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 "…
Timmy, I asked you two questions at 476. You answered only one of them and that dishonestly as has been pointed out by others.
Here is the other, again - because it gets to the heart of your chemical absurdities.
"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?"
well, why i said i was drinking ph 5.5 sea water, i did not bother to get sea water or the CO2.
instead i am drinking caipirinha, which also is green and has some crystalline powder put inside. so far, i am doing fine!
Bernard J [FTW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)!
Bernard's right - there are too many errors, unretracted comprehensively rebutted falsehoods, dodges, false equivalences, goalpost shifts - and *many many* unanswered questions piling up - to enumerate, but that was a decent small sample.
Thanks for the summary Bernard J.
Curtin has comprehensively demonstrated that he doesn't believe the bullsh*t he preaches.
My final message for Tim Curtin: Hope I die before I get old.
Guys (and I mean that in a non-gender-specific way, of course),
I think it would be appropriate if we all refrained from blaming Tim's errors on his age.
I'm not saying it's an *argumentum ad hominum*. No-one is saying TC is wrong because of his age. He is clearly wrong on many points and it is interesting to ponder why that may be the case.
However, as we have no evidence to support such speculation (I'd guess the correlation between age and AGW denial is positive but with uncomfortably wide error bands), snarky comments about TC's age don't really seem to be, well, seemly.
Of course, it cuts both ways: TC, you can't use your age as an excuse.
I confess I laughed heartily when I read my fans' angry comments on the drinking test I passed so easily.
Seriously, while salinity is a problem of course, note that one megalitre of water at ECw 1 dS/m contains about 640 kg of salts, and that barley (the only cereal of interest to me as it's the basis for whisky of course) will tolerate 12.6 dS/m on sandy soils, so one only needs 3 litres of fresh to one of seawater. And for whisky, soft water is best (i.e. ph<7).
Why Bernie & co are so cross when one adds sea salt to water instead of driving 150 km to the coast to get some is a puzzle. Our kitchen salt container(Saxa) states it is evaporated sea salt!
A bigger puzzle is why you all swallow everything the IPCC throws at you, really you are like pupils of a Bali madrassa, ready to kill all unbelievers but totally uncritical of the holy text.
Michael Ralston - you at least seem willing to be empirical. If you carry out your threat to do some work on ENSO, you MUST read Monahan & Dai in Journal of Climate 2004, The spatial and temporal structure of ENSO non-linearity (ht to cohenite). They find that only one of the GCM models gets even close to modeling ENSO's non-linearity.
They admit that the physical mechanisms for the asymmetry of El Nino-La Nina "are still unclear", but mention that one possibility is that phytoplankton acts as a kind of "biological thermostat" (Timmerman and Jin 2002) - and that would of course involve CO2.
As our resident expert on non-linearity, perhaps Jeff Harvey could take a break from his wasps and solve the ENSO problem.
snarky comments about TC's age don't really seem to be, well, seemly.
Indeed, it's insulting to the many elderly people who aren't dishonest jackasses.
Tim Curtin,
Its amazing how you ALWAYS ignore my points about uncertainty in making predictions about non-linear systems. You also ignore a suite of other biotic and abiotic processes that you have left out of your models on the assumption that they are not important. No scientists I know of would be so rash as to make such predictions on the basis of such little knowledge about the factors determining system productivity and functioning. You get away with your arguments because you do not submit your ideas to rigid journals where they would be categorically undermined.
I must be hitting nerve because your only predictable retort is to belittle my research. Heck, I made this observation in my last posting, and behold! On cue, you try and give the impression that the only research or academic education I possess is about parasitic wasps. Of course this is a tactic aimed to downplay the fact that in a debate about ecological complexity and its importance in understanding antrhopogenic changes across the biosphere, I would annihalate your arguments (I already have). My advice is that you do never debate me or any qualified ecologist or environmental scientist because your only recourse would be to resort to smears or lies as your pithy arguments were shot down one by one. It does not surprise me that you are a guest speaker on the WUWT tour, where audiences have to pay to listen to the bilge you all spout out. Very few scientists will shell out to hear such dross.
IMO you are hopeless, Curtin. Call this ad hom if you like (it is not ad hom, actually), but I have challenged you to explain why biotic processes are not important in determining primary production in plants and overall systemic productivity. I have challenged you to explain intra-guild effects, competition, bottom-up versus top-down effects, consequences on soil and above-ground food webs, predator-prey interactions, and ecosystem services that emerge over variable spatial and temporal scales, changes and effects on plant and consumer stoichiometries, phosphorus limitations in particular, and you have failed to address any of these vital areas by claiming over and over that these represent 'ad-hom' attacks. Anything to do with complexity and you ignore it.
Lastly, I asked you yesterday to explain the uncertainties that are present in any scientific endeavor, and especially in that between C02 and hunger, and as usual you ignored that too. This is because, unlike trained scientists, you have no doubts. You think the relationship between atmospheric C02 and primary production is a 'slam-dunk', whilst ignoring that which you do not understand and have not factored in. And then predictably, your riposte to me is that I am a modern day Pol-Pot who should stick to working on parasitoid wasps.
I think anyone reading this thread (with the sad exception of idealogically driven sunspot) would see your arguments for what they are. I wonder why you persist after having every one of your arguments in several areas on this thread so comprehensively destroyed. Good scientists change their minds as new data come in or strong counter-arguments are presented. You intellectual island is rapidly shrinking and yet you refuse to abandon it. Call that what you like.
Gaz @499: Point taken, but at no time have I blamed Curtin's errors on his age. I just figured if he could call Jeff Harvey Pol Pottian I could call him old.
My childish name-calling has the virtue of being accurate.
My childish name-calling has the virtue of being accurate.
Even more accurate was Majorajam's characterization of TC [back in April](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) as "an unreconstructed moron". Honestly, I don't understand why people have put so much energy into responding to someone so intellectually incompetent.
Its amazing how you ALWAYS ignore my points about uncertainty in making predictions about non-linear systems.
I don't find it amazing, I find it quite predictable. Imagine a computer running an AI program -- call it "science" -- designed to find the best explanations that explain the available evidence. Then imagine another computer running an AI program -- call it "ideology" -- designed to craft arguments that reached a predetermined conclusion regardless of the evidence. That's what Tim and the rest of the denialati are like.
[According to Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
My first question - what is the pH of 0.00001M NaOH?
My second question - what is the hardness of 0.00001M NaOH?
My third question - whether or not your salt shaker contains ntable salt or sea salt, why are you not consuming 17.5 grams of it per day?
My fourth question - what does the salt "tolerance" of barley have to do with your kidneys?
My fifth question - why are you avoiding answering the simple questions about pH and salinity, [at #455](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and about your titration experiences, [at #484](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)?
It's been reported for rats (and inferred for humans I think) that a 50:50 seawater/freshwater intake can be tolerated, provided one works up to that level over many days (how many is unspecified in the abstract I read IIRC).
This is good news if you have a restricted freshwater supply because you've been shipwrecked and are on the open sea or an a deserted island awaiting rescue. Maybe weeks at most I'd hazard. (This research may possibly be disputed as it applies to humans, though; but for TC's benefit I'm not digging any deeper. Rats are not humans, though some humans may be rats!)
Once one comes off that ration the physiology returns to normal PDQ, apparently (at least for rats).
From personal experience, about half to three-quarters of a teaspoon of salt in a tall glass (probably equating to about 10-20 g per litre I'd imagine) is enough of an emetic to make me puke (others may, of course, be different). So, I'd take with a pinch of salt (pun intended) anyone who says they can stomach more at a sitting without throwing up.
Now the WHO guideline for adult salt intake is 5g per day (last I checked) and the UK FSA recommends a max of 6 g per day (about a teaspoon). Bearing in mind that a couple of sandwiches made from sliced bread (without salted butter or any filling containing salt) will give you close to about a third of your recommended daily salt intake, taking in 17.5 g of salt a day by drinking a litre of 50:50 seawater/freshwater (or even a sizeable fraction of that concoction) is just plain stoopid.
