After all, it's not what he wants to believe.
It's worth noting that although the percentage of additional CO2 that the oceans absorb may be decreasing, the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still rapidly rising. Therefore the absolute quantity of CO2 absorbed should be the most useful measure, rather than a decreasing percentage of an increasing number.
As well as the fallacy about falling relative uptake rates implying pH will not continue to fall, there's [this gem](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
> I am happy to dine out as now on Barramundi, salmon, and eel, to name just a few marine species that survive in both seawater and freshwater conditions (high/low pH, high/low salinity)
Tim still doesn't understand Bernard's point [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
> Catalogue the species whose pH tolerance-envelopes are such that they would not survive an increase in acidity of this magnitude, and **then figure out which species would die as a consequence of the loss of the first group**, even if the second group is itself able to cope with the increase in acidity. For extra credit, run the consequence analysis along increasingly higher levels of trophism.
It's as if Tim is unable to grok anything beyond his limited imagination of the direct consequences of his "what-if" scenarios - such as changes due to dependency relations (especially transitive dependencies).
Tim (#175, May 20, 2010 8:44 AM) says:
> More CO2 means greater growth of phytoplankton...
...which [may not be true](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0119-01.htm) in the [real world](http://www.ercim.eu/publication/Ercim_News/enw65/huisman.html) where rising CO2 has [knock-on effects](http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-12-07/news/17327061_1_phytoplankton-cli…) that Tim would pretend do not occur.
For example, from that last link:
> ...nine years of NASA satellite data published today in the journal Nature show that the growth rate and abundance of phytoplankton around the world decreases in warm ocean years and increases in cooler ocean years.
> The findings are crucial because they show a consequence of the changing global climate at the most fundamental level. Scientists estimate that phytoplankton is responsible for about half of Earth's photosynthesis, a process that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converts it into organic carbon and oxygen that feeds nearly every ocean ecosystem.
> Fewer phytoplankton consume less carbon dioxide, aggravating a cycle that can lead to even more warming.
> Over the past decades, California scientists have linked declining plankton numbers to El Niños and other warm-water years in the Pacific Ocean, which set off a domino effect of fewer krill and young fish and eventually failed reproduction of seabirds and even deaths of seals and sea lions.
Which yet again illustrates why Tim's "consequences I don't imagine aren't important" and "I can treat this as a relatively simple system" and "I only have to consider how changing CO2 *directly* affects system elements ignoring CO2's warming effect" approaches are deeply flawed.
Look, the IPCC's "reduction of the capacity of the ocean to take up additional CO2" implies that if not already it will soon cease to take up "additional" CO2. At the moment there is an "equilbrium" flux to and from the ocean of c90 GtC (Houghton 2004, p.30). According to the GCP (le Quere Canadell Raupach et al) there was an oceanic uptake of ACO2 emissions of 2.52 GtC in 1997-98, but last year they revised this down to 2.33, while 2.31 in 2006-07 equally magically was raised last year to - guess - 2.52, only to fall back in 2007-8 to 2.34!
They really don't know, as these numbers are all guesses. The GCP guesses for 2007-08 even manage to claim that total oceanic & terrestrial uptakes of new CO2 emissions that year actually exceeded those emissions by no less than 1.09 GtC, so what was CoP all about?
Back to the oceans, if the annual oceanic uptake really is declining at .18 GtC a year, then it will not be long (13 years) before the oceans are indeed CO2 "saturated" as Canadell et al have been hoping for many years, and the pH must supoosedly then stabilise.
However as there is no EVIDENCE of ANY global fall in pH, the whole thing is a furphy. For example the monthly variations in pH at Abu Kir Bay (Alexandria) exceed the alleged global decline over the last 250 years, 8.207 at the surface in August, 8.104 in the previous January.
Neither the RS' Raven nor the IPCC's Bindoff report any actual measurements of pH (unless you count the latter's very shonky Fig.5.9 which covers only 10 years at just 3 locations, a rather small sample for the claimed 250 year fall).
Lotharsson,
Many thanks for reiterating Bernard's vitally important points (and thanks Bernard for making them; your posts are outstanding!).
The vast majority of marine species would certainly exhibit little or no tolerance for brackish conditions. What about marine invertebrates? A signifcicant reduction in salinity would precipiate an extinction spasm in marine ecosystems that would make the current mass extinction on land seem like a side show. Moreover, as I have said innumerable times, but which Curtin continaully fails to answer, is that those marine species which exhibit some tolerance to more freshwater conditions interact in complex food webs with marine species that are FW intolerant. Again, Curtin thinks that species exist in biological isolation from other species. As an ecologist, I have been making this point over and over and over and over and over (you get the idea) and again and again et al., but Curtin comes back with his usual vacuous ripostes (e.g. avoid responding, because he doe not understand basic ecology or else cites the partial findings of a few studies). In doing the latter, I am certain he misinterprets the scientists findings, their own opinions on the subject, and falls into the trap of suggesting that one or two studies with one or two taxa are enough to generate broad conclusions.
The same is true with respect to his silly caluculations that link reduction in famine to increased atmospheric C02 concentrations. I am not an environmental chemist, but as an ecologist I realize that the effects of this experiment that humanity is conducting - and it is exactly that - are virtually impossible to predict in the medium term. This is because different species will respond in different ways. I recently reviewed a manuscript that examined a doubling in C02 levels on an interaction involving a plant, a plant herbivore, and a plant pathogen. When the pathogen and the herbiovore were reared spearately on the plant the effects of the itneraction on plant and herbivore fitness were dramtcially different than when the three species interacted. And this was only a 2 or 3 species system in an experiment conducted under strictly controlled conditions! What happens in complex adaptive systems is anyone's guess, but it appears that Curtin bases most of his extrapolations and calculations on the results of one-species studies conducted in climate chambers or growth cabinets. These in no way relfect real world conditions, which are self-roganized and where many exist on the eged of critical thresholds (e.g. where there are many more biotic and abiltic stgresses than are replciated under lab conditions). For one thing, natural plant communities are full of antagonists in the form of pathogens and herbivores, as well as mutualists such as predators, parasitoids and other pathogens. At the same time, plants have are in competition with other plants, often asymmetrically, for access to light, moisture and nutrients. The complex interplay involving all of these players on an ecological stage determines to a large extent how communities organize and function. It also determines how resistant they are to change, and how reslilient they are to occassional perterbations.
Speaking as a trained ecologist, I am very cautious in extrapolating the findings of lab studies - including my own - to natural systems. As I have said on many occasions, natural systems do not function linearly, in spite of what contrarians like Curtin suggest. I am certain that the authors of said Nature paper would distance themselves from anyone who dared suggest that ocean acidification is nothing to worry about. In this regard, Curtin behaves like the Idso's on C02 Science: he takes snippets various studies and twists them to support his own simple (and linear) conclusions.
[More of Curtin's nonsense](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
It staggers me that this bloke ever made a fist of it even as an economist...
As you rock in your chair, Curtin, sucking on the lemon slice floating in your G & T and dribbling on your blankie and your lap-dog, consider:
Oh.
My.
Copulating.
Mythic deity.
I know what you think you are calculating, but let me assure you that it is akin to saying that 1 divided by 0 equals 1.
I have yet another challenge for you - present the formal working out that proves that "if the annual oceanic uptake really is declining at .18 GtC a year, then it will not be long (13 years) before the oceans are indeed CO2 "saturated"".
I'm more than passing confident that you will not be able to produce an equation that stands the slightest critical scrutiny.
Tim,
Just because you wish there was no evidence does not mean there isn't, just that you don't believe it, and that is fine, you're free to believe what you want, however when you write things here you generally need to provide evidence of your argument, if you wish to be taken seriously.
Have you even bothered to look in a database, such as current contents, or even humble Google Scholar for the thousands of peer-reviewed publications on ocean acidification? Can you please come up with one, just one published paper that shows that average global oceanic surface pH HAS NOT decreased approximately 0.1 pH units since the beginning of the industrial age, and that this is the fastest rate of reduction (by orders of magnitude) in ocean pH ever documented?
It's really not good enough to say it's all a big lie, and that an enormous body of literature is mistaken. When you make those sorts of claims, you usually need to back them up with substance.
MFS: Can you please come up with one, just one, published paper that shows that average global oceanic surface pH HAS decreased approximately 0.1 pH units since the beginning of the industrial age, and that this is the fastest rate of reduction (by orders of magnitude) in ocean pH ever documented? Of course you cannot, as there really is no documented evidence for that going back to the beginning of the industrial age. See AR4 WG1 Chap 5 for the complete absence of such evidence.
Read also this in PNAS: "Many sources now state that ocean pH has already changed 0.1 units over the past century (3, 10). [Down from 250 years, ho hum!] The basis for these statements is model simulations that include only physical
processes in the control of pH and that are calibrated from a single year of data". Now there's climate science in a nutshell: one year of data - how does that show a trend up or down over 100 years? Ah yes, model simulations, like all of IPCC and everything in PNAS (from which my quotes come).
It gets more preposterous:
"Previous model predictions emphasize rates of change in
ocean pH over time (3). Hence, we compared our empirical
results to these predictions by fitting our pH data to a model with a linear temporal trend. The linear decline explained 23.9% of the variation in the data, and generated an estimated annual trend of -0.045 (95% C.I.-0.039 to -.054 after accounting for temporal autocorrelation). This rate of decline is more than an order of magnitude higher than predicted by simulation models (-0.0019), suggesting that ocean acidification may be a more urgent issue than previously predicted, at least in some areas of the ocean."
It beggars belief but it appears the PNAS authors are not aware that pH is logarithimic, like the Richter scale (in reverse), so that each successive drop of even 0.045 requires a helluva lot more CO2 than the previous.
Maybe I'm wrong about the logarithmic, as Bernard J keeps explaining to me ever so graciously, so let's take PNAS at face value and extrapolate linearly at -0.045 p.a., and lo! - we find the oceanic pH has reached 6.3 by 2050, and by 2067 it has reached the 5.5 level that is generally agreed to be optimal for irrigation water (yes, that still leaves the salinity to be dealt with, but it would be a doddle compared with getting enough CO2 into the ocean to achieve a pH of 5.5).
Why should I give you the coordinates of the PNAS paper when you are all so insulting? Well, never mind, here it is: the geniuses in question are Tim Wootton et al., PNAS 18848â18853 PNAS December 2, 2008 vol. 105 no. 48; www.pnas.org cgi doi 10.1073 pnas.0810079105
Unless you take up my challenge (come on Tim - easy money!!), this will be my final contribution:
Tim Curtin, you appear to be a very stupid man.
And before you cry "ad hominem", I am making an observation, not putting forward an argument.
Bernard, while your last was well up to your usual standards of ad hominem abuse, it also betrayed more ignorance than I previously assumed you to have.
Do read the introduction to my ANU-RSPAS paper of 29th April, which sparked this thread, available at my website (www.timcurtin.com).
As it seems going there is beyond you, this what it says:
"In words the basic equation (actually it is an identity, i.e. true by definition) is that the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in any year is the CO2 emitted by our power stations, cars, and ourselves (we all exhale CO2) minus the amount of those emissions that do not reach the atmosphere, mainly because CO2 is used up in the process of photosynthesis by global plant life (including coral reefs).
So we have d[CO2]t = dEt â dUt â¦.(1), where the d's are the annual changes, [CO2] is the atmospheric concentration of CO2, E is emissions, and U is "uptakes" of those emissions (mainly) by the biosphere (CO2 is also present in rain and rivers, lakes, soils, and the sea). These variables are usually given in GtC, but can be turned into CO2 (in ppm) by dividing by 2.123. In 2008-2009, total emissions were (in round numbers) 10 GtC, the increase in [CO2] was 4.4 GtC (or about 2 ppm), so the Uptakes were 5.6 GtC.
We know d[CO2] from Hawaii's Mauna Loa, and dE from the IEA etc; and dU then tautologically follows from the equation whenever d[CO2] is not equal to dE.* Without U, d[CO2] would always be equal to dE, but manifestly it is not. *Note that U here is NET of respiration and exhalation, as they are all in the E term." NB: if any emissions are unrecorded, eg all exhalation by all mammals including us is never brought to account, then, given the Mauna Loa readings, the Uptakes are automatically and unavoidably higher by the SAME amount as the unaccounted for emissions.
Bernard, you are no doubt brilliant in all your endeavours (even if seemingly still unemployed to judge from the amount of time you spend denigrating me, at least 1000 words a day, I look forward to your book on me, it should be a runaway best seller, I'm sorry to be sarcastic, especially when my long suffering wife (from hearing of your attacks on me) says I should ignore you). But you do not seem to know anything about carbon budgeting, although you are in good company with Rudd, Swan, and Garnaut, the latter as I proved was the case in my Quadrant article in January 2009, and as he has proved with his comments on the Mining Super Profits Tax that he inspired.
Given the opening stock as the beginning of a year (in this case the atmospheric concentration of CO2 as recorded at Mauna Loa) and the stock at the end (ditto), and knowing (more or less) the anthropogenic emissions during the year (from IEA or the ineffable Le Quere and Canadell), then we know without a shadow of doubt what the total 'uptakes' of the emissions were by the oceanic and terrestrial 'sinks'.
BTW, Mauna Loa data shows no decline in [CO2] in 2007-08, despite the claim by Le Quere and Canadell at their Global Carbon Project site that Uptakes exceeded Emissions that year (as I reported in my last but one post). But that is too deep for them and you.
Bernard, it is just too bad you have never run a business, otherwise you would know all this instinctively. IF you have any decency you will revisit your last post and apologise for (1) its manifold budgeting errors, and (2) its usual quota of ad homs.
Curtin.
I have yet another question for you, on top of the mounting list of previous questions above that you have thus far not addressed.
You are on record here as acknowledging that the oceans absorb CO2. On this thread and on others you are also recorded as denying that there is any acidification of seawater.
Given the fundamental chemistry of carbonate, how is it that you reconcile your two recorded positions? That is, if the oceans are absorbing CO2 above their pre-industrial levels, how does this not affect the pH?
As to the evidence of ocean pH declining over contemporary time, there are a number of papers in the scientific literature that provide data on exactly this sunject. That you claim that there is no such evidence indicates either that you do not have access to the relevant literature, that you are not constitutionally capable of finding the material, or that you are blind to its presence in the literature.
If I must, I will at some point provide the details of some of the photocopies that I have in my files, but I am most particularly interested to see if you are able to locate any under your own steam.
The data are there. Your claiming that it is not doesn't make it go away, but it does make you look ever more incompetent. And rude to boot, in that you disparage to the point of libel - and beyond - whole disciplines of science in which you have not a single hour of training, let alone experience.
Bernard, I have already responded at length to your previous. As to your latest, read again the Raven et al (RS)paper - here at random, literally the first para. to open when I went back to it"
"The other major primary producers in the oceans are the
benthic (bottom-dwelling) photosynthetic organisms,
such as seaweed, sea grasses and corals. Limited to
shallower waters, they have a net primary productivity of
about 1 Gt of carbon per year (Field et al 1998). Despite
their limited role in global primary productivity, these
benthic primary producers are crucial components of
coastal ecosystems, providing, for example, habitats and
breeding grounds for other species, as well as recycling
nutrients and reducing coastal erosion by reducing the
power of waves.'
The even more intellectually challenged PNAS mob (Wootton & co) admit that
Phytoplankton abundance effect, pH-liter/mg chlorophyll 0.201 (CI) 0.209, 0.192) (R^2) 13.8
i.e. that more CO2 raises the uptake of CO2 by phyto plankton and thereby lifts the pH.
Another observation...
Curtin is slated to appear with David Archibald on the Rockdale Town Hall leg of the Anthony Watts Touring Clown Show later this year.
What does it say about Watts and about Stockwell that they would rub shoulders with one so irretrievably ignorant of fundamental science?
What does it say about Watts' "tour" itself, and about the scientific bona fides of the Australian Climate Sceptics party which is promoting the circus?
What might it take to elicit cohenite/Cox from his cave to come and defend the nonscience of one of his star performers?
(In case you're wondering, those were rhetorical questions... all except the last, perhaps.)
"Stockwell"?!
I meant Archibald, of course.
Oopsies.
Bernard, if you were to list Curtin, Archibald and Watts in order of scientific competence, Watts would come top. And he's still too unscientific to recognise that he himself and his fellow tourers are all deeply unscientific.
Seriously, what the hell is he playing at? I really hope there's some sensible media coverage of this. If anyone with an ounce of sense attends the tour they will easily
expose the psuedoscience.
But hey, give Tim all the exposure he can get! Few things could be more damaging to the "sceptic" movement ;-)
Bernard,
What is says is that the denialati do not give a damn about scientific accuracy but are abusing science to promote generally far-right political policies that they support. It does not matter how appallingly awful their 'science' is, that does not matter; it is only the conclusions they generate that count. And those conclusions are based on deregulation and evisceration of the role of government in the economy in the pursuit of private profit. Their so-called 'science' acts as a convenient smoke-screen that camouflages the real agendas.
In this regard, they know that their 'science' can be (and is) utter bilge; this is because they can bypass the scientific community and try and reach out to the layman and to policy-makers lacking the fundamental knowledge to be able to see (1) how appal,ling their 'science' really is, and (2) to see through the fog to the underlying core of their beliefs.
Yesterday Curtin untimated that there is little chance that he can publish his 'science' anywhere other than in social science journals or right winge periodicals. His cliam was based on a single journal, PNAS. But as he surely must know, there are literally dozens of journals that publish material dealing with anthropogenic aspects of global change including the effects of enhanced atmospheric C02 levels on terrestial and marine ecosystems. I would be happy to make suggestions. Why does Curtin not submit his material to any of these journals? I will tell you why: because they will be shredded by the reviewers who possess actual expertise in the relevant fields. I say to him: put up or shut up. Submit your article to one of these journals and when the reviews come back share them with us on Deltoid.
I wait with baited breath. Until Cuirtin has the guts to submit his articles to real scientific journals without having to make up feeble excuses for not doing so, I will not take any of his calculations at all seriously.
>It staggers me that this bloke ever made a fist of it even as an economist...
Curtin "made a fist of it" in the phases of economics that was a sheltered school for the ideologically autistic.
The kids are now rebelling. Go kids! There will be little demand for autistic economic if we get a new wave democratic feedbacks operating in political economy.
@tc:
"If the sharks do not like low pH and non-saline water, so be it, I am happy to dine out as now on Barramundi, salmon, and eel, to name just a few marine species that survive in both seawater and freshwater conditions (high/low pH, high/low salinity)."
Several have already commented on this, tim, but please let me simplify it for you, with a question that perhaps wil lead you understand the point. Could you, tim, please explain to us just what exactly your Barramundi, salmon, and eel are going to eat in this supposedly-idyllic freshwater ocean?
Of course, I could have just as easily framed the question to ask "What does it say about Watts and about Curtin that they would rub shoulders with Archibald?"
A while back I conducted an ISI search for [Archibald's oncological output](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Archibald), as I once worked in this field myself, for half a decade.
Nuthin'.
It seems that I have a much greater output of publication in oncology that Archibald, and I wouldn't dream of calling myself an oncologist. I suspect that he might be a 'cancer scientist' like Monckton is an 'immunologist', and like Curtin is an anythingologist...
It's the same with climatology. Archibald has produced a few comedy pieces on the Intertubes, but there's no record of him actually conducting any real science in this discipline.
Which only leaves "oil exploration". Heartland and Sourcewatch inform us that "In oil exploration, he is operator of a number of exploration permits in the Canning Basin, Western Australia."
I don't see any actual evidence of his capacities as a scientist in this field either, and he seems to be very shy in providing his actual educational and working background.
By now those not previously acquainted with this personage is probably singing "ahhh..." to the tune of a tinkling one cent piece bouncing in the corner...
I am intrigued that none of my "fans" has refuted my suggestion that Wootton et al (PNAS 2008) overlooked that the pH scale is logarithmic, so that their 'result' from their regressions that "The linear [sic] decline explained 23.9% of the variation in the data, and generated an estimated annual trend of -0.045 (95% C.I.-0.039 to -.054 after accounting for temporal autocorrelation). This rate of decline is more than an order of magnitude higher than predicted by simulation models (-0.0019), suggesting that ocean acidification may be a more urgent issue than previously predicted, at least in some areas of the ocean". This is total nonsense. A change in pH of minus 0.045 p.a. would reduce the pH to 6.3 by 20050. Only the wholly politicised NAS could allow such crap to appear in what has become the world's worst "science" journal, even worse than "Science" and Nature" (if possible), at least in regard to climate "change" (thanks to Schellnhuber and his fellow Stasi colleagues like Schneider, Schmidt, Rahmstorf, the Meinshausens, and Steffen) (Why Stasi? - because they are united in stamping out dissidence, as I know from personal experience of at least 4 of the above).
Let me explain: although Wootton et al use logarithmic forms in their Methods, their finding of a LINEAR trend in pH of MINUS 0.045 p.a. is breathtaking, implying as it does pH of 6.3, so fully irrigable seawater, by 2050, so long as the salinity issue is also dealt with, but that would be trivial compared with getting enough CO2 into the oceans to achieve declining pH of 0.045 p.a.
As even the RS' Raven et al admit, it has taken 'the past 200 years [for] the oceans [to] have absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations based on measurements of the surface oceans and our knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions" Yet Wootton et al claim that by 2050 the pH will fall by 1.8 (18 times more!!!).
As Raven et al say (also questionably, but for different reasons): "If global emissions of CO2 from human activities continue to rise on current trends then the average pH of the oceans could fall by 0.5 units (equivalent to a three fold increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions) by the
year 2100". When the "science" is "settled", the difference between pH 8.5 in 2100 (raven) and 6.3 by 2050 (Wootton) does seem rather large (even more so in terms of ions:
"The term pH describes the acidity of a liquid. It is defined as: pH = âlog10 [H+] (1) This negative logarithmic dependence on hydrogen ion concentration, [H+], in moles per litre means that if [H+] increases 10-fold then pH decreases by 1 unit".
Meantime Caldeira & Wickett (Nature 2003 ) opine: "If it occurs over several hundred thousand years or more, an increase in atmospheric CO2 to 7,500 ppm decreases ocean pH by ~0.6 units." (i.e. from 8.1 to 7.5) More settled science!!! - and C&W are deemed to be the fons et origo of all this guff, being cited by both Raven and Wootton despite completely different, by many orders of magnitude, conclusions. But then we know C&W are paid shills of the nuclear industry!
Now for Lee: "Could you, tim, please explain to us just what exactly your Barramundi, salmon, and eel are going to eat in this supposedly-idyllic freshwater ocean?"
Posted by: Lee | May 21, 2010 10:01 AM
At #198 I noted that Wootton & co admit that the
Phytoplankton abundance effect from rising CO2 in pH-liter/mg chlorophyll is 0.201 (CI) 0.209, 0.192 (R^2) 13.8
i.e. more CO2 raises the uptake of CO2 by phyto plankton... That is what almost all marine life depends on, directly or indirectly (via krill).
Tim,
You yourself point out that Wootton et al (PNAS 2008) use logarithmic forms in their methods, yet fail to grasp that the inconsistency you percieve is because of your lack of understanding of science, and not because the authors of the paper are similarly ignorant or dishonest.
Current rises in CO2 emissions produce a linear trend in pH, even though the pH scale is logarithmic, because the rise in CO2 so far has been (and is predicted to continue to be) exponential. If you fit an exponentially rising measurement on a logarithmic scale you get a straight line. Even you should know this, I cannot imagine you'd go through life as an economist never having had to plot this kind of data to look for trends. If you cannot understand something as basic as this then I am no longer willing to waste time explaining simple science.
Actually, I am no longer willing to continue wasting my time trying to teach you ANY science, when you are so obviously ideologically driven in your willingness to learn.
So long.
Goodbye MFS, can't say I'll miss you. But to send you on your way just note that the best fits for the actual growth rates of both emissions and biospheric uptakes therefrom from 1959 to 2008 (data from Le Quere, GCP) are LINEAR, not logarithmic or exponential. So you are quite wrong in your claim, as usual, despite your polymathic science. Just learn to do some curve fitting.
> ... more CO2 raises the uptake of CO2 by phyto plankton...That is what almost all marine life depends on, directly or indirectly (via krill).
Tim persists in idiotically extrapolating from one laboratory data point on one species to an entire complex ecosystem, despite several extensive lectures on why this is fallacious.
And he's not even extrapolating from a *correct* inference for that one species - he ignores research that points out that higher temperatures (which I shouldn't have to point out are associated with the CO2 increase that he touts as beneficial) REDUCE phytoplankton growth.
> Even you should know this, I cannot imagine you'd go through life as an economist never having had to plot this kind of data to look for trends.
Given some of his other pronouncements, I can imagine it.
> ...and his fellow Stasi colleagues...
Not quite Godwin's Law, but fairly close.
(S)lotharsson - it seems you never did get around to perusing my ANU seminar slides. At #24 I show Stephen Long's Fig.1 (1991) (also in Norby & Luo 2006, refs in the paper) which illustrates the trade-offs between rising temperature and rising CO2 vis a vis yields (expressed as NPP arising from photosynthesis). The optimum temperature with CO2 at 350 ppm is 24oC for NPP equiv. of 18 micro m; at 500 ppm it is 27oC for micro m 26; at 650 ppm it is 29oC for micro m of 32.
Clearly rising CO2 itself more than offsets higher temperatures, as the highest NPP is at the highest mix of CO2 (650ppm) and T (29oC). Surely you are aware that plants do best in warmer temperatures? why else do the Dutch use greenhouses (ever heard of them?).
The Global Mean T of 15oC is far removed from the maximum feasible. Ever been to Egypt or Dubai? Given water (the Nile) or desal (Dubai) plant growth in both at midsummer with mean daily T of 40+oC is astounding. I worked on financing for the Kenana sugar scheme in Sudan - yields at 40-50oC are vastly higher than in say Natal or Mauritius. When will it reach 50oC in summer in Glasgow? There could be cane sugar on the Clyde!
The Long effect also applies to phytoplankton (more of it per ha. in the tropics than in the Arctic - what a surprise!).
So Curtin continues his opus of shame with:
Curtin, your wits are addling.
As MSF has already noted, just because a parameter is measured on a logarithmic scale, doesn't mean that it cannot demonstrate an apparent linearity in its trajectory. In fact, when such a trajectory is observed, this indicates that there is quite possibly an exponentiality involved in the parameter's increase.
Given both the rate of human emissions, and the inexorably decreasing capacity of seawater to buffer the change in pH due to the ever-increasing diffusion of CO2 into the oceans, this is actually not at all surprising.
Which leads me to another of your
ill-advised pronouncements:
Two points with regard to this paragraph...
And you have the hide to accuse others of incapacity in carbon budgeting... The problem is, Curtin, that you seem to be labouring under the illusion that balancing a global carbon budget is as simple as plucking a few number from the air (so to speak) and expecting the bottom line to tally to zero. Perhaps this is the inclination of an old-school, superseded economist, but I have news for you: the global biohydrogeosphere is a little more complex than a company's ledgers, and it requires a better grasp of analysis than some simple arithmetic divorced of any understanding of the intricate mathematical permutations found in Nature, and in how many ways such permutations describe the staggering number of parameters that are inherent in the real world.
You owe Wootton and PNAS a very big apology.
Delving into another of your arithmetic Gordian knots...
Oh dear Curtin, it's sad to witness the fragmentation of a mind, even if it is one that was always as blinkered as yours was/is.
So, you say that "[w]e know d[CO2] from Hawaii's Mauna Loa, and dE from the IEA etc", huh? Erm, and what exactly are the errors in the measurements â ignoring the fact that you are employing "round numbers" that themselves would swallow a large chunk of the 1.09 gt of CO2 that you are posturing about?
How do the best estimates for the concentrations of CO2 and for the annual mass of human emissions actually inform us a priori about the current year's uptakes? After all, there is simply no way that we can pin down the most recent uptakes, or the phenomena that might cause them to shift over time, with our current level of understanding: heck, I'd be surprised it there is anyone who is both brave enough, and sufficiently sane, to say that we can pin down every uptake contemporaneously to an insignificant degree of variance.
And without being able to so do, my point about me and mut stands, although I note that you sidled past that one. It doesn't change the fact though that your comment that:
is a complete and utter fantasy. If this is the method that you used to balance your books back in the day, then it's lucky that records are not generally kept beyond 7 years.
As pernicious as another of your slanderings of Wootton et al is, I will nevertheless visit it for the sake of making another point:
Nasty words, Curtin.
The problem is, you misrepresent Wootton's et al conclusions:
They are well aware of the implications of the linear regression of their data, and they explain that there are almost certainly confounding parameters involved. Your attribution to them of a direct and sole cause by atmospheric CO2 is slanderous, amateurish, ignorant, and mendacious.
Your libel of them is grubby and unforgivable.
And there's another point to be made. You are attributing to Wootton et al the implication that they explicitly intend to extrapolate from their 8-year survey period to points in time up to 2050. This is utter tosh, Curtin, and if you seriously think that any scientist uses a regression for such inferences then you are clueless indeed. This action on your part is probably a reflection of your obsessive fixation with regressions as the one and only tool for data analysis, but it only serves to further entrench the patently apparent fact that you have not a clue how to interpret scientific literature, nor how proper scientific analyses and modellings are conducted.
Then [there was](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
Oh, lovely conclusive science yet again Curtin... Except as Jeff, I and others have repeatedly told you, it ain't that simple, especially as the oceans' pH drops below the tolerance of many phytoplanktonic species. And even if they did somehow manage to persist for centuries unscathed, the higher trophic levels do not and could not automatically expand without shifting equilibria. Check out Rost et al for some hints, or actually spend some time sifting through the ecological literature on specific species and communities to understand that ocean acidification is not a one-way ticket to a carbon cornucopia.
Your post at [#210](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) is so full of scientific misrepresentations that I will leave it for a more tolerant soul than myself to address it.
And now to the personal stuff. You're welcome of course to snipe at me as much as I do you, but you need to get your facts straight first.
I have been responsible for many budgets in my time, and even though science laboratories (especially in ecology) run on the smell of an oily rag, I have had up to a quarter of a million dollars to manage. I have never run a loss, and indeed I have a reputation amongst my colleagues of stretching money so far that is begs for mercy. So don't give me your shit about running a business.
I am the primary carer for my children, and the reason I have time to target nimrods such as yourself is that I am adept at juggling babies on my lap whilst feeding or playing, and whilst typing with one hand. I also have a part-time job in ecology, and I volunteer for an ecological institution one day per week, simply because I believe in giving to the greater good. If my one thousand word output per day surprises you, then perhaps the problem is more to do with your (in)capacity for output than with mine for rapid typing.
One capacity in which you far outshine me though is the one you display for completely bastardising anything scientific that passes within your reach. It is a morbidly fascinating capacity that you display, and although the suggestion that I write a book about you is laughable, were a publisher be prepared to pay me sufficiently, and if I were able to co-author with a psycologist, a physicist, and a professional statistician, I suspect that I might even revel in the opportunity to painstakingly spend a few years deconstructing the bizarre trail of snake oil that you have leaked through the Intertubes since you appeared to contaminate the climatological discussion, and in so doing present a tale of pseudoscientific hokum that would make the toes of radium water salesmen curl.
I have better things than that to do though, so it will remain a joke for a Friday night over a beer - as so much other Curtin material is...
Bernard: I really am flattered that you used 2026 words last night to attack me; that is productivity of a high order when typing with one finger (in my own post-grad days 1000 words a day was my benchmark for my thesis, often not attained, I blame my then fiancee of course, even if not fairly).
Bernard, just check out the data on emissions and uptakes (unedited) in my derided E&E paper that I reprinted from Le Quere, Canadell, et al at GCP, then do the Excel routines for best fits, which invariably show linear a better fit for both (higher R2) than exponential. In short, try fewer words, and use more analysis, which will confirm there is no âexponentialityâ.
Then you say: âthe inexorably decreasing capacity of seawater to buffer the change in pH due to the ever-increasing diffusion of CO2 into the oceansâ.
But lo and behold: there is NO âever-increasing diffusion of CO2 into the oceansâ because according to AR4, WG1 ch.5 and Le Quere et al 2009, that has already ended by definition because of alleged âsaturationâ. Their GCP (2009) shows oceanic uptakes down from 2.51 in 2002-03 to 2.34 in 2007-2008. Is that âever-increasingâ?
And then you say âHuman emissions of CO2 are rising faster than exponential. You are obviously unacquainted with the best analyses if you claim them to be linear â but hey, prove me wrong. Dig up the data and show us your calculations that demonstrate that they are in fact best described linearlyâ.
The data are faithfully reproduced in my E&E paper, and show unequivocally that they (the emissions) have risen just linearly since 1958/9. It is certainly not true that human emissions of CO2 are rising âfaster than exponentiallyâ. Do you actually know what âfaster than exponentiallyâ is? What is the formula? Do tell Excel. Truly, we have a new Einstein in our midst!
If you can show that I am wrong about the actual best-fit growth rate of emissions since 1958/59, please email me (tcurtin@bigblue.net.au), as Wordpress cannot cope with anything other than pre-1980 text formats, while you with your amazing computer skills I am sure can set up an email account that does not disclose your precious real identity, if it even exists.
I am amazed you do âcertainly agree that biospheric uptakes are probably close to linear on recent scales of time. However, this implies that there exists an approximate equilibrium, whether real or meta-stable, with respect to the rate at which the biosphere is both releasing and fixing CO2.â
But Knorr (GRL November 2009) and myself (Quadrant January 2009) have indeed shown that since 1958 on average 56% of ever growing emissions have been absorbed by the biospheres. If that is not a dynamic equilibrium, what would be?
Bernard then added: âWhat this means is that your scare campaign of CO2 levels plummeting, if humans do not continue to emit ever greater quantities of CO2 themselves, is a spurious load of bullshitâ. But what if CO2 absorption continues at the current absolute level of over 6 GtC p.a. while emissions are reduced to 2-3 GtC p.a, then what? I just want your arithmetic, no armwaving.
Then we have Bernardâs new theory of inventory analysis, even though it is matched by le Quere and Canadell at www.globalcarbonproject.org.
In the real world, if my late auntâs shoe shop opened the year with 100 pairs, sold 60 during the year, and bought in 80, what was her end of year stock? To all except Bernard and the august team at GCP, the answer is 120. Not so, according to Bernard and Le Quere&Canadell. Thus the latter claimed that while in 2007-08 TOTAL emissions were 9.87 GtC, total biospheric âuptakesâ were 10.95 GtC, for a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 of 1.08 GtC, yet according to Pieter Tans at Mauna Loa, the atmospheric stock of CO2 actually rose by 1.87 ppm (c 3.97 GtC). Sadly, my aunt never had such a good year whereby she sold more than she had bought and ended the year with a larger stock than at the beginning. Truly, climate science is full of new maths like Bernardâs: âthe global biohydrogeosphere is a little more complex than a company's ledgersâ. Not so: Closing (end of year)[CO2] at Mauna Loa = Opening (beginning of year) plus new Emissions minus new Uptakes. Ye gods!
Then we have Bernardâs defence of Wootton et al. in regard to their amazing projected declines in oceanic pH: âYou are attributing to Wootton et al the implication that they explicitly intend to extrapolate from their 8-year survey period to points in time up to 2050.â But they invited us to do that with their finding that "The linear decline explained 23.9% of the variation in the data, and generated an estimated annual trend of -0.045 (95% C.I.-0.039 to -.054 after accounting for temporal autocorrelation)â. That annual trend yields a reduction in pH from 8.1 to 6.3 by 2050, and it is Wootton et al who infer that, not me. Of course their R2 is rubbish, but it was good enough for PNAS which will publish any old tosh if it is AGW alarmist. Truly, Wootton et al and PNAS are indeed like you, using your words about me, âamateurish, ignorant, and mendaciousâ.
Bernard, have a go with your new budgeting models, you could yet earn a bob again having appeared in PNAS!
> Surely you are aware that plants do best in warmer temperatures?
No, I'm not. Because it's not universally true for the common understanding of "doing best". I've previously pointed out to you that published papers report rice yields in India are declining because night-time temperatures are **too warm**.
And I've pointed out research reporting that at least some phytoplankton decline in warmer temperatures - which you've at least figured out are important to the entire ecosystem.
Curtin.
As far as the shape of CO2 increase goes, you might consider Tamino's [thoughts on the matter](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/co2-acceleration/). And with respect to your comment:
you seem oblivious to the fact that an exponential curve is possessed of certain properties, but that such a curve is not the only way that a parameter may increase. To put it another way, if one's r value for a growth trajectory is increasing year-on-year, one has something other than a straightforward exponential growth.
Learn about acceleration, before the deterioration of your mathematical faculties, such as they are, accelerates beyond any hope of useful education.
When I spoke of:
I was referring to the increasing quantities of CO2 that human activity is placing in the oceans. Perhaps I framed this ambiguously, but that is hardly the point: I have already told you myself that the oceans are decreasing in their capacity to buffer the additional carbonic acid, so you parroting back of this to me in an attempt at a spurious gotcha is simply juvenile.
I'm glad though that you admit that the oceans' buffering capacities are decreasing - this will lead to some further interesting questioning about some of your chemical misconceptions.
About your budgeting malarky. You cannot compare a shoe shop with the difficulties in accounting for every last ton of atmospheric CO2 taken up.
Consider this. If your late aunt's shoe shop opened the year with 100 pairs, plus or minus ten pairs, sold 60 during the year, plus or minus half a dozen pairs, and bought in 80, plus or minus five pairs, and there were indeterminable numbers stolen behind her back, as well as a few used pairs left behind by customers too lazy to take them home, what was her end of year stock?
Your comments are a load of old cobblers, and I note that you are diverging from my original point anyway, so let's revisit it in order to see how you deflect the thread when it runs roughshod over your poor science.
The [offending sentence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) that sparked your umbrage was:
to which you responded:
There followed many permutations on your theme, but my original point still stands: the bio-, hydro-, and lithospheres between them can quite easily sequester in a given year more CO2 from the atmosphere, given the levels at which it currently occurs, than humans might possibly emit in that same period. As I indicated to you immediately following my point 4:
It seems that the point did escape you, because what you are saying is that if humans stopped emitting for a year, the natural sinks that sequester CO2 must similarly stop absorbing it, in order to "balance the books".
As I said the first time 'round - yeah, right...
Oh, and your understanding of chemistry still sucks, no matter how you might attempt to change the subject.
Many thanks Bernard for your (in part) more measured comments.
1.Is there in fact an accelerating exponential growth rate of [CO2]? Tamino is not a wholly reliable source, as a few of the commenters over there pointed out. Be that as it may, I have just analysed the log linear growth rates for [CO2] at Mauna Loa for all months from March 1958 to March 2010, and from March 1988 to March 2010. There really is nothing to choose between fits of the linear and the exponential trends for both periods (you need to go to 3rd decimal of the R2s to find a very slightly better fit by the exponential). However the fit gets worse for both linear and exponential in the shorter later period, with R2s down from 0.98 to 0.96. By far the best fit for 1958 to 2010 is a 2nd order polynomial, R2=0.99, it is also best of the 3 fits for 1988-2010, but not as good as that for the whole period. It is now for you to show the fit of your (or Taminoâs) âaccelerating exponentialâ function, it will be hard to beat the polynomialâs 0.9901!
2.There is however some evidence for an âacceleratingâ growth of [CO2], if you think an increase in the decadal growth rates from 0.2946% in 1958-68 to 0.296314% in 1998-2008 is big and hugely significant. Plotting all the decadal growth rates from 1958, again the #2 polynomial gives the best fit (R2=0.97) against 0.76 for the exponential.
3.It seems to me you still have a problem grasping the budget identity. As NOAA puts it, âThe table shows annual mean carbon dioxide growth rates for Mauna Loa. The annual mean rate of growth of CO2 in a given year is the difference in concentration between the end of December and the start of January of that year. If used as an average for the globe, it would represent the sum of all CO2 added to, and removed from, the atmosphere during the year by human activities and by natural processesâ. Thus your original point remains nonsensical: âthe bio-, hydro-, and lithospheres between them can quite easily sequester in a given year more CO2 from the atmosphere, given the levels at which it currently occurs, than humans might possibly emit in that same period.â Well, maybe, but it has yet to happen outside the incompetent and fevered imaginations of Le Quere and Canadell, unless Tans at Mauna Loa has got his [CO2] measurements all wrong, with the annual INCREASES in EVERY year since 1958.
4.Re the oceanic acidification issue Do go http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_…
Subcommittee on Oversight and Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife joint hearing entitled âEPAâs Role in Protecting Ocean Healthâ Testimony by John T. Everett, President, Ocean Associates, Inc., May 11, 2010 [H/t Fred Singer]. An easier link may be found at Singer's The Week That Was 2010-05-22 (May 15, 2010) at
www.SEPP.org
Everett is very distinguished indeed (31 years at NOAA, and involved with the IPCCâs 1st-3rd reports until 2000 on oceans and fisheries etc. Anyway he confirms as recently as this testimony on 11th May just about all the points I have made here, witness this: There are too many insidious contaminants entering our estuaries, causing genetic harm and poisoning our birds, turtles, and seafood.
EPAâs focus should be on stopping this flow and restoring the ecology.
CO2 is not a pollutant or contaminant. If it increases beyond this century, there may well be changes in the makeup of plants and animals in the sea. But it will mostly leave us humans without impact. In contrast, contaminants create only losers and directly impact us as well. There are no winnersâ.
Lotharsson | May 23, 2010 6:36 AM said: "I've previously pointed out to you that published papers report rice yields in India are declining because night-time temperatures are too warm."
Ah, with heavy sarcasm, so that explains why FAO rice yield data for India show an INCREASE from 15418 hg/ha in 1961 to 33695 hg/ha in 2008, more than double! Talk of denying the increase!
@ 216
The following is taken from the abstract of [a paper showing a link between rising night-time temperatures and decreasing rice yields](http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.abstract?cited-by=yes&legid=pna…):
The period studied is not 1961 to 2008, but 1992 to 2003, and contrary to what you seem to suggest they do indeed find a correlation between increases in minimum temperature and decreases in crop yield.
As you are perhaps aware, much of the increase in crop yields in recent decades is popularly attributed to factors other than climate, namely the increased use of high-input industrialized farming methods (aka "the Green Revolution"). Are you proposing that the increase in yield between 1961 and 2008 is instead due entirely or in part to changes in temperature, and not to "[the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, and distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_revolution)"? If so, how much of this increase do you attribute to temperature change and not to changes in farming methods, and can you provide a citation or link to the source of your information?
[GGS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Curtin's ignoring of the night-temperature/rice yield issue is puzzling in light of the fact that [myself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…), [Ian Forrester](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment…), and [Dano](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment…) have all drawn this phenomenon to his attention. Indeed, if one peruses the archives of Deltoid one will find that this matter has been raised on a number of occasions for the edification of other numpties: [John Cross's](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/richard_lindzen_claims_global.p…) reference to the subject is one instance that I recall.
To acknowledge such phenomena though would be to admit to the dark side of CO2 increase, and that would undermine Curtin's entire premise. For one such as he, it is better to live with the cognitive dissonance than to lose a grasp of one's pet alternate 'theory', even if the theory is a stinker.
> Ah, with heavy sarcasm, so that explains why FAO rice yield data for India show an INCREASE from 15418 hg/ha in 1961 to 33695 hg/ha in 2008, more than double! Talk of denying the increase!
Again you get it wrong.
I did not state there was no increase over (say) the time period that you now nominated, nor that no other factors had worked to improve yields over any time period, let alone over time periods *different* from the paper I reported. Furthermore, your response completely fails to address the reported research results, let alone refute them. Perhaps your heavy sarcasm should be reserved for occasions when your point is valid?
> To acknowledge such phenomena though would be to admit to the dark side of CO2 increase...
It seems to me that at least half of Tim's schtick is finding evidence that shows that changes in one variable under a (possibly limited range of) scenarios or independent parameter variations provides some measured benefit - whilst totally ignoring changes due to other variables that are associated with changes in the first and any negative impacts to other outcomes of interest. It's a particular form of cherry-picking.
Lotharsson - see below.
GGS: many thanks for your contribution and links, especially to the Peng et al paper (PNAS 2004). Before responding to that in detail, please note that my published paper Climate Change and Food Production and my Semiar last month do address the points you make about the Green Revolution. Both it and my seminar paper are available at my website (www.timcurtin.com). Obviously in a single Blog post it is not possible to discuss all issues, and why should I when my published work already has dealt with the points you mention?
Specifically, you asked: [am I] ââ¦proposing that the increase in yield between 1961 and 2008 is instead due entirely or in part to changes in temperature, and not to "the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, and distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers"? Certainly not, as the most impressive coefficients in my paper are for changes in the level of CO2 uptakes from anthropogenic emissions, with t=2.625, while for fertilizer usage the t is only 1.184 (so not significant), and that on temperature is indeed negative, but not remotely significant. The D-W at 2.6 shows no spurious correlation (as I suspect it would for Peng). So, do have a glance at my paper (Table 3) and seminar.
You then asked: âIf so, how much of this increase do you attribute to temperature change and not to changes in farming methods, and can you provide a citation or link to the source of your information?â
My own regressions reported in my paper and seminar address this issue. For example in the seminar I show how using Steve Crimp of CSIROâs quadratic formula for predicting wheat yields as a function of only temperature, rainfall, and [CO2] is remarkably efficient. I also discuss at length cited work by S. Long (1991) and Norby & Luo 2006 that shows the combined effects of rising T and [CO2] on NPP, and in my paper I discussed the role of new crop varieties in Evenson, R.E. and D. Gollin 2003a. Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution 1960â2000. Science 300, 3 May, 758â762.
Now for Peng et al in PNAS 2004 who say âAchieving greater yields depends on increasing total crop biomass, because there is little scope to further increase the proportion of that biomass allocated to grain (4). Total crop biomass is determined mainly by crop photosynthesis and respiration losses, both of which are sensitive to temperature (5). Future crop yields will be influenced by complex interactions between the effects of increases
in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (6) and trace gases such as ozone (7) as well as the effects of temperature increases brought about by climate change (8).â (numbers are for their refs).
However in practice they ignored almost all these effects:
NB1 The paper abstracts from the effects of rising [CO2] as countervailing to rising min. temps.
NB2. The paper reports no tests for autocorrelation, even though temperature data are notorious for that property and associated unit roots. Where are their Dickey Fuller or Watson-Durbin test results? In all likelihood their âresultsâ are spurious.
NB3 The paperâs regressions all have constants >0, when they should be set at 0 when and if they adjust for auto-correlations.
NB4. Peng et al admit âThis report provides direct evidence of decreased rice yields from increased night temperature associated with global warming [but] the physiological mechanisms that caused the observed decrease in rice
yield and the differential effect of increases in night versus day temperature are unknown.â !!!!
Truly that is pathbreaking Science. In all likelihood there will be nothing to explain when correct statistical procedures are deployed.
Lotharsson: your comments derive from your refusal to read my paper and seminar, and are as a result wholly untrue.
Ironically, your claim that my âschtick is finding evidence that shows that changes in one variable under a (possibly limited range of) scenarios or independent parameter variations provides some measured benefitâ â change âbenefitâ to âreduced yieldâ and you have the Peng et al paper to a t, as the ONLY variables they consider are Tmin, Tmax, and radiation. BTW, did you ever actually read it? - their trials were at IRRI in the Philippines, not India as you imagine.
Bernard, you are something of a bad Samaratin, passing by on the other side when you have no answer, but with plenty of time to contribute rubbish to other threads here today.
I asked in my last response to you:
1.Is there in fact an accelerating exponential growth rate of [CO2]? [as claimed by you and] Tamino [who] is not a wholly reliable source, as a few of the commenters over there pointed out. Be that as it may, I have just analysed the log linear growth rates for [CO2] at Mauna Loa for all months from March 1958 to March 2010, and from March 1988 to March 2010. There really is nothing to choose between fits of the linear and the exponential trends for both periods (you need to go to 3rd decimal of the R2s to find a very slightly better fit by the exponential). However the fit gets worse for both linear and exponential in the shorter later period, with R2s down from 0.98 to 0.96. By far the best fit for 1958 to 2010 is a 2nd order polynomial, R2=0.99, it is also best of the 3 fits for 1988-2010, but not as good as that for the whole period. It is now for you to show the fit of your (or Taminoâs) âaccelerating exponentialâ function, it will be hard to beat the polynomialâs 0.9901!
I await with bated breath.
Tim Curtin.
I hope that you didn't suffocate waiting for me to read this thread. I am still at the mercy of intermittent computer access, and contrary to your impressions I also have work to do, so I simply cannot respond top you at your leisure.
Your manipulation of regressions is morbidly entertaining. I have bucket-loads of my own fits, and to multiple datasets, and it simply is not possible to provide a coherent summary in the few minutes that I have available to type before I lose my computer access for another day. I will therefore make some fundamental points instead, and hope that you - and any curious lukers here - might pick up the underlying import...
There are many more points to be made, but you will either have to wait until I can access a computer again, or ask others here to help you learn how to fit a curve appropriately.
Berard, I am sorry about your computer problems. C'est la vie!
Just off the cuff comments for now; I think a series of 51 years is quite long enough for some reasonable curve fitting. The Mauna Loa is the best data we have for [CO2]and splicing it onto tree rings and the like will not do, pace CRU.
You say I am implying is that CO2 concentrations have "dropped precipitously in the relatively recent past", I did not and I do not, as clearly they are rising, the question is whether the rate of growth is increasing. You said it is rising at an "increasing exponential rate", and Excel, not me, shows that just appears to be the case for the Mauna Loa data, as the best fit curve (R2=0.99), the #2 polynomial, is indeed rising albeit at a very slowly increasing exponential rate (barely visibly so, which is why I missed it). My bad, you are right, well done! So how long before doubling from the March 2010 level of 389.44 ppm given the #2 polynomial fit of y = 8E-05x^2 + 0.0666x + 314.26?
I'd like to thank Tim Lambert for keeping this Tim Curtin honeypot thread going. When it is active, it is reliably the most exasperatingly funny thing I read on the web.
So how long before doubling from the March 2010 level of 389.44 ppm given the #2 polynomial fit of y = 8E-05x^2 + 0.0666x + 314.26?
is this not pretty easy math? you managed to get into some kind of high school Tim, didn t you?
i am a little tired and i dropped of some digits here and there, but my result is 247 years.
that is 5 times the length of the period that you base your trend on....
hanks sod: actually I get to 2162, 152 years from now, which is substantially (50-100 years) later than most IPCC forecasts. What has the length of the period of extrapolation relative to the 52 years of observations got to do with anything?
Tim Curtin said:
"The Mauna Loa is the best data we have for [CO2]and splicing it onto tree rings and the like will not do, pace CRU."
As far as I am aware there have been 3 investigations into the CRU and its activities and every one of those investigations has found the CRU did nothing wrong and that its detractors were liars and incompetents.
CI wonder if Tim Curtin can expand on the reasons for his above comment? Does he have additional information about the CRU not available to the multiple investigations?
Vince: tree rings are NOT as good as thermometers, partly because they are better at showing trends in [CO2], which is why they had to be suppressed after 1960 by the CRU trick. However they do not actually offer a precise record even of [CO2], even if better at that than at temperature. As for liars and incompetents, that description best fits Phil Jones and his team, including its associates who ran (still running in the case of Russell-Boulton) the so-called inquiries.
Tim Curtin said:
Curtin once again shows his absolute ignorance of climate science. Just where in the scientific literature has any one spliced CO2 concentrations onto tree ring proxies?
They are completely different parameters. You are either grossly dishonest or woefully ignorant, probably both. Why do you keep making such an absolute horse's ar$e of yourself? Do you not wonder why your friends and family distance themselves from you? Do they think Dunning Kruger Syndrome is contagious?
> ...their trials were at IRRI in the Philippines, not India as you imagine.
You are correct on this point. I was remembering a different article on declining rice yields when I referenced India.
> ...change âbenefitâ to âreduced yieldâ and you have the Peng et al paper to a t, ...
...except that unlike you, they do not leap from their findings to the fallacy that "therefore no other negative (or positive) ecosystem or agricultural impacts *can possibly exist* from increasing CO2".
And that's before noting - as has been pointed out a number of times before - that **non-linear** effects and interactions (including threshold effects, synergies, and chaotic system behaviour) abound in ecosystems.
> Truly that is pathbreaking Science. In all likelihood there will be nothing to explain when correct statistical procedures are deployed.
Truly that is a breathtakingly ignorant statement.
From *two minutes* with Google:
[CSIRO paper from 1996](http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/PP9960791.htm)
> The effect of increasing day temperature on reducing seed set in rice is well established... Increasing daylnight temperature to 36/29ºC resulted in a significant reduction in both plant biomass and grain yield at harvest. ...however, increasing night temperature at a day temperature of 33ºC (8 h duration) resulted in a significant decline in grain yield, primarily due to reduced seed set. ... Data from this experiment suggest that higher night time temperatures per se could increase the susceptibility of rice to sterility with a subsequent reduction in seed set and grain yield.
[Mohammed & Tarpley 2009](http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/1/313)
> Nighttime temperature is one of the major environmental factors influencing plant metabolic processes. ... High nighttime temperature increased respiration rates, decreased MTS, and negatively affected the yield (by 95%).
[Jagadish, Craufurd & Wheeler, 2006](http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/erm003v1)
> In future climates, greater heat tolerance at anthesis will be required in rice. ... In both genotypes â¤1 h exposure to â¥33.7 °C at anthesis caused sterility. In IR64, there was no interaction between temperature and duration of exposure, and spikelet fertility was reduced by about 7% per °C > 29.6 °C. In Azucena there was a significant interaction and spikelet fertility was reduced by 2.4% °Cdâ1 above a threshold of 33 °C.
Two minutes with Google, continued:
[Heat stress and its impact](http://www.plantstress.com/Articles/heat_i/heat_i.htm)
> Heat stress often is defined as where temperatures are hot enough for sufficient time that they cause irreversible damage to plant function or development. In addition, high temperatures can increase the rate of reproductive development, which shortens the time for photosynthesis to contribute to fruit or seed production. ... the acceleration does substantially **reduce total fruit or grain yield**. ... The magnitude of heat stress rapidly increases as temperature increases **above a threshold level and complex acclimation effects can occur** that depend on temperature and other environmental factors.
> During the vegetative stage, high day temperatures can cause damage to components of leaf photosynthesis, **reducing carbon dioxide assimilation rates** compared with environments having more optimal temperatures. ... photosystem II of the cool season species, wheat, is more sensitive to heat than photosystem II of rice and pearl millet...
> Reproductive development of many crop species is damaged by heat such that they produce no flowers or if they produce flowers they may set no fruit or seeds. The reviews of Hall (1992, 1993) discuss the detrimental effects of heat stress on reproductive development that has been reported for cowpea, common bean, tomato, cotton, rice, wheat, maize and sorghum.
And this is without considering changes such as shifts in rainfall amounts and timing and variability, changes in growing season timing and temperature variability, and impacts on various pests and diseases. It clearly isn't as simple as "increasing CO2 whilst everything else is constant increases yields - therefore there's nothing to worry about".
Lotharsson: many thanks for those links, ever eager to learn as you know I am! But all 3 papers are guilty of what you accuse me, changing one variable, all others constant.
My own paper and Seminar did not do that â see for yourself â as I used multivariate regressions, with no cet.par.
Re the Zinka (CSIRO) paper, can you tell me in which rice growing areas we can observe that night temperatures have already risen, or are on course to rise, from 21 oC to 33 oC? Thailand? Well, if they have, how come it is still the worldâs No 1 rice exporter, and that its yields continue to rise? I was there last September, high summer, for 5th year in a row, and nights could even be chilly. Zinkaâs paper is simply silly and totally artificial.
Similar comments apply to Mohammed & Tarpley â just as the coral reef âscientistsâ dowse the GBR in hydrochloric acid to prove their point, so these authors in effect cook their rice. Just where in the main rice growing areas of the world are nighttime temperatures as high as 32 ocC? No mention of CO2 in their paper. Look, Lotha., if I put you on a diet of just H2O for the next year you will lose weight and with any luck not be around to plague me. That is what M&T are in effect doing. The world is not a univariate or linear place, there are plusses and minuses all the time. My paper and seminar cite Long, Norby & Luo, et al for their demonstrations that rising T with rising CO2 can easily be optimal, and provides my own independent supporting evidence.
Jagadish et al also offer only a univariate analysis, ye gods! Lothar and your mates, the world is not univariate.
[Tim Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
You need to do something about your cuffs, it would appear.
Firstly, as has been repeated so many times here over the last few years, regression lines of best fit say nothing about the trajectories of the phenomenon being fitted, outside of the span of the data, and the further one moves from the data's range the less the regression has to offer.
Secondly, in the context of CO2 trends half a century of data is a piddling-small amount, both in terms of encompassing information for which there are data available, and for incorporating into one's 'model' larger-scale phenomena and stochastic phenomena which are unlikely to appear in a short interval such as you used.
Thirdly, and following on directly from the previous paragraph, there are other datasets available besides Mauna Loa, that measure CO2 only, and do not rely on the addition of completely different proxies, such the the tree-rings that you bizarrely invoked.
Of course, if you disagree, please feel free to explain to us the scientific basis on which you do so.
Bernard said "there are other datasets available besides Mauna Loa, that measure CO2 only..." Really, where, which? are they in any way comparable with Keeling's Mauna Loa series? I suspect you will resurrect the Mann-Jones tree rings, as from 1960 they may well match Mauna Loa, but not of course for the Roman or Medieval WPs.
[Me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
[Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Curtin, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, because you suspected wrongly.
There are obvious and not-so-obvious approaches to determining atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time and, as I said before, in ways that do not rely on the addition of completely different proxies.
As you seem to be struggling with the whole issue, I'll give you a couple of pointers to one of the most obvious approaches... Siple station and the Law Dome.
Knock yourself out running your simple regressions on those datasets. Before you do though, please post the a priori assumptions that apply to both historical and to future trends, that you will use in your approach.
Such assumptions should include an acknowledgement of factors that affect atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time, and of statistical considerations and caveats that apply to the regression types that you select.
Oh, and another reminder: you still suck at basic chemistry - just in case you thought that we'd forgotten the guff that you've spouted over the last few weeks.
Tim said:
>Bernard said "there are other datasets available besides Mauna Loa, that measure CO2 only..." Really, where, which? are they in any way comparable with Keeling's Mauna Loa series? I suspect you will resurrect the Mann-Jones tree rings, as from 1960 they may well match Mauna Loa, but not of course for the Roman or Medieval WPs.
What the fudge are you talking about Tim? Who has been trying to discern atmospheric CO2 concentrations from tree ring data?
Anyway, places in the world where CO2 is measured, as you requested: (no mention of tree rings!)
Unsurprisingly (well, to people who understand these things), the measurements are in agreement.
> But all 3 papers are guilty of what you accuse me, changing one variable, all others constant.
And you still don't get it, so let me repeat:
> ...except that **unlike you**, they do not leap from their findings to the fallacy that "therefore no other negative (or positive) ecosystem or agricultural impacts can possibly exist from increasing CO2".
Perhaps more detail will help.
You look at changing CO2 in isolation from changes it will likely cause to climate and ecosystem - and then argue that BECAUSE only changing CO2 seems fine to you in limited experiments that there **can be** no problem. You are in effect arguing that there will never be detrimental effects *outside of the experimental scenarios you report*. This ignores (a) other experiments and (b) other changes that CO2 causes to climate and ecosystem.
Or to put it another way - you are arguing that CO2 increases are just fine, because a very limited set of experiments fail to show detrimental impact under those particular experimental conditions.
If you don't understand why this is a fallacy, there's no point talking to you.
Practically everyone else is looking at changes in one or more variables and reporting that some have no detrimental effects in some scenarios, and some do - but they are not fallaciously leaping to the conclusion that THEREFORE there are no climate change effects they have not encountered so we can pump CO2 into the atmosphere with abandon.
> can you tell me in which rice growing areas we can observe that night temperatures have already risen, or are on course to rise, from 21 oC to 33 oC?
Fallacious assumption. The question is NOT which countries go from 21 to 33 degrees C; it is which countries are generally immune from even brief periods of high night-time temperatures - because the research shows that quite often that's all it takes to have a significant negative impact.
Stu: the issue with Bernard concerned the availability of data series comparable with the Mauna Loa set for the period BEFORE that began in 1958. Your helpful link to Scripps shows data from La Jolla Pier FROM 1968, and for the South Pole (Keeling & co) FROM 1957. I have previously established close correlations (R2=0.99) between [CO2] measurements at Mauna Loa, Point Barrow, and Cape Grim. Alas, apart from briefly the SP series, there is no, i.e. ZILCH, COMPARABLE data on [CO2] that goes back beyond 1958.
Again, NONE of these data sets show any material acceleration of their measured [CO2] since 1957/58. So what were you trying to tell me?
Lotharsson @ 27 May 10.32 pm. You said I am "arguing that CO2 increases are just fine, because a very limited set of experiments fail to show detrimental impact under those particular experimental conditions". The limited set is the 3 perversely cooking rice plants in night temperatures way beyond those known in any of the world's major rice producing areas to prove a grant-earning brownie point. The unlimited data sets are those from Dutch greenhouse which for centuries have increased night temperatures, and since c1960, elevated CO2 to at least 1000 ppm, to raise output of tomatoes et al to world record levels.
You added "Practically everyone else is looking at changes in one or more variables and reporting that some have no detrimental effects in some scenarios, and some do" Read my paper and seminar! Why do you refuse to? BOTH look at the effect of changes in at least THREE variables, eg my slide on wheat yields in Moree, NSW, c1960-2000.
Then you said "The question is NOT which countries go from 21 to 33 degrees C; it is which countries are generally immune from even brief periods of high night-time temperatures - because the research shows that quite often that's all it takes to have a significant negative impact". The research does NOT show that, they cook the rice at imaginary high night temps for long periods.
The real world facts remain, that despite claimed AGW, rice yields have risen continuously since global records began in 1960.
Tim Curtin said:
"tree rings are NOT as good as thermometers, partly because they are better at showing trends in [CO2], which is why they had to be suppressed after 1960 by the CRU trick. However they do not actually offer a precise record even of [CO2], even if better at that than at temperature."
I'm trying - with great difficulty - to parse this, and I think the trick is to treat the commas as parentheses and then cut out the parenthesized bits, thus giving:
"tree rings are NOT as good as thermometers...which is why they had to be suppressed after 1960 by the CRU trick"
-- (To which I think my only reply would be:
"No shit, sherlock!?")
"[tree rings] are better at showing trends in [CO2]"
-- (which sounds false to me - trends in CO2 prior to the 20th Century occurred on timescales where tree rings are not so useful)
"[tree rings] do not actually offer a precise record even of [CO2]"
-- (Again: "No shit sherlock")
"[tree rings] better at [CO2] than at temperature"
-- (Again: pretty sure you're wrong.)
I think the trick with science is you do your best to unpick complex systems, to reduce the number of variables to a minimum, in order to get a better understanding. Tim Curtin has shown us by his complicated cobbling-together of 4 distinct opinions why he has trouble thinking like a scientist.
Why leave out the CO2 information [gained from icecores](http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxi…)?
Mauna Loa and other measuremens show acceleration in CO2 concentration but are on a relatively short timespan. [Icecore measurments](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-graphics.html) are entirely consistent with contemporary data. And this longer prespective confirm in an even clearer way that CO2 concentrations have been increasing at an increasing rate for more than a century (give or take few short term bumps).
Also of interest was one of the short term bumps, the [CO2 pause around the time of](http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/smoothing-splines-and-law-…) the Great Depression.
Curtin,
Natural systems are in no way anything remotely like Dutch greenhouses.
I've said this before innumerable times but your brain must be made of rubber because it bounces off.
Greenhouses do not replicate conditions found it nature. They are strictly controlled. There are few biotic inputs and outputs. The soils are regulated. The temperatures are regulated. Nutrients are copiously added. Pollinators are added; antagonists are excluded. It is a compeltely different world. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that.
I can only shake my head in disbelief at the basal level of some of your arguments. It is clear that you do not understand basic environmental science, plant ecophysiology, and ecological complexity, and thus your expunge any facts or conditions - and there are infinite numbers of them - that interefere the predictions of your tidy little models.
Like it or not, you are not taken seriously by the scientific community. This is probably because you are scared of submitting your papers to the relevant science journals, and instead rely on social scvience journals like E & E as a conduit for your nonsense. Then you try and blow the signficance of these appalling studies in a very, very minor contrarian jounbral out of all proportion, when the scientific community will never ever hear of them.
I guess that the fact that people like me - actual scientists and others - respond to you on web sites like Deltoid must puff up the old ego. Because the impact of your articles won't do it.
Jeff H. What substance was there in your comment? That the outside world of farming is not like a 17th century or even 21st Dutch greenhouse? But actually it is increasingly so. Ever looked at the farming landscape in East Anglia? I was first there in 1953, lived there 1975-1987, and have been back often since. I imagine that same is true in Netherlands, namely increasing industrialisation of agriculture. The FACE experiments already point to the future of raising CO2 in open field conditions way above the ambient level of [CO2].
For you to be talking of ego is pot calling kettle black! I have never known anybody so prone to exaggerating their own eminence, and denigrating all with different views.
As it happens, I am just back from hearing Lord May at Uni Canberra. Ever heard of him? Probably not. His latest work involves applying some of his insights from his ecological modelling work to the sub-prime banking crisis of the last 3 years (See JRS forthcoming). Fascinating.
When you have become President of the RS or the Dutch equivalent, then and only then will you be entitled to talk down to me - and Bob May never once did that to anybody this evening. BTW, as I am a blatant name dropper, let me add that Bob's younger brother Ron's latest book (ANU Press)has a chapter by me.
> The limited set is the 3 perversely cooking rice plants...
...er, no. That's either a blatant fallacy or a horrible miscomprehension of what I wrote.
Let me try it another way.
Factor F1 is known to influence factors F2, F3, F4 and F5.
A report is published that some experiments show that certain classes of changes in factor F1 have a non-negative influence on metric of interest M1.
Someone seizes on this report to proudly declare that there are no issues of concern due to changes in factor F1.
Assuming the reported results were robust, are these conclusions logically correct?
Before answering, consider the influences of factors F2 through F5 - on metrics M2 through Mn, and under a number of additional scenarios beyond those in the original report.
Now, consider another report that a certain class of changes in factor F2 negatively influences metric of interest M2. Someone seizes on that report to note that negative impacts due to changes in factor F2 exist, and that therefore the changes in factor F1 that drive that class of changes in F2 are NOT free of negative impact.
Again assuming the reported results were robust, are these conclusions logically correct? (And for the bonus points: is your answer different than for the previous set of conclusions, and *if so, why*?)
> The research does NOT show that, they cook the rice at imaginary high night temps for long periods.
Sounds like you didn't read the papers - they had different methodologies. I bet you can also find more if you look.
And clearly you didn't even comprehend [the quotes I helpfully provided](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) which included this:
> In both genotypes â¤1 h exposure to â¥33.7 °C at anthesis caused sterility.
That's **less than one hour** in plain English.
> Read my paper and seminar! Why do you refuse to?
Because you're demonstrably incapable of constructing or even analysing a reasonable scientific case for (or against) most of the *relatively simple* propositions you have posted here - which means your request to read your more complex propositions fails my "potentially good use of my limited time" filter.
But you touch on a wider point - I reckon my "good use of my limited time" quotient for this thread has pretty much run out.
Thanks for your participation and best of luck.
Curtin [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Curtin, both [I](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) and [jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) have pointed you to the ice core data, and jakerman was sufficiently generous as to provide you with links directly to the data.
These ice core data are comparable to the Mauna Loa data, in that where they overlap in time they agree about the concentrations of CO2 derived. The differences are that the Mauna loa data are much more dense over time, and are far more tightly resolved in terms of concentration at time x.
More specifically, the accuracy and the precision of the ice core CO2 concentrations are comparable to the Mauna Loa data: it's only the precision of the time estimates that is coarser. This is not a problem though, and neither is the density of datapoints, because over the spans of the ice core datasets this coarser resolution is greatly overwhelmed by the fact that the trend in atmospheric CO2 is not remotely linear, or even exponential.
It is rising rapidly however. Whatever trick of curve-fitting you might like to select, I am curious to know if you challenge the fundamental trajectory of CO2 that the ice core data indicate.
Lotharsson: as you refuse to read my paper & seminar you could at least check the refs I give to Long 1991 and Norby & Luo 2006 who undertake that very exercise you propose, and show from field trials that a combination of higher CO2 with higher Ts maximises NPP from photosynthesis, despite the negative effect of T if CO2 is held constant. See my slides reprinting their own Figs.
Bernard. You claimed [CO2] shows accelerating growth. I agreed, second time around, that the #2 polynomial does indeed show this, but that the higher than basic exponential increase rate is barely discernible from the latter and still results in doubling todayâs 390 ppm in about 150 years (sod made it 250).
Why donât you run the ice core CO2 series? - abstracting from the known problems thereof of course. Using ice core data for the period before 1958 is non-comparable, partly because the ice cores are derived not from the atmosphere, but more importantly, because it is commonly agreed that anthropogenic additions to CO2 really only took off after say 1950. The issue is whether the growth of [CO2] has been materially accelerating since 1958, so the ice cores are irrelevant.
You asked finally if I âchallenge the fundamental trajectory of CO2 that the ice core data indicateâ. Well yes, if you think that trajectory is rising when obviously it is actually downward: it peaked in the Cambrian at 7,000 ppm some 550 million years ago, dropping to around 340 ppm in the carboniferous (I wonder why that term is used?) a mere 300 million years ago, and then goes up again to 3000 ppm at the end of the Permian (250 million BP), then fluctuated but mainly downwards to 350 ppm in our day, see RA Berners 2001). Strangely enough the ice ages coincided with the CO2 minima. Is that really what we want? How does Bernersâ data fit your hypothesis? And why do I have to repeat what he did?
Lotharsson: further to my last where I said "you could at least check the refs I give to Long 1991 and Norby & Luo 2006 who undertake that very exercise you propose, and show from field trials that a combination of higher CO2 with higher Ts maximises NPP from photosynthesis, despite the negative effect of T if CO2 is held constant. See my slides reprinting their own Figs." - I should have added that their Figs. (both are in my seminar slides #24 and #26 at www.timcurtin.com) show that
#1 The Higher the CO2 at any given Temp., the more NPP.
#2. The Higher the Temp. at any given CO2, the higher the NPP (left axis).
#3. Higher Temp PLUS Higher CO2 = Higher NPP (than at either ambient T or ambient CO2).
Those results from the authors' field trials have never been contradicted.
Hey, Curtin was right, you can drink sea water.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Bottled-seawater-brings-a…
Tim, you seem to be ignoring [this questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).:
You claimed that the RS paper by Raven et al "shows" that rising atmospheric CO2 LOWERS the pH of the oceans, thereby making them less alkanine (and saline).
Either support your claim of "(and saline)" or correct the record. You don't need to pretend anything about non existent quotations, simply support your claimed citation or retract it.
Ian Forrester: there we go! I always knew that! Certified as drinking water quality by my former employers, who can improve on that?
jakerman: you are a bore, here and everywhere. I have already answered that query on the parenthesis; it is now as it was, and Ian goes one better.
Bernard: where art thou, re "trajectories" of pre-Mauna Loa [CO2] measurements? too busy with pointless comments on other threads?
I often ask myself, "why do I burden myself with the paying of so much attention to a senescent old dodderer"? [You said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Curtin, you are a mendacious old dodderer, are you not? You are going from a very selectively-shortened record of human carbon emissions since the commencement of the Industrial Age, to now referring to multiple epochs over geological time.
It seems that both the context of the matter at hand (human emissions over the last several centuries, and their impacts on the climate system), and the fact that I specifically [made the comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) that:
have completely escaped you.
Either that, or you are yet again desperately trying to shuffle deckchairs.
And your comment:
is a very incomplete and misrepresentative reference to the correlation. I will refrain from explaining why just now - I want to see if you have the wherewithal to explain properly the mechanisms causing, and the consequences resulting from, the ice ages.
Now, to your regressions and the doubling times for atmospheric CO2 concentrations that you derived there from...
You insist, based on The Curtin Excel Regression MethodTM, that [it will take 150 years for current CO2 concentration to double](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). Interesting. Tell me, do you use the regression constants provided by the options in the 'Add trendline' function of the graphing tool in Excel? You know, the numbers that are shown to 4 decimal places?
Because if you do, you are using rubbish numbers.
I've said it before on Deltoid (someone with more patience than me might be able to find the link!) - Excel's numbers are too coarse for many types of regression if one is trying to reconstruct the line of best fit.
Take the Mauna Loa annual CO2 concentration data for example. The exponential regression in Excel gives an exponent constant of 0.0042 in the graph's equation, but this is a rounding up by about 4.7 x 10-5 above the actual value. It might not seem like much, but if one uses the rounded values for the constants with which to construct a curve, from which in turn to infer values, one ends up with a curve whose value at 1960 CO2 concentration is just over 30 ppm greater than it actually was, and whose 2010 CO2 concentrations are given as just over 38 ppm greater than the concentration will end up being.
And this is just with a 4.7 x 10-5 rounding error in one of the exponential constants for the line of best fit. Imagine how far off you are in your estimations because you are not accounting for the fact that the increase is greater than exponential. Do you understand now why I am querying you so hard on what curve type you are using to model CO2 increase?
Oh, and at [#248](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) you referred to doubling with respect to current CO2 concentration. All sensible discussion about doubling refers to the preindustrial CO2 concentration, and your shifting of the goal posts extends the doubling time in an irrelevant fashion. I posit that your shifting in this manner is one that is surely intended to minimise, in the minds of unsuspecting lay folk/lurkers, impact of the perceptions of time periods involved.