In addition to any short-term physiological effects arising from imbibing such a monstrous liquid concoction, 10 g of salt a day increases stroke risk by nearly a quarter and heart disease risk by about a fifth, presumably in large part due to excessive hypertension effects.
So Tim Curtin[kill-filed], don't be a Tim Cretin[kill-filed].
Bernard J: you said just a tad late "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 [of accepting your challenge to drink 2 litres a day of a 50% dilution of seawater, I do not because your disclaimer is too late]".
Posted by: Beranrd (sic) J. | June 22, 2010 11:49 AM
Can you be sure I will not report you to the local police tomorrow for attempted murder? Check out recent Facebook cases.
Thanks, P. Lewis, support from an unexpected source is always especially welcome. I plan to have you called as an expert witness, especially as I was (possibly) quite ill today after imbibing even a small portion of Bernard's concoction!
[TC June 23 2010](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
[TC 5 hours 23 minutes later](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
He's such a tw*t! IMHO, of course.
Thankfully, I never read him in full, only by excerpt of the inexpert by the expert.
Curtin [rattles his sabre](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
So, if I understand you correctly, you are now admitting that you acknowledge the harm of drinking sea water at whatever pH, or diluted by half with fresh water? This is quite a turn-around from your original pronoucements on how you could cure the world's water shortages with increasing atmsopheric CO2!
Are you therefore also admitting that you have been speaking scientific nonsense for the last month and a half, regarding the natures of salinity and of pH - amongst other nonsenses?
If so, I am happy to accept your apologies in both cases, for being so presumptuous as to believe that you could overturn, without any training or experience whatsoever, the basic science underpinning the chemistry of salts and of buffers, and the basic science underpinning the physiology of osmoregulation.
And how are you progressing on [answering the queued questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)?
Curtin again:
"Why Bernie & co are so cross when one adds sea salt to water instead of driving 150 km to the coast to get some is a puzzle. Our kitchen salt container(Saxa) states it is evaporated sea salt!"
Sea salt is produced by moving sea water from one shallow evaporating pan to another. As water evaporates, the brine becomes increasingly concentrated, and the various salts and minerals precipitate out sequentially. Buy the time the brine enters it's final pan and then evaporates dry, the resultant salt is purified to greater than 99.5% Sodium Chloride.
Saxa invented the process of adding back very small quantities of magnesium carbonate and calcium phosphate, which keep the sodium chloride from coalescing into one solid mass as it absorbs atmospheric water. But it is NOT composed of the same salts as the sea - very, very far from it.
So, I and others have been asking Timmy if he understands, yet, that alkalinity and pH are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
He seems to be refusing to respond - he certainly has said nothing responsive to those questions.
But he does say, at 500:
"And for whisky, soft water is best (i.e. ph<7)."
Gah!! No!!!! Clearly, after his months of nattering about a paper looking at the relationship between fresh water additions and total alkalinity, and claiming it tells us something about a relationship between fresh water addition and pH (hint for Curtin: No, it does not), and being repeatedly warned by repeated different people that he has the basic chemistry all wrong, he once again tells us about some relationship between hard/soft water and pH - and MAKES THE SAME DAMN MISTAKE, AGAIN!!!!!!
Tim, pH is a measure of the concentration of H+ ion, and tells us abut the acid/base properties of the solution.
Hardness/softness is a qualitative description of the alkalinity, which IS NOT pH!!!. Alkalinity is NOT a measure of how much pH is higher than 7 (this is the mistake you repeatedly make!) - it is, roughly, the concentration of buffering salt species in the solution.
Alkalinity, because it is a measure of buffering capacity, does impact the pH, but is is a different thing entirely from pH.
Water can have a high pH, and low alkalinity - my drinking water here in California is that.
I keep fish - the alkalinity of my tap water is so low that I need to add some buffering salts (harden the water) to get appropriate aquarium conditions. However, the little bit of alkalinity (hardness, buffering capacity) the water does have, is sufficient, just barely, to keep the pH at about 7.7 - 7.8 out of the tap. Because the buffering capacity is low, it takes very little acid to titrate the pH down by substantial amount and get the pH 7.2 I like for my planted tanks.
In other words, I RAISE the alkalinity, and LOWER the pH.
Please, Timmy, would you PLEASE learn some elementary acid/base chemistry, and at least a little bit of the basics of seawater chemistry - at least enough to know what the hell 'alkalinity' actually means - before you deign to pronounce all the world's chemists wrong on these points?
Please?
BTW, my 16 year old Laphroaig likes just a drop or two of water in it, to wake it up. My pH 7.6, very very soft tap water, does just fine for that, thank you very much.
Lee, why waste your time on the asshole?
@ truth machine:
In the hopes that some small percentage of the people who attend his talks, and get misinformed, might google the guy and see some of this.
And because I sometimes succumb to a bad case of SIWOTI syndrome, and if I'm going to waste time on people who are Wrong On The Internet, it might as well be on something I know a little about.
Ok, fair enough, but I think it would make sense to address them, rather than the asshole, and to not appear to be surprised that the asshole makes the same mistakes over and over again. He is an asshole and he should be treated like one, not like a peer.
I simply love the way Wikipedia slaps Curtin down.
>Alkalinity is sometimes incorrectly used interchangeably with basicity. For example, the pH of a solution can be lowered by the addition of CO2. This will reduce the basicity; however, the alkalinity will remain unchanged.
Which is what so many commenters have already pointed out; I just like how succinct the above is.
So the Kitack Lee et al paper referenced by Curtin() has not even a tangential relationship to lowering the pH or salinity of the ocean by dissolving CO2 in it.
In short, dissolving CO2 in the oceans lowers the pH of the ocean but leaves the total alkalinity the same. Am I right in concluding that this logic follows? That is:
1) Alkalinity is unaffected by dissolution of CO2 in water.
2) When CO2 is dissolved in water, the pH goes down (the water becomes less basic).
3) When CO2 is dissolved in water, because alkalinity is unaffected, the salinity is unaffected. Or if it is affected, it's by a mechanism as yet undescribed in this thread.
Following these steps, Curtin is undeniably wrong to say that dissolving CO2 in the oceans will make them less saline. From a chemistry point of view, as I pointed out at #165, how could it be otherwise? I know of no reactions that would follow that affect the Na and Cl ions that contribute most to the salinity of the oceans.
Stu, you omitted " (see example below)" from your Wikipedia quotation. The referenced example is [Addition of CO2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkalinity#Addition_of_CO2):
No Curtin today? Lets hope [this is not](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) a contender for a Darwin award?
Jakerman,
Given that Curtin seemed sure that lowering the pH of water by dissolving CO2 in it would make it less saline and more drinkable, I wonder if he might try this rather than the 'diluted seawater' approach that may or may not have incapacitated him. This is certainly more to the crux of the matter, is it not?
Curtin could have tried disolving more CO2 in seawater and he would have gotten sick drinking that as well (even quicker).
And as has been Curtin's tactic, all his errors are someone elses fault. A right-wing ideologue with no personal responsibility.
Whoever invited Curtin to present on the impacts of CO2 on the ecosphere should be made aware of the stupid nutter that he is. They should publish a warning against following any risk assessment endorsed by him.
It seems easy to overestimate the sense posessed by deniers.
Stu.
Absolutely.
This was the point of the whole matter in the first place. That Curtin moved the goal posts to bring in dilution and smaller volumes as apart of his 'science experiment' implies that he knew, whether consciously or subconciously, that his original proclamations were bunkum.
That he won't retract his proclamations says something about Curtin himself.
Thanks Stu for your useful contribution citing Wikiâs âFor example, the pH of a solution can be lowered by the addition of CO2. This will reduce the basicity; however, the alkalinity will remain unchanged (sic).â
Why then did the Royal Society Report (Raven et al including those clowns Caldeira, Hoegh-Guldberg, and Robert Watson of UEA, 2005) assert that âOcean acidification [is] due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities is being absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic (lowering the pH the measure of acidity (sic)â.