For what it's worth, the [IPCC models indicate that doubling will occur some time in the latter half of the 21st century](http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html). I have seen nothing coming from the Curtin Regression FactoryTM that even remotely challenges these estimates.
Perhaps the factory is senescent too...
Curtin (@ 210, 249 and elsewhere)
By "Norby & Luo 2006" presumably you Norby RJ and Luo Y 2004 Evaluating ecosystem responses to rising atmospheric CO2 and global warming in a multi-factor world. That you're so slack you can't accurately cite a reference you so often rely on says something I'm sure, but anyway...
For a start (and just scanning the paper), Norby & Luo 2004 appear to make several assumptions, at least some of which are unwarranted. But I have neither the time nor the will to dissect that, so, on the assumption that their assumptions are valid:
Exhibit (A) - Curtin @ 249:
their Figs show that
1 The Higher the CO2 at any given Temp., the more NPP. 2. The Higher the Temp. at any given CO2, the higher the NPP (left axis). 3. Higher Temp PLUS Higher CO2 = Higher NPP (than at either ambient T or ambient CO2). Those results from the authors' field trials have never been contradicted.
By "their" figures I presume you mean Norby & Luo 2004, adapting Long (1991). They show Long's plot of light-saturated changes in photosynthetic output against atmospheric CO2 levels. I leave it to you to establish the precise relationship of alterations in photosynthetic output to NPP in this particular experiment. [Hint: NPP, not GPP]. Once you've established that, you must then show how that application to a particular circumstance applies (a) to all similar North American vegetation communities, (b) to all North American vegetation communities, (c) to all northern hemisphere vegetation communities and (d) all global vegetation communities. Following that, if you want to use thier paper to back your contention that ^CO2 and ^temps necessarily -> ^ global plant NPP, you must then establish reliable indicators of positive effects on other species at all trophic levels, and then examine and establish the relevant inter-reactions at the various trophic levels, paying particular attention to the relationships between autotrophs and heterotrophs. Once you've done that, you must then establish the relevance of these multi-directional reactions and interactions to disturbed and degraded landscapes, and especially the net effects on the relatively narrow range of plant and animal species that underpin modern human civilisation's sustenance.
Those results from the authors' field trials have never been contradicted.
What specifically in Norby & Luo 2004 has "never been contradicted"? Did it occur to you that one reason for this was that no-one else has bothered to replicate the exact set of factors and assumptions that they did? Did it occur to you that all the work of the individual authors examined species-specific responses to a limited set of stimuli under very specific constraints? Did it occur to you to go look for dissenting phytological data? The implication you seem to make here is that their "results" apply globally, for which there is no, nil, zilch, SFA evidence.
Finally, given the innumerable exemptions, exclusions, caveats and conditions littered throughout Norby & Luo 2004, I am given reason to wonder whether you've even bothered reading the paper, much less got any semblance of understanding it.
Now I know why Tim Lambert filed this thread under "funny"...
BTW Bernard J & Jeff Harvey (and anyone else interested) - it's worth grabbing Norby & Luo's 2004 paper available here just to see how woeful Curtin's understanding is of what the authors state, notwithstanding the doubts about the assumptions they make.
Curtin:
The Norby and Luo paper (2004) in New Phytologist is a review of the limited empirical data at hand and is not an experimental study. Moreover, it acknowledges the profound difficulties in extrapolating ecosystem wide responses of increased atmospheric C02 levels as well as ambient changes in temperature and other abiotic parameters. Moreover, the authors exclude interactions with consumers - herbivores, pathogens, pollinators, predators, parasitoids - and thus food chains. What effect will changes in plant chemistry have on there organisms as well as on biotic interactions that are vital in determining system responses to global change? Your puny arguments rely on bottom-up forces regulating community structure, but there is abundant evidence that top-down forces also are important (Price et al., 1980; Vet and Dicke, 1992; Hunter and Price, 1992; Schmitz et al., 2000), but that these forces are dynamic and are context and trait-dependent. Any evolutionary or population ecologists will tell you this.
Curtin, your problem is that you are a mighty cherry picker. You give a cursory glance to the empirical literature and pick and choose a few results here and there that suit your narrative. Though you refuse to acknowledge it, I am a qualified population ecologist whose views differ from those arguing that the current human experiment has greater net benefits than costs. My point is that there are a massive number of unknowns in the experiment that are potentially hidden and that will manifest themselves with time. Unraveling food webs will ripple through ecosystems and undermine their functioning. What we need are more than just desriptive studies which ignore system-wide responses; thus far, we have little data available, but lab studies are shedding light on the non-linear responses of species within food webs to increased C02 and warming.
I have essentially had it up to here with you high school-level science. Some of your arguments are so shoddy and shallow as to beggar belief.
Tim Curtin,
>I have already answered that query on the parenthesis; it is now as it was, and Ian goes one better.
Tim, you have dodged the question, you pretended that your lack of quotations meant you had not misrepresented the paper. But the that clearly is false, and an attempt to conceal your need to correct the record.
>jakerman: you are a bore, here and everywhere.
Yes its so boring having to be factual and support your claims with evidence. Do you think it fun to misrepresent paper and then doge the necessary correction? Curtin from your resistance to clarification one is left thinking your would rather layer bluster on bogus claims. Far more exciting to say what you will, and pretend you are not accountable to your claims?
So how about you prove me wrong Curtin? Show me were you answered [this simple question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)? (Without dodging the point)!
>Niether quotations marks nor phraseology were an issue Tim, you are the only one trying to make them an issue. Your claim was clear:
>>*Well read the Royal Society paper by Raven et al which "shows" that rising atmospheric CO2 LOWERS the pH of the oceans, thereby making them less alkanine (and saline).*
>You claimed that the RS paper by Raven et al "shows" that rising atmospheric CO2 LOWERS the pH of the oceans, thereby making them less alkanine (and saline).*
>**Either support your claim of "(and saline)" or correct the record. You don't need to pretend anything about non existent quotations, simply support your claimed citation or retract it.**
at #169 you already quoted my admission (at #161 20th May) that the RS Raven paper did NOT use the phrase "(and saline)" and my apology for implying that it had, "In the passage cited above my parenthesis "(and saline)" has been overlooked, but I apologise all the same for implying that the RS paper had used that phrase - if it had I would of course used "". Sorry!"
So what are you banging on about? I have long admitted - with apologies for implying otherwise - that Raven did not claim rising [CO2] would reduce salinity - but they should have, as it is generally conceded by the IPCC that rising [CO2] raises precipitation, so if they claim rising [CO2] raises temperatures: the chain is from CO2 to temps to evaporation to precipitation, with a net effect according to IPCC WG1 chap. 5.2.3 that "the global ocean is freshening", albeit with unquantifiable uncertainty (as usual because the IPCC never likes good news), and with regional variations, eg Pacific fresher, Indian saltier.
The interesting question is why your heroes Raven et al did NOT discuss salinity when they should've (the word gets 2 mentions in the text and salinity is taken as fixed)!
Actually, as in Kitack Lee et al GRL 2006 that I previously quoted here, the "acidity" that Raven et al rabbit on about is actually a function of seasurface salinity (SSS):
AT = a + b (SSS-35) + c (SSS-35)^2 + d (SST-20) + e (SST-20)^2
where AT = alkalinity in ph and SST is sea surface temperature. Clearly SSS should not be simply put on one side as it was by Raven et al. when it is a major determinant. Note that [CO2] does not figure in the Kitack Lee equation.
Thus given the IPCC's Bindoff et al admission the global ocean is freshening, the Kitack Lee et al finding shows that the freshening will cet. par (ie SST) lower the pH. Of course it is not the first time nor will it be the last that the RS gets things arseabout, with their knack of publishing stuff by people like Raven et al including the egregious Guldberg, nuff said, who know nothing of their subject.
jakerman - I think I may have left your name out of my response to yours at 256. Sorry yet again.
SteveC: I also have to apologise for giving the wrong year for Norby & Luo, but in the Refs to my paper and seminar the correct year is given.
They concluded (2004:286) "Hence, we can conclude that the stimulation of plant growth by CO2 enrichment is greater at elevated temperature, or alternatively, that the negative effect of warming in this experiment was ameliorated by CO2 enrichment." Their paper references many field studies by both Luo and Norby themselves, and one of them is displayed in their Fig.5. (also shown in my seminar slides).
Of course I know you would like Friedlingstein et al (2006) prefer their paper had never been published, with its many inconvenient facts. Why don't you go ahead and disprove their field results with your own?
Curtin writes;
>*I have long admitted - with apologies for implying otherwise - that Raven did not claim rising [CO2] would reduce salinity*
I'm glad you now for the first time clearly admit that Raven did not claim rising CO2 would reduce salinity.
Though your evidence prsented for "long admitt[ing]" it does not support this late new assertion. You did not admit it in the correspondence you cite. Previously you instead played semantic games trying to make phrasing and quotation the issue, and avoided clearly admitted what you just have.
Not the less at last small break through, before you continue your next stupid claim:
>*Raven did not claim rising [CO2] would reduce salinity - but they should have...*
I'm sure The Royal Society waited with baited breath your this Dunning-Kruger input.
Curtin,
for the millionth time, what about top-down forces regulating plant biomass? Have you ever heard of the 'green-world hypothesis' sensu Hairston et al., 1960?
You accuse me of speaking down to you whereas you routinely impugn eminent scientists such as Paul Ehrlich and Susan Solomon. Stop being a hypocrite and answer my points.
If I came on here supporting your silly little simple models I bet that you'd say I was a highly respected scientist; because I don't you ignore me. I can assure you that you will be very hard pressed to find a single population ecologist who would defend your position. Its no use cherry picking a few odd results here than there that suit your narrative; write to the scientists whose work you cherry pick and ask them personally if they honestly believe that pumping more and more C02 into the atmosphere is a remedy to global famine. I can tell you to guess their response. It won't be a positive one.
Moreover, as it is, you cannot and will not address the issue of scientific complexity, of trophic cascades, and of non-linear responses that are likely to be association-specific in determining the amount of terrestrial plant biomass. Because of this, your only recourse is to claim that I am rude and speak down to you. Id do this because you are not qualified in what you write. You do not possess the necessary expertise to be able to elucidate the many interacting factors that regulate terrestrial primary production. If you even attempted to discuss the role of top-down forces, as well as non-linear processes, I might be tempted to give you a little credit. Instead, because you apparently have not factored any of this into your models, your strategy is to ignore it. You may fool yourself but you do not fool the readers of this thread and you most certainly do not fool the scientific community.
Meta anlyses suggest that top-down forces are more important in simple ecological systems - such as in agro-ecosystems - whereas bottom up forces play a more important role in more complex natural communities. This is because cropping systems are at the most simplke end of the ecological continuum and thus plants are often saturated with herbivores and their antagonists. At the same time, many crops havce been intentionally selected via plant breeding to reduce levels of toxic anti-herbivore-pathogen allelochemicals in plant tissues because these are undesirable for human consumption. Cultivated cabbage, for instance possesses levels of glucosinolate toxins that are a small fraction of the concentrations found in wild types. As a result, they are often plagued by pests such as insect herbivores which in turn are heavily attacked by natural enemies such as predators and parasitoid wasps.
As Gripenberg and Roslin (2007, Oikos) pointed out, given the dynamic nature of ecological communties and their responses to both biotic and abiotic selection pressures, it is likely that even at a given location there may be a shift in the regulation of plant biomass from top-down to bottom-up and vice-versa. Their conclusion is that we need to the appreciate that it may be impossible to make generalisations in this area of ecological research.
The bottom line is, that until you factor in consumers (Price et al., 1980), then your models are useless. USELESS!
Dear Bernard, or from one senescent old dodderer to another, I'll take you on at tennis anyday, and we'll see who's more doddery (I had another lesson today from Helen Gourlay, remember her? - perhaps you played at Wimbledon together?)
You are right that the exponential fit does not work well, that is because its R2 is only .9924 (and not at all for the reason you give). Instead use the #2 polynomial with its R2 of 0.9991, the full equation is
y = 0.012x2 + 0.8362x + 313.75,
and you will get a spot on prediction for 2010 of 389.684 ppm (starting from 1959).
Who is the dodderer, and it is certainly not Excel as you claimed. Next time find out what the R2s tell you before you hurl more insults from the safety of your anonymity.
Mr Curtin @258:
All very well, but to judge your error by the same standards you and other self-appointed BlogScientist experts applied to the CRU/UEA "leaked" emails, it's obvious you're hiding something. I shall call this parlous miscarriage of the truth "DateGate"...
But do go on...
So? Go back and read what I typed. I plainly stated that while I had questions about the assumptions Norby & Luo made I was, for the purposes of argument, prepared to ignore those - whatever doubts I had about their assumptions were were not germane to the point. On that basis, I then asked you to show how the conclusions made by Norby & Luo were relevant to those vegetation communities in the wild in N America and to multiple other vegetation communities at a global scale, not forgetting the innumerable scope of reactions and inter-reactions at various trophic levels subsequently (and succinctly) re-stated by Jeff Harvey.
And your answer? A quote from the same paper whose relevance to global ecosystem dynamics I (and Jeff Harvey) had asked you to establish. This is either more hand-waving on your part to distract attention from the series of questions put to you, or you're incapable of simple reading and comprehension. Or possibly both...
I assume Friedlingstein et al. (2006) base their conclusions on verifiable data. Now, be an adult and show the verifiable data that underpin your conclusion about my view of their paper... Can't do it? Mind-reading harder than you thought? Oh dear.
Why would I go do that when I wasn't doubting their data?
Answer the questions.
Steve C: you are wong when you say "I assume Friedlingstein et al. (2006) base their conclusions on verifiable data".
No do they not; first they ignored Norby & Luo, although citing another paper in the same issue of the same journal. Secondly, their whole paper consists only of reporting models, without any reference to data, not least in their and their models' use of Michaelis-Menten to cook their projections of [CO2] to 2100.
Do get together with Jeff - but I find your repetitions getting as boring as his. You have your interests, I have mine, which lie in the welfare of humanity, provided that ccn be secured at least cost to the ecosystem. In general higher [CO2] has benefits even for the non-human ecosystem, as like us it cannot exist without carbon-based food.
Jeff: good to see you admitting we need to "appreciate that it may be impossible to make generalisations in this area of ecological research". That hasn't deterred you in the past, so this is real progress!
As for your usual bleat about non-linearity, see my previous post responding to Bernard that shows how my 2-level polynomial outperforms his exponential curves. Or perhaps you think polynomials are linear?!
SteveC,
Mr. Curtin is not only an expert at hand waving, cherry picking and misinterpreting data sets, he is also an expert at ducking and avoiding discussion of vital processes. In particular, avoiding those inconvenient little factoids which he clearly does not understand but which render his linear models as worthless.
Until he can explain why he considers the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, as well as the role of top-down (biotic) as well as bottom (both biotic and abiotic) processes in driving system productivity as being disposable in his models, then nothing he says should be taken seriously. If it is Curtin's intention to air his views to a broader scientific community, then he will have to explain how he possesses the wisdom to predict primary production on the basis of C02 concentrations whilst expunging the consumer connection. Until then he will be ignored. Heck, he should be gratified that several scientists on this thread pay him any attention; I have better things to do with my time than to debate ecophysiology with retired economists.
Curtin, @257:
"...Raven did not claim rising [CO2] would reduce salinity - but they should have, as it is generally conceded by the IPCC that rising [CO2] raises precipitation, so if they claim rising [CO2] raises temperatures: the chain is from CO2 to temps to evaporation to precipitation, with a net effect according to IPCC WG1 chap. 5.2.3 that "the global ocean is freshening", albeit with unquantifiable uncertainty (as usual because the IPCC never likes good news), and with regional variations, eg Pacific fresher, Indian saltier."
Now that right there is some outstanding, impressive, extraordinary, class A, balls-to-the-wall stupid. Some of the best stupid I've ever seen.
Fist, Tim, I don't think anyone ever thought that Raven claimed that rising [CO2] decreases pH (and salinity). We all noticed that YOU made that claim, and have been hammering you to try to support it - all the while laughing at you, because it is insupportable. Yo got caught out making an absurd, idiotic stunningly stupendously stupid chemistry mistake. Have the balls to admit and take the hit, man.
Now, you're claiming that ocean freshening is caused by [CO2] because increased temps cuse increased evap and precip. Here's a clue for you, Timmy. The increased evap comes FROM THE FREAKING OCEANS!!!!! Increased precip returns the same water water TO THE FREAKING OCEANS!!! What freshening there is, is caused by increased temps leading to ice melt and return of the ice melt water into the oceans.
And then this howler:
""the global ocean is freshening", albeit with unquantifiable uncertainty (as usual because the IPCC never likes good news)"
Ocean freshening is good news? How, Tim. You snuck this claim in - please support it. I'd like another good laugh.
>The increased evap comes FROM THE FREAKING OCEANS!!!!! Increased precip returns the same water water TO THE FREAKING OCEANS!!!
Win!
>And then this howler: ""the global ocean is freshening", albeit with unquantifiable uncertainty (as usual because the IPCC never likes good news)" Ocean freshening is good news? How, Tim. You snuck this claim in - please support it. I'd like another good laugh.
I think I know the answer. Tim thinks it'd be grand if the oceans became freshwater because then you could use them for irrigation and drinking without doing that pesky desalination, and to hell with anything that can't survive in fresh water! After all, he did say
>If the marine variety [of sharks] can't cope with water of pH at say 6, and minimal salinity, that will be their bad luck, survival of the fittest say I, when barramundi and salmon seem to cope perfectly well with water at any pH or salinity.
Lee: quoting me ""the global ocean is freshening", albeit with unquantifiable uncertainty (as usual because the IPCC never likes good news)" said "Ocean freshening is good news?"
Why not? It would happen over time, most species would adapt and probably prefer it that way (ever heard of evolution?) while for mankind it would be win-win.
OK, TC, two serious questions:
1: Do you really believe that there is some mechanism that could render the ocean's water fresh enough to be usable for drinking and irrigation? And what is that mechanism? You seem to have said this directly, and have certainly been implying it - I want you on the record. Yes or no?
2; Do you really believe that if this were to happen, there would not be any significant detrimental consequences?
Mr Curtin @ 263
I'm most dreadful awful sorry if me asking questions bores you. What's the matter Mr Curtin? Real research too hard and too menial for you?
And "getting together" with Jeff Harvey? Well, if I were to "get together" with anybody in a discussion about ecology, who should I choose? A highly respected scientist with a string of qualifications in the relevant specialist fields and author of numerous papers published in a number of quality peer-reviewed journals, or a dilettante with less expertise in ecology than I have in economics who fancies himself a mind reader and thinks answering straighforward questions is just, y' know, like boring? Hmmm, lemme think...
Quit flailing and answer the questions.
Lee: thanks. You asked â1: Do [I] really believe that there is some mechanism that could render the ocean's water fresh enough to be usable for drinking and irrigation? And what is that mechanism? â¦.Yes or no?â
YES, there is a âmechanismâ known as desalination using various techniques, but mainly reverse osmosis (RO), widely adopted in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and even now in Australia, on a small scale so far.
But clearly you have not seen this paper:
Leonard Ornstein ⢠Igor Aleinov ⢠David Rind
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian
Outback to end global warming
Climatic Change (2009) 97:409â437
DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y
Their Abstract notes "Such mature technology is economically competitive with the currently favored, [but] untested, power-plant Carbon Capture (and deep underground, or under-ocean) Sequestration (CCS)".
Then you asked â2. Do [I] really believe that if this were to happen, there would not be any significant detrimental consequences?â
Well, you tell me what they are, and would they be larger in $ and human terms than the benefits from âending global warmingâ?
Tim Curtin.
Alas, my lack of computer access has prevented me from pointing out in a timely manner that your take on the freshening of oceans is a riduculous one - Lee has already pointed out your non sequitur about precipitation, and that any freshening occurs from ice melt.
However, permit me to ask you these questions... How much fresh water is available on the planet for export to the ocean over, say, the next century? How much fresh water is there actually present on the planet? How much fresh water would be required to dilute the salt in the oceans by 50%? What do the answers to these quetions say about your understanding of simple, simple science?
And assuming that your Magic ChemistryTM actually worked outside of the fantasy which inhabits your mind, what would be the ecological/trophic productivity implications of having the world's oceans' pH reduced to 6.0 or less, and their salinity reduced to 17.5 ppt?
And why will you not respond to my points about using Excel regression values with which to conduct projections of CO2 increase?
Tim. Stop dodging.
The ocean's water. Not water removed from the ocean and run through a desalination plant - I know the technology, your irrelevang patronizing comment notwithstanding - but the water actually residing in the ocean. You seem to have made the claim that [CO2}-caused decreasing pH would render the water fit for drinking.
So - no dodging, TC - do you really believe that the water residing in the oceans can be made to be fit for drinking and irrigation? If not, please explain what the (and salinity) comment you made up there actually means.
And then please get around to withdrawing the rest of the idiocy you've been claiming, instead of just ignoring it when you get called on it.
SteveC,
Tim Curtin has no other recourse than to respond to my posts claiming that they are 'boring'. Why is this? Because he cannot address a single point I have made. What else can he do? He is admitting, in essence, that he has not and cannot factor ecological complexity into his models and thus he is left with two courses of action: admit this is a major, perhaps fatal flaw in his calculations, or else to 'shoot the messenger' either with insults or by ignoring them. Seems like Curtin has chosen the latter action.
My point to Curtin is this: if you think your models are so robust, why not submit your articles to robust journals like New Phytologist or Global Change Biology or any other number of real science journals with high impact factors? IMO E & E does not hack it: the scientific community does not pay attention to this journal in any way shape or form. And while you were at it I would suggest that you ask actual scientists (since you do not believe that I am one) whether they agree with your predictions more than my own. I have already discussed your ideas with a number of my colleagues and let me just say that they were gobsmacked: in other words they could not believe that anyone couyld be so naive as predicting a linear positive response of global plant biomass to increased atmospheric C)2 concentrations without factoring in a suite of other biotic and abiotic parameters.
Bernard, when you ask Tim Curtin "what would be the ecological/trophic productivity implications of having the world's oceans' pH reduced to 6.0 or less, and their salinity reduced to 17.5 ppt?, you do realise you run the risk of being called "boring", don't you? ;-)
Jeff, it's just dawned on me that to some extent, the likes of you, Lee, Stu, Bernard, me and others are wasting our time with Tim Curtin. Anyone who can dismiss the global effects of significant changes in oceanic pH and salinity on the myriad forms of marine life with a casual "so what?" and a shrug of his shoulders clearly lives on a different planet to the rest of us (or ought to). But since Tim Curtin is so concerned with human welfare (his interests "lie in the welfare of humanity" (263 above)), I wonder how he squares that with his casual dismissal of all forms of marine life, on which the livelihoods (not to say diets) of hundreds of millions of people around the world depend?
Yes, I know, boring...
SteveC,
You are correct. We are all wasting out time with him. My take is that he likes attention, and that anywhere and everywhere he can get it he will go for it. You, Bernard, Stu, Lotharsson, Lee, jakerman, et al. have demolished his nonsense time and time and time again, yet he persists.
I really appreciate your comments and insightful posts as well as those from others on Deltoid. At the same time I tend to avoid the denial sites these days because they are too painful to read, given the crapola they routinely spew out.
Bernard: re Freshening: see Kitack Lee et al for the functional relationship that I set out above showing how pH rises/falls with SSS, a relationship totally ignored by Raven et al (RS 2005).
See also Santer, Wigley et al PNAS 2007: âthe simulated ââfingerprintââ pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor suggest â¦that this fingerprint ââmatchââ is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases.â They cannot bring themselves then to admit that what is up must come down.
As you claim to know the answers to the questions you raised, eg âHow much fresh water would be required to dilute the salt in the oceans by 50%?â why keep them secret. Enlighten us all, dear Bernard.
Finally, you bleate: "And why will you not respond to my points about using Excel regression values with which to conduct projections of CO2 increase?"
But I did, at #261 where I said: âBernard, you are right that the exponential fit does not work well, that is because its R2 is only .9924 (and not at all for the reason you give [uselessness of Excel relative to BJâs sueperior spreadsheet capabilities].
Instead use [my] #2 polynomial with its R2 of 0.9991, the full equation is
y = 0.012x2 + 0.8362x + 313.75,
and you will get a spot on prediction for 2010 of 389.684 ppm (starting from 1959).
Who is the dodderer, and it is certainly not Excel as you claimed. Next time find out what the R2s tell you before you hurl more insults from the safety of your anonymity.â
- please inform Microsoft that their Excel is useless and that you Bernard have developed a superior spreadsheet programme. They could pay you enough never to need to work again, although it appears you are already permanently on Centrelink.
Bah! I see that Curtin's stints in moderation made redundant my question to him about replying to my points about Excel regressions.
Except that his answer is painfully and embarassingly inadequate. Try again Curtin, before I start showing you your ineptitude with high school mathematics.
Lee at 272 said : ââ¦[I] seem to have made the claim that [CO2]-caused decreasing pH would render the water fit for drinking. So â¦do [I] really believe that the water residing in the oceans can be made to be fit for drinking and irrigation? If not, please explain what the (and salinity) comment you made up there actually means.â
Can you read? I already gave you the functional relationship proved by Kitack Lee (any relation of yours?) et al GRL 2006 that I previously quoted here, the "acidity" that Raven et al rabbit on about is actually a function of sea surface salinity (SSS). Here it is again:
AT = a + b(SSS-35) + c(SSS-35)^2 + d(SST-20) + e(SST-20)^2
where AT = alkalinity in ph and SST is sea surface temperature.
So reducing salinity on a scale large enough to irrigate the Sahara and Australia as proposed by Ornstein et al (Climatic Change 2009) will necessarily also continuously reduce the pH, further rendering the oceans more suitable for irrigation and drinking.
Lee, you are so clever I leave you to work out the quantities and costs but Ornstein et al provide some guidance.
SteveC: Why don't you tell me all - in detail and numbers - about the global effects of significant changes in oceanic pH and salinity on the myriad forms of marine life, with dollar values of the costs relative to the benefits of rising [CO2] that I have described in my paper and seminar?
Bernard: the ineptitude is your total inability to find the best fit curve using Excel as you have extensively demonstrated here,and then to blame Excel.
Just had a quick skim of this thread since my [last comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) - where I basically concluded that:
> We are all wasting out time with him.
The subsequent posts - including the schoolboy howler about ocean freshening - certainly bear that out.
For anyone still playing at home, here are a couple of interesting links I was going to post several days ago before I was interrupted by real life and lost track of them - they may be relevant to some of TC's claims:
[Effects of higher day and night temperatures on growth and yields of some crop plants](http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5183E/w5183e08.htm)
Needless to say, assuming this document is not entirely bogus, the situation is way more complex than the fairytale TC paints - and this includes wheat, not just rice. A few quotes to whet the appetite (my emphasis) - read the full thing for more detail on the relevant considerations:
> In the tropics ... global warming, though predicted to be of only small magnitude, is likely to **reduce the length of the effective growing season**, particularly where more than one crop per year is grown. In semi-arid regions and other agro-ecological zones where there is wide diurnal temperature variation, **relatively small changes in mean annual temperatures could markedly increase the frequency of highest temperature injury**.
> ...In India, the growing season for wheat is **limited by high temperatures at sowing and during maturation**. As wheat is grown over a wide range of latitudes, it is **frequently exposed to temperatures above the threshold for heat stress**. ... High maximum and minimum temperatures in September (about 34/20°C), which adversely affect seedling establishment, **accelerate early vegetative development, reduce canopy cover, tillering, spike size and yield**. ... High temperature stress particularly **reduces yield of wheat sown in December/January** which is necessitated in some regions because of the multiple cropping system.
> The situation is **similar for sorghum** (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) **and pearl millet** (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.) which are exposed to extreme high temperatures in Rajasthan, India. After sowing, **air and soil temperatures often exceed 40°C and midday soil surface temperatures above 50°C are common** (Figure 6.5).
> Acute effects of high temperature are *most striking when heat stress occurs during anthesis*. In rice, heat stress at anthesis prevents anther dehiscence and pollen shed, to reduce pollination and grain numbers (Mackill et al., 1982; Zheng and Mackill, 1982).
> Clearly, **many crops in tropical areas are already subjected to heat stress. If temperatures increase further, crop failure in some traditional areas would become more commonplace**.
[Rice Institute article on coping with climate change (PDF)](http://www.irri.org/publications/today/pdfs/6-3/10-15.pdf)
> Compared with ambient conditions, the combination of increased CO2 and increased temperature resulted in a small increase in biomass and yield in the dry season and a
small decrease in the wet season.
> ...the most damaging effects of climate change on rice quality will occur from higher temperatures, which will affect several quality traits, including chalk, amylose content, and gelatinization temperature. **The positive effects of elevated CO2 do not compensate for the overall decrease in rice quality from the effects of global warming**.
> ...At the same time, rice production may be threatened in some especially vulnerable regions, such as those affected by a rise in sea-levels. ... With Vietnam so dependent on rice grown in and around low-lying river deltas, the implications of a sea-level rise are ominous indeed.
> ...Moreover, **climate extremes such as more frequent or more intense droughts, cyclones, and heat waves pose incalculable threats to agricultural production**.
Hmmmm, so whodathunkit - maybe pumping CO2 into the atmosphere with gay abandon may not be the wisest course for those interested in food security and quality - especially for the poorer peoples of the world?
Lotharsson: IRRI is not a disinterested party, the whole of the referenced article is a begging letter for more funding: e.g. âIRRI crop modeler John Sheehy determined that, as a general rule, for every 75 ppm increase in CO2 concentration, rice yields will increase by 0.5 ton per hectare, but yield will decrease by 0.6 ton per hectare for every 1 °C increase in temperature. However, nobody [sic] has studied the interactions between CO2 and temperature under controlled, realistic field conditions. The technology to do this is now available, and, IF funding can be found, IRRI hopes to develop an experimental system in which both CO2 and temperature can be controlled in rice fields.â
It is simply not true to state that "nobody" has studied the interaction between temperature and CO2. How about Long 1991 and Norby & Luo (2004, who report on their own and many other studies including FACE that have done just that)?
If the best you can offer is a whole string of ifs buts and maybes, that is not helpful. Where are your own statistical data? Got any like those I have referenced, including my own use of the CSIRO (Crimp, in Garnaut 2008) quadratic model to show how it accurately predicts Australia's rising wheat yields using just data on rainfall, temperature, and CO2?
*maybe pumping CO2 into the atmosphere with gay abandon may not be the wisest course for those interested in food security and quality - especially for the poorer peoples of the world*.
Exactly. There's is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, given the vast number of unknown ecophysiological effects, that pumping C02 into the atmosphere is the recipe for alleviating hunger through increased food production. In fact, IMHO the whole notion is madness, aimed at doing nothing about AGW at the behest of powerful corporate elites that want to maintain high profit levels.
Moreover, as I have said before, the solutions to reducing levels of poverty and starvation, as well as environmental destruction, are political and are based on massive social and economic inequities between the north and south. The whole C02 is plant food drivel coming from the denialati is aimed at diverting attention away from the global casino economy and its attendant free market absolutism and nakedly predatory capitalist policies. The north has to stop plundering natural capital from the south as well as the hypocritical protectionist policies that are driving hopelessness and despair in the south.
Pumping C02 into ther atmosphere is a recipe all right: for ecological, social and economic disaster.
Tim Curtin.
It seems that you are persisting in your refusal to acknowledge the inappropriateness of using the constants displayed on an Excel graph, when attempting to reconstruct lines of best fit from which you deign to predict future events.
So, to make [my point](), you will find [here a graph](http://i48.tinypic.com/ogdphk.jpg) showing the annual Mauna Loa CO2 data (open diamonds) from 1959 to date, with an Excel exponential regression line (solid line) superimposed and with the equation and R2 value included.
Above the trajectory of Mauna Loa points is an exponential curve (closed triangles) using exactly the constants provided by the Excel equation:
y = 0.0911e0.0042x.
Below the Mauna Loa points is an exponential curve (closed squares) using the constant 0.0911 provided by the Excel equation, and 0.0041 as the exponent constant: id est
y = 0.0911e0.0041x.
Notice something? More importantly, can you explain to the readers here exactly what effect that 'something' has on the use of the Excel equation for estimating date from an abitrary concentration of CO2, or vice versa?
And this is from a rounding error to the nearest fourth decimal place... I repeat my question: What impact do you think that using an inappropriate curve type might have on your ability to predict future dates/CO2 concentrations using an Excel regression fit? Remember, the trend is faster than exponential...
I note that you are still harping on about a second order polynomial. Tell us - what justification do you have in selecting a second order polynomial curve with which to describe the data? What does the use of a second order polynomial imply about the trend in the past? And how can you be sure that the regressed second order line of best fit will have anything to do with the trajectory of CO2 increase in the future? For instance, how is a second order polynomial able to account for stochastic factors in human use of fossil fuels, and how would it account for production plateaux?
The fact is, you are using high school entry level mathematics with which to 'model' complex multifactorial phenomena, of which you have no operational scientific understanding. The sad truth of the matter is that it is not a matter of how much you get wrong in your manipulations, but how much (or how little, to be precise) you get right.
Curtin, you are a flim-flam artist with no competence in science, whether it be biology, chemistry, or physics. So many on these threads have pointed out your manifold glaring and humiliating (for any self-respecting person) errors that it beggars belief that even you can give any credence to your ramblings. That Anthony Watts and David Archibald are happy to present their climate bunkum along-side you says a lot about the lack of merit of their case.
There is so much more that I could pick apart, but I am really starting to resent spending my limited computer time on your guff, and anyway Jeff, SteveC and others are covering the ecological matters that I have tried to hammer into your head in the past.
I'm wonderng though if it might not be time for a summary post describing the ever-growing list of things that you've posted over the years, that have been complete and utter tosh.
It would be a long list indeed.
Hi Bernard. Howâs your tennis? How many clean aces today, can you beat this dodderersâ three in a row this am to forehand of backhand court, plus a few others?
I donât know where you got your graphâs 0.0911, my Excel gives 309.77 with the same exponent. I fear you are making a fool of yourself; as I said before, your exponential line produces slower future growth of [CO2] at Mauna Loa than my #2 polynomial (with its R2=.9991 as against yours of only 0.9921. So why are you arguing against me, when my polynomial supports your case, as I admitted previously, with 460 ppm by 2039, as against only 398 with yours, both starting at 315 in 1959?
Your problem is that you never studied my polynomial fitâs equation even though I did give it to you, here it is again:
Y = 0.012x^2 + 0.8362x + 313.75
The two extra terms explain why it yields an accelerating exponential growth rate, where yours is a constant rate.
If you donât believe me, do give me a tip as to how provide a link to my Excelâs graph, and I will do so - I was most impressed by yours, you are indeed a whiz kid after all.
Finally, you asked âhow is a second order polynomial able to account for stochastic factors in human use of fossil fuels, and how would it account for production plateaux?â
All extrapolations are fraught, as you well know, and it could be that the factors you mention may in time vindicate your simple exponential, but there can be NO doubt that the #2 polynomial yields the very best fit to the Mauna Loa annual end of year data from 1958 to 2009.
Curtin.
Perhaps I am fooling myself; perhaps not.
Here are the annual Mauna Loa CO2 data that I used for the exponential regression:
YearMauna Loa [CO2]
1959315.98
1960316.91
1961317.64
1962318.45
1963318.99
1964319.62
1965320.04
1966321.38
1967322.16
1968323.04
1969324.62
1970325.68
1971326.32
1972327.45
1973329.68
1974330.17
1975331.08
1976332.05
1977333.78
1978335.41
1979336.78
1980338.68
1981340.11
1982341.22
1983342.84
1984344.41
1985345.87
1986347.19
1987348.98
1988351.45
1989352.9
1990354.16
1991355.48
1992356.27
1993356.95
1994358.64
1995360.62
1996362.36
1997363.47
1998366.5
1999368.14
2000369.4
2001371.07
2002373.17
2003375.78
2004377.52
2005379.76
2006381.85
2007383.71
2008385.57
2009387.35
You - or anyone - else are welcome to put these into Excel and corroborate the constants that I obtained.
Let me make a point though...
The exponential equation is of the form y = α.ek.x. I obtained 0.0911 for α, where you obtained 309.77. We both obtained 0.0042 for k.
Let's engage in a little thought experiment (you can do the working in Excel if you desire)... At 'the birth of Christ' the date, x, is equal to 0, and therefore the exponential term is 0.0042 x 0 = 0. Now, e0 = 1, does it not? Without getting too bogged down in the graphics, my exponential equation would imply that atmospheric CO2 concentration was 0.0911 ppm 2010 years ago, which is obviously spurious, and which is one reason why I have â in spite of your insistence to the contrary â said that an exponential fit is not appropriate over the range outside of the Mauna Loa dataset.
However...
...according to your constants the atmospheric CO2 concentration 2010 years ago was 309.77 ppm.
Interesting.
That's not much over the pre-Industrial level, is it? It's also 6.21 ppm below the 1959 start of the Mauna Loa data series. Now, whilst this allows for a monotonic increase over the 1 959 years since the year 0, it does not give much room for the progression to the shape of the exponential curve between 1959 and the present.
Of course, a feature of exponential rise is that it becomes progressively steeper, and of course it is dangerous to extrapolate from verbal descriptions of curves, but I am interested how you, as a person who claims to be competent in the handling of numbers and of equations, reconciles the very obvious discrepancy in the appropriateness of your α-constant value in the face of the sort of trajectories that are being discussed here.
Ah, what the heck â I can't resist graphing it in Excel to [illustrate my point](http://i47.tinypic.com/2lm817d.jpg). I will leave you some homework though... try to actually graph a series of y values for time values from AD 0 to date, using your regression constants. Please report back to us.
And moving to your ongoing obsession with polynomial fits...
I have queried you a number of times now about your justification for using such fits to extrapolate beyond the range of the data, and you consistently refuse to provide a satisfactory response. [You do say](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), however, that "there can be NO doubt that the #2 polynomial yields the very best fit to the Mauna Loa annual end of year data from 1958 to 2009".
Really?
See, I find that where a second or a third order regression gives an R2 value of 0.9991, a fourth or a fifth order fit gives an an R2 value of 0.9995, and a sixth order fit gives an R2 value of 0.9996. Tell us - why exactly do you not use one of the higher order polynimials with which to 'model' the Mauna Loa CO2 data?
To reiterate: you are incompetent in biology, chemistry, and physics. In addition to that list I now categorically conclude that you are also incompetent in the application of mathematics to the physical world â your understanding seems to not to go beyond a basic familiarity with high school level mathematical endeavours. You certainly demonstrate no familiarity with the appropriate usage of such high school mathematical or graphical technique in a scientific context.
And there are folk prepared to pay you a thousand dollars per day for such incompetence?!
Flabbergasting.
Bernard, even by your standards your last was pathetic. The "constant" is of course the intercept on the vertical axis; for a data series that begins in 1959, Year 1 is of course 1959, and then year 0 is naturally 1958. A case too much El Vino last night?
Tim Curtin.
I know how you derived your constant. That's why I explicitly mentioned the value "309.77 ppm" in my previous post - it is obvious from which time period it comes. I had in fact intended to state this explicitly in my previous post, but it was one of those things that one doesn't remember to add until the moment after clicking 'send', and afterward it just didn't seem worth the extra effort.
I'll make two points now though, that relate to your comments. First, [you said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
which indicates both that by your own admission you did not understand the simple mathematics of my graphing, and that you were (and remain) prepared to accuse me of doing something foolish. Isn't this rather ironic, that you seem not to have understood how I derived my constants, and yet you can snipe at me for the same apparent error?
As I said before, perhaps I am a fool. If that is the case, then demonstrate how that has occurred. How are my constants incorrect? It seems that my effort to parody yours by comparison to mine, fell flat in terms of lighting any understanding in your head. So how about you just go back to the beginning and explain where I went wrong.
And my second point... Whether one uses my constants, or yours fiddled to marry with the start of the Mauna Loa record (seriously, explain why you converted 1959 to be time = 0... would it be to hide the non-exponentiality going back in time?), CO2 doubling over pre-Industrial levels occurs by the end of this century...
...for an exponential trajectory. Currently fossil fuel combustion is occurring at a rate faster than exponential, so the doubling will occur sooner. Your repeated mentioning of 'doubling' with reference to 2010 concentration of CO2 is a specious and irrelevant distraction - all references to 'doubling' in terms of climate sensitivity and of time taken to reach a doubled CO2 concentration, are with respect to pre-Industrial levels.
...converted 1958 to be time = 0...
Bernard: I am surprised to find such inability to grasp the basics of graphing in one who considers himself the most intelligent and all-knowing person alive.
Having plotted the Mauna Loa ANNUAL data for the years 1959-2009 and derived this formula for the linear fit
y = 1.4607x + 308.24
R² = 0.9875
the x refers to the horizontal axis, but in a count, not the absolute values, for if you did multiply 1959 by 1.4607 and then added 308.24 (the constant intercept on the y-axis) you get 3170 ppm for 1959, which is not quite right. But if you take 1959=1, being the 1st year in the series, you get closer to the actual 315, with 308.9 - but the linear is not a good fit, and 382.7 for 2009, 5 less than actual.
So let's use the #2 polynomial:
y = 0.012x2 + 0.8362x + 313.75
R² = 0.9991
The intercept 313.75 is the derived value for year 0, = 1958, and is already closer to the likely actual than that derived by the linear. Now if we were to take the x^2 and x expressions using the actual years we get 48000 ppm for 1959, again not right. But if we use 1959=1, 1960=2, ...2009=50 we get close to the exact actual, 387.6082 for 2009 (actual at Dec 2009 was 387.27 ppm).
Higher order polys could be used, mine seems good enough for most purposes, and is certainly orders of magnitude closer than the linear and exponential. The latter:
y = 309.77e0.0042x
R² = 0.9924
yields 383.76 (nearly 4 ppm less than actual).
What is your source for your claim that current fossil fuel burning is "increasing faster than exponential"? Some say there was reduced growth in 2009-10 so far. Taking the full series from mid-1959 to now, the best predictor is the ordinary exponential, and the worst is the #5 polynomial.
Is anyone else shaking their head in bemusement at Curtin's obtuseness?
Curtin. Read my last post, and the posts prior, and tell me where I referred to first order equations as being the most appropriate (or even an appropriate) fit. You're throwing your unbaited line into a whole school of red herrings, but all that you're managing to land is old boots. It might be an entertaining ramble from where you stand, but it's an embarrassingly lame attempt at deflection in the eyes of anyone with more than one neurone.
And quit trying to teach me to suck eggs with Graphing 001. Instead, you might like to visit my oft-repeated questioning about your infatuation with polynomials - your latest pronouncement has me scratching my head in wonder:
Really?! In that case, you might consider telling us why you believe they have any physical relevance to describing atmospheric CO2 increase, and how you justify using more than one, and especially two, orders. I'm particularly interested to know exactly how you determined that higher order polynomials are "certainly orders of magnitude closer [sic] than the linear and exponential."
Moving on:
Mythical deity give me strength. Curtin, we've been speaking about human CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, so I would have thought that it was fairly obvious that I was referring to the increasing concentrations of said greenhouse gas.
However, you raise a fair point. Just because atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing faster than exponential doesn't mean that the mass of fossil fuels being combusted is rising greater than exponential. If the biological, hydrological, and geological sinks are edging closer to saturation the atmospheric concentration could easily increase faster than emissions are being released.
I readily admit that, and I will take care to separate the two parameters in the future.
However, atmospheric CO2 remains as the important measure in this discussion, as it is this parameter that primarily influences the current increase in global temperature. Thus, my underlying argument about the rate of increase stands. Of course, at some point Peak Oil and Coal are going to kick in, and things will go sigmoid and then decline, but I seriously doubt that anyone would claim that the increasing increase was ever going to be sustained. Nor would any sane person claim than any numerate commentator was ever claimimg such...
Which leads me on to:
And your point is? I have been speaking about trends in emissions - a year's worth of noise is not a contradiction of recent trends, and given the expected imminent Peaking of oil, and of coal soon to follow, decreases from here on are hardly surprising.
But it's what happens with atmospheric CO2 in the future that matters. And to have any chance of managing it one needs to use appropriate techniques with which to model it.
Thus far you have consistently been unable to demonstrate that you are in any remote way acquainted with such capacity.
And in case you have forgotten since last I raised the matter, your chemistry, biology and physics still suck.
But, Bernard, you did imply that the increasing increase in fossil fuel consumption was going to be sustained. In any case, there at least we were briefly in agreement.
I have had some involvement with the oil industry for the last 45 years (ever been on a gas rig, or worked in Nigeria or PNG on financing/taxing oil/gas projects?) - and in all that time P1 reserves have never been less than 30-40 years of current consumption. Reason: NPVs beyond 30 years are not meaningful and so for most of us a 30-40 year investment horizon is about right. Also Thomas Gold's The Myth of Fossil Fuels has yet to be disproved.
Bernard - I forgot to comment also on your contradictory claim "But it's what happens with atmospheric CO2 in the future that matters. And to have any chance of managing it one needs to use appropriate techniques with which to model it." But as according to you we will soon run out of fossil fuels anyway, what's your problem?
Eat drink and be merry say I as we huddle over our wood fire here in Canberra (frost forecast for tonight), and abstain from non-renewable fossil fuels for the sake of Bernard's kids' futures).
Still as charming as ever BJ: 2 points; atmospheric CO2 increase is exponential? And CO2 increase is the main cause of current temperature increase:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0…
I haven't bothered with GISS, you know how it is. Why don't you pop over here for a chat?
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/#c…
[Cohenite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Still as scientifically [comical](http://tinyurl.com/yc746xu
) as ever?
You present a 12 year interval of trend lines, with no reference to the inherent variability within the temperature data, nor any sign of the CO2 variability. Without these parameters you have no way of justifying the brevity of the time period that you displayed.
Further, the temperature lines and the CO2 line are not in any way compared statistically. Just because they have different slopes on arbitrarily-selected ordinates does not mean that there is no relationship between the two.
Of course, if you have a detailed methodology that explains the mathematical robustness of your approach, please feel free to share it with the thread. Others usually seem to be very shy when I offer them such an opportunity for scrutiny, so perhaps you will be brave and explicitly and minutely detail the validity of your comparisons.
And no, I don't know how it is with respect to GISS. Perhaps you can explain also why you didn't include that dataset.
Very good BJ; am I the Kooka or are you? In any event;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0…
I didn't explain the methodology BJ because I assumed some level of understanding by you; I would never insult you by explaining the obvious.
If you can't explain, there's always innuendo!
Cohenite.
Let's just say that I am no more surprised that you require the simplest humour be explained to you, than I am that you require the simplest of science be explained to you.
...and that your attenuated namesake has you nailed...
Cohnite is getting desperate.
[Here](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/uah/normalise/…) you go Cohers.
I see you've linked to some modern, impressionistic art jakerman; it's very colourful and so subjective.
Subjective = 1998 cherry pick.
Desperate cohers.
Happy to [show the singnal in the noise](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/uah/normalise/…) cohers.
That's neat jakerman; which rises first?
>That's neat jakerman; which rises first?
Desperate and a moron!
Let me guess you're with Plimer who implies the MWP caused current CO2 rise? Is our exponential burning of 150 million years worth of fossil fuels is just a coincidence?
Lay it out for us Cohers in your own words.
Bye, you're too scary for me jakerman.
I'll think you'll find [the challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) (and the implied position you painted) was too scary to defend.
Wiser to bail rather then defend that (and Plimer's) point.
Bye.
You're growing soft cohenite.
One would have assumed that with all of your exposure to the basics of climatology - the very same basics that you've been contradicting over the last few years - you'd actually understand when you're speaking bollocks.
If you really don't know if it is modern temperature increase or elevated CO2 that "rises first", you shouldn't even consider putting a toe into a discussion of the science.
Of course, it probably qualifies you beautifully for a position in the ideologically-driven Australian Climate Sceptics Party...
Missed [this one earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Curtin, the contradiction comes from you.
As you note, I pointed to the future dwindling of fossil fuels. I did not say, nor did I imply, that the "[increasing increase in fossil fuel consumption was going to be sustained](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)" [my latter emphasis]. You are the one confabulating ideas here. The contradiction exists with you, and not with me.
To the matter of what the problem is concerning the consumption of fossil fuel, the simple fact is that if we burn too much of what is available, too quickly, the pulse of CO2 in the atmosphere will persist for a sufficiently long period that there will be profound biological consequences arising from the similarly significant climatological and geohydrochemical sequelæ.
It fascinates me that in the matter of contemporary increasing of atmospheric CO2 and of mean global temperature, you and those of your pursuasion bend over backward to deny that there is any correlation, but that when the subject turns to the future tailing-off of fossil carbon combustion and to the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere, a direct and linear relationship is assumed and promoted. Can you count the number of internal contradictions in this particular line of mind-staggers?
The only way that you are able to deny the simple facts of the science is to so completely bastardise the biology, chemistry, and physics that even a moderately competent high school student would baulk at the nonsense that you promulgate.
I find myself more than a little rueful that I won't be able to sit in spectation of your Rockdale theatre performance with Watts and Archibald. Question time would be interesting indeed.
And what I would give to see Tim Lambert lock horns with Watts. I'd definitely pay to see that - Watts has more than a few Pinkers in his closet...
Dear youngish Bernard: You say - "It fascinates me that in the matter of contemporary increasing of atmospheric CO2 and of mean global temperature, you and those of your persuasion bend over backward to deny that there is any correlation..."
Well there is indeed none at all. Show me the locations where data on [CO2] and the other key climatic variables (atmospheric water vapour, sky opacity, average windspeed, and total direct and diffuse solar radation) produces anything other than NEGATIVE coefficients
for [CO2] with respect to changes in Tmax, Tmin, Tave, or TavDT, but stat. insig., and POSITIVE coefficients (very - 99% - stat sig) coefficients for all those other variables.
By far the biggest positive stat. sig coeff. is for atmospheric water vapour, and thanks to cohenite, I have just accessed Susie Solomon's latest effusion (Science March 2010) where she implicitly admits that I am right, as she now concedes stratospheric water vapour plays a major role (30%) previously unrecognised by her and all at IPCC.
My upcoming paper shows how the role of Atmospheric water vapour is even stronger (more than 50%). Atmos. [CO2] is negative and irrelevant. Wake up!
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
You added: "but that when the subject turns to the future tailing-off of fossil carbon combustion and to the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere, a direct and linear relationship is assumed and promoted." Not it is not, [CO2] is irrelevant to climate change, but critical for food production.
Prove me wrong, but as you are incapable of statistical analysis, richly demonstrated here by your claims that curve fits have to start at AD1, I shall not hold my breath.
Ah, Curtin, you're [a hoot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
As you seem to have already counted on your fingers and toes, perhaps you will present a summary of the numbers that you have arrived at in refutation of Solomon et al. Oh, and remind me to ask you a question about the atmosphere when your numbers are made public.
Your penultimate paragraph is crap.
Then:
Oh dear, yet more false attribution from you.
I did not say that "curve fits have to start in AD 1". I did not even imply that they must. I did ask you why you converted the date values from the Julian form to a relative scale based upon the commencement of the Mauna Loa measurements.
And I will repeat that question - why did you do so? It serves no mathematical purpose in extrapolating concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide from a value for date: it does in fact require that one convert a date of interest to a relative value, perform the calculation, and then convert the result back to a Julian date for clarity of meaning.
Seriously, why? Why do you seem to imply that one must convert Julian dates to a relative scale in order to derive regressions?
And on this matter, why did you [imply that my regression constants were wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and why is it that you could not understand how I derived them?
And [what is the physical basis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) for advocating the use of polynomials of order greater than 1 to predict future CO2 concentration?
*My upcoming paper*
What non-WOS comic book will you be submitting your 'upcoming paper' to Tim? Compost weekly?
I wait with baited breath. Methinks you are a legend in your own mind.
Tim, you may want to have a look at this book: [Climate Change & Crop Production](http://bookshop.cabi.org/?page=2633&pid=2261&site=191) from CABI. The first chapter is available as a pdf & makes interesting reading - check out, for example the bullet points on page 2:
# The yield production of staple foods will decline in most production environments and commodity prices will rise.
# While projections for a few countries with more northerly latitudes indicate net positive impacts of climate change projections for most developing countries are negative.
# Only 'best-case' scenarios predict no net effect of climate on global cereal yields by 2030 but predictions beyond that time frame are more pessimistic.
Bernard: you asked - Why âdo [I] seem to imply that one must convert Julian dates to a relative scale in order to derive regressions?â
It is not a question of deriving regressions, but of fitting curves to time series data. In general it is that having found that a polynomial fit for the time series since 1992 for [CO2] as at Mauna Loa,
y = -0.0346x2 + 2.7162x + 353.63; R² = 0.9904
the intercept is 353.63 for 1991 (= year 0 on the horizontal axis). Note that x in the formula does NOT equal 1992 or following through to 2009. If you insert x=1992â¦2009, you will of course get a nonsense prediction for 2009.
You then plaintively asked âwhy did [I] imply that my regression constants were wrong, and why is it that you could not understand how I derived them?â
They are wrong if they do not give the actual value on the vertical intercept for âyear 0â.
Finally you asked âwhat is the physical basis for advocating the use of polynomials of order greater than 1 to predict future CO2 concentration?â
Fitting curves should involve finding the BEST FIT using the R2, even if that is beyond ALL IPCC âscientistsâ, and especially the Australians amongst them like Pitman and Karoly (do cite a single Fig. in AR4 with fitted best trends and associated equations). If the best fit is polynomial, that does not refute the physics (if any) but it does refine the physics.
If Einstein had thought E=MC^2 was really E=MC^(x2 + x + k) he would have said so, but he has yet to be confuted on his fit. It is for you as a latter-day Einstein to explain (1) why the best fit for [CO2] 1992-2009 is not the polynomial but your exponential despite the lower R2 on the latter, and why (2) the physics is invariably exponential. Bring it on, a Nobel beckons!
PS: here are the actual fits for monthly (January only) Tmean and [CO2] at Cape Grim from 1992 to 2009:
Tmean Linear: y = 0.0325x + 18.667; R² = 0.0424 (note the âoutstandingâ R2)
Tmean Exponential: y = 18.642e0.0018x; R² = 0.0461 (better, butâ¦)
Tmean #2 Polynomial: y = -0.0103x2 + 0.1968x + 18.201; R² = 0.1049; (more better, times 2).
Tmean Logarithmic: y = 0.3163ln(x) + 18.338; R² = 0.1229 (much better, if not very good, but does at least support Arrhenius to that limited extent, as he unlike the 5,000 IPCC nutters predicted logarithmic growth in temperature; actually the Excel âpowerâ curve provides the best of all these fits, but I leave that to you as an exercise, you can easily get the Cape Grim temp data for yourself).
Now for the [CO2] data:
Logarithmic: y = 11.935ln(x) + 350.3; R² = 0.9191 (worst)
Power: y = 350.71x0.0322; R² = 0.9247 (2nd worst);
Exponential: y = 355.45e0.0058x; R² = 0.9845 (3rd worst);
Linear: y = 2.1623x + 355.2; R² = 0.9867 (2nd best);
#2 Polynomial: y = -0.0346x2 + 2.7162x + 353.63; R² = 0.9904 (brilliant, very best, and confirms my result for 1960-2006 at Pt Barrow).
Now for regressions for the expression Tmean = f(CO2]).
I will report the linear, and that, given the expressions for the linear fits above, is unlikely to be brilliant, and so it proves: the R2 is actually negative, and the coefficient on [CO2] is insignificant.
I leave as exercises for you to do your own regressions using the best expressions above for Tmean and [CO2] respectively, namely the power or logarithmic expressions for Tmean, and the #2 (or higher) polynomial for [CO2].
Chris S:
Many thanks for your link to that book and the introduction by Matthew Reynolds.
To judge from the foreword and contents, most of the authors seem oblivious of the role of atmospheric CO2 in photosynthesis and simply do not care what happens to that if [CO2] is driven down to 350 ppm or less.
Reynolds has only 2 refs. to photosynthesis, neither very intelligent, and clearly has never even heard of let alone seen a greenhouse with CO2 being pumped into it. Incredibly Reynolds has just one mention of âcarbon dioxideâ and one of âCO2â. Talk of Hamlet without the Prince!
Sadly, on the evidence of Reynoldsâ synthesis, this is just another exhibition of pigs with their snouts in - or in expectation - of the CC grants trough, as you will realise when you check his affiliation, and likewise that of Robert Watson, who both in his World Bank days and now at the Tyndall Centre, UEA, gawd help us â say no more!
From the bullet points you mention:
1.âThe yield production of staple foods will decline in most production environments and commodity prices will riseâ¦â The authorsâ models are not evidence, of which there is none since 1960, as I have shown. But see also the outstanding work of the CSIROâs Steve Crimp et al for the Garnaut Review for more contrary evidence, despite the tendentious assumptions they were forced to use (based on the inapplicable Michaelis-Menten as deployed by Ian Enting and David Karoly for the Review and then fed to CSIRO). (See my seminar paper at my website for details).
2.âWhile projections for a few countries with more northerly latitudes indicate net positive impacts of climate change projections for most developing countries are negativeâ. Completely biased â ignores the beneficent effects of rising [CO2] on yields everywhere. Check out FAO yield data for say Egypt, whose mean temperatures already far exceed the worst case IPCC projections for the rest of the world.
3.âonly best case scenarios predict no net climate change effect on cereal yields by 2030â â check out Crimp et al. again as reported by Garnaut, Table 6.5: In all ten of Australiaâs leading wheat areas, under even the no-mitigation case, by 2030 yields are UP - repeat UP, not NO NET Change - by as much as 20.6%, average over 12%. Would you say Reynolds et al are truthful?
I had thought of ordering the book, but if these bullets are representative of the whole book, as they purport to be, forget it.
Chris, thanks all the same for drawing my attention to the book even it if is pigswill!
Is it just me, or does [Curtin's 'novel' approach to trend analysis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) diverge somewhat from convention?
Tim Lambert's categorisation of this thread under "Funny" could not have been more appropriate!
If only I had access to this computer for another hour...
Bernard and ChrisS, as we all know, Tim Curtin is smug (see last post with respect to CABI Bioscience book "Climate Change and Crop Production" which he has not actually read and his posts discussing the work of Susan Solomon and others (see post # 308)).
At the same time, he refuses to address several critical points (it is clear why: because he cannot address them).
Here is part of the summary from M.L. Parry et al. (2004: Global Environmental Change, "Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES [IPCC Special Report of Emissions Scenarios] and sociao-economic scenarios" pp. 53-67.
"Four major points emerge from the changes in crop yield study. First, in most cases the SRES scenarios exerted a slight to moderate (0 to -5%) negative impact on simulated world crop yields, even with the beneficial direct effects of C02 and farm-level adaptations taken into account. The only scenarios that increase that increase gloabl crop yields are derived from the SRES A2 ensemble assuming full realization of the C02 effects. The yield projections under the SRES A1F1 scenario are the most negative. The results depend strongly on the full realization in the field of beneficial direct physiological C02 effects on crop growth and water use as currently measured in experimental settings. [MOST IMPORTANTLY]: *The realization of these potential beneficial effects of C02 in the field remain uncertain due primarily to potential yet undocumented, interactions with nutrients, water, weeds, pests, and other stresses*. (emphasis mine). If the climate change effects dominate, world crop yields are likely to be more negatively affected, as all scenarios project negative results".
The bottom line here is what I highlighted above: THE AS OF YET UNDOCUMENTED EFFECTS OF INTERACTIONS WITH NUTRIENTS, WATER, WEEDS, PESTS AND OTHER STRESSES.
Curtin, have you factored any of these stresses into your models? If not, why not? We can add to that effects of climate change and increased C02 levels on mutualists such as pollinators. Have you factored these in as well? Our crops depend on pollinators, after all, and recent declines in the abundance of important pollinators such as honey bees should be of grave concern.
Let me guess, Curtin: No. You have not factored in these processes. You have ignored them. It is as if these factors do not exist or that they are of marginal importance in your simple linear calculations. This is why your calculations are not to be taken at all seriously.
Jeff Harvey: as another of the clowns at Deltoid who has for years been rabitting on about "non-linear" relationships being more applicable to climate change and biodiversity, at my post to your luvver boy Bernard above (#312)I set out the non-linear trends at Cape Grim for Tmean and [CO2]. As Bernie cannot, will you kindly show us your regressions using those non-linear functions?
As for your latest diatribe, innocent of evidence as ever (you have never once produced evidence at Deltoid - like my regression results - for any of your claims over the last 5 years or so), I don't need to factor any of your mostly unquantifiable stuff into the incontrovertible FAO data on rising yields of ALL food crops in the presence of rising [CO2] despite allegedly (see my Tasmania data in my Bernard post) rising temps.
BTW, I have taken nutrients (=fertilisers) into account in Curtin (2009), and water (=rainfall) in my analysis of Australian wheat yields in my seminar (ANU, 2010).
What are your own publications on all this? I have looked but cannot find them.
Jeff: you cited Martin Parry, lead editor of the AR4 WG2 2007 Report. That is a serious mistake, given his track record of misprepresentation and serial economy with the truth, as I have previously noted (Curtin 2009, a peer reviewed paper).
Thus for example while in Parry et al. (2004) he admitted âmost plants growing in atmospheric CO2 higher than ambient exhibit increased rates of photosynthesisâ
(2004:55), once at the pigswill of AR4 WG2, he allowed no trace of this to appear. The whole of WG2 exudes bias on every page.
Cite one that is unambiguously objective.
Tim @312 says, in response to âwhat is the physical basis for advocating the use of polynomials of order greater than 1 to predict future CO2 concentration?â writes
I think you are rather confused about the reasons for fitting curves to data. There are basically two situations.
The first is exemplified by fertilizer response trials in which you have data that are quite variable. You do not fully understand the physics, chemistry and biology of what is going on, but you need to simplify the data to be able to make recommendations regarding economically-viable fertilizer application rates. Here, second or third order polynomials are often used but, and it's a big BUT, the resulting function can only be used within the range of the data. The function adds nothing to your understanding of the system and extrapolation will quickly lead to nonsensical results.
The second situation in which curve-fitting is used is to make predictions about the future behaviour, beyond the range of the data. For this, an understanding of the situation is critical. This will tell you what kind of function is to be used, whether it is an exponential, a second-order polynomial, a sine or any other function. You cannot just stick in any function that happens to work with your existing data and assume that it will work in the future.
Your reference to Eistein illustrates my point. He came up with his famous equation from his understanding of the physics, not because just by chance it fitted his data better than did a second-order polynomial.
Tim: "most of the authors seem oblivious of the role of atmospheric CO2 in photosynthesis and simply do not care what happens to that if [CO2] is driven down to 350 ppm or less."
Oblivious? Judge for yourself:
Reynolds et. al (2009)
Raising yield potential in wheat
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY Volume: 60 Issue: 7 Pages: 1899-1918
Abstract: Recent advances in crop research have the potential to accelerate genetic gains in wheat, especially if co-ordinated with a breeding perspective. For example, improving photosynthesis by exploiting natural variation in Rubisco's catalytic rate or adopting C-4 metabolism could raise the baseline for yield potential by 50% or more. However, spike fertility must also be improved to permit full utilization of photosynthetic capacity throughout the crop life cycle and this has several components. While larger radiation use efficiency will increase the total assimilates available for spike growth, thereby increasing the potential for grain number, an optimized phenological pattern will permit the maximum partitioning of the available assimilates to the spikes. Evidence for underutilized photosynthetic capacity during grain filling in elite material suggests unnecessary floret abortion. Therefore, a better understanding of its physiological and genetic basis, including possible signalling in response to photoperiod or growth-limiting resources, may permit floret abortion to be minimized for a more optimal source:sink balance. However, trade-offs in terms of the partitioning of assimilates to competing sinks during spike growth, to improve root anchorage and stem strength, may be necessary to prevent yield losses as a result of lodging. Breeding technologies that can be used to complement conventional approaches include wide crossing with members of the Triticeae tribe to broaden the wheat genepool, and physiological and molecular breeding strategically to combine complementary traits and to identify elite progeny more efficiently.
Carmo-Silva et al (2008)
Photorespiration in C-4 grasses remains slow under drought conditions
PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT Volume: 31 Issue: 7 Pages: 925-940
Abstract: The CO2-concentrating mechanism present in C-4 plants decreases the oxygenase activity of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) and, consequently, photorespiratory rates in air. Under drought conditions, the intercellular CO2 concentration may decrease and cause photorespiration to increase. The C-4 grasses Paspalum dilatatum Poiret, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. and Zoysia japonica Steudel were grown in soil and drought was imposed by ceasing to provide water. Net CO2 assimilation (A) and stomatal conductance to water vapour decreased with leaf dehydration. Decreased carbon and increased oxygen isotope composition were also observed under drought. The response of A to CO2 suggested that the compensation point was zero in all species irrespective of the extent of drought stress. A slight decrease of A as O-2 concentration increased above 10% provided evidence for slow photorespiratory gas exchanges. Analysis of amino acids contained in the leaves, particularly the decrease of glycine after 30 s in darkness, supported the presence of slow photorespiration rates, but these were slightly faster in Cynodon dactylon than in Paspalum dilatatum and Zoysia japonica. Although the contents of glycine and serine increased with dehydration and mechanistic modelling of C-4 photosynthesis suggested slightly increased photorespiration rates in proportion to photosynthesis, the results provide evidence that photorespiration remained slow under drought conditions.
Jarvis et al (1999)
Stomatal behaviour, photosynthesis and transpiration under rising CO2
PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT Volume: 22 Issue: 6 Pages: 639-648
Abstract: The literature reports enormous variation between species in the extent of stomatal responses to rising CO2. This paper attempts to provide a framework within which some of this diversity can be explained. We describe the role of stomata in the short-term response of leaf gas exchange to increases in ambient CO2 concentration by developing the recently proposed stomatal model of Jarvis gr Davies (1998). In this model stomatal conductance is correlated with the functioning of the photosynthetic system so that the effects of increases in CO2 on stomata are experienced through changes in the rate of photosynthesis in a simple and mechanistically transparent way This model also allows us to consider the effects of evaporative demand and soil moisture availability on stomatal responses to photosynthesis and therefore provides a means of considering these additional sources of variation. We emphasize that the relationship between the rate of photosynthesis and the internal CO2 concentration and also drought will have important effects on the relative gains to be achieved under rising CO2.
Patino-Zuniga et al. (2009)
The effect of different tillage and residue management practices on soil characteristics, inorganic N dynamics and emissions of N2O, CO2 and CH4 in the central highlands of Mexico: a laboratory study
Plant and Soil Volume: 314 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 231-241
Abstract: Conservation agriculture in its version of permanent raised bed planting with crop residue retention increases yields and improves soil characteristics, e. g. aggregate distribution, organic matter content, so it remained to be seen how greenhouse gas emissions and dynamics of C and N might be altered. The objective of this study was to investigate how conservation agriculture with permanent raised beds, tied ridges, i.e. dykes within the furrows to prevent water run-off, and residue retention affected greenhouse gas emissions. A field experiment was started in 1999 comparing permanent and conventionally tilled raised beds with different residue management under rain fed conditions. Soil was characterized and emissions of CH4, N2O and CO2 and dynamics of NH4+, NO2- and NO3- were monitored in a laboratory experiment. The crop and tied ridges had no effect on soil characteristics and dynamics of C and N. Tilled beds reduced the water holding capacity (WHC) 1.1 times and increased conductivity 1.3 times compared to soil under non-tilled beds with retention of all crop residues. The WHC, organic C, soil microbial biomass and total N were >= 1.1 larger in soil from nontilled beds where the crop residue was retained compared to where it was removed after only 6 years. The emission of CO2 was 1.2 times and production of NO3- 1.8 times larger in nontilled beds where the crop residue was retained compared to where it was removed. The CO2 emission was 1.2 times and the emission of N2O after 1 day 2.3 times larger in soil under tilled beds compared to nontilled beds with full residue retention, while the increase in concentration of NO3- was 0.05 mg N kg(-1) soil in the former and 2.38 in the latter. We found that permanent raised bed planting with crop residue retention decreased emissions of N2O and CO2 compared to soil under conventionally tilled raised beds. Production of NO3- is larger in soil with permanent raised bed planting with crop residue retention compared to conventionally tilled raised beds.
Just a taster, but enough I think to give the lie to Tim's specious claim that these authors are oblivious to what is a simple basic in crop science. The fact that Tim can find no mention of CO2 effects is not that they are ignored, but that they have been weighed in the balance & found wanting compared to other factors.
Curtin, you are a shining example of an autumnal 'emeritus' who seems never to have had tenure of his faculties to begin with.
For a start, drive all thoughts of polynomials from your muzzy brain. We're speaking about an exponential regression of the Mauna Loa dataset that [I posted above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). In this context your references to polynomials are red herrings.
What matters here is that I used the dates 1959 â 2009, where you converted to the range 0 â 50. What happens in 1992, because of whatever imagined significance of your pet polynomial playings, is completely beside the point. And the point is that your date conversion only alters the location of the exponential regression curve on the Cartesian plane - its shape remains the same. I ask yet again... why do you do this?
Curtin, are you serious? Really? Are you trying to tell us that a regression line must pass through a dataset's actual ordinal value where the mantissa = 0? Especially after the person constructing the graph has contrived to convert the data to a relative scale?!
I ask again â why are my exponential regression constants for [the dataset above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) wrong? Take your time thinking about this, and use illustrations if you must.
No, fitting curves should involve an a priori justification for the curve-type selected. The R2 value simply indicates how much of the variation in the dependent variable is explained by the variation in the independent variable. A higher R2 value does not automatically indicate that the curve-type producing the value is in any way a real physical indication of the nature of the underlying phenomenon, especially beyond the range of the independent variable.
This fact is one of many that seems to be completely averse to taking even a fleeting residence in your head.
As to your puerile and completely specious Cape Grim exercise, permit me to draw your attention to several points:
As an aside with which to conclude, I will draw to your attention yet again [my query to you about your use of 4-decimal place regression constants](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), where the use of such constants (especially over the periods of time to which you refer) requires at least an extra decimal place of accuracy. Why do you employ the constants provided by a graphing function, rather than actually running a proper statistical package to derive a value that accurately describes the exponential line of best fit?
[Monbiot's point 3](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/08/monckto…) seems to be especially apt in the Curtin context.
Richard Simons at #318: I fully agree with all 3 of your points and have said as much before myself. But why don't you address them to Pachauri and the team, as they go way beyond extrapolating from past trends, which could have some validity, to concocting trends that exaggerate the growth of [CO2] by factor of >2, from 0.41% pa. to 1%, by their Madoffian misuse of the Michaelis-Menten function, for which they have zero evidence. The fact that one stand of wheat has a maximum yield this year of x bushels per acre given strain, natural and manmade inputs etc, including this year's level of [CO2] does not mean that next year's stand will fail to yield at all, which is what the M_M function implies as used in the WG1's MAGICC's "CO2-saturated biosphere" runs that generate its Madoffian 1% pa projections for [CO2]. Thus as my Seminar showed they have invented some new biology creating trends to 2100 without any scientific or empirical basis whatsoever.
As Curtin is the Doyen and the Last Word on matters analytical, perhaps he would deign to comment on [today's Arctic sea ice extent](http://i49.tinypic.com/sw4eip.jpg).
Most especially, I am curious to hear his thoughts on what it means when the extent moves toward the mean, and what it means when it moves past the 2 SD delineation and the previous extreme minimum, to the extent that it currently has. What is the significance of such a trajectory at this time of year?
Oh, and the answer must be performed using only regression as the analytical technique. Yes, I know that the mention of standard deviations might confuse the issue, but The Ubiquitously Applicable Curtin Regression MethodTM surely has the capacity to address this challenge...
Bernard: why should I "deign to comment on today's Arctic sea ice extent", other than to say it has NOTHING to do with temperatures in the Arctic, and everything to do with temperatures within ocean currents that are largely determined by El Nino/La Nina (and PDO,NAO etc)? If you don't know that, you are even more ignorant than everything you have ever posted here has already suggested. When are you going to do some independent original research of your own?
But that will require that you learn how to use Excel, mission impossible for you. I really have never seen so much utter nonsense, it's clear you could not pass even today's abysmal Australian Year 9 NAPALM test of numeracy.
As for Cape Grim it took BoM about 15 years to install not only thermometers and CO2 measurements but also solar radiation, which began only in 1992. That is why perforce 1992 is my start point for cape Grim. Never having bothered to access the anyway far from reliable BoM sites, you would not of course know anything about that, would you?
When are you going to complain to Microsoft about using only 4 decimal points for their exponential functions (ye gods!)? I used Excel's exponential on the Cape Grim Tmean data and added another 3 arbitrary decimal points to retain their rounding, and it takes all of 100 years to make any material difference to a projection using .0018432 instead of its .0018 exponential term.
But why don't you like the polynomial - it yields negative [CO2] by 2110, which is what you desire. I prefer that at least one of the following projectiosn, preferably the Garnaut (p.86), comes off:
Exponential 638.5401737ppm
Linear 573.5923 ppm
Garnaut/IPCC @ 1% p.a.:1065.426167 ppm (I hope that's enough decimal points even for you!)
The first 2 are from Excel trends extrapolated from Cape Grim actuals from January 1992 to January 2009.
Hi Chris, thanks for those refs.
I still consider Matthew Reynolds does not cut it re CO2 and so have formed a very low opinion of his integrity.
Carmo-Silva is no better, as C4 crops (about 10% of total cereal production) have long been known to be less CO2-responsive than C3 crops.
Jarvis et al âWe emphasize that the relationship between the rate of photosynthesis and the internal CO2 concentration and also drought will have important effects on the relative gains to be achieved under rising CO2â are mealy mouthed, as they ignore that IF rising [CO2] does indeed raise temps, then it raises evaporation which increases precipitation. But they would not want to know about that would they?