Then in their Summary they repeat this canard: âThe oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of the oceans).â
Then we have Tim Wootton et al (PNAS, 2008): âIncreasing global concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are predicted
to decrease ocean pH, with potentially severe impacts on marine food webs, but empirical data documenting ocean pH over time are limited. In a high-resolution dataset spanning 8 years, pH at a north-temperate coastal site declined with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and varied substantially in response to biological processes and physical conditions that fluctuate over multiple time scales.â
And then we have the 255 members of NAS led by the ineffable Schneider (currently in Australia) and Ehrlich stating that
âRising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidicâ (quoted by me on 9th May above).
â¢However as titrating Bernard J should know, âWhile both acidity and alkalinity are related to pH, they should not be confused with pH, nor should the terms be used interchangeably. Acidity is a measure of a solutionâs capacity to react with a strong base (usually sodium hydroxide, NaOH) to a predetermined pH value. This measurement is based on the total acidic constituent of a solution (strong and weak acids, hydolyzing salts, etc.) It is possible to have highly acidic water but have moderate pH values. Likewise, the pH of a sample can be very low but have a relatively low acidityâ.
â¢
â¢Repeat after me: âIt is possible to have highly acidic water but have moderate pH values. Likewise, the pH of a sample can be very low but have a relatively low acidityâ. Tell that to the Royal Society, IPCC AR4 2007, and National Academy of Sciences, with their claims that global oceanic pH having declined from 8.1 to 8.0 over 250 years means the oceans have become acidic!
â¢
â¢âAcidity is similar to a buffer in that the higher the acidity, the more neutralizer is needed to counteract it. Alkalinity is the measure of a solutionâs capacity to react with a strong acid (usually sulfuric acid H2SO4) to a predetermined pHâ. (Tim Loftus, Lagoons in Maine).
Meantime Feely (a co-author with Kitack Lee cited long ago by me and now by Stu) et al 2001 state:
âThe pCO in mixed-layer waters that exchange CO2 directly with the atmosphere is affected primarily by temperature, DIC levels and At. While the water temperature is regulated by physical processes, including solar energy input, sea-air heat exchanges and mixed-layer thickness, the DIC and At are primarily controlled by the biological processes of photosynthesis and respiration and by upwelling of subsurface waters rich in respired CO and nutrients.â
[Read the t in At as upper case T in subscript)
Thus alkalinity At is very largely influenced by both DIC and [CO2] (as is implicit in my papersâ discussions of uptakes of CO2 emissions).
Meantime, dear Stu, do note that âAcidity and alkalinity are terms used to describe the concentration of hydrogen ion (H+) in a solution. It is measured with the pH scale, a set of values usually given as 1 to 14 where 1 is very acidic, 7 is neutral, and 14 is very alkaline. The numbers are the negative log of the H+ ion's mole concentrationâ.
I do wish you âscientistsâ would get your act together and agree on your definitions. Stu's Wiki: more CO2 does not affect alkalinity.
Then go back to RSâs Raven et al, PNASâs Wootton, and the 255 jerks of the NAS, with their belief that there is a linear inverse relationship between increase in [CO2] and lower pH measuring increasing âacidity" (or alternatively an inverse relationship between rising [CO2] and reducing alkalinity also measured by falling pH).
Truly with scientists like those of RS, NAS, and Bernard with his fellow travelers here, Frank Fenner is right, our species is doomed if that is the best he and they can do!
I think it is probably about time to bring this Thread to an end, it has already gone on too long.
But first I must confess that way back on 9th May when I was commenting on the 255 NAS statement of claims, including that âRising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidicâ. I was wrong to say that if the oceans become âmore acidicâ because of rising [CO2] as they claimed, âwe could then use the sea for drinking and to irrigate the landâ. However by 12th May I had correctly noted in response to MFSâs absurd claim âit is the pH of seawater, and not its dissolved salts content, that makes it undrinkable and unsuitable for agricultureâ, that he had to be mad, âfor it is rising salinity that threatens agriculture, not falling pHâ (eg lower Murray Darling, northern Egyptian Nile delta). I later provided citations that but for salinity pH in the range 4-6 is ideal for irrigation water.
All the same, do get back to me when you can agree amongst yourselves that the RS/NAS' increasing "acidification" from rising [CO2]implies reducing alkalinity (as measured by falling pH) despite what Stu's Wiki quote asserts:âFor example, the pH of a solution can be lowered by the addition of CO2. This will reduce the basicity; however, the alkalinity will remain unchanged (sic).â
Bernard, I have friends in high places, and would put you up for membership of the Royal Society for your stellar work on the chemistry of potable water if I did but have your full name and address.
*Bernard, I have friends in high places*
Oh God. Not the "I am important because I keep elite company" crap. Puh-lease. Whatever shards of credibility you have will disappear even faster than they already are if you have to bolster your own ego by writing this kind of remark.
You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you clearly can't make him learn...
Once again, while 'alkalinity' is sometimes informally and incorrectly used to refer to high pH, it is correctly used to refer to a solution's buffering capacity.
"Total Alkalinity" as used in the Lee et al paper Timmy cited, is NEVER used to refer to pH. It has a specific formal definition.
The Lee et al paper derives an interpolating function of Sea Surface Temperature, Sea Surface Salinity, and Sea Surface Total Alkalinity. "Total alkalinity." Not pH. They did this because we ahve copious measurement sof sea surface temperature, and sea surface salinity, but precious few of sea surface total alkalinity, and total alkalinity is important for understanding carbon transport in the oceans, and n the global climate models. Thus, they derived 5 region-specific functions to allow interpolation of total alkalinity for times and regions where we do not have the measurements.
But from this, Curtin, chemically naive as always and unwilling to do a bit of homework to learn what he's talking about (as always), decided that Lee et al were deriving a relationship with pH, and then he blithely extended that interpolating function far far outside its bounds and declared that Lee et al had shown that as ocean acidification proceeds it will render the oceans water's fresh. And then proceeded to defend that for hundreds of posts.
More succinctly, as i said it at 79 above:
---
79
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?
Posted by: Lee | May 10, 2010 1:26 PM
Curtin, consult your "friends in high places" and have them explain to you why you have, even after months of explanation, the science of pH chemistry completely muddled.
You also have MFS's comments [completely muddled](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Perhaps it might help you if I refresh your memory on MFS's orginal post, [back at #90](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
If you had a working understanding of simple chemistry, you'd have also understood the comments MFS made a month and a half ago.
That you don't, explains why you didn't.
And Tim Curtin, those [simple questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) are not going away.
Do you have a time frame in which you anticipate being able to answer them?
If they're proving problematical for you, perhaps you could refer them to your "friends in high places"...
It's probably really an Open Thread observation, but as there's a fair amount of 'acidification' reference, I thought that it might interest some to read/hear of [Ove H-G's brush with Anthony Watts](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5498).
What I would have given to hear Tim Curtin participate on that particular evening...
I think it is probably about time to bring this Thread to an end, it has already gone on too long.
It had already gone on too long with the asshole's very first post.
You also have MFS's comments completely muddled
The asshole's entire post is muddled with unattributed or misattributed quotes, but thanks for teasing out that one where he moronically attributes his own "absurd claim" to MFS.
Ah, I see that the asshole had already misatrributed his own absurd claim to MFS back in #91 (on May 12, indeed) ... and Bernard J. called him out on it a couple hours later in #94:
Of course, being an idiot and an asshole, not only did he not prove the facts otherwise or acknowledge or apologize for the reversal, he simply went on to blithely repeat it above. Of course no one should be surprised, as these are the standard character traits and behavior of deniers, "skeptics", and the like almost without exception.
Hank, this:
If CO2 has increased by 100 ppm since 1750, then non-CO2 must have decreased by 100 ppm since 1750. - Tim Curtin
Is not wrong, but it is strange. It's saying, for example, if I add enough CO2 to a closed system to go from a 0.0002% mixture of C02 in air to a 0.0003% mixture, then it goes from a 99.9998% mixture of non-CO2 air to a 99.9997% mixture.
But that means this:
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?
... is equivalent to asking, if I add enough CO2 to the mixture to change it from 99.9998% non-CO2 air to 99.9997% non-CO2 air, where'd the extra air go?
Tim Curtin, the mockery you got for that on the thread Hank pointed out was unsurprising. When Tim Ball got Archimedes' principle wrong, he admitted to it. What you're doing is little more than trying to use the bellboy puzzle as an argument. And that's wrong in abstraction from any physical realities you're attempting to apply it to.
To paraphrase the explanation on Snopes:
"What happened to it?" Nothing. Atmospheric matter only goes "missing" because the part of the statement that goes "780 billion tonnes of non-CO2 decrement since 1750" is wrong â assuming Tim Curtin has the volumes right, that amount of CO2 does have to go in to raise the ppm by 100, but "per million" includes the previous amount of CO2 and the previous amount of "non-CO2" - all of it. All in all, the total amount of gas increased by a little over 100/1,000,000, and that's all that happened. PPM is not a constant, convertible, scalable, multipliable unit like quarts or kilograms, it's a relative quantifier, like "percent." There are no molecules, ccs, kgs in a "ppm."
It's important to point out that even if the use of units and relative amounts was completely accurate, this would illustrate why Tim Curtin shouldn't swim so far out that he can't get back.
These are physical systems, and that model is too crude even for gross estimates - and isn't Curtin one of the people attacking "models?"
The reality is, some of the CO2 "went somewhere" alas - into the water, causing decreased ocean pH, into other sinks which can only handle a limited amount of carbon at a time - which means more carbon into the system than the crude model would indicate you'd need.
That means Tim Curtin's model gives the opposite of the real picture. It's not the fictitious "extra" nitrogen, oxygen, H20, etc. we have to account for, it's the extra carbon. And we have.
I also believe, though I can't prove it, that Curtin, like Goddard, doesn't understand what a volume of gas is or how it behaves. The kindest interpretation is that he thinks the atmosphere is like an incompressible liquid in a sealed container exactly the same volume as the amount of liquid, so changing the ppm by adding would mean losing an equvialent volume, or mass, which in that case would be equivalent.
Someone should attend TC's next talk and ask him: If I blow CO2 into a balloon filled with helium, the ppm of helium decreases -- where did it go?
@#$ing balloons - how do they work?
That's easy. It diffused out through the rubber membrane.
And I think you'll find that something similar has happened to a certain person's grey matter, too.
It diffused out through the rubber membrane.
Ah, but in that case the ppm of the helium decreased by more than the ppm of CO2 increased.
And I think you'll find that something similar has happened to a certain person's grey matter, too.
You're assuming that the concentration used to be higher.
Ah, but in that case the ppm of the helium decreased by more than the ppm of CO2 increased.
Oops! Nevermind.
It's gone off to count sparrows.
Everyone is born with at least one brain cell [well-known fact]. True, the chances of it being white or grey are about evens.
This is Curtin trying to explain his take on atmospheric CO2 at the [Opinionations blog](https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5597906&postID=234226387443468…) in March.
Clearly climate change is the least of our problems. If we keep pumping out C02, the atmosphere will overflow and we will really be in trouble.
All very funny - amazing how none of you apart from Marion is aware that ppm are like percentages. Raising the percentage of one component of a mix of anything must mean that the percentage share of the other components is less even if their absolute amount has not changed.
In the case of [CO2], however, as oxygen has to have been used in the burning that generated the CO2, the increase in the ppm of the latter is likely to be matched more or less by a reduction in the former, but not for long, as 56% of the CO2 emissions is taken up by the biosphere, along with the annual down flux from the atmosphere's 800+ GtC of around 100 GtC (matched sooner or later by the up flux from respiration and exhalation).
Meantime much of the down flux of [CO2] and the 54% of annual emissions of c10 GtC that is not airborne is used in photosynthesis by plants that then respire oxygen, so we have a circular process that is mostly not captured by the GCMs, chiefly because they cannot cope with ENSO and its major cyclical impact on biospheric uptakes of [CO2] and CO2 emissions.
Surely you guys can see that the net increase in the Share of [CO2] from 280 ppm to 390 ppm must denote a reduced share of the non-CO2 by the exact same amount in ppm. Otherwise language and arithmetic have no meaning. After all I thought that this was what the whole Kyoto fuss is all about, viz. a change in the composition of the atmosphere. Yet Lewis evidently believes there has been no such change, in which case hooray, we can tear up Kyoto and the CoP15 lunacies.
Finally, re Truth Machine and stu's quotes from Wiki:
"The addition (or removal) of CO2 to a solution does not change the alkalinity. This is because the net reaction produces the same number of equivalents of positively contributing species (H+) as negative contributing species (HCO3- and/or CO3--)."
What I want to know is when you knowalls - and none of you have ever admitted on the evdience here to being wrong on anything - are going to inform the Royal Society and the 255 of the NAS that they are clearly wrong in their claims that the addition of CO2 to a solution (the oceans) DOES "change the alkalinity" by "increasing the acidity of the oceans".
Anyway, thanks to all of you for your so kind attention, I's off.
Any who want to continue discussion can email me (tcurtin at bigblue.net.au) - fortunately that excludes the anonymice!
Tim,
I know it has been said before, but you are still confusing alkalinity with basicity. Basicity is approximately the opposite of acidity, i.e. the concentration of hydroxyl ions in solution, as acidity is that of H+ ions. Thus when you add CO2 to water you lower the basicity / make it more acidic. Alkalinity is a measure of the neutralising capacity of a solution and is dependent on both its basicity and its buffering capacity.
You can interpret PNAS, etc... to say that the oceans are becoming more acidic, less basic, or less alkaline. In this context all are correct. Acidic and basic are preferable because alkaline (which is a synonym of basic and an antonym of acidic in a way that alkalinity is NOT of basicity and acidity, respectively) can cause confusion. Sorry to say but you are a prime example of this, as you still don't seem to understand the difference. However you cannot say that PNAS state CO2 is lowering the alkalinity of seawater because alkalinity has a very narrowly defined meaning (which the word 'alkaline' does not). They are saying it's rising the acidity or lowering the basicity, as you wish, and may use the word alkaline, but they do not use, as far as I can see, the word alkalinity. If others do, then I'm sorry to say but their usage is incorrect.
As a simple example, you can add HCl to seawater, to lower the pH to 4, for example. On doing this, the HCl will sequester some of the carbonates in the seawater (by forming, for example, Na- and Ca- chlorides from the carbonates, releasing carbonic acid, which by equilibrium reaction will partly dissociate into H2O and CO2), and lower the pH and both the total alkalinity and basicity. It will also acidify the water. The hydrochloric acid is neutralising the higher pH of the water but also lowering its buffering capacity. Now if you bubble CO2 instead, it will form carbonic acid. This will change the relative proportions of carbonate species in the water (producing more bicarbonate and carbonic acid, less carbonate), it will reduce the ph, acidify the solution and lower its basicity. It will leave the buffering capacity intact because all the carbonate species that determine it are still present in the water, just in different proportions to each other. Thus acidification by CO2 addition will NOT lower the alkalinity.
I have tried to explain this in a simple way, and I hope it gives you the tools to better understand ocean chemistry without jumping to the erroneous conclusions that you have in the past.
As to misatributting statements to me, it has been cleared by others, above, please take note of Bernard J and truth machine's comments, and read [my original comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) carefully. I sincerely hope you were confused about what I said and did not purposely try to imply that I made a statement to the effect that the pH of seawater determines its drinkability.
>*amazing how none of you apart from Marion is aware that ppm are like percentages.*
Amazing how Curtin consistantly projects his confusion and incompetance onto others.
MFS - I am breaking my very recent self-denying ordinance to respond to your very helpful post, many thanks. And I must apologise, I did indeed attribute to you what I apparently said myself in an unguarded/thoughtless moment. All the same, I think it remains true that RS/NAS grossly exaggerate the "acidification" of the oceans.
I should have added thanks in my previous to Tim Lambert for launching this thread, although it's clear he detests me and it, but one supposes the traffic it has generated (over 540 posts in less than two months) may help his advertising promos.