Then we get to your Patino-Zuniga et al. (2009), producing basically trivial results, as soil retention of CO2 is far less important for world welfare than CO2 uptakes through ALL the food we and ALL other living matter imbibe.
Chris, if you can find less venial and time-serving scientists than these, I would be grateful. Try Graham Farquhar and Norby & Luo.
Tim,
If you were on a speaking tour of which included my Institute, I (and perhaps many other environmental scientists) would politely ask you the same thing:
HAVE YOU FACTORED OTHER ABIOTIC PROCESSES, SUCH AS CHANGES IN PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE, AS WELL AS CRITICAL BIOTIC PROCESSES INTO YOUR MODELS FOR PLANT PRODUCTIVITY AND ATMOSPHERIC CO02 CONCENTRATIONS? AND IF NOT, WHY NOT? DO YOU DISMISS THESE VARIABLES IN YOUR COMPUTATIONS?
It is a straightforward question. You see, the difference between the way you approach the topic and I do is that I am fully aware of the hidden complexities that make it very difficult to extract such a simple correlation between (a) one variable (c02) and (b) primary plant productivity, which I am aware depends on numerous environmental parameters. In other words, like any scientist, I am cautious. I realize that ecological systems function in decidedly non-linear ways and that at present we have only a rudimentary understanding of cause-and-effect relationships over various spatial and temporal scales.
From the way I see it, you take the correlation between (a) and (b) as a given. You are throwing caution to the winds, which no scientist worth his salt would do.
As I have said before, it is well-established that primary plant production is both plant (bottom-up) and consumer (top-down) driven, exclusing the role of abiotic processes. It is alos by now established that cause-and-effect relationships in anture are decidedly non-linear, and that our understanding of the factors that govern the assembly and functioning of natural systems are in their infancy.
So Tim, I ask you again: given all of the UNKNOWNS: how do you reconcile the role of biotic processes such as interactions between crop plants and weeds, pathogens, insect pests, pollinators, predators etc. in above-below ground systems in your permutations? Have you included them in your models? If not, and given your lack of pedigree in the field, how can you dismiss them?
More Tim Curtin musings: *it [Arctic ice loss] has NOTHING to do with temperatures in the Arctic, and everything to do with temperatures within ocean currents that are largely determined by El Nino/La Nina (and PDO,NAO etc)*
How do you know this? What special qualifications inculcate you with the ability to say this as FACT?
I come back to what I said in my last posting. Scientists are by nature cautious. We speak about probabilities and uncertainties in our results, and usually argue that our results "suggest" rather than "prove". Tim Curtin exhibits no such humility. For him, there is only one view that is 100% certain. His own. It does not matter whether his views contrast with those of 99% of the scientific community, including researchers with long careers in specific fields. He is right, and they are all wrong. Sigh.
You want an instant authority without the formal training? Tim Curtin is your man. It does not matter if we are talking about climate science, plant ecophysiology, population ecology, conservation biology, physics, biochemistry, or any other scientific field in which Tim has not studied except from his home. From Tim's posts, all of us scientists who disagree with him are a bunch of idiots. Why waste years of study and research when there is Tim with his no-holds barred proof? Even if he ignores important variables, this does not matter because we have to take HIS word for it. It came from Tim Curtin: it MUST be correct! Sigh.
Seriously, Tim, are you able to grasp for a millisecond why virtually nobody here takes you seriously? A little caution and humility would go a long, long way. Why can you never admit that you just may be wrong when you are caught out on certain points instead of attacking the messengers? I am sure that you wil pntificate and huff and puff in dismissing the relevance of biotic paramaters on primary plant production, but I have yet to see any empircal evidence from the field presented. You know why? Because we need longer term data sets that just do not exist. Ecosystems, including agro-ecosystems are dynamic and any scientist who makes the claim that increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations is a recipe for reducing hunger, whilst ignoring so many potentially other important variables, is, IMHO, speaking out of their a**. This is why virtually no environmental scientist would ever make such a claim. But heck, what do I know? I am only a scientist who has worked on plant-insect interactions over many years. And one of my close collaborators is only a leading ecologist who did his PhD on the effects of increased atmospheric C02 levels on plant-aphid interactions. What the hell do we know about it when a retired economist has it all worked out?
Curtin.
You're growing [a bit strident](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and you seem to be missing the points in the process.
"NOTHING", huh? Even given the thermal mass of water compared to air, how exactly do you arrive at this conclusion?! Or are you claiming that the Arctic is not warming?
And from where is the heat coming that warms the seas? Oceanic oscillation phenomena are heat movers, not heat producers. If the melting currently occurring is due solely to a reallocation of typical planetary heat content, where exactly is it coming from, and where are the equivalent patches of coolth that should result?
Oh, and why did you not present a regression?
Oh, I know very well how to use Excel.
Which is why I understand that it's really just a tarted-up accountant's tool, and not a serious statistical or graphing application. R, SPSS, SAS, Origin, Graphpad, Minitab, and a host of others are far better at their functions than Excel's clunky graphing and statistics antics. Even Excel's worksheet functions, separate from the graphing tool, is buggy, and the program should only be relied upon as a quick and dirty first stop, or as a tool-of-no-choice if the other applications are not available to a half-serious analyst.
That you seem not to travel beyond Excel in your 'analyses' is so very telling to anyone with half a clue...
Curtin, how many times must I repeat my question? I am querying you on the exponential regression of the [1959-2009 annual Mauna Loa CO2 data](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). Other dates and curve-types are irrelevant. Oh, and answer the question about lines of best fit necessarily, according to you, passing through an actual datapoint at x (however it might be derived) = 0.
So once again, are my constants, as provided by (shudder) Excel, correct?
I'm not going to complain to Microsoft, because I wouldn't use Excel for the obtaining of a reliable analysis in the first place. See my comment above regarding the fact that you do.
You "added another 3 arbitrary decimal points"? I see...
But that aside, using the rounded values from graphs do not require "all of 100 years to make any material difference to a projection". I've [pointed this out to you already](http://i48.tinypic.com/ogdphk.jpg), using the output from Excel.
This has to be one of the most overarchingly clueless comments that I have ever read from you, and that's saying something! It deserves a place in the Deltoid Classic Quotes.
Do you seriously not understand the abysmal ignorance that you display with this question?!
You know, I can't help but wonder at the psychology that forces you to continually return for as many bitch-slappings as you seem to want to take. Do you actually enjoy being repeatedly held up to the world as a first-class dunce?
Is that what TC actually wrote?
I think Section 2.6 of Professor Wadhams' book Ice in the Ocean says different.
Well, someone has to be wrong then, so I guess it's the Prof.
Tim quotes from the abstracts I gave without (evidently) reading the papers they abstract fom & thus misses the point & instead casts aspersions on the character of the authors (remind me again the definition of ad hom?)
Tim, the Journal of Experimental Botany had a special issue out last year - [Vol 60 no 10](http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol60/issue10/index.dtl) I suggest you have a good read, particularly of Leakey's contribution.
But this is just classic " But why don't you like the polynomial - it yields negative [CO2] by 2110, which is what you desire."
Thanks Tim, that's the best laugh I've had from a blog in ages.
Quick question Tim, if you chopped the last (say) 10 years from your data & refitted the poynomial what would that do to your prediction for negative CO2? What about if you removed 20 years? Or 30?
By the way, my opinion of your integrity based on what I've seen in this thread is likely a lot lower than yours of Reynolds. Don't expect further response - I know when my time is being wasted.
One further issue from the JxB: [Vol 59 No 7](http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol59/issue7/index.dtl)
PHOTOSYNTHESIS: CO2 UPTAKE AND THE PATHWAYS OF CARBON FIXATION
For interest of others, more special issues available [here](http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/exbotj/special/specialissues…)
I'm sure at least a couple of those scientists won't be "venial and time-serving" even if they don't agree with Tim (unless of course Tim's definition of venial is "doesn't agree with Tim"...)
In all earnestness Curtin, if you can actually see the [problem with using polynomials](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) that give the results that you described, why would you countenance their use, even within a current data range? Please, address my question concerning the physical basis for selecting descriptions of trajectories, and about degrees of freedom in doing so.
And please do answer my question about the respective heat capacities of air and water, and how Arctic temperatures have "NOTHING" to do with melting ice.
There are many other questions I've asked that are wanting an answer - perhaps you might revisit some of the earlier posts and attend to them too...
Chris S: Thanks for your links, many of the papers look interesting and much less obviosuly self-serving than your previous batch. I will respond in detail later, but note now the following findings of Leakey & co (I know their work well).
"First, elevated CO2 stimulates photosynthetic carbon gain and net primary production over the long term despite down-regulation of Rubisco activity. Second, elevated CO2 improves nitrogen use efficiency and, third, decreases water use at both the leaf and canopy scale. Fourth, elevated CO2 stimulates dark respiration via a transcriptional reprogramming of metabolism. Fifth, elevated CO2 does not directly stimulate C4 photosynthesis, but can indirectly stimulate carbon gain in times and places of drought. Finally, the stimulation of yield by elevated CO2 in crop species is much smaller than expected..."
Clearly the Leakey et al findings support my own conclusions here and elsewhere, albeit their final comment begs the questions of i, how much was expected, ii, what time scale with ongoing elevation of [CO2]? - it is NOT a one-off process, and rising yields can be expected to continue indefinitely, as they have already since and pace Malthus (1798).
Bernard, see below for more on "Arctic" temperatures, I was of course referring to land not ocean temps.
Jeff and P. Lewis:
Jeff: you asked in a bellow: âHAVE [I] FACTORED OTHER ABIOTIC PROCESSES, SUCH AS CHANGES IN PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE, AS WELL AS CRITICAL BIOTIC PROCESSES INTO YOUR MODELS FOR PLANT PRODUCTIVITY AND ATMOSPHERIC CO02 CONCENTRATIONS?â
Yes, I have, see my Seminar, slide #38.
Then you go on âhow do [I] reconcile the role of biotic processes such as interactions between crop plants and weeds, pathogens, insect pests, pollinators, predators etc. in above-below ground systems in your permutations? Have you included them in your models?â
No, not all, but why donât you since you are so smart? I have not the time to solve all the worldâs problems, unlike you as a latter-day Pol Pot.
Finally you challenge my irrefutable statement âit [Arctic ice loss] has NOTHING to do with temperatures in the Arctic, and everything to do with temperatures within [the] ocean currents [there] that are largely determined by El Nino/La Nina (and PDO,NAO etc)[ in the tropics]â.
So you like Lewis and the IPCC think the Arctic Ocean is some kind of garden duckpond where the water does not circulate? Well that does not surprise me, your Institute is plainly capable of harbouring all kinds of your nonsense, like the Fenner School at the ANU, where yesterday Jack Pezzey solemnly (to wild applause from 100 Harvey look-alikes) assured us all that global warming has nothing to do with [CO2], being instead determined by accumulated Anthro CO2 emissions since 1750 from which the biosphere has never absorbed a smidgeon.
The inconvenient TRUTH is that there has been no statistically significant warming at ANY of the Arctic landmasses since 1911 (check GISS). For example, for Pt Barrow 1921-2009 JJA (the only quarter where the mean is >.0), and the only quarter therefore where land temps could be associated with loss of sea ice, the #5 polynomial as always gives the best and most elegant fit, and hints at an imminent downturn in Tmean.
At Denmark Harbour in Greenland, the same is true for JJA, and the downturn is already evident after 2007.
The sea temps are of course much more significant in JJA and have nothing to do with the land temps, the Arctic is not a garden duckpond, pace P. Lewis with his always quaint beliefs.
Jeff ended: âI am only a scientist who has worked on plant-insect interactions over many yearsâ - and so you have proved the insects can live without any or reducing carbon-based food? Citation please?
Tim,
You finally answered my point above when you said that you had not factored biotic processes into your models. Many thanks for admitting the obvious.
To reiterate what I have said many times, your presentation gives the impression that the answers you provide are absolute solutions. Yet you fail to reconcile the cast-iron fact that primary plant productivity is significantly affected by biotic processes - from horinzontal level interactions between plants (both inter- and intra-specific competition), intra-guild effects amongst consumers as well as vertical interactions invoving plants and consumers (both bottom-up and top-down processes). Without soil-borne microbes, above-ground pollinators and pest control services performed by carnivorous organisms, there would be virtually no agricultural production at all. Yet Tim has failed to factor the effects of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide on critical biotic processes into his models. I would love to be in the audience when he gives one of his talks. If it was not me, certainly I would hope that another population ecologist would slay him on this vital omission.
All Tim is left to do is to liken my questioning of his omissions to an interrogation from Pol-Pot. How utterly sad and pathetic. Tim, you are a sad and bitter old man.
Finally, as I have also said before, the entire exercise of pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - using the argument that it will increase primary plant production and reduce hunger - is nothing more than a huge experiment on systems of immense complexity whose functioning we are only just, in the most rudimentary terms, beginning to understand. Pretty well every scientist with some knowledge of complex adaptive systems would echo my argument that this experiment has huge and potentially catastrophic consequences. This is why I am so profoundly sceptical of people like Tim Curtin who have no grounding whatsoever in the relevant fields of science but go on speaking tours effectively telling their audiences: "Trust me". Tim appears to have no doubts whatsoever about this huge experiment that he is promoting. This should also be a warning sign to everyone reading this. I have yet to find a reputable scientist who, knowing how little we understand about the workings of ecological systems across the biosphere, would write and speak in such certain terms on any result they generated when the data are not all in. I also would caution against anyone, like Tim, who routinely disdains articles written by some of the most experienced scientists in the world, such as Susan Solomon, Paul Ehrlich and others. Finally, I would say that it is apparent to me that Tim reads very little of the broader ecological (both fundamental and applied) literature in journals such as Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Ecology, Ecology Letters, Journal of Ecology, Journal of Applied Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Oecologia, Oikos, Researches in Population Ecology, Gloabl Chage Biology, Conservation Biology and others. This shows that he is not up on much of the peer-reviewed literature on the environmental effects of human-induced global change except for a few studies that suit his purpose.
This is the same Tim Curtin who, to be honest, spoke about the effects of acidification or anti-salinization on marine ecosystems and biodiversity a while back at the level of a primary school student. I spent very little effort at the time countering some of his posts as I should have done, but I am a scientist and I have a lot on the go right now. But my advice to people reading this thread is simple: you have read Tim's posts, the responses of others including Bernard, ChrisS, Lotharsson, me and others, and his responses in turn. I think it should be by now obvious who is standing on empirically (and theoretically for that matter) more solid ground.
This is my last posting in this thread - it is a waste of my time to continue in the face of such illogical arguments.
[Tim Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
You have not addressed [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
JH, you should invoice the mental onanist for wasting your time the time spent giving your expert services.
'Tis a long time since I've been able to convince myself I should read his drivel (though that doesn't usually apply to any replies, which tend to be informative).
Keep up the good work Tim.
Jeff's verba: "the entire exercise of pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - using the argument that it will increase primary plant production and reduce hunger - is nothing more than a huge experiment on systems of immense complexity whose functioning we are only just, in the most rudimentary terms, beginning to understand".
Speak for yourself re understanding or lack of. Back to my seminar please: it is undeniable that atmospheric CO2 is a NECESSARY condition for any food production of any kind. There might just be one member of your Institute who udnerstands that concept, seek him/her out and ask for help.
It is also indubitable that given the carbon content of ALL food for ALL living creatures, more CO2 has to be better than less. Prove me wrong, you have so far done nothing more than armwaving.
Re my ref to Pol Pot, he is clearly, from all your political comments here and on other threads, your role model. You like all the activists in FoE, Greenpeace etc actually hate people and their well being, and like Flannery here and Lovelock in England look forward to when like Dr Strangelove just you 3 with your harems are left from all humankind to look lovingly on the cockroaches and mosquitoes that are your preferred life forms.
Tot siens!
Bernard: why are you being so secretive about the exponential term on your fit of the [CO2] data from Mauna Loa, as posted by yourself here, using not Excel "a tarted-up accountant's tool [sic!!!], [but] a serious statistical or graphing application. R, SPSS, SAS, Origin, Graphpad, Minitab, and a host of others are far better at their functions than Excel's clunky graphing and statistics antics [sic!!!]".
Actually I always repeat my Excel regressions with SPSS, in order to get the Durbin-Watson it provides - Excel's omission of D-W and ADF is indeed a serious shortcoming.
Amazingly SPSS always confirms the Excel R2s and t-stats etc to as many decimal points as you want.
BTW, degrees of freedom are only relevant in regressions, not in simple curve fitting of time series data.
I am always ready to debate, as some 337 posts here show. It is time for you to reveal the exponential factors in the Mauna Loa data you provided using the superior curve fitting properties of your preferred stat pack. Bring it on! How many decimal points? what difference do 5 rather than 4 make to projections to 2110?
Pending that, which I know is beyond your capabilities, here is my summary:
Reliance on the CASPI (Enting aka Madoff) modelling led the Garnaut Review (2008:86) into the extraordinary claim that without âmitigationâ (i.e. drastic policies to reduce emissions) the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration [CO2] will be over 1000 ppm by 2100. Yet extrapolating the observed trends in [CO2] from 1992 to 2009 at rates inferred from alternative fits of the data over that period (which is also the period of the highest EVER recorded growth rate of emissions) reveals the following outcomes:
Linear, at the observed 1992-2009 rate: 551.97 ppm;
Exponential at the observed 1992-2009 rate: 602.56 ppm.
Compound growth rate of Garnaut 2008 and Solomon et al (by assumption, 2009) at 1% pa.: >964.52 ppm.
Garnaut & Solomon need to take care, they could in due course become liable for class actions for fraud.
But meantime I think I have rumbled that Bernard J really is none other than Bernie M, the greatest fraudster in history.
P. Lewis: Ever heard of the Gulf Stream, or the thermahaline circulation? Get back to me when you can explain their RELATIVE contribution to the temperature of the Arctic seawaters, plus that of the ISOW and NADW, vis a vis the land temperatures in Greenland and Arctic Alaska and Canada etc.
Ah, I knew it, you cannot, as you never have made a single factual or statistical contribution to any field of knowledge.
TC: "It is also indubitable that given the carbon content of ALL food for ALL living creatures, more CO2 has to be better than less."
Oh good christ almighty!!!!
Better for what species, under what other conditions, using what measurements, for what definitions of 'better?'
Increased biomass with decreased nutrient content is not necessarily 'better.'
Increased vegetative growth at the expense of fruiting body production is not necessarily 'better.'
Alteration and probable simplification of trophic systems as some species get a new advantage over others is not necessarily 'better.'
All this change in the face of temperature and probable rainfall alterations with climate change, is not necessarily 'better.'
And retreating to 'it's obvious' is no defense, Tim.
BTW, you keep blathering above about the "IPCC" is doing analyses using "simple" Michaelis-Menten. You mentioned it several times. Could you please point out to us where the IPCC does so, in what context, what the resulting claim is, and why the analysis is flawed?
TC: "It is also indubitable that given the heat necessary to cook ALL hot food, more heat has to be better than less."
Fabulous argument. Wait, do I smell burning? Back in a sec!
Well at least TC has a fan in spotty.
Just the kind of acceptance he craves, I'll wager.
I could not resise wading into here one last time because Tim's last post was so utterly imbecilic. He claims that I am speaking for myself whan I say that we our understanding of complex systems is rudimentary. Read this over and over Curtin until it sinks into your head: EVERY population and systems ecologist on Earth will tell you the same f****** thing. I am referring to esteemed scientists - people like Dave Tilman and Shaheed Naeem and John Huston and many others - with years and years of experience exploring the factors underpinning the functioning of communities and ecosystems. Not one - not a single one - would make the same outrageous assertions that you did in post # 338. So who do we trust - an old right wing economist who IMHO is scientifically illiterate where it matters or the rank and file of the ecological research community?
How many times must it be said, Curtin: natural systems do not function linearly. I never said that C02 is not necessary for plant growth. I have just said that the rapid rise of atmspheric C02 as a result of our carbon-based fossil fuel economy is going to cause all kinds of unknown effects that are impossible to predict given that our understanding of the rules the govern the functioning of natural systems exceedingly poor. You are such a sad sack in that you, as always, ignore the inconvenient facts that piss all over your thesis. You have excluded biotic processes. Why? Because, in your warped vision, plants need more C02 and thus, by association, microbes and bugs and rabbits and wolves and God knows what will all thrive. This comes straight from the Arthur Robinson School of Baseless Ignorance. If you bothered to get off of your ass and read a little of the biodiversity and ecosystem functioning literature, you would understand that there is a lot more that regulates plant biomass production and primay productivity that atmospheric levels of C02. And let me say this: it is brazenly arrogant and dishonest of you to accuse me and others who warn of the potentially serious consequences of the current global experiment of hating people. How dare you make such an insinuation.
As for your other remarks, it shows how utterly vacuous you are. Not once have I read in your posts the real reasons for poverty and hunger which are political and locked up in social injustice caused by so-called free markets that are anything but free and by unregulated capitalism and a concentration of wealth. Nowhere do I read how western commerical elites have long aimed to maintain disparities in wealth distribution and capital flows through political coercion or war, or by the looting of resources, as should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of history. You solution to starvation, as I have said before, is IMHO nothing more than a semantic camouflage hiding a political agenda that aims to maintain the status quo.
Lee at #341 said "...you keep blathering above about the "IPCC" is doing analyses using "simple" Michaelis-Menten. You mentioned it several times. Could you please point out to us where the IPCC does so, in what context, what the resulting claim is, and why the analysis is flawed?'
Stone the crows. That is what my seminar that launched this Thread was all about. I have previously linked to it, it's at
www.timcurtin.com
The paper gives full citations. The IPCC's AR4 WG1 relied on Friedlingstein et al 2006 (who explicitly rely heavily on Michaelis-Menten), in WG1 Chaps.8 and 10, and for its own climate projections WG1 itself used Tom Wigley's MAGICC in its Chap 10. to generate same, and MAGICC has Michaelis-Menten in a black box that cannot be altered, because it is the M-M hyperbolc function that ensures the biospheric uptakes that already absorb 6 GtC of total emissions of 10+GtC pa cannot ever in its projections exceed 5GtC. That is the nature of the M-M hyperbolic function as deployed by Wigley and Enting, that there is a pre-determined ceiling of 5 GtC whatever the future level of emissions.
To help you, here is one of my seminar's slides, on the 11 C4-MIP Models used by Friedlingstein et al (inc. Knorr) 2006:
"NPP increases with CO2 under a MichaelisâMenten beta factor formulation ...In the coupled simulations, atmospheric CO2 concentration ranges between 730 ppm for LLNL and 1020 ppm for HadCM3LC by 2100 (Fig. 1a)â.
That is outright Madoffian fraud, because extrapolating by using M-M to choke off natural absorption produces outcomes for [CO2] that CANNOT be justified using actual data on emissions and absorptions from 1958 to now, as I showed in my Quadrant piece in January last year (available at my website), in my E&E paper on "CC and Food" October 2009 (also at my website), and confirmed belatedly by Wolfgang Knorr (one of Friedlingstein's many co-authors!) in GRL, November 2009.
All but one of the C4MIP models show the Airborne Fraction well above the actual 44% of 1959-2009 (F et al Table 2).
Reliance on Friedlingstein and Enting's CASPI modelling (based on Wigley's MAGICC which Enting helped to develop) led the Garnaut Review (2008:86) into the extraordinary claim that without âmitigationâ (i.e. drastic policies to reduce emissions) the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration [CO2] will be over 1000 ppm by 2100.
Yet extrapolating the observed trends in [CO2] from 1992 to 2009 at rates inferred from alternative fits of the data over that period (which is also the period of the highest ever recorded growth rate of emissions) reveals the following outcomes for [CO2]:
Linear, at the observed 1992-2009 rate: 551.97 ppm;
Exponential at the observed 1992-2009 rate: 602.56 ppm.
Michaelis-Menten in Friedlingstein: atmospheric CO2 concentration ranges between 730 ppm for LLNL and 1020 ppm for HadCM3LC by 2100
Compound growth rate of Solomon et al (by M-M assumption, 2009) at 1% pa.: 964.52 ppm.
All these projections are fraudulent - and will one day be actionable - but you will have to read my seminar to understand why Michaelis-Menten as used by Garnaut et al is quack-quack science. But here's a hint - Michaelis-Menten (1911) is Malthus 1798 updated: only one input can be varied and no new technology is allowable.
Lee, thanks all the same for your on-going interest, and I would be delighted for any feedback that rises above the level in Jeff and Bernie J.
Having returned to have a brief skim of this thread, I see TC is still exhibiting a world-class Dunning-Kruger effect, often based on rank ignorance, jumping to unjustified conclusions (especially about other people's positions), excluding the middle, pretending that many trenchant factors simply do not have any significance, confusing regressions with identifying causality, and extrapolating beyond what is justifiable. And to top off the potent brew he has a strong streak of really ugly ad hom vilification which he appears to use to try and deflect attention from his stupidity.
Impressive stuff.
Lotharsson - if I think of you as loathsome just compare your last, with its ad hom, and my last, with none.
Lotharsson: If you were perchance to respond to Tim's #347 you may want to question this statement: "if you can find less venial and time-serving scientists than these, I would be grateful" personally i wouldn't bother as it is evident that Mr. Curtin will only see & read what he wants to & only recalls evidence if it suits him to do so.
Sad really.
ChrisS and Lotharsson,
Well said. Tim Curtin knows full well that he has been well and truly snookered in just about every aspect of his wafer-thin arguments. Can you imagine him presenting a talk to an audience of actual scientists? Thinks about some of the points Bernard and I have raised. I would ask him if he has factored vital processes - such as biotic interactions and effects of changes in plant stoichiometry into his models - processes which we know play a major role in determining primary plant production and plant quality. Certainly, my colleagues in the audience - those with expertise in plant ecology and broader systems ecology - would nod their heads approvingly at my question, because they know as well as I do that one cannot predict with any sense of accuracy what effects pumping greenhouse gases into the atmopshere will have on the assembly and functioniong of ecosystems and biomes over time. They know all-too-well that this constitutes a hige experiment on systems of unimaginable complexity whose functioning we barely understand, with all kinds of potential suprises - nasty ones as well as positive ones. They are aware that the world is green because of a combination of both bottom-up (plant based) and top-down (consumer based) processes (as several meta-analytical studies have shown).
So how would Curtin respond? Well, he would have to admit that he has not factored therse processes into his tidy little models. Then what? That he does not need to factor them in - in spite of hundreds of studies showing that trait and context dependent processes involving many different agentss shape the structure and function of ecological communities? Ultimately, he would be humiliated by the questioners, as it would be the word of a right wing retired economist against an entire community of scientists. This is why I do not expect Curtin to speak at venues where real experts will be present. Like Bjorn Lomborg, who generally avoids speaking at venues where he will be confronted with scientists (at least ever since I shredded the biodiversity chapter of his book, TSE, here in Holland in 2002), my guess is that Curtin will speak to groups of economists and social scientists and the like, those who have trouble telling a mole cricket from a giraffe. In other words, my guess is that he will preach his absurdities to those who (1) know virtually nothing about the field, but who are (2) anxious to believe in such a story. Lomborg gives many presentations these days to business groups and right wing think tanks, which fits the same pattern.
When Curtin does venture into the lion's den, and is confronted with scientists who tend to know a lot more than he does, the result is predictable. I am likened to a Pol Pot type character who hates people and worships mosquitoes and cockroaches (at least those are his words more-or-less). Lotharsson is loathsome. Bernard J is likened to Bernard M., a fraudster. He then tries to belittle us by ignoring vital points, making it appear as if they are superfluous to his thesis. What else can he do? I have debated enbough anti-environmentalists over the years - and IMHO Curtin fits well into this category - to know how much they behave like trapped hellcats when their nonsense is exposed.
In my view, Curtin's presentations will not make anything more than the smallest ripple in a big pond. Unless the scientific community at large takes notice (and they won't), his presentations will fall either on deaf ears or will only appeal to those who want to believe in the tooth fairy.
Just one example of what I said:
Oechel et al. 1994. Nature 371: 500-503. TRANSIENT NATURE OF CO2 FERTILIZATION IN ARCTIC TUNDRA.
From the abstract:
*These results indicate that the responses of native ecosystems to elevated CO2 may not always be positive, and are unlikely to be straightforward. Clearly, CO2 fertilization effects must always be considered in the context of genetic limitation, resource availability and other such factors*.
Bingo. These 'other such factors', as we now know well, include effects on food webs consisting of herbivores, pathogens, predators, pollinators etc. Curtin relies on controlled studies done under conditions where other organisms are generally excluded. Not the real world, in other words.
> if I think of you as loathsome just compare your last, with its **ad hom**, and my last, with none.
Inigo Montoya [said it best](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk).
And many thanks to the actual scientists responding to Tim's (largely) arrant nonsense on this thread. I'll skim again in a few days or weeks with more popcorn in hand.
Morte studies showing non-linear systemic effects of increased atmospheric C02 concentrations:
1. Jin and Evans, 2010, Oecologia 163: 257-266.
Elevated CO2 increases plant uptake of organic and inorganic N in the desert shrub Larrea tridentata
From the abstract: Plant N uptake responses to elevated CO2 are often species-specific and could potentially shift competitive interactions between co-occurring species. Thus, physiological changes in root N uptake dynamics coupled with previously observed changes in the availability of soil N resources could impact plant community structure as well as ecosystem nutrient cycling under increasing atmospheric CO2 levels in the Mojave Desert.
2.Kardol et al. Ecology 91: 767-781
Soil ecosystem functioning under climate change: plant species and community effects
From the abstract: These results indicate that accurate assessments of climate-change impacts on soil ecosystem functioning require incorporating the concurrent changes in plant function and plant community composition. Climate-change-induced shifts in plant community composition will likely modify or counteract the direct impact of atmospheric and climate change on soil ecosystem functioning, and hence, these indirect effects should be taken into account when predicting the manner in which global change will alter ecosystem functioning.
3. Cheng et al. 2010. Ecology Letters 13: 284-291.
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment facilitates cation release from soil.
From the abstract: These results indicate that over the short term, elevated CO2 may stimulate cation release from soil and enhance plant growth. Over the long-term, however, CO2-induced cation release may facilitate cation losses and soil acidification, negatively feeding back to the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems.
4. Yeates et al. 2009. Biology and Fertility of Soils 8: 799-808. Long-term changes in topsoil nematode populations in grazed pasture under elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide
From the abstract: Just as the effects of global climate change on a given region are idiosyncratic, so it seems are the effects of elevated CO2 on soil and ecosystem processes.
5. Raschi et al. 2009. Community Ecology 9: 141-151. Structure and composition of a Mediterranean grassland community grown under Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (MiniFACE)
From the abstract: The limited production response to elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 of this grassland community was counterbalanced by the effect on the phenology of many species. These Findings suggest that predictions regarding Mediterranean plant responses to elevated CO2 should account for seasonal patterns of production regulatory responses, which may vary across species and plant functional types.
This is just recent studies from late 2009 and 2010. Certainly there are others which show positive trends inb the C02-system, productivity relationship. But my point, writing as a scientist, is that one cannot generalize the consequences of enhanced atmsopheric C02 on primary production and crop productivity if we exclude trait and context dependent parameters that cover various ecological levels of organization. Any trained ecologist will tell you this.
Curtin, for his part, cherry picks. I went through his E & E (Social Science Journal) article and, as expected, he has excluded the Nature study (see my post # 350) which is hardly obscure; it was published in Nature and now has 146 citations. Oechel published another paper with a similar theme in Nature in 2000 that has been cited 202 times. Do not expect Curtin to cite these or related studies because they do not fit in with his views. And bear in mind that the above studies I have posted here exclude interactions with consumers; factor these in and it becomes impossible to make systemic generalizations on the effects of increasing atmopsheric C02 concentrations on primary productivity. Nature is exceedingly complex; the contrarians are desperate to play this complexity down.
Dear ol Jeff - will you ever get it? You said "These 'other such factors', as we now know well, include effects on food webs consisting of herbivores, pathogens, predators, pollinators etc. Curtin relies on controlled studies done under conditions where other organisms are generally excluded."
Not true, I do not. I simply look at world production and consumption of cereals (with 40% contained carbon) since 1961 (when "we" began seriously "pumping CO2 into the atmosphere"), despite the best efforts of your favourite bugs.
In the case of the FACE studies, where basically all that is controlled is CO2 + H2O and fertilisers and strains; your bugs are free to do their thing as these are open fields as implied by the term FACE. Ever seen one?
Your Dutch greenhouses are indeed different, and by controlling for your bugs and insects plus injecting CO2 at >1000 ppm achieve world best yields for tomatoes and the like.
But as a latter day Pol Pot, you don't want to see that do you?
"Down with capitalism and CO2" - I am sure I saw you with some such placard parading on the streets during your elections this week. How did the party you voted for do?
Not very well so far as I know.
Jeff: There are limits, I cannot be expected to cite every paper ever published, especially when in Nature, notorious for its bias in this area (see Climategate and my own Note in E&E 2009 on "Nature's New Theory of Climate Change").
You said "Curtin, for his part, cherry picks. I went through his E & E (Social Science Journal) article and, as expected, he has excluded the Nature study (see my post # 350) which is hardly obscure; it was published in Nature and now has 146 citations." So what, that is an index for the most part of fellow travellers
"Do not expect Curtin to cite these or related studies because they do not fit in with his views". Yet all 3 of my published and peer-reviewed papers in 2009 attacked papers/books (eg Garnaut) that do not fit in with my views.
You would have to agree that I am constantly adversarial to people like you and Bernie aka Madoff. A defence lawyer is hardly likely to rely on the concocted evidence of the prosecution.
You added: "And bear in mind that the above studies I have posted here exclude interactions with consumers; factor these in and it becomes impossible to make systemic generalizations on the effects of increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations on primary productivity. Nature is exceedingly complex; the contrarians are desperate to play this complexity down".
No I am not, and it is NOT "impossible to make systemic generalizations on the effects of increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations on primary productivity". That is what applied science is about, making useful generalisations from selected key variables. Unfortunately the IPCC's AR4 relied on fraudulent generalisations for its [CO2] projections to 2100 using the bogus science of Tom Wigley (ex boss of CRU at East Anglia, which says it all) in his Madoffian MAGICC model.
Jeff, move on from your bugs, and prove if you can why Michaelis-Menten is an appropriate paradigm for projecting CO2 uptakes from emissions to 2100. If it is not, adoption of the Copenhagen targets for emissions reduction based on that Madoffian fraud will plunge the world into famine (to your schadenfreude).
Tim Curtin.
I missed this first time 'round, but better late than never:
Old man, I am not being secretive about the exponential term. I indicated that to construct a sufficiently representative exponential regression line of the Mauna Loa data one requires more decimal points than the four that Excel's graphing tool produces. To this end I used two more decimal places to make my point, in the [construction of the graph to which I referred you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
If you require more decimal places, suck on these:
α = 0.0911157433776339
k = 0.004153236
By the way, you might be interested to know that one can also easily and quickly obtain these in Excel, if one knows how. But of course, not knowing how to use Excel, I could not possibly know how...
And I stand by my comments about Excel's utility for scientific statistical analysis, despite your penchant for repeated exclamation marks. I've used Excel since it was first released, and although it has certainly improved over the years, and although it has some very handy features these days, that make it worth having, it is not a versatile analytical tool. When first released it was primarily intended for accounting, with many subsequent (and some useful) features bolted on over successive versions, in imitation of other packages.
It's bloated size, resulting from things such as the useless easter eggs like the flight simulator, almost lost me a few years back when memory was still an issue, but I soldiered oin and I still use it. However, if Open Office improves its Excel equivalent a bit more, I'll definitely leave Excel behind in the future.
I have no need of a mutated accounting tool if its features are better spread amongst other programs. But of course, what would I know? I am apparently [constitutionally incapable of understanding Excel](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)...
Tim Curtin,
As many have pointed out before here, you are making the serious mistake of correlating one variable (atmospheric C02 concentrarions) with increases in crop production. Only bad statisticians - like Lomborg - try and get away with that kind of abomination. How on Earth do we know that increased C02 has got anything whatsoever to do with increased crop productivity? Because of your little models and a few empirical studies in greenhouses under controlled conditions? Because of the correlation thus far? What about intensive agricultural practices coupled with plant breeding programs?
Also, you make a serious error in downplaying the importance of invertebrates including arthropods in regulating the function of terrestrial ecosystems. As Edward O. Wilson pointed out, it is the "little things that run the world", at least in ecological terms. If all insects alone were to disappear tomorrow, humanity would head for extinction in no time at all. I'd give our current generation about 10 years, then things would collapse systematically. Without insects to pollinate plants, control pests and cycle nutrients, we would be doomed. And then factor in all of the other micro-invertebrates that you also ridicule and our dependen on them becomes even more apparent. So get off your arrogant anthropocentric butt and learn a little about the rules and factors governing the function of ecological systems across the biosphere.