The thread began with the flyer for my ANU Seminar on 29th April, and although that paper is freely available on my website, it has attracted no or very few comments since about #80. It is gratifying that the paper's main thrust, the non-applicability of Michaelis-Menten to climate models projecting [CO2] into the future, has not been challenged. So who knows, I may even write it up more fully some day, despite my evidently decayed or non-existent grey cells!
But thanks again to you MFS re pH.
Yes, Tim, we are not the idiots you arrogantly suppose us to be.
You, on the other hand, are clearly a graduate of the Ian Plimer School of Irrelevant Blather.
TC, if an increase in CO2 from 280 ppmv to 390 ppmv is matched exactly by a fall in the volume of O2, ie the total volume of the atmosphere remains unchanged, then non-C02 gas concentration will fall from 99.972% to 99.961% and volume will fall in direct proportion.
So even in this hypothetical case the volume of non-CO2 gases will fall by only 0.011%, ie a touch more than one hundredth per cent.
Why you think anyone, at Kyoto or anywhere else, should consider that such a big deal is beyond me.
But don't explain, please.
Just stay away.
Oh, and do Say Hi to Dunning and Kruger for us.
Tim Curtin.
I will take it as read then that your capitulation in the matter of addressing [some very straightforward questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), that have been repeatedly put to you, indicates that you are either too afraid of answering them, or incapable of answering them, or both.
Before you commence lecturing others on their alleged errors you should really take stock and consider the broad swathe of mistakes that you have carved through the scientific landscape, mistakes that remain unacknowledged by you.
Running away might make you feel better, but is does nothing to lend credence to anything that you have spouted. It's a nice way to close the thread though, as it leaves any lurker who might stumble upon it, or any lay person directed to it for educational reasons, in no doubt of the lack of credibility that underpins the claims that you have made.
One last word of advice: leave aside the daily Gs and T, and the single malts, and the teaspoons of table salt, and consider drinking some truly fresh water occasionally. Your kidneys and your liver will thank you for doing so.
...not to mention your brain.
Ralph Keeling has measured the decrease in O2. The google is your friend.
All very funny - amazing how none of you apart from Marion is aware that ppm are like percentages. Raising the percentage of one component of a mix of anything must mean that the percentage share of the other components is less even if their absolute amount has not changed.
Once again the asshole accuses everyone else of his own mistake.
none of you have ever admitted on the evdience here to being wrong on anything
Even after my #539 -- typical of the asshole's approach to evidence.
Tim Curtin, over on the Tom Harris thread, said [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h…):
" If CO2 has increased by 100 ppm since 1750, then non-CO2 must have decreased by 100 ppm since 1750. The IPCC says that 1 ppm CO2 equals 7.8 billion tonnes CO2 in the global atmosphere, therefore it also equals c.7.8 billion tonnes non-CO2 in the global atmosphere.
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?
The ludicrous GCM models of the IPCC simply like the philistine walk by the other side of the road. 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.
Posted by: Tim Curtin | June 20, 2006 9:51 AM"
That is a clearly stated claim, by Curtin, that if the PPM of non-CO2 decrements (as it must, in ppm terms) then the molecules have gone missing, and we need to account for them. It is the exact same error he is now attributing to everyone who has since tried to correct him.
There is a decrease in O2, of course, since combustion of carbon to CO2 uses atmospheric O2. But this is clearly accounted for - see Eli's lagomorphic link just bit earlier - so even here, Timmy is out to lunch. A very wet lunch, it sweems.
[Curtin said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Ah... see, your problem in this matter is that you are relying on responses to several very specific subjects in order to make your extrapolation...
Those of us commmenting on your pH/salinity nonsense, and your comedic curve-fitting capers, know about that of which we speak, and thus there is little in the way of error to which to admit.
You're effectively taking too small a sample size when you make the statement that you did. If you read Deltoid widely you'd know that some of us at least, who are posting on this thread, admit elsewhere our errors when we make them - we just haven't made many here.
Of course, there's is also the simple fact that our error rate is much lower than yours, because we usually only comment on matters about which we have at least some formal education/training/experience...
[And this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Curtin, my only reason for not addressing it is that it would take about a dozen threads of this size in order to address the nonsense in your presentation. I'm happy to take pot-shots at some of your blatant and egregious commentary here, but I see only even greater futility in wading into the odyssey of pseudoscience that is your 'presentation'. I was tempted to laugh at slides 13 and 15 for starters, but to what end, really? It would simply be leading the horse repeatedly to water...
If you are able to present is more succinctly in a 'paper' in Quadrant, or in E&E, I and others might then pull the wings and the legs from it... but really, as it stands, it really is an exercise in futility - we all know that you wouldn't listen anyway.
Tim, and anyone else who might be interested in seawater chemistry as it pertains to ocean acidification,
You might be interested to read the new [NRC report on ocean acidification](http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12904) report (still at the prepublication stage but publicly available). Particularly of interest to the discussion held here, the report good sections on the effect of ocean acidification on [seawater chemistry](http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12904&page=17), on the [physiology of marine organisms](http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12904&page=33), as well as on [marine ecosystems as a whole](http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12904&page=43).
MFS, again you get me to break my abstinence pledge! Anyway thanks for the link to the NAS/NRC Report.
Regrettably it seems to be seriously biased in slanting the science to create unncessary alarm over a non-problem. There has in fact been no observed general or global decline in oceanic pH, as even AR4 WG1 admits, and its Fig.5.9 is highly dubious with only one set of direct measurements and that for a very short period (10 years).
Recall that âHenryâs law is used to quantify the solubility of gases in solvents. The solubility of a gas in a solvent is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solvent.(at given temperature). Over the last 150 years the partial pressure of CO2 has risen by about 35%, so CO2 is moving into the oceans, not out of themâ.
That means reducing [CO2] (to say 350 ppm) as demanded by NRC is likely to release dissolved CO2 from the oceans faster than we can reduce emissions, so why do that?
Nowhere can I see the NRC admitting that [CO2] is growing very slowly, at just 0.41% p.a. since 1958 - as usual with the NAS they have convinced themselves that emissions growing at 3% pa as in recent years means that [CO2] grows at the same rate, whereas on decadal timescales at least 56% of annual emissions are absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere.
And of course their projections of pH to 2100 are based on their false [CO2] prediction, in turn based on the IPCC's erroneous application of the Michaelis-Menten.
It is wholly false to infer that hypebolic function, which does apply to the growth trajectory of each indvidual plant and animal, imposes a similar ceiling on future life of all forms. M-M happily applies to my grandson, aged 4, and suggests he will reach 6'2" like me at age 20, and that his stature will then cease to grow does not mean that his hopefully many offspring will not repeat the M-M trajectory, but that is what Wigley's MAGICC explicitly assumes (along with Frank Fenner cheerfully looking forward to extinction of the human race by 2100 - given that prospect, oceanic pH of 7.8 as projected by NRC will be the least of your and my descendants' worries!).
In short I find the NRC report to be tosh, as there are many more serious problems to be tackled here and now, like Al Quaeda.
BTW, I shall not respond to any but MFS on this issue.
BTW, I shall not respond to any but MFS on this issue.
The less the better, moron.
Anybody got a crucifix and a wooden stake?
Recall that âHenryâs law is used to quantify the solubility of gases in solvents. The solubility of a gas in a solvent is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solvent.(at given temperature). Over the last 150 years the partial pressure of CO2 has risen by about 35%, so CO2 is moving into the oceans, not out of themâ.
That means reducing [CO2] (to say 350 ppm) as demanded by NRC is likely to release dissolved CO2 from the oceans faster than we can reduce emissions, so why do that?
I keep staring at that and trying to imagine how anyone can be that stupid ... then I remember all the other idiotic things Tim has said here.