As I said, and I will repeat it: given the vast complexity of natural sysytems across variable scales of space and time, right from genetic variation at the level of speices and populations through differences in life-histories of the various species and guilds occupying food webs and scaling up to ecological interaction webs, and then to communities and ecosystems, it is IMPOSSIBLE to extract generalisations on the likely outcomes of increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations. Different species and the systems in which they are embedded will repsond differently, and therefore the mid-term outcome of such an experiment is fraught with uncertainty. One thing is for certain: there will be many nasty and unforseen surprises and hunger will not be signifcantly reduced. That will only come about with the political will to create more social
justice in the world.
IMHO you are a layman, and in scientific terms an uneducated boffin. You are arrogant as hell and think that you know it all, that you have covered all of the angles (while dispensing of those myriad processes you do not understand even in their most basic forms). To be honest, I have never encountered someone who thinks they know so much while knowing so little. You dispense with any inconvenient fields which go beyond your understanding (which means about 99% of the field of terrestrial ecology) and you predictably resort to smears a la Pol Pot, Madoff etc., or else lamely try and belittle my resesarch and that of thousands of researchers around the world when it suits your purpose.
My advice to you Tim: keep your talks to the venues attended by right wing converts who want to believe in your fairly tales, because if you wade into academic circles where population and plant ecologists reside your talks will be annihalated. Your inability to address any of my points or the articles I have cited - beyond ridicule - is proof positive of that.
Tim Curtin @ 353
I have seen similar increases (over various time intervals, of course) variously attributed to increased mechanisation, new varieties, better control of weeds and other pests, increased irrigation, greater human population, improved marketing, greater fertilizer use, better farming practices in general, and so on (no, I can't be bothered to find links for you). Any of these alone could conceivably have resulted in the observed yield increases in the absence of any effect of increased CO2. Why do you think that none of these is important?
Wandering back through the morrass...
Curtin, how many times must I point out to you that I am speaking about the constants presented in the Excel graphing tool's trend-fitting function? R2 values and t-statistics are irrelevant to my point.
You're endangering the red herring fishery.
Curtin, what considerations determine the type of curve that one fits to time series data? Seriously, answer the question.
It leads directly to one of many questions that I have repeatedly put to you, and that have been left begging. How do you justify, according to your logic, not using a 5th or a 6th order polynomial to describe the Mauna Loa dataset?
[Sigh...]
How many times must I reiterate that it goes beyond projections to 2100? The rounding errors matter with contemporary extrapolations, as [I have shown you previously](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). If it's still escaping you, [here are the exponent regression constants' lines of best fits](http://i50.tinypic.com/2qdbqrd.jpg) using Excel's four-decimal-place value, together with the curves that result from using five decimal places and six decimal places.
If you can't work out my point, man, you are beyond redemption.
Oh, and whilst you're looking at the graphs, take note of the fact that it is easily visually apparent that the Mauna Loa data are most definitely increasing faster than exponential, and that even when using the six decimal-place value for k, pre-Industrial doubling would occur by 2100 â assuming that geopolitical, geological, ecological, and/or economic factors don't impinge on the anthropogenic emission of CO2, of course.
I myself am still open to explanations of what best describes the current CO2 trajectory, based in plausible and parsimonious physicality. However, taking the Mauna Loa data themselves, and one characteristic of the data, and assuming that the characteristic operates for the rest of the century and that there are no stochastic impingements of the sort I alluded to in the previous paragraph, one is able to construct a trajectory that [looks like this](http://i46.tinypic.com/5yxlyo.jpg).
I'll leave it to you to tell the thread how I did it. It's not difficult: it should only take you a minute or so to work it out â max, if you're the good analyst that you pretend to be. Of course, we won't know if it takes you 30 seconds or 30 minutes to work it out, but I really don't care â the fact is that there are approaches to fitting growth trajectories to the data that are based in physical properties of the data, and not on arbitrary curve types selected simply because they deliver a high R2 value.
I'm not usually one to blink at blog argie-bargie, but crikey, Curtin, you're pulling it out of your arse with this one.
But let's entertain the notion a moment... please compile a list of the frauds that I have perpetrated, with evidence that proves their fraudulent nature.
Oh, and there remain many questions unanswered, as well as the fact of your ongoing ignorance of the foundations of science... in case you have slipped into thinking that we might no longer notice.
Oh, and as you are [so fixated on beating particular R2 values](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), Curtin, the R2 for [my curve](http://i46.tinypic.com/5yxlyo.jpg) is 0.9968...
...to 4 decimal places - bung on an extra 0.000008 if you want to be pedantic...
Snort.
I short-changed myself when I was typing the constants to calculate [the R2 value](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
To more decimal places than one needs, it is actually:
0.9986099
So, Tim Curtin, how are you coming along in your figuring out how this extrapolation comes about?
Or do you now agree with me that R2-fishing is not the sole reason for using a particular curve type? Of course, if you do agree, and you haven't yet nutted out the calculation process, you must then be especially curious about my objective justification for arriving at this trajectory...
Snort again.
My bandaged pinkie also short-changed my graph, which should have [looked like this](http://i47.tinypic.com/x532g5.jpg).
Can you spot the difference?
Bernard: you said it - "perhaps I am a fool" (June 4th). How goes it with your CO2 projections from AD1? Especially when you lift the exponential rate from the observed y = 310.3e0.004x (where the 310.3 is the deduced level in 1958 derived from the actual series 1959-2009) to .004513.
Even your stats packs would have difficulty matching today's level with yours from AD1.
Then at June 13th (sigh!) you whimper: "Curtin, what considerations determine the type of curve that one fits to time series data? Seriously, answer the question."
I have before: the R2, the R2, the R2, stupid. On the Mauna Loa data from 1959-2009 the R2 shows the best (R2=0.999) is the #5 polynomial, more than a tad better than the R2 on your exponential (0.992).
And on your graph, I see there is for all practical purposes no difference between your K = 0.00415 and K = 0.004153 projections of [CO2] by 2110. Bernie M, you will have to lift your game if you ever hope to land a job with Penny Wong's Madoff Inc (aka DCC).
Clot that your are, you seem to have forgotten what I noted previously that the #5 polynomial does indeed realise a faster than exponential growth rate for 1959 to 2009, so why will you not accept that? Possibly because you have a faint glimmering that polyomials are not linear or exponential and may well lead to a downturn (that is their nature). I see that already in the Tmean temp trends at various places like Pt Barrow and Cape Grim.
So re your last, when you bleat "Or do you now agree with me that R2-fishing is not the sole reason for using a particular curve type" No I do NOT. R2 is the ONLY basis for preferring one fit over another. What is your criterion, Madoff?
Curtin:
"R2 is the ONLY basis for preferring one fit over another. What is your criterion, Madoff? "
Oh, good god...
Tim, if you fit increasing higher-order polynomials to ANY data set, you will get increasingly higher R2, to an arbitrarily high value. Choose a polynomial order greater than the number of data, and you can produce an R2 of 1, a perfect fit - which will be physically meaningless.
R2 inflation is a basic concept taught in basic stastistics classes, and it forces us to recognize that R2 is FAR from 'the ONLY basis for preferring one fit over another.' There are statistical tools for determining whether an inflated R2 isa ctually a better fit - your bald assertion that on R2 matters, is also denying the existence of that entire area of statistics.
Curtin, you seem to think that your mathemagical absurdity will require the real physical world to accommodate your analysis. Don;t work that way - the physical reality matters when choosing a model that one hopes will describe physical reality. A marginally better R2, achieved by choosing higher-order models that give the results one hopes to get, doesn't change the physical reality.
Not any more than your handwaving - 'MM is wrong for this purpose' assertions do in your slide show.
RE Richard Simons on June 13th responding to me @ 353:
Sorry for delay in responding, but I was up in Sydney presenting at a public meeting in Rockdale Town Hall along with the great Anthony Watts and David Archibald. My rabble rousing talk on the effects of reducing [CO2] on food production seemed to go down rather well.
You quoted me as saying "I simply look at world production and consumption of cereals (with 40% contained carbon) since 1961 (when 'we' began seriously 'pumping CO2 into the atmosphere'), despite the best efforts of Jeff Harvery's favourite bugs", and you added:
"I have seen similar increases (over various time intervals, of course) variously attributed to increased mechanisation, new varieties, better control of weeds and other pests, increased irrigation, greater human population, improved marketing, greater fertilizer use, better farming practices in general, and so on (no, I can't be bothered to find links for you). Any of these alone could conceivably have resulted in the observed yield increases in the absence of any effect of increased CO2. Why do you think that none of these is important?"
Well of course I do not. My published and peer reviewed paper "Climate Change and Food Production" and my ANU seminar on 29th April which launched this Thread both go into the points your raise in some detail (VIA REGRESSION ANALYSIS) - and both are available at my website (www.timcurtin.com).
LIke it or not, NONE of the factors you mention could have resulted in increased yields in the absence of atmospheric CO2 (i.e. [CO2]). It is the sine qua non, or NECESSARY condition (albeit not sufficient on its own) for any increase in NPP from the other factors you mention.
I know Latin in no longer taught, and that not a single climate scientist in the whole world could tell you what "sine qua non" means, but hey, that's education today!
So for all non-classical scholars, let me spell it out. For photosynthesis to occur, the presence of atmospheric CO2 is a NECESSARY pre-condition at a concentration preferably (for optimal returns) of well above at least 500 ppm: no [CO2] > 150 ppm, no NPP at all, despite unlimited inputs like those you mention, and for best outcomes like those in Dutch greenhouses, at least 1000 ppm is desirable.
BACK TO SCHOOL MATE AND LEARN SOME LATIN!!!
Tim Curtin.
Your [last post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) stereotypically reveals you to be the analytically depauperate and methodologically bankrupt numpty that you are.
You put forward a lot of gobbledegook about the Mauna Loa regression, but you continue to persist in your avoidance of my question: using the annual Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration data, are my regression coefficients of 0.0911 for α and 0.0042 for k, derived from the Excel graphing tool's trend fit for an exponential curve, incorrect?
Yes or no.
Now, about your 5th order polynomial...
I'm glad that you have formally committed your idea that "R2 is the ONLY basis for preferring one fit over another" to the eternal memory of the Interweb. However, I note that you have not provided any explanation at all as to why R2 values should be the sole basis for modelling the trajectory of a time series, and that you specifically avoided answering my question about the physical justification for using a particular curve type.
After all, the logical conclusion of your approach is that one should fit something like a 20th-order, or even higher, polynomial to the dataset, as this will mould the curve around even more of the variation in the data. Of course, I realise that your favourite tool for Megapowerful Curtin AnalysisTM is the trumpted-up accountants' application, Microsoft Excel, so you are limited to requesting a polynomial no higher than 6th-order...
So, what about the physical properties of the data? As I said, [my trajectory](http://i47.tinypic.com/x532g5.jpg) is based entirely on characteristics of the data themselves, and relies in no way on a posteriori fishing expeditions. Perhaps you are avoiding this aspect of my questioning because you haven't figured out yet how I derived the extrapolation? That's interesting - it was a very simple process, and as a former professional economist I would have expected you to work it out almost instantaneously. There are even little hints in [the graph itself](http://i47.tinypic.com/x532g5.jpg) that give clues to the process I employed.
I am happy to repeat my statement from 4 June - perhaps I myself am a fool. You, however, have done nothing to demonstrate that I am - unless one counts the fact that I persist in engaging with you when a wise man would recognise such an endeavour as a Sisyphean exercise in futility. Perhaps persistent engagement with a fool makes one a fool too.
If so, then I have certainly made a fool of myself, because when it comes to anything remotely resembling a process of science or of scientific analysis you, old man, are incontrovertibly a fool of the highest order.
After refreshing the page I note that [Lee has beaten me to a more detailed explanation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) of your R2 absurdity whilst I've been away from the keyboard attending to crying children, so I will avoid pushing this particular boulder anymore today... except to say that my extrapolation's R2 value rounds to the same 0.999 that your 5th order polynomial does, so what does this mean for deciding which is the more appropriate?
As ever I see that most of my long-languishing questions remain unanswered, and that the fact of your ongoing ignorance of the foundations of science remains as it ever has - unshakable... Just in case you have slipped into thinking that we might finally no longer notice.
Back to school mate and learn some science.
364 Curtin,
Oh, really? You know that, do you? That makes you a liar or a fantasist. Which is it?
Gack! Grammar!
"That makes you a liar or a fantasist. Which is it?"
You act like they are mutually exclusive claims. :)
368 Robert,
Good point. :) IMO a fantasist is delusional and cannot distinguish truth from falsehood; a liar can, and knowingly presents falsehood as truth.
It is a problem deciding which category most denialists fall into to, I agree.
Addressing material that I ignored last night:
Curtin, read my comments again. I indicated that a resolution of the exponent constant to four decimal places was inadequate for exponential extrapolation of the line of best fit derived from regression. To that end [I showed you what a 4-decimal-place constant gives, and what 5- and 6-decimal-place constants give](http://i50.tinypic.com/2qdbqrd.jpg). I know that it will probably kill you to admit that I was correct, but a 5th decimal place has a considerable effect on the placement of the regression line, and thus of concentrations extrapolated from it. A sixth decimal place has a minor effect, depending on what one constitutes "minor" to be, but this does not alter my original point - that the use of exponential constants provided by the trendline widget in the graphing tool is inappropriate if one is going to make extrapolations from the line of best fit.
Now you can bluster as much as you desire, and put your hand on your heart and swear to us that you actually use SPSS with which to derive all of your constants (why then do you not generate your graphs from SPSS?!), but that won't explain [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
All this is, of course, in addition to the mounting pile of other ineptitudes in analysis that you have displayed during the course of this thread.
Oh, and have you figured out yet how I derived [my extrapolation of the trajectory of Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration](http://i47.tinypic.com/x532g5.jpg)? It really, really, really isn't that complicated a derivation, and it's firmly rooted in the physicality of the data...
Come on, old economist - the clock's ticking...
> No I do NOT. R2 is the ONLY basis for preferring one fit over another.
See your world-class Dunning-Kruger effect right here, folks.
Jeff sez "... if you wade into academic circles where population and plant ecologists reside your talks will be annihalated". Really? I have now given 3 seminars on climate change at the Australian National University where the audiences included Fellows of the Royal Society and/or the Australian Academy in the very fields you mention, and many others. There was no annihilation either then or later, but only support (apart from one angry walkout).
Bernie M: you are not simply a fool (your word) but also an idiot with your attacks on Excel, as exemplified by your pathetic graphs showing you really have no idea how to use Excel. You certainly did not get 800 ppm by 2100 in your second graph by using the exponents you used (e.g. e=.004153) in your first. The "useless" Excel Growth function yields only 600 by 2110 from the ML data for 1959-2009, and its exponential 0.004 (from the fitted curve) produces only 578 by 2110, and 587 with .0041. The variation is hardly of great policy significance, with doubling from 280 by 2099 with e=0.0041 and 2102 with e=.004. Your 800 by 2100 confirms my guess that your real name is Madoff.
Jeff: I forgot to add that my ANU seminar on the Garnaut report was televised and featured on the news that evening. No annihilation then or since.
But as a friend (!) I offer you this:
Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity
by Daniel B. Botkin, Henrik Saxe, Miguel B. Araújo, Richard Betts, Richard H. W. Bradshaw, Tomas Cedhagen, Peter Chesson, Terry P. Dawson, Julie R. Etterson, Daniel P. Faith, Simon Ferrier, Antoine Guisan, Anja Skjoldborg Hansen, David W. Hilbert, Craig Loehle, Chris Margules, Mark New, Matthew J. Sobel, And David R. B. Stockwell. Published in BioScience 57(3): 227-236.
In 2004 a group of scientists, including myself (viz. David Stockwell), met and discussed what needed to be done to improve the ability to forecast the possible effects of global warming on biodiversity. The result was a paper published in BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS).
In that paper, we proposed a âQuarternary Conundrumâ â we found that the fossil record gave results about climate change and biodiversity that did not agree with modern forecasts. Here
http://landshape.org/enm/
is what we wrote about that idea. (If you are interested in more from this paper, let Stockwell know and he will post more of it, or you can obtain it from AIBS.)
Jeff, I am sure David and I would both be interested in your views.
ââââââââââââââââ
More for Jeff: You would just love today's interview of Frank Fenner FRS, FAAS, in The Australian's Higher Education section, as "our fate is sealed" - "we're going to become extinct. Whatever we do now is too late". I kid you not. But that is good news, no need after all to go for carbon taxes, electric cars (based on coal fired electricity here), and windmills. Hooray!
Now aged 95, Frank led the fight against smallpox, and was given the honour of announcing its eradication at the UN General Assembly in 1980. Ironically, he now rails against the population growth ("there are too many people here already") that ending smallpox helped to promote.
Frank on the other hand also did his bit to reduce biodiversity with his very nearly successful campaign to render rabbits extinct, with his myxomatosis. Alas, to his annoyance, the wild rabbits developed resistance and still flourish.
It's not clear from the interview whether or not like some latter day Strangelove, Frank has himself developed a new myomatosis that will render us humans extinct, as he does not actually cite climate change as being the cause of our impending extinction, he instead just claims our species "is on the brink of extinction" because "as the population keeps growing up to 7, 8, or 9 billion there will be a lot more wars over food". More than the current nil wars over food?
I actually know and like Frank, we are both members of the so-called Emeritus Faculty, but I fear he is talking out of the top of his silvery head.
Curtin blathers:
Ah, so it's name-calling again, huh? I can do that too, with considerably more justification...
Curtin, you're a great big thickie. I told you that I used characteristics of the Mauna Loa data themselves to derive an extrapolation. I did not say that this extrapolation was based in any way on the fitting of an exponential curve to the data. It should be patently obvious to anyone reading the thread that my fitting of an exponetial curve to the data is a different matter to the extrapolation that I derived afterward.
Telling me how I did not obtain the graph is not answering the question. I know very well that I did not obtain it by applying an exponential regression. You should know that too - I indicated to you that I did not apply an a posteriori selection of a curve to fit to the data, but rather that [I used the physical nature of the data themselves](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
I am finding it quite amusing that you do not seem to be able to determine how I did this. Even I, cynic that I am, did not anticipate this. Seriously, I would have thought that an economist would nut it out in less than 30 minutes, and probably in less than one. It's now more than 30 hours later, and I am beginning to suspect that it might take you 30 days or more, unless you recruit some of your economics contacts to help you.
I do hope that you eventually figure it out, because I want to hear your justification for using a 5th-order polynomial or even an exponential progression, instead of my approach, to model the trajectory... I'm quite happy to have my derivation dismissed, if it's justified on a physical basis rather than however one might hammer various lines of best fit to find one that will oblige with a high R2 value.
On the matter of the exponential fit, I note that you continue to refuse to answer my question about the constants. So, for today's rolling uphill of the boulder... using the annual Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration data, are my regression coefficients of 0.0911 for α and 0.0042 for k, derived from the Excel graphing tool's trend fit for an exponential curve, incorrect?
Yes or no.
And to finish on the matter of Excel again, perhaps you could inform the list exactly why it is appropriate to use it over any of a dozen or more statistical packages specifically designed to deal with scientific data, where Exel remains a trumped-up accountancy program. And believe me, having this week played with the latest version of Excel, my opinion of it has not improved - even from a simple navigation point-of-view, the most recent incarnation is a clunker.
I simply do not have the words to express how utterly dopey that claim is.
Tim Curtin: Bugger Latin, learn some stats. It's hard work, but well worth it if it stops you making a total ass of yourself.
Everyone else: Please don't tell Tim that Excel's trendline function allows polynomials up to degree 6.
Is there a point to comment 374?
(TC - Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question)
Bernard Madoff asks me: "using the annual Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration data, are my regression coefficients of 0.0911 for α and 0.0042 for k, derived from the Excel graphing tool's trend fit for an exponential curve, incorrect?" Yes the α is incorrect - use your α=0.0911 and tell us what you then obtain for 2100. You simply do not understand how to use any stat software, least of all Excel.
Let me try to help you: you need to set α at 316 ppm in 1959, which for use of the exponential formula also requires you to set 1959=x=1.
I agree that k=0.0041 is slightly more accurate than k=0.004, because the former is the LN compound growth rate yielded by the ML data, and that is easily fixed.
I could as easily as you cook 800 ppm by 2100, but I am curious as to what "physics" you used.
I remain amazed at your hostility to Excel, did you have the same violent love for say Casio rather than HP calculators? I do also use SPSS, and I have a couple of others, but for most purposes Excel seems fine.
As for Gaz, why don't you debunk and then rewrite all stats textbooks, eg Keller 7th edition? It uses R2 to distinguish between fits.
If Fenner had been entirely successful, he would certainly have greatly improved biodiversity in Australia. From an ecological perspective, rabbit extinction in Australia would have relieved the impact that the pest has on countless native species. However, complete success was never expected, and anyway myxomatosis nevertheless has prevented the greater biodiversity loss that would have occurred, had the myxoma virus not been released.
As to Fenner's commentary about human extinction - from an ecological point of view, and from the experience of the history of human nature, I reckon that he has a strong case. Personally, I believe that there are currently enough populations of self-sufficient human cultures remaining that there could be a struggling-through the ecological bottle-necks that our current unretrained consumption habits are likely to inflict upon us, and some technological understanding might squeeze through too, but if our collective response to non-AGW sustainability issues is as poor in the future as it has been to date on the matter of carbon emissions, then Fenner is probably on the money.
And, Tim Curtin, your CO2 nonsense presents no panacæa to counter this likelihood.
Fenner's head is fine Curtin. It's yours that it of dubious functionality, and I wonder if this is a reason why you don't appear to be speaking at [Frank's eponymously-named conference next week](http://nceph.anu.edu.au/Fenner2010/).
After all, there is a significant emphasis on the economics of climate change - surely that's your stated bread-and-butter?
Did someone not recognise your great mind?
>*Frank on the other hand also did his bit to reduce biodiversity with his very nearly successful campaign to render rabbits extinct, with his myxomatosis.*
Tim Curtin specialises in:
a) missing the point; and
b) making a bogus point to replace it.
Tim, your simple sentance says much more about your competance than anything I would wish to add.
Re TC's calumny of Frank Fenner at #374: I'm quite familiar with Frank too - and know what he thinks of you. He is a scientist. You're not. He is worth listening to, even in his dotage. You never were, nor will be.
Curtins for Curtin,
I am busy today doing field work and one of my PhD students is defending his thesis. By coincidence, his thesis is on climate warming and plant invasions.
To be brief: rabbits are non-endemic to Australia. Like cane toads and kudzu and zebra mussels and giant hogweed and a gamut of other invasives, they have become serious threats to local biodiversity by outcompeting and in some places displacing native plant and animal assemblages. This is because many bring novel traits to their new habitats which give them a competitive edge over natives; another is that they escape from their own native enemies (e.g. pathogens, predators) in their new ranges. Given that Curtin knows nothing about this field of research (amongst most other ecological fields into which, for some reason, he delves) I think that this is enough to put his crap on this issue into the bin where it belongs.
As for the effects of climate change on biodiversity, why are you cherry picking Curtin? What gives you the scientific or moral authority to be able to select a few studies which show net benefits in a warming world against a much larger number (e.g. Thomas, Parmesan, as well as hundreds of experimental studies) which show a very different pattern? This is how science works. Not by consensus. Given that your acumen in ecology is at grade school level, your blatant cherry picking is a sure-fire sign that you are promoting an agenda that has nix to do with science and everything to do with politics and policy. Hardly surprising, given how right wing you are.
As Bernard said, humans are simplifying natural systems at such a profoundly alarming rate and the concern of the scientific community is that once we go beyond some threshold they will be unable to support life in a manner that we know, and that there will be serious raminfications for humanity. Already vitally important ecocystem services are being rapidly degraded. Not that I would expect a 73 year old right wing econmomist to understand this, but we try.
As for your seminar, do not expect the scientific community to take it seriously. If you had any guts you'd try and publish your stuff in a good journal and not one in social sciences with no impact factor that does not appear on the Web of Science. You have breathtaking arrogrance IMHO for someone with little in the way of relevant experience or knowledge of science.
Curtin,
I assume that we are talking about the same DRB Stockwell with a grand total of only 16 peer-reviewed publications listed in the WOS since 1990? And who also likes to publish his stuff in E & E, the poster non-WOS journal for contrarians?
You really do have a knack for bolstering academics who support your views, irrespective of their pedigree (or lack thereof), whilst regularly denigrating those (Solomon, Ehrlich etc) who are world-class authorities in their fields but whose views do not fit in with yours.
One last point: the real clueless part of Stockwell'a analyses are three-fold. First, the concern over climate change is not just in driving extinction at the species level, but in generating a decline in genetic variation as well as overall abundance of species, rendering them more susceptible to other selective agents. A species loses its ecological value long before it becomes extinct. Extinction is not instantaneous but occurs in a lag phase that follows the initial perterbation. It appears that you and Stockwell are cluelessly stuck (like Lomborg) on the notion that extinction is instantaneous or rapid. In their seminal 1994 Nature paper, David Tilman, Robert May (ever heard of them Tim?) argue that there is an 'extinction debt' following an initial environmental change that can take many decades or even centuries to be manifested on the dynamics and functioning of ecological systems.
The second point is that previous warming episodes were mostly much more gradual than the present one and did not occur against a background of a planet that had been so altered and simplified by humanity. Climate change is but one threat to biodiversity, in addition to invasive species (discussed in my last post), other forms of pollution, habitat loss, changes in the chemical environment and overharvesting. This is an important point that is ignored by the denialati.
Third, where in Stockwell's models are phenological processes and network interaction webs incorporated? We now know through years of painstaking research that ecological systems function on the basis of the 'sum of their parts', but we also know that different species within interacting webs respond differently to warming. If these interactions are tight, then feedback loops are likely to be more adversely affected if each species responds differently to warming. Where have thge contrarians factored this into their models?
A final point is that Stockwell's views conflict with the vast majority of those held by scientists working in the field, including me. Its good that he airs his views and publishes his arguments, but they are not held by the mainstream. Given your neophyte staus in the field, what gives you the ability to discard the findings and opinions of 95% or more of scientists in favor of a few outliers?
> In fact, why not just connect all the dots? Then colour it in. You should be able to manage that.
Gaz FTW! ;-)
I seriously need more popcorn.
Gaz: the low R2s on some fitted curves are of course an indication of basically non-linear relationships. The polynomial if it fits so well suggests there are factors other than the linear; eg for [CO2] there are the major effects of El Nino/La Nina, you can easily tell an El Nino year from just the larger increase in [CO2] for given CO2 emissions over the time series, as the biospheric absorptions are less (or AF greater) in such years, and vice versa for La Nina. I can tell you the Nino/Nina years just by looking at the Mauna Loa time series. Bernard's exponential trend line totally abstracts from and conceals the ENSO. Which polynomial? - let's see. But it's the 5th which gets the 1959 and 2009 values spot on, so it does have something going for it, unlike #2-#4.
Bernie's first raw data plot showed how ML does have a polynomial look to it, unlike his linear fits. You guys are the whiz kinds, it is for you to explain why the ML series is recalcitrant in terms of your own unique brand of linear physics.
Hint: instead of Madoff's absolute ML readings, take the year on year % changes, which bring out the El Nino/La Nina years brilliantly, and the polynomial captures their cyclical nature to perfection. Even Madoff's fellow bible bashers at the IPCC have yet to claim they can model the ENSO or explain it. No doubt you can, fame awaits you in AR5.
AND BERNIE M, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO EXPLAIN AS PROMISED THE PHYSICS BEHIND YOUR PREDICTION OF [CO2] AT 800 PPM BY 2100?
I rarely read anything this thread, since it's bound to be mostly nonsense. But when Gaz said, in #383:
...Well, that was enough to make the trip worthwhile! :-)
Regards,
Bruce
I have to ask, has Tim Curtin ever heard of overfitting?
> ...the polynomial captures their cyclical nature to perfection.
Another stunning declaration of basic incompetency wrapped up in Dunning-Kruger hubris from TC.
Polynomials **by definition** have a limited number of direction reversals (i.e. gradient sign changes), that number being precisely one less than the degree of the polynomial. This fact is **well-known to high school students**.
Truly cyclical processes, **by definition**, have an unbounded number of direction reversals. This fact is **well-known to high school students**. Therefore, **by definition**, any truly cyclical process **cannot** be captured by a polynomial. To say so - especially when attempting to model a real world process where future data points will arrive but are not yet known - is absolute idiocy.
This perfectly illustrates the folly of choosing the "best fit" (especially on a limited data set) without determining what form of fitted curve is plausible based on other considerations.
Which has been an important point that several commenters have tried to get TC to understand for some time now.
Tim Curtin, you really think an effectively stochastic process like El Nino can be appropriately incorporated into a model by using a 5th order polynomial?
You think El Nino is a 5th-order polynomial function of the date? And you think a high r-squared tells you that you're right?
Oh please. This is so far beyond silly it's a barely visible speck on the horizon.
My advice is this: If you truly can't handle reality, get an X-box. I mean, seriously, get an X-box or Playstation or something. If you're going to live in Fantasyland, do it properly.
Michael Ralston, have you ever heard of underfitting, eg Bernieâs?
Lotharsson: Well like it or not, the R2 tells us the #5 polynomial is the better fit for the annual % changes in [CO2] at Mauna Loa than the linear or exponential. The challenge for both of us why that is or is not consistent with whatever theory one chooses to advance.
L claims: âTruly cyclical processes (sic), by definition, have an unbounded number of direction reversals.â Nonsense, unless you mean that ups are indeed followed by downs and vice versa ad infinitum.
â This fact is well-known to high school studentsâ. Rubbish, as it is not true.
âTherefore, by definition, any truly cyclical process cannot be captured by a polynomialâ. Well it is, by #5 polynomial on the ML data 1959-2009, with a higher R2 than on any non-polynomial fit (linear, exponential, logarithmic).
âThis perfectly illustrates the folly of choosing the "best fit" (especially on a limited [sic â 51 years is unusually long in this game] data set) without determining what form of fitted curve is plausible based on other considerationsâ.
I agree that generally it is good to be inductive rather than deductive, but there is no harm in seeing what the data can tell us. Here the ML data set is saying there is no plausible linear or exponential trend, which would imply a single causal factor. Clearly in fact the increases in [CO2] actually result from both human emissions AND whatever causes the El Nino-La Nina alternation, which for hundreds of years has been cyclical (Groves & Chappel, two of Australiaâs most eminent scientists).
So Loth, it is up to you to specify the âother considerationsâ which you say would yield curves with better fits than my #5 polynomial. I bet you never will.
BTW, your reference to high school students is absurd, it is perfectly possible to have DEGREES like Australiaâs PM and Treasurer (Kev Rudd and Wayning Swan) and be manifestly incapable of doing percentages (both think that a tax rate of 30% on $430 becomes a tax rate of 13% on $1000, when the legal rate itself has not changed from 30%, admittedly relying on the equally mathematically challenged NBER American âstudentâ Kev (no less) Markle aged 41).
Gaz sez âyou really think an effectively stochastic process like El Nino can be appropriately incorporated into a model by using a 5th order polynomial?â.
Why not? El Nino is NOT stochastic or a random walk; the other terms in my polynomial easily accommodate the variables that individually determine the ENSO, eg temperature variations at Darwin relative to South America.
Any half decent scientist could readily determine which of the terms in the polynomial refer to each of the respective relevant variables, I leave it to you as an exercise, you will need to use regression analysis, a skill that is not evident in any of the commenters on this thread.
>Lotharsson: Well like it or not, the R2 tells us the #5 polynomial is the better fit for the annual % changes in [CO2] at Mauna Loa than the linear or exponential. The challenge for both of us why that is or is not consistent with whatever theory one chooses to advance.
Okay then Tim, why do you think the polynomial is consistent with physical reality? Try progging it forwards a few hundred years. Does it produce results that you can explain through physical processes?
>L claims: âTruly cyclical processes (sic), by definition, have an unbounded number of direction reversals.â Nonsense, unless you mean that ups are indeed followed by downs and vice versa ad infinitum.
That's exactly what Lotharsson means, you foolish man.
>So Loth, it is up to you to specify the âother considerationsâ which you say would yield curves with better fits than my #5 polynomial. I bet you never will.
I hope I'm not stepping on his toes, but Lotharsson's concern is not who has the best R^2 value, but which model is consistent outwith the range for which we have accurate data. Clearly a model that produces unrealistic results when you take it outside the range for which data is available is simply a curve fitting exercise.
Let me put it this way. Curtin is sure his 5th order polynomial captures many of the physical processes that underlie our data curve. However, if the results are unphysical outside the data range, then there's simply no way, nada, that it has any explanatory power whatever, and contains no hint of the physical processes at work.
If it did contain lots of information about the physical processes at work, it should be able to give you a good idea of how much CO2 was in the atmosphere well outside the 51 year Mauna Loa data range. Does it?
The following for Jeff:
Butterflies 'fly early as planet warms...then again probably not'
ABC provided extensive coverage (see HERE) of a Biology Letters paper titled "Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming" in March [David Karoly amongst other usual suspects]. A comment by Mark Hendricks challenging the claims of the paper has now been published online by Biology Letters.
Mark's Comment includes the following statements:
"I have obtained the same data used in this study as Kearney et al. and am unable to confirm the results for the historical observation data. I count 239 observations made in Oct-Dec from 1942 to 2009. The annual data show a wide range of earliest observation dates (Figure 1), and at face value the use of 5 year or 10 year averages appears to be a convenient statistical method that hides the very wide spread of observation dates."
"Using this "opportunistic" data to establish emergence is like dating a volcanic eruption based on collection dates of samples housed in a museum. The historical trends identified simply reflect variation in the time collectors have ventured out to observe and collect butterflies. "
"There remains considerable temporal bias in the data, with over 50% of total observations post dating 1990. There is also a considerable bias in observation locations, with the vast majority collected in Melbourne's east and none in the vicinity of Laverton, the weather station that was used to characterise temperature change over the whole of the study area (Figure 2)."
"The paper does not mention well documented Urban Heat Island effects over Melbourne that encompasses Laverton that have clearly affected temperature at this station over the period of study (see Morri and Simmonds, 2000 and Torok et al., 2001). Close examination of other stations in the study area shows a wide variety of temperature trends (Figure 2). It seems the authors have chosen one station that favours their theory without adequately explaining why others should be rejected. "
"Based on these points, I believe that the authors' conclusions remain unsupported by the data presented."
ht Robert Bolt and ABC: http://abcnewswatch.blogpsot.com/2010/6/butterflies_fly_early_as_planet…
Jeff, we await your rebuttal in Biology Letters (NOT here) with anxious anticipation.
Curtin, anyone who has any expertise in regression analysis or statistical analysis generally is painfully aware by now that you are, shall we say, rather severely constrained by your limitations in the field.
It's quite laughable that you accuse other here of lacking skill.
Fitting a polynomial to an atmospheric CO2 concentration time series does not "accommodate the variables that individually determine the ENSO". It's just drawing a line of best fit through a bunch of dots, for goodness sake.
It's worse than useless if the model is not an anaolgue of what's actually happening.
An exponential trend is actually consistent with physical reality - we're putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, so you expect CO2 concentration to be growing by bigger amounts every year, on average.
An order-5 polynomial, on the other hand, has no basis in physical reality.
You say:
You have got to be joking.
Can anyone imagine a scientist studying El Nino sitting there wondering "Gee, I wonder which of the variables that might explain El Nino is represented by the date raised to the fifth power?"
Have you tried fitting a polynomial function to a subset of your data - say, the first half - then doing a simulation for the remainder of the data to see how that fits?
Or tried fitting your precious polynomial to the first half, then the second half. See if you get the same results.
Or tried extrapolating your model, say, a coupe of decades into the future
Go on. Just do it. Show yourself just how wrong you are.
I have to say, I am pretty annoyed at having been sucked into this ludicrous exhange, but the thought that some well-meaning people might actually take what you have to say seriously is chilling.
*I have to say, I am pretty annoyed at having been sucked into this ludicrous exhange, but the thought that some well-meaning people might actually take what you have to say seriously is chilling*
Gaz, this is the same reason I bother to expend efforts to counter Tim's appalling knowledge of complex systems in predicting the consequences of C02 increases on crop production and on primary productivity in natural systems. I have far better things to do with my time than to debate retired right wing economists who think they have some inherent wisdom in fields miles outside of their depth and about which they know diddly squat. In my view most of the stuff Tim writes here is basically at the level of a mediocre high school student. His most egregious errors are to exclude biotic interactions in his calculations, and how these are affected by a suite of abiotic changes to natural systems. Moreover, the two processes exhibit positive and negative feedbacks on one another making any efforts to predict the outcome of tampering with the chemical composition of the atmsophere on complex adaptive systems impossible. Natural systems exhibit non-linear properties; in Curtin's small myopic world cause and effect relationships involving C02 are strictly linear.
I do not rerally give a damn how Curtion responds, because IMO he is a legend in his own mind and thus will come back with all kinds of gobbledegook in trying to reassert his non-existant authority. My aim is to ensure that others stumbling upon this thread are fully aware of the facts and complexities involved, and thus will not to swallow his simple rhetoric. Like you, Lotharsson, Lee and Bernard, I feel we have some responsibility in this capacity.
> Lotharsson's concern is not who has the best R^2 value, but which model is consistent outwith the range for which we have accurate data.