*In short I find the NRC report to be tosh, as there are many more serious problems to be tackled here and now, like Al Quaeda*
IMHO Tim Curtin is a complete and utter joke. He takes D-K to its extreme. Given the NRC report was authored by many experts in the field, I find it hilarious that a neophyte like Curtin claims to possess the wisdom to be able to dismiss it as 'tosh'. Note also that US expansionist wars and control of oil and natural gas pipelines like Nabucco or Baku-Ceyhan-Tblisi in order to bypass Russia and Iran does not figure into his right wing narrative of foreign policy problems.
Some advice MFS: please do not feed the hyper-troll. And don't listen to what he says; IMO he has no clue what he is talking about.
I find it hilarious that a neophyte like Curtin claims to possess the wisdom to be able to dismiss it as 'tosh'
What's truly hilarious is the reason he gives for dismissing it as tosh: "as there are many more serious problems to be tackled here and now, like Al Quaeda". Even if it weren't already evident that he is a loon and a clown, that formulation would establish it.
[Tim Curtin believes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Oh dear, old man...
You are WAY off base now. If there's one thing I know something about, it's growth curves, and believe me there are many, many forms of curve that describe the asymptotic growth of plants and animals, and they have nothing to do with a hyperbolic character. If you, as a former practicing economist, are not able to distinguish between sigmoid (which describes much biological growth) and hyperbolic functions, then you must have been a poor economist indeed.
Moreover, there are many species whose growth is indeterminate. Certainly, they slow down over time, and are physically contrained in theory by biophysical considerations, but when the lifespans of such organisms preclude the reaching of these biophysical constraints, then to all intents and purposes they do not demonstrate asymptotic growth.
I'd love to deliver to you a detailed description of the manifold curve types that I have used over the years, and too many times to count, and I'd relish describing their mathematical characteristics, but I would only be giving you terms to drop into your pseudoscientific gobbledegook. And I'm not about to hand to you jargon with which to dazzle unsuspecting lay folk who might be suckered into believing that your stringing together of real terms with invalid garbage constitutes some form of genuine argument.
And besides, you're apparently not speaking to me anymore...
I can't say that I'm surprised at that - it must be incredibly difficult to be continuously reminded that you have failed to [address some very simple questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), without eventually descending into a complete denial of an elephant in the room...
Oh, and:
I have another (less life-threatening) simple challenge for you - provide a photo of a statutory declaration by you that states that Fenner was "cheerfully looking forward to extinction of the human race by 2100". I would bet that he didn't - Fenner's far too sensible to make such a rash declaration, no matter that there is, nevertheless, a serious risk that humans will still fizzle out in the greater evolutionary scale of things.
Come on - you've put words in Fenner's mouth.
Stand by your claim.
Tim Curtin is still using the bellboy puzzle:
The tautological ppm thing does NOT translate to ANY of the atmosphere going ANYWHERE. Here's what actually happens.
1. Carbon is BURNED. It's oxidized, and the oxygen is reduced, and the byproduct is, among other things, CO2. So that's where most of any "missing" OXYGEN has gone. It's gone into a bond with the CARBON going into the atmosphere. When you BURN something, you take oxygen out of the atmosphere. That's why we split the difference and say it's carbon going into the atmosphere.
2. Because the carbon used to be in the GROUND, the atmosphere now indeed has MORE MASS in its new equilbrium than it had on average under normal conditions in the atmospheric circulation cycle - increasing the ppm of CO2 does not tell you the atmosphere lost "non-CO2" to make up for it. It doesn't tell you anything about absolute mass or volume of oxygen or nitrogen or anything.
Someone review for me, please, who Tim Curtin is, and why he gets attention and a public forum? This is the third really dumb thing I've seen lately from Denial World. The first was "there can't be a greenhouse because that would be a cold object warming a hot object." the second was the Goddard Venus atrocity, and now this.
Tim Curtin's children:
"Mommy, why are the fish in our fish tank always dead?"
"Daddy's proving a point, honey!"
Tim,
We can measure ocean pH accurately at present, and also use carbonate proxies to estimate past levels. Naturally, most models using carbonate proxies for estimation rely on the assumption of otherwise similar ocean chemistry to what we observe today, and that's a major source of uncertainty.
I'm not sure where you're getting at when you say noone measures ocean pH, but my colleagues, for example, carry out measurements on 16-20 transects between Tasmania and Antarctica on regularly scheduled voyages ever year, and others employing ships of opportunity. Much of this data, and other of similarly high quality, is used to feed models. [Key et al, GBC 2004](http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/rmk0401.pdf) might give you an overview of the sort of dataset and model resulting. I'm a biologist myself so can't really comment other than from what I hear in tearoom discussions or read in the literature.
Your second argument is that reducing atmospheric CO2 will cause oceanic CO2 to outgass back to the atmosphere. I have to say I don't see what the problem is, since the oceans already dissolve about a third of the CO2 we emit on an annual basis, tempering its effect on climate. The benefit we derive from it now means that it will take longer for CO2 levels to drop once we reduce emissions, as the equilibrium between atmospheric and surface-ocean dissolved CO2 re-establishes. As to why do that we may have to agree to disagree on the potential consequences of not doing anything.
When you say "CO2 is growing very slowly", I'd like to point out that at the end of the last glaciation it took approximately 6,000 years for CO2 to drop by 90ppm. This rate is a good example of the sort of rates that are estimated to have previously taken place. When CO2 increases at these slower rates, ocean pH is generally considered to vary little or not at all. This is because lower pH water has time to dissolve extra carbonate from rocks, which buffers the effect of the added CO2.
As to false predictions on CO2 and pH by 2100, wrong hyperbolic functions, etc... the onus is on you to provide evidence to disprove the published and accepted science.
I did not mean to entice you out of your self imposed silence and am quite happy to accept all our arguing is neither convincing me of the validity of your arguments nor you of the validity of mine. I'm happy to consider further discussion pointless.
MFS: thanks for your considered reply, a rarety here!
It's too late now for me to check your link, as I have to prepare for my Watts tour address tomorrow, but to the best of my knowledge there are NO global or regional time series data on oceanic pH (or salinity for that matter). Unlike [CO2] which is much the same whether measured at Mauna Loa, Pt Barrow, or Cape Grim, there is no comparable data base for pH, which in fact varies enormously by time and place.
LIke it or not, the NAS/NRC projections for growth of pCO2 or [CO2] in this century are fraudulent because of their use of the Michaelis-Menten function to double the actual growth since 1958-2009 of pCO2 (or [CO2]) from 0.41% p.a. to 1% p.a. or more.
Why it is necessary for NRC to use a baseless assumption for its projections?.
In my ANU seminar I attempted at some length to explain why the M-M function is inapplicable as used by the IPCC (and now NRC) to project pCO2 to 2100.
As a biologist surely you agree that while M-M explains why Jack's beanstalk does not reach very far into the sky, it does not explain why, according to the ineffable Wigley & Enting, next year's beanstalk cannot absorb as much or more CO2 as this year's (given an improved CSIRO variety). As my seminar noted at length Monsanto et al have given the lie to both Malthus and Wigley for very many years now.
For ease of reference, here's a link to my seminar:
www.timcurtin.com
I am happy to continue debating with you for ever but Bernard J et al are beyond the pale when it comes to reasonable discourse!
MFS, I meant to add to this comment of mine "Unlike [CO2] which is much the same whether measured at Mauna Loa, Pt Barrow, or Cape Grim, there is no comparable data base for pH, which in fact varies enormously by time and place" a further note which confirms my point, viz., in their paper in Science in January last year, De'ath Lough & Fabricius made wholly mendacious claims about the imminent demise of the GBR (funded of course by the late K Rudd to say so)because of "rising acidity/falling pH" without being able to cite a single statistic that there has been ANY change in pH in the GBR (except when they tip hydrochloric acid into selected bits of it).
Curtin, [you say](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
As a biologist I call your bullshit.
[Michaelis-Menten](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelis%E2%80%93Menten_kinetics) models are models of enzyme kinetics, where rates of reaction are dependent on the concentrations of reactants. Micahaelis-Menten kinetics describe a biochemical process that is not growth, and that operates with completely different regulatory feedings-back than do growth phenomena. Micahaelis-Menten kinetics have little to say about beanstalks reaching into the sky, unless it is to describe enzymatic processes within the cells.
Your insistence that Michaelis-Menten kinetics describe growth trajectories in organisms is Michaelis-completely ill-informed. As I have already indicated, growth processes are nearly always sigmoid, and not hyperbolic in the way that Michaelis-Menten kinetics are. If you were as considered a student of Malthusian growth as you seem to pretend to be you'd have cottoned on to this long ago.
You seriously need to learn the basics of several biological disciplines if you don't want to continue to demonstrate to all who read you material, exactly how poorly equiped you are to make the proclamations that you do.
Your entry into this particular domain is akin to a plumber walking into an operating suite, and insisting that he is well able to conduct surgery using his wrench and plunger.
You are using completely wrong tools for the job.
Oh, and you can ignore me, ostrich-like, as much as you desire, but it doesn't change the simple fact of what I tell you.
It's entertaining though, this denialism that you exhibit in it's almost purest form...
Bernard, my favorite part of Tim's FAIL on M-M, in the sentence yo quote, is this:
"...M-M explains why..."
Well no. M-M is mathematical description of the kinetics of enzyme reactions. M-M does NOT explain why the kinetics saturates, it simply describes that they do. The 'why' is that the enzyme reaction reaches max velocity when every enzyme molecule is operating at its maximum turnover. But we only know this if we know much more about the biochemistry of enzymes than just the M-M equations.
This error is embedded in many of TC's absurdities here - the mistaken conclusion that the mathematics EXPLAINS, when in the absense of a physical mechanism it only describes. He (I think this is an economist error) reifies the model to primacy over physical reality - but only if his cherry-picked model matches his preconceived conclusions.
[Lee said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) "I think this is an economist arrogant, scientifically illiterate, denialist idiot's error.
Fixed that for you Lee.
Jeff, Bernard (et al), I admire your persistence in comprehensively exposing this clown.
With luck, some curious punters at Watts' travelling snake oil circus will be google-directed here and make the association with what they witnessed in person, and it won't be in vain.
@ chek:
Let's compromise, and call it "an arrogant, scientifically illiterate, denialist idiot economist's error
Sure thing, Lee.
I appreciate that you were being generous in your previous comment, and if TC were an anonymous private citizen that's the spirit I would have taken it in.
But he isn't, he's actively advocating for powerful interests by bastardising a subject he has no notion of, hence my possibly impudent imposition on your more tolerant comment.
Tim Curtin makes the following claim at #566:
"in their paper in Science in January last year, De'ath Lough & Fabricius made wholly mendacious claims about the imminent demise of the GBR (funded of course by the late K Rudd to say so) because of "rising acidity/falling pH" without being able to cite a single statistic that there has been ANY change in pH in the GBR "
The abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5910/116
Says the following:
"The causes of the decline remain unknown; however, this study suggests that increasing temperature stress and a declining saturation state of seawater aragonite may be diminishing the ability of GBR corals to deposit calcium carbonate"
So, Tim Curtin, your accusation of them being "mendacious" is clearly projection on your part.
Your paranoid conspiracy theory about them being paid by Rudd to say whatever you falsely claim they said is risible.
Sow the wind, reap the whrilwind, Vince: This is from the first paragraph in De'ath & co, Science 2009: "There is little doubt that coral reefs are under unprecedented pressure worldwide because of climate change, changes in
water quality from terrestrial runoff, and overexploitation
(1). Recently, declining pH of the upper seawater layers due to the absorption of increasing atmospheric CO2 [termed ocean acidification (2)] has been added to the list of potential threats to coral reefs, because laboratory
studies show that coral calcification decreases
with declining pH (3â6)." Ref 5 is to Hoegh-Guldberg in Science 2007.
The paper itself fabricated most of its data, in the sense that it claimed to have cores across the whole of the GBR stretching back 400 years - "Our
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
reaching back 400 years" - when it only had one of that longevity, and half of the dozen only post-2000 samples that they archived, all south of lat 18 (i.e. bottom small portion of the GBR), showed NO decline - or considerable growth - in calcification.
Not only that, the "stretching back 400 years" applies to only one of their sampled cores, and their data on that one ends in 1987, hardly representative of the state of the GBR since 2000. Vince, take care that you read more carefully lest you also qualify for the epithet I justifiably bestowed on De'ath et al.
If this Science paper does not constitute at least an infringement of the Trade Descriptions Act, what would? - but then scientists like De'ath are free to fib as much as they like, and Science will publish it all.
See you at Belconnen Labor Club 6.30 tonight?
So the paper you accused of being mendacious on PH made no original claims about PH but referenced a previous paper.
This seems to me to be how science works.
Now, if you want any actual credibility, what you do is this:
Do your own PH research and disprove Hoegh-Guldberg. Have you done that yet?
Take your own 400-year-old GBR cores and prove De'ath wrong. Have you done that yet?
As you have failed to publish any actual research showing either of these two previous papers to be actually *wrong*, you are nowhere near the much higher bar of proving that they are in fact dishonest.
And frankly, this demonstrably flakey approach to science of yours pretty much proves you are a crank.
Bernard J, chek, and Lee: even by your standards your latest efforts are idiotic. It is not me who uses Michaelis-Menten to claim that the oceanic and terrestrial carbon sinks are already or very soon will be saturated, but Wigley (Tellus 1993, Wigley & Enting CSIRO 1994, 2000, and Karoly + Enting for CASPI & Garnaut 2008, and the IPCC (SAR, TAR, AR4) which use Wigleyâs MAGICC model for their projections of growth in [CO2] to 2100.
MAGICC uses the M-M hyperbolic function as its deus ex machina, and it is also used in Friedlingstein (2006) et al and Sokolov et at 2009. (full refs are in my Seminar Paper at www.timcurtin.com).
My seminar showed the M-M enzyme kinetics (slide 22), and how that characteristic trajectory was adopted, in my view wrongly, by Uncle Tom Wigley and all the above to justify their claims, most recently in Meinshausens et al (Nature 30 April 2009), that the sinks are already saturated, so that henceforth gross emissions of CO2 etc remain airborne forever.
If that Nature paper is correct, Frank Fenner would be right when he said in The Australian (16th June), we will soon all be extinct, and long before 2100, as there would then be no new photosynthesis. Moreover, as Fenner said, there is NOTHING we here and now can do to stave off this mass extinction of the human race.
TC:
"which use Wigleyâs MAGICC model for their projections of growth in [CO2] to 2100. "
Tim, this is simply untrue. It is false.
Hell, on the first paragraph of the MAGICC 'New Features" page:
"There have been many changes, mainly to SCENGEN. These changes have been made primarily for consistency with the Working Group 1 report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment (AR4)."
Get that, Tim? MAGICC/SCENGEN has recently been changed to bring it into accord with AR4. It was NOT used to generate the scenarios in AR4, or any of he other sources you cite.
NOBODY is saying that current significant sinks are saturated, Tim. Nobody. There are some reports that some sinks in some regions are perhaps beginning to saturate. You are simply wrong, to say that anyone claims that sinks are saturated, or soon will be. The claim is that the airborne fraction will at some point begin to increase, as the sequestered fraction begins to reduce. You are simply wrong to claim that ANYONE says that now or in th new future, 100% of emitted anthropogenic CO2 will remain airborne.
And your claim that saturation means that there is 'no new photosynthesis? What the freaking hell?!?!?!?! How on EARTH do you get that, Tim? That is wrong on so many levels, about so many things, I don't know where to start. Other than by laughing at how irrelevant and absurd you have become.
Christ, man, stop embarrassing yourself.
Lee: you are mistaken. WG1 ch 8 itself says it relied on "an uopdated version" of MAGICC (p.644, #8.8.2); see also the supplementary matarial on the CD at back WG1. At that page 644 we read the IPCC's explicit asssumption that atmospheric CO2 grows at 1% pa.,compounded. This derives from the MAGICC assumption of uptakes falling to zero, given the actual growth rate of [CO2] since 1958 at just 0.41% p.a. as of April this year.
Doubling growth rates is what Madoff did.