Precisely. TC commits this fallacy over and over again - one is tempted to say it's a *cyclical process* - despite the fallacy being explained in any number of different ways time after time.
You can fit whatever curve you like to the data according to whatever criteria you like and no-one gives two hoots - maximise R^2 to your heart's content by ramping up the polynomial order or using exotic functions or combining multiple functions or whatever. You can do so right **up to the point** where you claim your curve fit and basis for curve selection captures something real about the world - and especially if you claim it's predictive - and then you have to justify your claims, because "the R^2 I came up with was better than anything else I could think of" is a fallacious justification.
> Truly cyclical processes (sic), by definition, have an unbounded number of direction reversals.â Nonsense, unless you mean that ups are indeed followed by downs and vice versa ad infinitum.
You're making a(nother) truly idiotic assertion. Yes, indeed, "ups are indeed followed by downs and vice versa ad infinitum" is precisely what **cyclical** means in the real world (including the fields of engineering, science, and unless I'm very much mistaken - *economics*). The fact that *you* either don't understand this or have your own private definition of the term doesn't change the fact that you're spectactularly wrong about what the term means.
Maybe you should do a basic course in signal analysis - but you'd have to exhibit reasonably consistent and solid post-high-school level mathematics to have a chance of understanding it, something that is not evident on this thread.
> [sic â 51 years is unusually long in this game]
The sic is appropriate for your statement, not mine. Climate time-scales are on the order of 30 years, so 51 years isn't very long at all.
> Okay then Tim, why do you think the polynomial is consistent with physical reality? Try progging it forwards a few hundred years. Does it produce results that you can explain through physical processes?
I hadn't bothered with this observation because I thought the number of direction reversals alone ought to be enough for the light bulb to go off, but apparently I over-estimated TC's abilities yet again.
Tim, for bonus points, figure out what happens with the 5th order polynomial as you run backwards in time. Feel free to try to explain why astonishingly rapid decline (in climate timescales) towards negative infinity captures something realistic about the climate system.
> In my view most of the stuff Tim writes here is basically at the level of a mediocre high school student.
Jeff, in my opinion you're being overly generous - although perhaps you're thinking of the early high-school grades rather than the later ones.
Shorter TC:
You guys really are pathetic. Bernie M gave you the Mauna Loa data; he used fits that in effect obscured the role of ENSO. I suggsted you look at the year on year percentage changes, which reveal the crucial role of ENSO. You deny it exists, even though it is the poynomial which exemplifies ENSO.
Then I have to contend with Loth: "Tim, for bonus points, figure out what happens with the 5th order polynomial as you run backwards in time". Actually it picks up ENSO with perfection. Prove me wrong, and show me your graph doing so.
But of course all you and Gaz et al AD NAUSEAM are capable of is armwaving, none of you have ever anytime anywhere made a constructive contribution to human knowledge, nor will you ever. If you could you would give up your anonymity - and that would enable me to nominate you all for the Nobels you believe you deserve.
I've been typing this in dribs and drabs over the last day or so, and I've seen that others have made some of my points in the mean time, but here it is nevertheless...
[Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), the α value is absolutely correct, insofar as it is the value returned when the data are processed using Excel's graphing tool.
Look at the annual Mauna Loa data: the independent variable (date) ranges from 1959 to 2009, and the dependent variable ([CO2]) spans 316 to 388 ppm. These are the data that one should put into a regression for a straightforward curve-fitting. No transformation of the independent variable needs to be done.
And when one regresses these data in Excelâs graphing function, the constants are exactly what I provided. For an extrapolation using this line of best fit, one enters new values of the independent data in the same format as used to construct the line of best fit, and one then obtains the extrapolated value for the dependent variable. Itâs junior high school stuff.
Yeah, riiight...
Bullshit.
The values for α and for x can be left exactly as they are. The thing is, one needs to use a non-rounded value for the constants, and especially for the exponent, as the latter is greatly affected by rounding error.
Try the exercise using the non-rounded values that I gave you, and youâll find that the results are within less than a ppm whether using α = 0.0911 directly, or using 310.39 after transforming, and then subsequently back-transforming. The differences arise from the differential multiplication of rounding errors â the original graphs themselves are identical in shape, and simply have a different x, y intercept.
You have fallen into the trap of using the rounded 0.0042 for the exponent constant when working on the data in its original form. I've harped on about this for ages, but the message obviously didn't sink in.
The reason that there is a discrepancy in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations between your transformed value for 2100 (= 142), and the actual use of the date 2100, is that the date multiplies the rounding error in the exponent. This does not mean that one should transform the x values of the dataset; it means that one should use appropriate numbers of decimal places with which to define the constants.
Do that, and the end result for atmospheric CO2 concentration is the same whichever form of x values one uses, with the simple fact that one isn't bouncing back and forth transforming and back-transforming when one simply uses the raw dates.
A this point in proceedings I will tender the very apparent fact that is is you who has no clue about how to use Excel; and further, that it is you who has no clue about basic statistical analysis.
Only the mythic deities of one's choice know how you managed a career in economics. Although, having watched the last several years economics antics around the world, I suppose the bar is set low in your profession...
Gawd, Curtin, do you actually read what is posted?!
I said that 0.0042 is too rounded, and that 0.00415, or better still, 0.004153, is required in order to not have one's extrapolations go slicing into the rough.
Are you constitutionally capable of getting anything correct?
I suppose that it would, if you don't understand what you are doing.
Which, from your accumulating comedy of errors, appears to be very much the case.
In [another of your posts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) you said:
Rubbish.
One can have a completely linear underlying cause/effect relationship between two variables, and have only a modest R2 value. This is because noise in the system, which is entirely independent of the nature of the relationship, also affects R2, and depending on the type of relationship that exists and the magnitude of the noise, it can affect the R2 more than does the shape of the descriptive trajectory.
Do I need to draw pictures for you about this, too?!
You big nimrod.
Any line of best fit removes short-term variation from a trajectory. The linear and 2nd-order polynomials that [you so enthusiastically promoted back at post #222](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) remove variation as much as "my" exponential fit, or my subsequent extrapolation based on a priori facts of physics.
Grow a brain cell, and then grow another so that the first won't be lonely.
You're struggling with fact again, aren't you? I've never promoted a linear fit as being appropriate to the Mauna Loa data. In fact, if you read the thread carefully, you will find that I said that the Mauna Loa data was not linear.
My comment about linarity had to do with [your mangling of pH scales almost a month ago](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and I confidently stand by that â it is entirely possible to have a linear change apparent for a logarithmically-scaled parameter. This simply implies that the actual change in the parameter is exponential.
Tell me, have you always had such a loose grasp of both correct attribution and of mathematical understanding, or is this a sign of age-related loss of mental function? If it is the latter, I will cease from further exchanges with you out of respect for your declining faculties.
Ah, Curtin, you never cease to provide me with a good laugh.
Hint: instead of slagging of at my trajectory, read your own comment, and consider that I indicated that there is a hint in the very graph itself.
The answer's right under your nose â it seems that you couldn't go the extra step to derive the curve itself.
I may tell you soon, but I want to see if you are able to put a couple of simple steps together, based on scientific logic, in order to ask the data themselves what they are doing.
I must say, it surprises me that you, an economist, has taken this long to figure out what is a truly naïve derivation. Perhaps if you had spent less time learning Latin and more learning mathematics, you might have figured it out by now.
Just to be clear, when I said "The values for α and for x can be left exactly as they are" I was referring to the value for α derived from the use of 1959-2009 as the x range. In other words, one does not need the 310.39 value for α that Curtin obtained by transforming the dates.
I still contend to actually construct an exponential line of best fit, the α value needs to be accurate to at least 5 decimal places.
TC:
"Then I have to contend with Loth: "Tim, for bonus points, figure out what happens with the 5th order polynomial as you run backwards in time". Actually it picks up ENSO with perfection. Prove me wrong, and show me your graph doing so."
Idiocy. Incompetence of the first order. Breathtaking mathematical ignorance.
Tim, the value of the dependent variable for your fifth order polynomial - of ANY fifth order polynomial - will tend monotonically toward positive or negative infinity as the independent variable moves far enough outside its central range, either backwards or forwards in time.
Curtin, you just claimed - perhaps without even realizing it - that as one moves backwards in time, a CO2 value tending monotonically towards infinity "picks up ENSO with perfection." Is that really what you are claiming that ENSO has done in the past?
Curtin, I really didn't think you could outdo your claim that decreasing pH would cause the world's ocean waters to become fresh enough for drinking and irrigation. You may actually have just outdone that one. Congratulations.
Notwithstanding the real contributions that have been made by your learned detractors: Exposing your nonsense for what it is might not add to the sum of human knowledge, but it sure prevents you from subtracting from it.
Honestly, tryng to model a CO2 trend with a superimposed ENSO cycle with a polynomial function! You'd do no worse using a teapot or an armadillo.
> Actually it picks up ENSO with perfection. Prove me wrong, and show me your graph doing so.
How utterly moronic.
Since I'm STILL over-estimating your analysis and inference powers, let me ask a simple question.
Given your 5th order polynomial fit to the [CO2] data, for which year values (and I probably need to spell it out - consider the *entire* axis, not just the 51 years of data you used to generate the fit) is the fitted [CO2] value **negative** and **what physical significance** does negative concentrations (of anything) have?
(For bonus points, at what year does the [CO2] exceed one million parts per million, and what physical significance does that have?)
And for the win - what do your answers imply about your claim that the 5th order polynomial fit captures something real about the climate system (including or disregarding ENSO as you see fit)?
And for the big win - what do your accumulated answers tell you about how to choose a functional form when fitting curves to data, and how to interpret the results - and how do those insights square with your fitting and interpretive efforts to date?
I have considerable skepticism that even these questions will cause the light bulb to go on - but we live in hope.
That's a no, then? Because, in fact, "underfitting" isn't a thing. There is having a POOR fit, but "underfitting" is not a term used by, well, anyone.
Meanwhile, overfitting is a real term for a real problem, that maybe you should spend five minutes googling before you reveal your ignorance.
I've taken pity on TC's inability to understand the egregiousness of modeling cyclical processes on top of rising trends by using 5th order polynomials - and his apparent inability to do the following for himself - and produced some helpful graphs using his favourite tool, Excel.
In the first [image](http://i45.tinypic.com/4viywn.png) the Mauna Loa data from comment #285 is plotted, along with Excel's 5th order polynomial trendline and Excel's exponential trendline. (You may have to click on the image in your browser in order to show it at full resolution - some browsers scale it down to fit on the screen at first).
You'll note there are two graphs. They show [C02] plotted (and trend curves calculated) against the year and against the 0-based index that TC thinks is significantly better for some reason. Note that corresponding curves on the two graphs are *identical* (although of course the polynomial trend function which is shown on the graph along with its R^2 has changed because of the translation of the x-axis. There are heaps of significant digits in the polynomial function so that one can check that the same trend function is used in subsequent graphs.)
The [next image](http://i45.tinypic.com/wlx8x4.png) shows what happens when the calculated trendlines are projected backwards or forwards. This should help those who can't visualise what an 5th-order polynomial must eventually do as you traverse the x-axis in either direction - and why it might not be an appropriate choice to model certain physical processes.
The projection 100 years back from the start of the Mauna Loa data series the polynomial shows a known-to-be significantly unrealistic rise in [CO2] before taking a dramatic dive into negative concentrations. It can also be seen that the exponential trend projects values that are known to be too low 100 years back - thus illustrating that projections based on curve-fitting to data should not be taken seriously unless there is some other justification for believing the extrapolation will be a reasonable prediction for the x-axis range of interest.
In the second graph in that image the calculated trends are projected forwards to 2050, by which time the 5th order polynomial has reached 800ppm - which, barring massive climate system surprises, no-one thinks is even remotely realistic.
By 2100 the 5th order polynomial has exceeded 5000 ppm which is pure folly as any sort of prediction without a major climate system regime shift, whilst the exponential is about 560 ppm - which is somewhere near the ballpark of current expectations (and at a minimum the right order of magnitude).
For humour value, there's also a [projection out to 2350](http://i47.tinypic.com/2wei1ok.png). Check out the polynomial trend concentration at that date - that's one hell of an ENSO-driven change, and a very interesting atmosphere! ;-)
Thanks Lotharsson (and Bernard, Lee and Jeffrey) for taking the time when others like me can't be bothered any more. Your [last post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), Lotharsson, made my week.
[Loatharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) wins the internets! (again!).
Tim, are you reading this?
>*Then I have to contend with Loth: *"Tim, for bonus points, figure out what happens with the 5th order polynomial as you run backwards in time".* **Actually it picks up ENSO with perfection. Prove me wrong, and show me your graph doing so.**
>But of course all you and Gaz et al AD NAUSEAM are capable of is armwaving,
Dang, Lotharson, you just made my last hour redundant!
Of course, as you didn't use Excel to construct the graphs, Curtin is sure to claim that there is trickery in your plots!
Even so, he must surely be starting to garner at least an inkling as to why he is so far off the mark. Surely.
And perhaps it's time for me to put him out of his misery and tell him how my trajectory to 800 ppm by 2100 was constructed...
Or perhaps not yet... ;-)
Well done Loth, of course, I didn't think any of you were up to it!
I note that you did not confirm Bernie Madoff's 800 ppm by 2100.
> Of course, as you didn't use Excel to construct the graphs, Curtin is sure to claim that there is trickery in your plots!
Actually, I anticipated this objection and accordingly used Excel to construct the graphs - and do the projections backwards and forwards. Besides, it was the closest tool I have to hand ;-)
> I didn't think any of you were up to it!
That would be a very foolish assumption; it was trivial. Many computer-literate primary school kids could no doubt accomplish it.
> I note that you did not confirm Bernie Madoff's 800 ppm by 2100.
It wasn't my concern.
Snigger... You artful bastard!
Them's ain't the default settings then, is they? ;-)
Tim Curtin whinges:
It's really eating at you, isn't it Curtin?
Fret not, I'll assuage your curiosity soon...
Oo, and:
Up to what? Demonstrating that you're speaking from your arse?
Or are you now pretending that it was all a ruse on your part, and that you didn't mean anything that you said?
If that's the case, you can figure out my extrapolation process yourself. Just to prove that you're not really as thick an economist as you've apparently been pretending to be...
> Them's ain't the default settings then, is they?
IIRC it's Excel 2007 and I messed with some of the colours and line styles to (hopefully) make it easier to read be more artful ;-)
Well Loth et al, now show your cleverness by taking any of the SRES projections of anthropogenic emissions from now until 2100 or so, and give us your best estimate using JUST your preferred fitted curve of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 ([CO2]) by 2100, WITHOUT using the Michaelis-Menten assumption, as deployed by Wigley-Enting MAGICC models, of zero further absorptions or uplifts by the biosphere, AND modelling ENSO effects as well. None of you,least of all Madoff B, will be able to produce a projection of 800 ppm for [CO2] from SRES or Garnaut-Howes-Jotzo (2008) without using MAGICC or the Bern clone.
Bernard:
>Or are you now pretending that it was all a ruse on your part, and that you didn't mean anything that you said?
Yes indeed, it was all a clever ploy, and TC was just pretending to be stupid!
One hell of an actor and a great D-K Poe, that's all I'll say.
TC, in the face of continually being shown how idiotic his claims are, remains awfully eager to keep throwing out these demands to do his work for him and prove him wrong, doesn't he.
This seems especially, well... stupid? - considering how eager he also is to abandon the questions he has been asked, as soon as it become clear that answering them will show him for the prat he is..
So, in the interest of furthering any miniscule tiny bit of honesty TC might have remaining, I'll repost here Lotharsson's questions from 403, so that TC might address them. Curtin, please note that many of these questions have two parts, and both parts matter.
Hell, this should be trivially easy, Curtin - Lotharsson has done the hard part for you, and graphed the function in Excel. All you have to do is extract the numbers by examination, and tell us about the physical significance of those numbers.
---
Given your 5th order polynomial fit to the [CO2] data, for which year values (and I probably need to spell it out - consider the entire axis, not just the 51 years of data you used to generate the fit) is the fitted [CO2] value negative and what physical significance does negative concentrations (of anything) have?
(For bonus points, at what year does the [CO2] exceed one million parts per million, and what physical significance does that have?)
And for the win - what do your answers imply about your claim that the 5th order polynomial fit captures something real about the climate system (including or disregarding ENSO as you see fit)?
And for the big win - what do your accumulated answers tell you about how to choose a functional form when fitting curves to data, and how to interpret the results - and how do those insights square with your fitting and interpretive efforts to date?
Tim Curtin proves that you can be so soo wrong and still act like you're so soo right!
We'll some people are that shameless. How about some recanting Tim? Some humility? Some clear statement of the implications you see from your errors?
Hi fans, thanks to all of you have posted since my #391 where I said (in laying down my challenge):
"Any half decent scientist could readily determine which of the terms in the polynomial refer to each of the respective relevant variables, I leave it to you as an exercise, you will need to use regression analysis, a skill that is not evident in any of the commenters on this thread".Posted by Tim Curtin | June 17, 2010 1:21 AM
For you have certainly proved what dunces you all are, but above all Madoff B. and Loth, with your proven incapacity to do either the research necessary to carry out the regression analysis, or such analysis, as I said you would need to.
Only a super idiot like Loth could think that extrapolating on a single independent variable, x, (=year) could ever yield a meaningful result, unless you think, as clearly like Bernie Madoff you do, that the mere passage of time is enough to explain everything.
Gather round me, kids. My polynomial fit is telling you there are positive and negative influences on the accumulation of [CO2]. I previously told you one of the positives (apart from emissions) is El Nino, and that one of the negatives is La Nina. So you have to put into any projection not just emissions, which do grow with time, but also ENSO, which does not. Another omitted variable that is only implicit in the polynomial is solar surface radiation.
So for a non-Madoffian projection of [CO2], already proven to be beyond the capacity of ALL involved in AR4, with its reliance on the more-Madoffian than Madoff, Tom Wigley, and his MAGICC, as also shown by inability throughout WG1 to report anything but univariate analysis, you need to do multi-variate regression analysis to get the inputs you need for a sensible projection. And that also means not setting biospheric uptakes = 0 after 2000 as in Wigley's MAGICC, these have to be modelled and not simply assumed away.
Now let's see what any of you can do apart from ad hom abuse and armwaving.
But you will have to hurry, as I already have submitted a paper along these lines, and am well advanced on the next. In both rising [CO2] proves to be irrelevant to temperature once multi-variate analysis is undertaken; the correlations of AR4 being univariate are spurious, a statistical concept that all the Australian involved in AR4 are manifestly ignorant of, never having heard of Durbin-Watson or the ADF. Karoly et al probably like Bernie M think ADF stands for Australian Defence Force!
I am eager to read the reviewer's comments on this paper, I'm sure you'll share them with us, right?
Michael Ralston, gladly, but only after you have shared with me your CV/publication list and/or reviewer comments on your own rejected papers as applicable.
I have no doubt my paper will be rejected for being non-pc, apart from any other imperfections, but will keep trying and hopefully improving it until it is accepted.
I already have submitted a paper along these lines
Let me guess ... to Quadrant?
Nice of the emperor to lend you his new suit.
zoot: how many articles have you seen in Quadrant that set out multivariate regression analysis? BTW, my paper that did appear in Quadrant (January 2009) was peer reviewed and accepted by a journal, but for publication long after the Garnaut Review was likely to cease to be relevant, so I took up Keith W's offer for immediacy. As no doubt a frequent contributor to academic journals, zoot, you yourself know of long delays before publication, could be 3 years in some journals.
Talking of Garnaut, did any of you notice his advocacy of elimination of Australia's ruminant livestock because of its supposed even more dangerous emissions of CH4 than of CO2, with reliance instead on kangaroos? Garnaut said these could support even larger meat exports than of beef, and implied that elimination of the dairy industry, with reliance instead on kangaroo milk, would be good for all of us.
Curtin,
Thanks for [emphasizing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) my [point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
I keep finding consistent data that supports the hypothesis that denialists don't correct their errors. (Notice that when you stuff up on a monumental scale, its everyone else who is the "dunce"?) You practice a method that keeps you in the dark Tim.
@zoot:
E&E. Expect fancy looking math ("look at that fifth polynomal!" and "Let's get my Augmented Dickie into tom Fuller") and large sweeping claims with poor argumentation and/or leaving out the five other important variables. Perfect journal for the Curtin.
jakerman, your comment is exactly what I expected from you when I said "Now let's see what any of you can do apart from ad hom abuse and armwaving"! Have your ever contributed anything else here or elsewhere? - not a lot as far as I can recall. Anyway the error was Loth's, to do stupid extrapolations based on x = year as the only independent variable; the polynomial tells you the [CO2] trend is more complicated than simply linear or exponential, as clearly shown when plotting not the absolute values of [CO2] but the year on year % changes in [CO2] (beyond Loth's mental capacity even after I pointed this out]. To repeat yet again, the polynomial tells us there is more at work than a single time variable.
> Only a super idiot like Loth could think that extrapolating on a single independent variable, x, (=year) could ever yield a meaningful result,...
Epic epic fail!
I **never made** the claim you deride. I was merely demonstrating how idiotic your **own** claims were - a point that still seems to have escaped you, despite copious evidence provided.
Loth and Bernard, if you are interested in a serious discussion, do as I suggest and graph the annual ML [CO2] data with both first and second differences (remember calculus?).
These are much more informative than the simple annual data. Next step, search for best fits. These tell you how far x=year provides a full explanation. The much lower R2s for all fits than on the annual possibly tell you something about autocorrelation of the annual data â what do you think?
Interestingly the 5th polynomial yet again provides the best fit for the 1st differences, not surprising given the wide annual variability, suggestive again of ENSO.
Turning to the plot of the second differences, all fits are bad, and all decisively reject the claims by Canadell et al in AR4 and in PNAS 2009 and by Bernard (in company it is fair to say with all warmist climate scientists) that the rate of growth of the rate of growth of [CO2] is accelerating, as the least bad fit is the 5th polynomial with its downward, not upward, trend since 2000 (the linear, logarithmic and 2nd polynomial all have R2<0.004, no exponential fit seems possible (because of flat/declining data?)).
Is univariate analysis like yours adequate?
Marco: welcome, I had no idea what a wit you are. More please, did you miss your vocation as a stand-up comic?
Tim, you simply keep falling for your same trap, over and over. You have stuffed up on a monumental scale, but your frame of operating seems to require that you blame everyone else.
You provide a case study in denial.
You simply demonstrate that a shameless person can argue black is white.
Whenever TC mentions peer review I am reminded of Lenny Bruce's comment regarding a jury of his peers - "Where are they going to find 12 Jewish comedians who are junkies?".
In TC's case his peers surely are innumerate, scientifically illiterate, delusional has-been economists.
(No Tim, that's not Ad Hominem. I'm slagging you off.)
Conclusions of the report include:
1. The terms âgreenhouse effectâ and âgreenhouse gasâ are misnomers and obstruct understanding of the real world.
2. Earth has a natural âcooling systemâ. If the planet warms, it will automatically raise its cooling power.
3. An increase of earth temperatures is only achievable if the heating power is stepped up: first to âloadâ matter with more energy (i.e. to raise temperatures) and then to compensate for the increasing cooling, which results from the increase of IR radiation into space.
4. CO2 and other IR-active gases cannot supply any additional heating power to the earth. Therefore, they cannot be a cause of âglobal warmingâ. This fact alone disproves the greenhouse doctrine.
5. The ânatural greenhouse effectâ (increase of earth temperatures by 33°C) is a myth.
6. IR-active gases do not act âlike a blanketâ but rather âlike a sunshadeâ. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earthâs surface.
7. IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air, the surface and the air immediately above the ground would heat up more.
8. The notion that a concentration increase of IR-active gases would impede earthâs cooling is impossible given the true mechanisms explained above.
9. As a consequence the very foundation of the âGreen Tower of Climate Dogmaâ crumbles. Computer models alleging to forecast warming based on âgreenhouse effectsâ are worthless, and any speculation about the âimpact of climate changeâ accordingly dispensable.
10. Since the greenhouse hypothesis has been disproven by the laws of physics, it is only a matter of time until the truth becomes public opinion.
Paper is here:
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/bmk
Keep up the good work Tim.
>*Keep up the good work Tim.*
I don't know who should be more embarrassed by that praise. Damning of both parties. (Good to see you throw your lot in with another sinking ship spotty). Tim sorry you can't earn the praise of anyone with discernment.
Or a functioning nervous system.
> Keep up the good work Tim.
...says sunspot, right after some of the most ludicrous statements yet. Sunspot keeps claiming "there's no empirical evidence", and yet there is direct evidence that many of his claims in that comment are false.
It seems he's willing to believe and propagate pure bullshit (probably because it supports his worldview).
Either that or he really is *that* gullible.
slothy you like popcorn don't you ?
you might learn something here - http://ht.ly/20ekJ
Tim, you appear [unwilling or unable to answer my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) which were reiterated by Lee. They should be easy given your vaunted intellectual superiority. How about it?
> ...do as I suggest and graph the annual ML [CO2] data with both first and second differences...
Ah, the ever-shifting goalposts. First it was [CO2], then year on year %ge changes in [CO2], and now first and second order differences. (You do realise that fitting a 5th order poly to 2nd order differences...ah, never mind.)
> Interestingly the 5th polynomial yet again provides the best fit for the 1st differences, not surprising given the wide annual variability, suggestive again of ENSO.
Astonishing! After copious...er, [illustration](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) - you're **still** entirely clueless about the ... interesting but probably physically unrealistic properties of polynomials?!
To reiterate - the best R^2 out of your limited selection of curve choices you considered means...what, exactly? (Would your selection be subject to change if the realised noise resulted in small differences from the existing data set?)
It seems you meant this statement to apply to your 5th order fitted polynomial, although it wasn't clear what it was fitted to:
> Any half decent scientist could readily determine which of the terms in the polynomial refer to each of the respective relevant variables, ...
Please enlighten us how you determined that (say) a_5.x^5 in your fitted polynomial (whether fitted to annual [CO2], annual first or second differences in [CO2] or annual year on year percentage changes in [CO2]) corresponds to some other relevant variable, and repeat for the other 5 terms in the polynomial. (It would be good if you posted source [CO2] data and precisely described your methodology as even using Excel on simple regressions I don't seem to get the same equation as you.)
And then for bonus points use year rather than year-since-1959 as your independent variable, refit your 5th order polynomial and repeat the explanation for how you determined that each term in the newly fitted polynomial relates to some other relevant variable.
And for double bonus points, apply the questions I referred to at the start of this post to this new 5th order polynomial. If it helps, here are [some plots of a 5th order polynomial fit to the year-on-year percentages](http://i49.tinypic.com/155nebd.png). Projecting that polynomial a mere 30 years backwards and forwards proves rather interesting, don't you think?
And for the curious, [5th order polynomial fits to annual [CO2] differences](http://i46.tinypic.com/30bcrup.png).
> Keep up the good work Tim.
For anyone who is even vaguely interested, the pile of crap that sunspot dropped on this thread was from the famous team of G&T. It has been dealt with at length elsewhere, so I'll just note that sunspot is being a goldfish yet again and move on...
Loth: I am not surprised, but you disappoint me. Why waste your time with back or forward projections using x=year as the independent variable 5 times over? The polynomial curve in your 1st Fig. tells you there is not a linear relationship (Jeff H would not know that the polynomial is non-linear and is what he has been demanding of me for years) between year and changes in [CO2], so the sensible thing to do is look for independent variables other than year alone. I suggest ENSO, data are available online. Do a regression using that and changes in [CO2] as determinants of global climate change and see what you get. For [CO2] I used the same CDIAC source that Bernard used and provided above for ease of reference.
Got anything in Excel which demonstrates the way increasing CO2 desalinates the oceans?
[It starts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Basic comprehension and logical inference are not your bags, are they Curtin?
Lotharsson's already poked at your steaming piles with a big stick, but I will add to the raking.
The polynomials (and they're not your polynomials â anyone with a basic graphing/stats program can produce them) do not "tell" us anything, beyond what values a line of a particular form would have if we choose to make it fit best to the raw data. This is not the same as "explaining" causal factors, and that you do not demonstrate an understanding of this starkly indicates how scientifically illiterate you are.
You might also inform us how the variance in the data affects the location of inflection points in the polynomial, and thus how the fifth order polynomial polynomial can adequately describe a particular dataset given the inherent response variability and the magnitude of the abscissal range â amongst other considerations.
And further than that, implicit in your comments about higher order polynomials accounting for multiple factors is that each coefficient must somehow relate to a different factor. Therefore, I invite you explain how each coefficient in a polynomial relates only to one parameter that might influence atmospheric CO2 concentration. In doing so you will of course detail why each order of the polynomial is affected by only one parameter, and why each parameter can only define one order of the polynomial. Of course, if you disagree with the preceding sentence, you will then explain exactly how one might tease the influence of relevant parameters from the soup of polynomial coefficients.
Of course, now that you seem to be sidling toward multiple regression (run, rabbit, run!), perhaps you could explain how you are avoiding additional issues of overfitting, of multiple correlation, and of partial correlation, and what your a priori approach is to either forward or backward selection.
Oo, and your actual a priori hypotheses and methodology for testing them would be interesting too...
Ha! Now they will be entertaining! You know, I may even come out of the woodwork and participate in a rebuttal, if I find the prospect sufficiently amusing. I believe that several papers could be produced simply on your inability to employ logic and scientific processes/understanding, even before the mathematics were addressed.
The bad news for now though, Curtin, is that I will not be explaining my extrapolation process. I do not intend to give you any clues in understanding where your bunkum might be camouflaged, and anyway there are now so many clues littering this thread, both from my comments and from others (including your own!) that I do not see the I need to draw you a pretty picture.
Curtin, old man, we're laughing at you, not with you.
And by the way, multiple regression is not multivariate analysis. In multiple regression there is only one response variable, no matter how many independent variable you include...
Then, at #424:
By which journal were you accepted for publication, Curtin? Come on, tell us.
Oh, really? Reference, please.
[Moving on](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
I told you that weeks ago, without any recourse to a polynomial.
No, old man, the polynomial is telling you that the data are variable. The fifth order polynomial that you described above cannot "tell" if the variability is due to noise or to an underlying signal, or signals.
And [further down](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
I think that you do not understand the use of a coefficient of determination. An R2 value tells how much of the variation in the values for the dependent variable is explained by the variation in the values for the independent variable â within the range of the data used to preform the regression. An R2 value says little about the independent variable beyond the range of the original data, because â tautologically - the original data do not encompass the factors that operate beyond their range.
Lotharsson's explicit graphings of your high-order polynomial antics should have told you what many of us have been repeating to you ad nauseum, and what was [explained 18 months ago on Deltoid]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/sixth-degree_polynomial_fits_j…).
Not much enters your brain that doesn't conform with your ideology, does it old man?
And what of all the orders higher than fifth?
I could go on but, just as [I previously remarked on the Sisyphean futility of trying to educate you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), I am sick of pushing the boulder for today.
TC, in yet another stunning display of gross intellectual dishonesty, says:
"Why waste your time with back or forward projections using x=year as the independent variable 5 times over? "
Curtin, just a few posts back you were exclaiming over and over about how your 5th order polynomial was the bestestest fit evar, and captured ENSO perfectly.
Lotharson showed you, by projecting them forward adn backward onto relevant time periods, with pictures and everything (colored them in yet, Timmy?) that not only didn't YOUR fifth order polynomial capture the effects of ENSO, it didn't even capture the effects of time. It FAILS, timmy. Within relevant time spans in the past and future, it predicts concentrations less than zero, and greater than unity. This was pointed out to you, timmy, with an invitation to consider the physical interpretation of those facts, and you refuse to do so. You REFUSE to confront your mistake, and you distract from it, and that is dishonest. As are you, timmy.
So now, you're pretending that all you were doing was showing that things other than time cause changes in [CO2]? Really? Dude, we all knew that. Time, in this case, is primarily a proxy for human CO2 emissions - it's the independent variable of most interest, and you keep alluding to that yourself. ENSO drives quasicyclic variation round the steady-state or trend. Seasonal variation in terrestrial capture drives seasonal cyclical effects. Saturation of oceanic absorption - which you keep dismissing with NO evidence - will effect future growth rates. All of those are THE FUCKING POINT!!!!, timmy. And your analysis DOES NOT TELL US ANYTHING about them.
Have you no pride, timmy? None at all?
zoot: there is indeed a direct relationship between alkaniity and salinity, and therefore of course between CO2 and salinity, given the link between CO2 and alkalinity. I previously here cited Kitack Lee et al (including Feely) GRL 2006; they provide the equations, so I do not need to. See also same Feely et al. Uptake and Storage of CO2 in the oceans, Oceanography 2001. Take the two papers together and it is game and set and match to doddery yours truly.
Lift your game, zoot, or you could be sent off like the trogs in the French & Australian soccer teams last night.
> Why waste your time with back or forward projections using x=year as the independent variable 5 times over?
Firstly, what [Bernard](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) and [Lee](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) already said - including:
> your initial use of linear fits and 2nd order polynomial fits, without any accompanying caveats, indicates that you yourself were prepared to comment on future atmospheric CO2 concentration, using only time as an explanatory variable, and apparently with the expectation of a "meaningful result"
Your entire comment is a furious attempt to back-pedal from your earlier claims now that it has become obvious *even to you that* they are - and this is the technical term - bullshit.
So, to answer your specific question "why waste your time..."?
Because **you** implied that doing so would have explanatory power, and grimly maintained that claim in the face of mass laughter and pointed riposte.
And my time has been entirely successfully spent, because everyone - EVEN NOW INCLUDING YOU - agree that it does not. See - you **can** admit an error! Now take that insight and apply it to some of your other claims...(the relationship between CO2 and salinity might prove interesting - what do you think would happen if we plotted the the seven or so different region-specific fitted curves the authors came up with because there wasn't a decent global fit?)
> The polynomial curve in your 1st Fig. tells you there is not a linear relationship ...
More logic fail.
It is **consistent with** a non-linear relationship, but it is **also consistent with** an incompetent overfit in the presence of a linear relationship plus noise. I'm sure you yourself - were you motivated to do so - could find a simple linear relationship and noise generating function which together generated a series of observations where following the TC Principles of Maximising R^2 By Trying All The Fit Functions In Excel that one would end up curve-fitting with a non-linear function.
Your hypothesis may (or may not) be correct in this specific instance, but you have provided no evidence to support your hypothesis over the alternate and merely assumed that it is true.
So, back to the questions you don't answer. Let's simplify them because you seem to be having trouble with them.
How precisely does a 5th order polynomial fit "capture ENSO"?
What is your fitted 5th order polynomial, what is it fitted to, and what "relevant variables" do each of the the 6 terms "relate to"? Or as Bernard put it:
> I invite you explain how each coefficient in a polynomial relates only to one parameter that might influence atmospheric CO2 concentration. In doing so you will of course detail why each order of the polynomial is affected by only one parameter, and why each parameter can only define one order of the polynomial.
To that I will add a crucial question: how is the relationship between individual terms and relevant variables preserved when the x-axis values are shifted (by simple translation)? I am really looking forward to you explaining that one, but alas I fear I must steel myself for great disappointment. I predict instead of answers we'll see more Gish Galloping, goalpost shifting, bluster and non-retraction - and no data were harmed by force-fitting in order to make that prediction.
Here's a [simple example](http://i47.tinypic.com/1h2t8z.png) of a linear relationship (gradient of exactly 1) plus noise (generated by Excel using "20*RAND()").
Note that the 5th order poly has a higher R^2 than the linear fit, and therefore according to TC's methodology tells us that "the relationship is non-linear".
I would also like TC to explain what "relevant variables" each of the terms in the 5th order polynomial relate to.
[Dagnabbit Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)!!
I was literally just about to post an almost identical graph, after having [asked Curtin at #399 whether or not he needed a pretty picture drawn for him](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)!
Is there any chance yet that a penny might be dropping in the Curtin household?
None. Nada. Zilch.
Yet you think a polynomial function of the mere passage of time is enough to explain everything?
What a joke.
No it isn't. It's telling us you haven't a clue about statistical analysis.
TC, it's possible to model CO2, incorporating ENSO, but using a polynomial function of time is not a valid technique.
Loth: so ENSO is just noise? interesting!
Gaz: the polynomial tells you something other than time has a role in the trajectory of [CO2]. When you have put in ENSO, the outcome going forward will look more polynomial than linear. Prove me wrong!
> ...so ENSO is just noise? interesting!
Still misinterpreting my statements to avoid answering inconvenient questions, I see!
If you're attempting to detect a long-term trend, then any (say) cyclical process that basically averages to zero over sufficiently long time scales is **noise for the purpose of detecting a long-term trend**. The fact that you don't appear to understand that suggests you're not qualified to be making the claims you make.
Do you have evidence that ENSO can drive a long-term trend, or did you merely jump to a conclusion that it could and that your 5th order polynomial fit somehow linked to it?
> ...the polynomial tells you something other than time has a role in the trajectory of [CO2].
Yes, one might indeed infer that. But **what**, and **what characteristics does it have** and **how do you tell**? If presented with the linear trend + noise example without knowing how it was generated, what would you conclude?
Or try this - here's [another graph with linear and 5th order polynomial fits](http://i50.tinypic.com/2zfpoqu.png). What does the fact that the 5th order polynomial has higher R^2 imply to you Tim? Does it imply anything about the trend? Or some other factor apart from the trend? Does the backwards and forwards projection of that 5th order polynomial tell you anything? Do you maintain that the polynomial "captures the other factor perfectly" as you previously claimed with ENSO? Would your answer change if I extended the data series to match the length of the forward and backward projection? And if I did, what order of polynomial do you imagine would be necessary to "perfectly capture" that other factor?
So...back to the questions you won't answer. I [keep asking](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) and you keep dodging. And you [haven't answered these ones either](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). Some readers may be uncharitably drawing the conclusion that you are incapable of providing an answer.
Curtin writes: "BTW, my paper that did appear in Quadrant (January 2009) was peer reviewed and accepted by a journal".
Which journal Curtin? Please tell. Or do you not have the guts to, knowing that it is at the bottom, of the pile?
Besides, your '3 years' is pure and utter gobbledegook. If you knew beforehand that there was a long delay time between acceptance and publication, why did you submit it there in the first place?
To others here: Having published 92 papers in scientific journals that appear on the ISI Web of Science, I can assure you that the longest time lag between submission and publication is generally 1 to 1.5 years. And this is the longest. The longest I have had personally (in the journal Ecology) was two years back in 2002, but that was because the reviews took so long to get back. I co-authored a paper in PNAS this year that took only about 3 months between submission and publication; even smaller journals where I publish usually take less than a year.
Yeah, but you're a scientist Jeff.
Jeff, you have been lucky, economic journals until quite recently have have had much slower turnaround times. But you have also been helped that in your field any old rubbish will do, most of what you have had published is Pol Pottian dross (judging only from what you have posted here).
Re zoot, the world's greatest living Scientist: I still await your rebuttals of Kitack Lee et al and Feely et al re ocean "acidification", alkalinity, and salinity. You actually have not got a clue on any of that have you?
Tim Curtin
>Jeff, you have been lucky, economic journals until quite recently have have had much slower turnaround times. But you have also been helped that in your field any old rubbish will do
Priceless! See why I keep him around!
Oh dear Tim Curtin...
Have you ever actually read any of Jeff Harvey's papers? I suggest that you do so, as you will be surprised to discover that they are not at all rubbish, let alone "any old rubbish".
With respect to your re-emerging comments about salinity and acidification, answer me this:
You may use regressions if you wish, but please include your working, and your references.
Oh, and for future reference on this thread, can you inform us exactly what salinity you regard as representing the upper limit of "drinkable". Your considered opinion on what constitutes a maximum salinity suitable for irrigation would be pertinent too.
As frustrating as you are, I agree with Tim Lambert that you do provide amusement value. At some point I may even compile a list of your errors just to see how long a list it is - although I might have to watch that Lotharsson doesn't beat me to it!
On a serious note I am wondering again if you might be losing it, Curtin. No person who has apparently reached the level of a tertiary education position, as you appear to have done, should be able to cram so many errors of fact into one thread discussing science... unless they are deliberately setting out to so do, or they are intellectually senescent.
Are you not concerned or alerted by the fact that none of your compadres other than Sunspot have come to support you? And indeed, that Sunpot's participation is worse than damnation with faint praise?
Seriously Curtin, do you see nothing wrong with the picture?
1) It's common knowledge that ENSO has a short term effect on CO2, climate, etc. So the time series of CO2 will not be smooth, whether approximated by linear, exponential or polynomial functions. Of course a polynomial can be made to fit the time series better, over any given time period for which data are avaialble - but this is trivial.
The problem for you is that a polynomial curve fitted to the CO2 time series cannot be used to demonstrate how much, if anything, ENSO has to do with it the variation in the CO2 series.
2) If you actually do include ENSO as an independent variable in a regression analysis of atmospheric CO2 levels, the result with *NOT* "look more polynomial than linear".
Among other reasons this is because - as has been pointed out to you (and among other reasons) - as time goes on, your polynomial will generate an estimated value of the dependent variable (CO2) which tends increasingly rapidly to +/- infinity, depending on the sign of the coefficient of the t^5 term. A model which includes ESNO, which as we all know varies irregularly but within well-established bounds and without trend, will NOT tend to +/- infinity because of the inclusion of ENSO.
Oh, and I found an old saying that you might like to ponder:
> most of what you have had published is Pol Pottian dross
I don't know if Tim understands this, but via an obvious extension of Godwin's Law, anyone who has to tar his oppponents as "Pol Pottian" loses the argument.
Although Tim has lost so many times on this thread that a couple more really won't make that much difference.
[Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Your comment on Curtin's score-sheet makes me wonder if there is any reader at all who has been pursuaded by Curtin's version of science. If there are, I would invite them to post, saying so - I'm curious about how successfully Curtin might be putting his message across.
Foulspot, you don't count.
Fly-by lurkers - here's your chance to post!
Curtin, I'm happy for you to answer in your own defence, if you can point us to folk off the thread who accept your take on the science of salinity and pH, on polynomial fitting, and on the paucity of competence in climatology, ecology, and any other -ology that you disparage.
Let's see exactly who it is that incorporates the Curtin MethodTM into their world-views.
> I might have to watch that Lotharsson doesn't beat me to it!
All yours ;-) I just point out the stuff that's relatively obvious nonsense to me as a non-scientist. I figure the actual scientists can go one or more better than I can when need be.
TC @453:
Back on [May 19](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) I told you I was a layman.
However I still challenge you to an empirical test. I have $5000 that says you will not be able to drink one litre of seawater acidified either with CO2 or hydrochloric acid.
BTW, you still haven't named the journal which will publish your rantings, you world's greatest living scientist you.
I have to admit, I'm curious how well a simple exponential or linear fit, plus a sine or two, would work. (where the sine would in theory capture the cyclic oscillations of ENSO etc.)
Zoot:
"I have $5000 that says you will not be able to drink one litre of seawater acidified either with CO2 or hydrochloric acid."
I take you on subject to US$ and CO2 only, and subject to pH of 5.5, all other terms as per yours.
Michael Ralston: You're on as well (also for US$5000)!
Ummm... which theory would that be, Michael?
I just spotted this way back at #5:
Yes, they live in a Wiggly Wiggly Wiggly World, but I'm sure they'd never be silly enough to claim it can be approximated by a 5th-order polynomial.
Loth at 457. I said Pol Pottian because Jeff Hâs political views make said PP look quite conservative, and must cast doubt on the objectivity of his science.
Bernard J at 458:
Your latest efforts really are risible. Like zoot, and by implication several others here, you do not seem to realise that pH is the normal measure of alkalinity/acidity, and that adding freshwater to seawater reduces both the alkalinity and the salinity. Drat â I have given away the reason I so readily accepted zootâs bet, as rainwater also contains the CO2 I would add to get the pH down.
I have already at least twice given you the reference to Kitack Lee et al in GRL 2006 (vol33 L19605). I also gave you their basic equation, here it is again and in their words:
âA simple function of sea surface salinity (SSS) and temperature (SST) in the form
AT = a + b (SSS-35) + c (SSS- 35)^2 + d (SST-20) + e (SST-20)^2
fits surface total alkalinity (AT) data for each of five oceanographic regimes within an area-weighted uncertainty of ±8.1 mmol kg^-1 (1 sigma)â.
âTotal alkalinity (AT) variability in the surface ocean is
controlled mainly by freshwater addition [!!!] (precipitation and
sea-ice melting) or removal (evaporation and sea-ice formation)
which also acts to change salinity [!!!][Brewer et al., 1986;
Millero et al., 1998a]â¦.. Overall, variations in
both sea surface salinity (SSS) and temperature (SST) can be
good proxies for surface AT variations [!!!]â.
ââ¦empirical algorithms that relate surface AT to SSS and SST are
particularly useful in constructing the global distribution of
T when combined with the global fields of SSS and SST.
Such empirical AT algorithms can aid in predicting the CO2
flux across the air-sea interface in a numerical ocean model
because surface pCO2 could be calculated from the values of
T and total inorganic carbon (CT) for the modelâs surface
box. In such a model, AT and CT are transported between the
ocean boxes.
âAlternatively, surface pCO2 and AT data are
used to calculate the surface CT. The surface AT algorithms
can also be used to study other aspects of the marine
carbonate system. For example, the annual cycle of AT in
the global ocean derived from the surface AT algorithms
along with hydrographic parameters can be extended to
estimate the annual export production of biogenic CaCO3
by integrating the seasonal decrease in the mixed-layer
inventory of AT, once it is corrected for salinity effects
[Lee, 2001].â
He who laughs last laughs longest, for K Lee et al. begin their Section 2 with this:
â2. Methods
2.1. Optimal Polynomial Model [sic!!!] for Fitting AT Data
[5] An optimal functional form for fitting AT data for each
ocean regime was chosen on the basis of results obtained
from analysis of AT data using the 10-fold cross validation
method, which tests which polynomial form (first, second, or third order) gives a better fit [Stone, 1974; Breiman, 1996].
For each ocean regime, we randomly divided the AT data set
into 10 subsets. The first step of the 10-fold cross validation analysis was to remove 1 subset from the 10 data sets. Then we derived a regression model without this subset, predicted the output values for this subset using the derived regression model, and computed the residuals.
This calculation routine was repeated for each subset and the squares of the resulting residuals were summed. This cross-validation analysis applied for polynomial models of first, second, and third order.
We found that a second-order polynomial model yielded the
lowest value of the sum of the squares of the residuals; hence we chose a second-order model as the optimal regression model [!!!] for fitting AT data for each ocean regime.
So Kitack Lee et al use precisely the procedure I proposed here, to universal derision even from Tim Lambert whom I thought would have known better, namely evaluate the data to find best fit, then apply that âas the optimal regression model for fitting AT [or [CO2]as I proposed] data for each ocean regimeâ. Lee et al found #2 polynomial was best on their data, but their methodology is EXACTLY what I proposed, namely move from fit to regression using that functional form. See their Table 1 for their polynomials.
I must apologise to Kitack Lee and his/her co-authors for the personal abuse they will now have to endure from the likes of Bernard and zoot. Here are their obviously rubbish affiliations (including the AGU for publishing their paper when they could have used real scientists like Bernard):
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Pohang University
of Science and Technology, Pohang, South Korea.
2
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of
Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
3
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington,
USA.
4
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
5
Biophysique et Dynamique des Syste`mes Inteâ¤greâ¤s, Universiteâ¤de
Perpignan, Perpignan, France.
6
Atlantic Oceanographic Meteorological Laboratory, NOAA, Miami,
Florida, USA.
7
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Copyright 2006 by the American Geophysical Union.
0094-8276/06/2006GL027207$05.00
*I said Pol Pottian because Jeff Hâs political views make said PP look quite conservative, and must cast doubt on the objectivity of his science*
Curtin really tops the crazy league with this smear. As I said on the Brent thread yesterday, this is the typical refrain from the far end of the political right: when your evidence is shredded, then go for the messenger. Its known as the 'paradigm shift' and Lomborg employs it as well in the biodiversity chapter of TSE to belittle eminent scientists like Ed Wilson, Paul Ehrlich and Jared Diamond. Given that Curtin is an absolute know-nothing in any scientific endeavor, by likening me with Pol Pot (or Hitler or any genocidist for that matter) he can make my arguments as a scientist appear to be utterly crazy and biased. Lomborg similarly realized that his credentials were virtually non-existant when compared with those of the three illustrious scientists above, so he attempted to impugn them by associating them with a project that does not exist, at least in the way Lomborg described it. But the damage was done. Once Lomborg could make the three scientists look like idiots, he realized that he would then occupy the rational ground by 'default'.
As for Curtin's joke about the quality of peer-reviewed ecology jounrals, I agree with Tim Lambert: Curtin is so wacky that he comes up with own-goal gems. That is why its good to have him around, so that others visiting this thread for the first time can see exactly how way, way out he is. Every time he posts something up here he digs a deeper hole for himself, which is clear for everyone to see.
I'm curious Tim Curtin.
If seawater acidified to below pH 7.0 is safe to drink, why would you not drink a litre of it for just, say, $50 rather than for $5 000? Exactly how much salt do you believe that you would be consuming if you drank a litre of such seawater?
Perhaps you could [answer the questions here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) in the process...
How soon you forget old man. On [May 20](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) I stated as part of my challenge that only CO2 could be added to the seawater.
Given the "trick" you proposed to use to avoid the question, are you now offering to drink thousands of litres at a sitting?
I'd pay to see that.
> I said Pol Pottian because Jeff Hâs political views make said PP look quite conservative, and must cast doubt on the objectivity of his science.
And as I already said and you still don't seem to understand in doing so - by analogy to Godwin's Law - **you automatically lose the argument**.
(Never mind the silly argument that Jeff H's science - which is subject to peer review - is automatically suspect because of his political views. If that's the standard then it applies equally well to your own feeble attempts to play scientist, and to nearly every single well known denialist! Thank you for playing :-)
> I have given away the reason I so readily accepted zootâs bet, as rainwater also contains the CO2 I would add to get the pH down....
So you're a cheat as well as a piss-poor scientist? Who'd have thunk it? I guess this is an admission that you won't take on zoot's straightforward bet - seawater acidified with CO2, NOT seawater acidified and diluted with CO2-in-rainwater.
Your own home page accessed via Wiki today lists as one of your main activitiesâ#4 Science ecology and advocacyâ.
There we read:
1.âScientists are currently faced with the immense challenge of better informing the public and policy makers as to the underlying causes and potential consequences of human-induced simplification of the biosphereâ. I am sure BP wished that were so, what evidence do you have for this âsimplificationâ? It seems more complex than ever to me, as I noted in my last post, which you chose to ignore apart from its reference to you.
2.âAlthough our knowledge of factors shaping the evolution, assembly and functioning of ecosystems is poorly understood [you bet!], we do know that over large spatial and temporal scales, conditions and processes (âecosystem servicesâ) which nurture life and humanity are generatedâ. Sure we do, so that is tautologous.
3.âAt the same time, sophisticated techniques are being employed around the world by powerful, vested interests that are aiming to change the way the public thinks about the environmentâ. Really? Name one of those vested interests, or do you mean those governments likes ours here in Australia as also the UKâs and the EU that ONLY fund climate alarmist research?
4.âFor example, a number of dubious sources are invoking science as a tool to influence and reshape public opinion, to attack the consensus view held amongst the scientific community, and to ultimately influence politicians into reducing environmental regulationsâ. Which dubious sources that are more dubious than NASA-GISS or Hadley-CRU, with their continuous massaging of data and suppression of any that are inconvenient? Or our own Australian BoM that ruthlessly rewrites historic temperature data to make everywhere seem colder 100 years ago and hotter now, when in fact the trends are flat?
5.âIn the face of this new threat from the political right, scientists are faced with the immense challenge of better informing the public and policy makers as to the underlying causes and potential consequences of human-induced changes to the biosphere and their consequent effects on the delivery of ecosystem servicesâ. This comment exemplifies my comment that your âscienceâ is politically driven and not Science at all. Was Einstein left wing or right? Hitler attempted to have Einstein rubbished because he was Jewish, you are getting perilously close to that with your worshipping of politically correct (=left) science, and rubbishing all others as ârightistâ including my own efforts which are certainly apolitical (I speak as one imprisoned for his beliefs during the 1966 World Cup, sharing a cell on death row with a member of the Italian Communist party â probably almost as much because we played bridge and tennis together as because we fought for blacksâ rights!).
6.âOver the past several years I have become actively involved in discussions based on bridging economics and ecology,â â the trouble is you know as much about economics as I know about ecology, which is not a lot in both cases.
When are you as an ecologist/biologist going to address my debunking of the Michaelis-Menten function so fraudulently applied by the IPCCâs AR 4 with its reliance on the Madoffian MAGICC model crookedly devised by the Lysenkian Wigley and Enting? After all, my seminar paper that goes into M_M in some depth but you have never so far I recall discussed that area of my work in which you of all people should be THE expert.
Jeff â finally, why donât we call it Pax? I will stop likening you to Pol Pot if you stop your personal vilification of me. Letâs just focus on ideas and issues without ANY ad homs!
> So Kitack Lee et al use precisely the procedure I proposed here...
...except that they:
(a) can't make it fit the whole earth, so they divide it into five different regimes;
(b) provide at least some indication of the underlying physical causes that drive the relationships they are seeking to model - and do not claim that the fitted curve itself is evidence of causality but instead that they are seeking a proxy for measurements that do not exist;
(c) are not claiming to model a cyclical process with their polynomial;
(d) produce polynomials with rather tiny higher order coefficients - i.e. not massively different from linear fits (unlike your own);
(e) are operating with independent variables that are [bounded to relatively small ranges](http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOA01/5d_woa01.html) ([annual mean surface salinity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WOA05_sea-surf_SAL_AYool.png) generally lies between about 31 and 39, and [annual mean surface temperature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WOA05_sea-surf_TMP_AYool.png) mostly between about -2 and 30 Celsius) in the climate system - unlike (say) the (unbounded) year;
(f) they have an additional term (for one regime) in the product of SSS and longitude; and
(g) do not rely merely on finding the highest R^2 of the curves at your disposal when regressing against the entire data set.
But yeah, other than that (and barring anything I missed), precisely the same ;-)
Lotharsson: what a load of garbage! You have excelled yourself by completely misunderstanding the whole of Kitack Lee et al., as where they say:
"For example, the annual cycle [geddit?] of AT in the global ocean derived from the surface AT algorithms along with hydrographic parameters can be extended to estimate the annual export production of biogenic CaCO3 by integrating the seasonal decrease [geddit?] in the mixed-layer inventory of AT, once it is corrected for salinity effects"
while you say they "are not [sic] claiming to model a cyclical process with their polynomial".
Re your (a), why not? so you would rule out NH and SH differentiation? Ah, now we have REAL science!
In your (b) the "underlying physical causes" [i.e. relationship between alkalinity and salinity] are exactly what you zoot and the rest of you charlies deny exists.
In your (d) had they found a #5 polynomial was best they would have used it. Unlike you, Lee et al (and I) are empirical, not religious dogmatists.
Your (e) is stupid, as also (f), while (g) misrepresents what they actually did.
And yes, their procedure is what I proposed here (#391 and before).
Bernard J said "Curtin, I'm happy for you to answer in your own defence, if you can point us to folk off the thread who accept your take on the science of salinity and pH, on polynomial fitting, ..."
Well I did above, with my excerpts from Kitack Lee et al. Where are you Bernie?
> so you would rule out NH and SH differentiation?
On climate timescales for CO2...pretty much. We have experimental evidence that on those timescales it's a pretty well mixed gas, so evidence suggests that to differentiate it won't make much difference.
If you want to model day by day concentrations, that's a different beast - but then you're nowhere near achieving that.
> ...the annual cycle [geddit?]...
Surprisingly for you, I get what an annual cycle is.
I also get that they do not appear to be **modeling** an annual cycle **in their equations** - not even in the quote you provided. (One hint: there is no time-dependent term there.) Yes, the equations' **inputs** might be driven with time-varying observations that describe the inputs' annual cycles in order to see what happens according to the model described by the equations - but that is NOT modeling a cyclical process with by equations.
Do you **really** not get **that**? No wonder you appear confused!
> ...are exactly what you zoot and the rest of you charlies deny exists.
Rubbish. What we're saying is that it's not a simple direct causal - and global - relationship that you started out by implying existed - (i.e. "add more acid, reduce salinity"), let alone a robustly *predictive* relationship across the range of changes that you implied.
And Kitack Lee at al support that position, as they **also** report that it's not a direct causal and global relationship. They point out a number of different factors that affect both salinity and pH at the same time (never mind that they need five regional equations to describe the relationship).
> Your (e) is stupid,as also (f)...
You think the differences between your fit to an ongoing unbounded time series (and your protestations of your fit's appropriateness as a predictive tool) and between fitting an interpolating polynomial over a 2D region of physical observations bounded roughly by (-2,31)..(30,39) with no allegations of predictive value much outside this range are "stupid" - but you can't explain *why*?
> ...while (g) misrepresents what they actually did.
So you're claiming that they **did** merely find the highest R^2 of the curves at their disposal by regressing each one against the entire data set?
Either your comprehension or your basic logic has failed you - or you did not read the paper.
> And yes, their procedure is what I proposed here (#391 and before).
So you'll be able to explain how #391 corresponds closely to:
> For each ocean regime, we randomly divided the AT data set into 10 subsets. The first step of the 10-fold cross validation analysis was to remove 1 subset from the 10 data sets. Then we derived a regression model without this subset, predicted the output values for this subset using the derived regression model, and computed the residuals. This calculation routine was repeated for each subset and the squares of the resulting residuals were summed. ... We also tested whether the cross-correlation term between the two predictor variables (SSS and SST) should be included in the selected functional form. ...
...because I must have missed all of that.
[The pea-shuffling continues](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Old chap, I've probably done more titrations than you've have baked dinners, even given your advanced age, and I've probably used a greater variety of buffer species than the variety of baked dinners that you've had over your span.
Do not presume to tell me about pH.
However, I will presume to explain an aspect of it to you...
Sea water is a buffer, and as such your statement that "adding freshwater to seawater reduces both the alkalinity and the salinity" needs to be dissected.
Firstly, let's establish some definitions. The term "alkalinity", in the context in which you used it earlier in the very same sentence ("alkalinity/acidity"), refers to the measure of H+/H3O+ concentration in solution. What you actually meant though was "basicity", not alkalinity - MSF has [previously attempted to educate you on this matter](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
So... adding fresh water to sea water will reduce the molar concentration of the alkaline salt species, but it will not affect the ability of these species to buffer the solution: the pH will rather stubbornly remain very close to the original value after dilution.
This is, by definition, one of the things that a buffer does.
You might reduce salinity fairly rapidly by adding rainwater, but pH would not be nearly so obliging. Of course, as others have pointed out, the challenge said nothing about diluting the salt component of the seawater. However, as you have set the parameters with this comment, and with one way back at the top of this thread, I challenge you to put your own money where your mouth is and demonstrate to the world your conviction in your own take on the chemistry involved...
To this end, will you drink, each day, indefinitely, a litre of seawater diluted 1:1 with fresh water, and reduced to pH 7.0 with CO2? According to you, this is what is required to render sea water acceptable for consumption.
This is not a bet. This is simply a challenge to establish whether or not you are prepared to follow your own pronouncments on how sea water might be rendered suitable for consumption. If you are correct in your science, no harm will befall you, and you will be rewarded by the demonstration of your own correctness. You will have provided your own empirical justification.
If you are not prepared to do this, why not?
I will conclude by drawing to your attention the fact that you are, as ever, avoiding answering [some fundamental](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) - and simple - questions.
Actually, I won't conclude with that because I've just read another of [your posts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) where you claim that Lee et al somehow support your modelling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations with polynomials.
They don't.
They are in fact relating alkalinity with salinity and with temperature, and even in this context their models are very constrained by assumptions and by physical circumstance. Regardless of the constrainings though, their paper is in no way a justification for the polynomials whose constants you have been presenting above, as a method for modelling CO2 concentrations.
Old man, let me put this to you gently... you are failing abysmally in your attempts to grasp sciences in which you have no training. You may think yourself to be a Renaissance Man, but to those who have half an inkling about basic science you are a howling monkey flinging handsful of its own fæces at whomever passes your cage.
It's a sad sight, to see how the bars of your own ideology have twisted you, rendered you a prisoner of an artifical mindset, and trapped in an environment where you do not belong.
A word of advice - retire from your splashings at the shallow end banks of the scientific pool. It might not be quite as profitable for you, but by this time in your dotage money should not be a matter, especially if you were once the flash economist that you present yourself to be.
Retiring would at least offer you the opportunity to salvage some shreds of your dignity.
Curtin quotes the Kitack Lee paper:
"âTotal alkalinity (AT) variability in the surface ocean is controlled mainly by freshwater addition [!!!]"
Tim, are you even vaguely aware that the 'total alkalinity' they are measuring is not a measure of the pH? Or the acidity? Or the basicity? Do you know what total alkalinity is?
Are you also aware that their polynomial fit is intended to give a relationship between those variables, but ONLY within or very near to the values they were measuring, with no intent to extend it outside those bounds - unlike your 5th order polynomial fit to a time series (absurd on its face), which then drives to infinity as you extend it outside those bounds?
Are you aware of anything, old man?
Lothar at 474: âSo you're claiming that they did merely find the highest R^2 of the curves at their disposal by regressing each one against the entire data set?â Yes, that is what they say they did:
"This cross-validation analysis applied
for polynomial models of first, second, and third order.
We found that a second-order polynomial model yielded the
lowest value of the sum of the squares of the residuals; hence we chose a second-order model as the optimal regression model for fitting AT data for each ocean regime".
Why did you leave out this passage from your extended quotes from the same paragraph?
And as I said before âyes, their procedure is what I proposed here (#391 and before)â, eg I had previously said
âI leave as exercises for you to do your own regressions using the best expressions above for Tmean and [CO2] respectively, namely the power or logarithmic expressions for Tmean, and the #2 (or higher) polynomial for [CO2].â Posted by: Tim Curtin | June 9, 2010 1:36 AM
Compare that with Kitack Lee et al:
"2.1. Optimal Polynomial Model for Fitting AT Data
[5] An optimal functional form for fitting AT data for each
ocean regime was chosen on the basis of results obtained
from analysis of AT data using the 10-fold cross validation
method, which tests which polynomial form (first, second, or
third order) gives a better fit [Stone, 1974; Breiman, 1996]."
I am still waiting for you and Bernard to extend your derision and ad homs to the 7 co-authors of Kitack Lee et al and while youâre at it, Stone 1974 and Breiman 1996.
As for Bernard, you obviously had no idea what you were doing with all your titrations, you must have been lab assistant grade 8. Show me your results of adding freshwater 1:1 to seawater. In my reply to zoot, I said I would drink at pH 5.5 (much more âacidicâ than your pH7). And I reserve the right to add whisky to my taste, itâs been many years since I drank water straight!
[Curtin said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Fine.
Reduce the pH in [my challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) to 5.5, and starting drinking, or tell us why you will not do this.
Curtin, I've done thousands - literally - of titrations, and I had and have a very good idea of what I am doing.
How many titrations have you done, and what reagents did you use?
> Why did you leave out this passage from your extended quotes from the same paragraph?
Why don't you realise why I did?
Because *using something similarish to a piece of a methdology* is not the same as *using a methodology*, and you claimed the latter and not the former. So I highlighted the bits that seemed *most obviously different* to your method.
Do you think when you ask Excel for a trendline that it does (say) a "10-fold cross-validation" a la Kitack and Lee at al including all the bits I quoted? Or do you think that the "10-fold cross-validation procedure" is precisely the same as regressing against the entire data set at once? (And if so, why do you think Kitack et al *bothered* doing all that work when they could have just done the straightforward one-time regression?)
> I am still waiting for you and Bernard to extend your derision and ad homs to the 7 co-authors of Kitack Lee et al and while youâre at it, Stone 1974 and Breiman 1996.
Wait in vain. They **aren't doing what you did**.
You miss the major point and instead focus on the details of their methodology, and EVEN THAT seems different (see above in this same comment).
The major point that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge despite several explanations and illustrations is that the extent of their extrapolation compared to the region occupied by the independent variables in the data set, and any CLAIMS about the climate system that they draw FROM their curve fit are grossly different to what you did. I have no time today to cut and paste and link to where this has been explained over and over again - and you appear so foolish on this issue that I doubt it would help you anyway.
> ...itâs been many years since I drank water straight!
Hmmmm, that might explain a lot.
I think you are onto something there, Lotharsson!
All joking aside, TC I hope you are only kidding. Chronic alcohol abuse can have very serious consequences, including [alcoholic dementia](http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/dementia/a/aa990714.htm):
It would be terrible if you started behaving that way on blogs.
Bernard, Loth, Lee, zoot et al: I have started drinking Bernard's recipe (1 litre sea water + 1 litre freshwater). Tastes great, ideal for soup and much else. Just what the doctor ordered for someone like me with a tendency to acid indigestion. Managed without whisky as well!!!
Back to your titrations, BJ!
Lee: you also have some way to go to make a useful contribution, to judge from your nonsense here: "Are you also aware that their [Kitack Lee et al] polynomial fit is intended to give a relationship between those variables, but ONLY within or very near to the values they were measuring, with no intent to extend it outside those bounds - unlike your 5th order polynomial fit to a time series (absurd on its face), which then drives to infinity as you extend it outside those bounds?"
But just like Lee et al, I seek the best fit. They did only 3 polyonomials before settling on #2 as the best. They then model their data sets on that basis. Neither Lee et al nor I extrapolate using just time as the only independent variable, which would as you say drive to infinity without actual data.
Michael Ralston is on the right lines when he said "I have to admit, I'm curious how well a simple exponential or linear fit, plus a sine or two, would work. (where the sine would in theory capture the cyclic oscillations of ENSO etc.)" Posted by: Michael Ralston | June 21, 2010 1:14 AM
I am curious to see Michael's results, as I am working along the same lines.
> Neither Lee et al nor I extrapolate using just time as the only independent variable, which would as you say drive to infinity without actual data.
ROFL! That's impressively disingenuous. You fitted a polynomial to a **time series**, in the context of discussing how the time series **might evolve**.
And I'm the Pope.
[Says Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), hand apparently on heart:
Riiight...
Excuse me if I am somewhat sceptical of your claim - you see, I am more than passing familiar with the taste of various concentrations of seawater, and given my experience I call bullshit.
Also, you have told us that you live in Canberra, and somehow I doubt that you spent the several hours at the least that would be required for you to whizz over to the coast and collect yourself the bucketloads of sea water that you would need to made starting the enterprise worthwhile.
Oo, and how did you go about decreasing the pH using CO2? How did you actually measure the pH?
Surely you haven't been lying to us, have you old chap?
Gaz @463: The unscientific use of the term, which was an unfortunate choice of wording on my part. Still, it seems like a sine should at least do a better job of capturing ENSO than any kind of poly ever, ever, could. ;)
TC @462: I am but a lowly graduate student who has never had $5000 in his possession. I would still take your bet if I thought there was any chance you would be honest about it, but I know better than that, and it would be dishonest of me to take a bet I could not pay if I somehow lost.
Michael Ralston: I have never ever reneged on a bet, and $5000 is well within my affordability, if not yours.
And now we have to deal with the biggest idiot in Christendom, and fraudster if he was up to it, Bernard J (aka Bernie Madoff).
Bernie sez: "Also, you have told us that you live in Canberra, and somehow I doubt that you spent the several hours at the least that would be required for you to whizz over to the coast and collect yourself the bucketloads of sea water that you would need to made [sic] starting the enterprise worthwhile".
I do not need to drive to Batemans Bay to collect seawater when I know the salinity thereof and can add salt to my tapwater to achieve that. Truly, you have to be the world's greatest living experimental scientist, like BJ, to believe that is the case.
Seawater contains about 35 g of salt per litre. For 2 litres, after diluting with freshwater as in your challenge, that reduces to 17.5 g per litre, or 1.75 g per 1/10th of a litre, which is what I drank, slowly (no whisky, honest!).
No wonder all Bernies's titrations failed to deliver employability, to my cost (via Centrelink). As he correctly stated, the pH is irrelevant to the exercise he challenged me to perform.
To this end, will you drink, each day, indefinitely, a litre of seawater diluted 1:1 with fresh water, and reduced to pH 7.0 with CO2? According to you, this is what is required to render sea water acceptable for consumption.
Oo, and how did you go about decreasing the pH using CO2? How did you actually measure the pH?
Manufacturing his own sea water now, eh?
What's the bet this Curtin character will be offering to walk on it next?
Apologies, the last 2 paras of my last were of course not mine, and were decisively rebutted by my previous
chek: what have you ever contributed to theadvance of human knowldge?
TC: what have you ever contributed to the advance of human knowledge?
Come on Tim Curtin, cut out the "biggest idiot in Christendom; Bernie Madoff; fraudster" crap. For a 73 year old man you act like a flaming child who does not get his way in a playground. You want to be taken seriously here? Then act like someone who wants to be taken seriously. I'd love to be debating you and for then for you to accuse me of being a modern day Pol Pot; the audience would think you were crackers.
I decided to leave this thread for a few days because, quite frankly, no matter how much evidence is presented to you showing that you are wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again, you will never ever admit it. Its no use trying to have a polite debate with you when you make some of the claims that you do (your discussion of marine life adapting to FW conditions a few weeks ago set the ball in motion as far as I am concerned but I can assure you no one with any basic knowledge of environmental science would give this a passing thought). And as for your 'calculations' with respect to C02 and food production, well let me also say that if you were being totally honest you would admit that there were profound uncertainties given all of the unknowns that you have not factored into your models. This is what I, speaking as a scienist, have been saying over and over again until I am sick of saying it. Humans are simply unable to manage complex adaptive systems because our understanding of the ways in which they evolve, assemble and function is very rudimentary. When someone comes along and says that our species can increase crop production and primary production and reduce hunger by pumping more and more C02 into the atmosphere, employing the sole argument that plants require C02 for photosynthesis and therefore > C02 > plant biomass, they are conveniently ignoring a wealth of parameters that make such a prediction dangerous and irresponsible. As a senior scientist, and one who works with plants in my research, I feel that it is my responsibility to point out all of the many unknowns that are very likely to undermine such a rash prediction. If you had any scientific acumen, you would acknowledge the uncertainties as any scientist would. In your case, and I mean this not disrespectfully, you should even be more cautious in your predictions because, like it or not, you have no formal training in the field. I am sure that you are happy to denigrate my views on economics and policy, giving that you often tell us here that you are a professional economist. But when I argue that my training as a scientist gives me insights that you lack, I am greeted with derisive comments about me and my research. The most important point I am making for a general public is that when anyone comes forward saying that the current human experiment on the atmosphere - for it is that and nothing less - is going to reduce hunger and have net benefits, I would advise the public to take what that person says with a very large grain of salt. Whatever you say Tim, I can tell you that 99% of the scientific community would consider your arguments to be reckless. Like it or not, the consequences of continuing along the current path are not as clear cut as you make it seem. In fact, as I have pointed out, there are many nasty surprises waiting for us if we continue on our current course.
Bernard, Loth, Lee, zoot et al: I have started drinking Bernard's recipe (1 litre sea water + 1 litre freshwater). Tastes great, ideal for soup and much else.
and
I do not need to drive to Batemans Bay to collect seawater when I know the salinity thereof and can add salt to my tapwater to achieve that.
why does Tim Curtin never surprise me?
[Tim Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
It seems that you really are suffering from the type of cognitive impairments that [Gaz related](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) above.
Let's recap some highlights of the chronology of the thread:
And it ends (thus far) with post #71, 22 June where Curtin says:
So, how many erros of science, and of simply consistency, are mixed in this smattering of the old boy's offerings? Too many for me to bother to count, although the last quote deserves some further scrutiny.
Curtin...
In amongst all of this, Curtin has studiously avoided answering some simple questions about pH and salinity, [at #455](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and about his titration experiences, [at #484](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). I am growing ever more interested in the latter, because he seems to be so glibly able to disparage my own titration work, when he has not an inkling of what chemistry I have done in the laboratory, and in the field.
The man truly is looper than a crocheted doily.
Curtin,
Bernard challenged you thus:
"To this end, will you drink, each day, indefinitely, a litre of seawater diluted 1:1 with fresh water, and reduced to pH 7.0 with CO2?"
You responded,
"Bernard, Loth, Lee, zoot et al: I have started drinking Bernard's recipe (1 litre sea water + 1 litre freshwater). Tastes great, ideal for soup and much else."
When challenged on your distance from the ocean, you prevaricated:
Seawater contains about 35 g of salt per litre. For 2 litres, after diluting with freshwater as in your challenge, that reduces to 17.5 g per litre, or 1.75 g per 1/10th of a litre, which is what I drank, slowly (no whisky, honest!).
Tim, how do you live with yourself?
Salt water is not sea water - there are many other minerals and salts than sodium chloride, many of them buffers. Your claim all along has been about pH, Bernard's 'recipe' has a pH step, you can't just ignore that and pretend you're doing what Bernard challenged. And finally, his challenge was for 1 liter of sea water, not the 1/20th liter of salt water you say you actually consumed.
And finally, Timmy, DON'T DO IT. A liter a day of sea water is likely to damage your kidneys over time, especially at your age - if you first survive the acute hypernatremia before you get there.
That's been the point all along - sea water is DAMAGING for those of us evolved to depend on fresh water. Changing the CO2 content of the water won't alter that, nor will diluting it 1:1.
This has been a note of reality, Timmy - which is necessary to add at this point, given how conspicuously absent reality is from most of your claims and posts.
[Lee](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Snap!
And a timely note about the health effects of hypernatræmia - I've been meaning to specifically dissociate myself from any decision Curtin might have made to actually attempt such a folly. He alone bears the consequences, on his own shoulders.