MAGICC goes back a long way and is indeed often revised and updated, but always with the M-M function embedded in it.
As for saturation, email me (tcurtin at bigblue.net.au) and I will send you the copies of the NINE articles in Nature 30 April 2009 which all assumed zero uptakes of CO2 emissions, including Nature's own leading article, which categorically states that it is gross emissions (not net as in real life) that determine growth in [CO2]. Meinshausen et al state they used the MAGICC M-M assumption of saturated sinks.
My commentary on that issue of Nature is on my website.
I must be off now to the Labor Club for my presentation tonight alongside Watts & Archibald. See ya there?
How was the presentation Tim? Did you ask Watts and Archibald to peer review your ideas about how CO2 is the main reason crop yields have increased in the last few decades? Or whether a 5th order polynomial is the best way to model the Mauna Loa curve? Perhaps they could figure out which order of the polynomial related to which physical process...
>If that Nature paper is correct, Frank Fenner would be right when he said in The Australian (16th June), we will soon all be extinct, and long before 2100, as there would then be no new photosynthesis. Moreover, as Fenner said, there is NOTHING we here and now can do to stave off this mass extinction of the human race.
I read Fenner's article. While I whole-heartedly disagree with his extremely pessimistic viewpoint, he says nothing about us all being extinct because there would then be no new photosynthesis. I mean, WTF? Tim, and I must echo Lee when I ask where the hell you got this from!
[Tim Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Curtin, if you actually parse [my post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) you will find that I referred only to the biological growth context - a context to which you nevertheless applied the Michaelis-Menton enzyme kinetics model.
The idiocy here is yours: there is none on my part.
And further misattribution from you:
Let's have a look at [how it was actually reported](http://tinyurl.com/249wr64):
"...[P]erhaps within 100 years" is most certainly not the same as "...long before 2100". Moreover, Fenner's "perhaps within 100 years" is actually within the realms of possibility (â¡ "perhaps") if humans do not address their assaults to ecosystems, or their geopolitical wranglings, or their over-reliance on non-renewable resources.
Personally, I doubt that humans will be completely extinct with 100 years. At the very least I reckon that indigenous human communities have the wherewithal to adapt to socially cataclysmic changes that could easily befall overly-complex Western societies that have significant areas of non-redundance in systems.
Humans have a profound reach through the biosphere however, and despite the wet-dreams of technologists and futurists, technology cannot rebuild and replace the ecosystem services that are essential to our species. The comment attributed to Fenner by a reporter (with no guarantee of complete accuracy, by the way) is certainly pessimistic, but it is not the same as your assertion that Fenner predicted the inevitable advent of human extinction of humanity before the end of the 21st century.
It is a salient warning however, and we risk ignoring it to our detriment, at least as much as we suffered after ignoring the [warnings of folk who predicted the global financial crisis](http://economists.ning.com/profiles/blogs/who-predicted-the-financial), and at least as much as we could suffer by ignoring the advice of those such as [Nassim Talb](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/).
Now, I'm sure you'll use the previous paragraph as a diving board for many postings in which you will ignore my other points, so I will pre-empt you by repeating... you have misattributed both Fenner and me.
And you are still [ignoring those vexing questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), aren't you?
Oh, good god, Curtin!!!!!
"WG1 ch 8 itself says it relied on "an updated version" of MAGICC (p.644, #8.8.2)"[ for, as you claimed earlier, "their projections of growth in [CO2] to 2100."]
No, Tim. They explain that full-blown climate models are very computationally intensive and can not be run to answer every question, and that they use simple models to 'emulate' the full models. They use a modified version of MAGICC, modified and tuned to "emulate the projections of future climate chance conducted with state-of-the-art AOGCMs, thus allowing the investigation of the temperature and sea level implications of all relevant emission scenarios."
From 8.2.2: "This simple climate model has been tuned to outputs from 19 of the AOGCMs described in table 8.1, with the resulting parameter values as given in the Supplementary Materials, Table S8.1.
So, no Tim. The MAGICC-derived model is used to EMULATE the output from the full models, and in the full models, the airborne fraction is NOT derived from any simple function, but from the modeling of the physics and somewhat-parameterized modeling of the biology of the oceanic and terrestrial sinks.
TC: "At that page 644 we read the IPCC's explicit assumption that atmospheric CO2 grows at 1% pa.,compounded."
No Tim. The 1% growth rate is NOT used for projections. It is used for tuning the MAGICC-derived model to the state-of-the-art AOGCMs. We read that they used 2 artificial scenarios with 1% growth, to twice or four times current levels and then flat after that. They tune the MAGICC_derived model to give the best fit to the ensemble output of the full-blown models under the same test scenarios. 1% is NOT, NOT, NOT what they assume the future to be - it is an intentionally-artificial testing scenario used ONLY for tuning the simple model to the complex models.
Your original claim was that the IPCC and others "use Wigleyâs MAGICC model for their projections of growth in [CO2] to 2100. "
No, Tim. 8.2.2 is very explicit that they use their MAGICC-derived model for "allowing the investigation of the temperature and sea level implications of all relevant emission scenarios." Growth in CO2 is an INPUT to the simple model, Tim, not an output. After they tune the simple model to the full-blown AOGCMs, they INPUT reasonable and relevant CO2 scenarios to look at the effects on temperature and sea level.
This is the first two paragraphs of your cited IPCC AR4 WG1 8.2.2, Tim. You got this freaking much wrong from only 2 paragraphs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Lee: thanks for all that.I have no time now to respond in full, because en route soon to Wagga Wagga with the Watts tour, but please note that you confirmed my interpretation that CO2 is indeed an input, when it should be an output; it is simply assumed, not modelled, other than the questionable SRES scenarios for emissions. Nowhere in WG1 do I see biospheric uplifts being modelled, other than the flawed projections of Canadell et al in WG1 which all implicitly assume M-M and its "saturating sinks". See Knorr GRL 2009 (one of Fried et al 2006) who confirms me (2009a and b) that the sinks are NOT saturating.
@580:
Given the question "what happens to temperature and sea level as a result of various carbon emission scenarios," and a description off a simplified model designed to answer that question, Curtin is shocked (shocked! I say) to learn that teh independent variable CO2 is an input to the model and not an output.
What does one do with that?
And I'm still waiting for Curtin to explain how saturating the CO2 sinks means there is no new photosynthesis, so we all die.
Curtin.
Surely [nobody could be as unintentionally dense as you demonstrate yourself to be](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and still be sufficiently functional so as to be able to manage even to pull their fly down and spray their shoes.
Therefore I can only presume that you are being deliberately obtuse, for your own ideological ends.
When anyone is modelling temperature into the future in the context of CO2 effects, then CO2 is an input. There is nothing untoward about this. Read what Lee has said to you - different scenarios of CO2 emission are used to best determine what temperatures may be under those scenarios.
The alternative CO2 trajectories themselves are modelled using complex inputs incorporating physics, and reasonable assumptions of various possible future human demands.
As so many of us have repeatedly told you in previous postings here, regressions do nothing to inform about CO2 concentrations beyond the original intervals of time used to derive regressions. We have tried to drive this fundamental point home so many times that it beggars belief - regressions are not a predictive tool, because they do not incorporate conditions that may operate beyond the inputted range of the independent variable.
Our extrapolated fittings of the various curve types of which you are so enamoured has been done in order to underscore this fact. And as I have said before, even [my fit](http://i47.tinypic.com/x532g5.jpg), which is based on a physical characteristic inherent in the Mauna Loa data, requires that human extraction and use of fossil fuels continue exactly as they have since the Mauna Loa record began - a highly unlikely scenario, but one which, if actually followed, would result in an atmospheric CO2 concentration in the vicinity of 800 ppm by the end of the 21st century.
Curtin, you are obviously not a modeller, because you cannot even follow procedures and logical rules that a putative modeller would learn on the first day in class.
I really wish that I could attend the Antonio Wattaninni Permambulating Circus tonight, because I would love to press you with a score of questions about your swag of ill-informed, psuedoscientific, non-mathematical bunkum. Unfortunately for the cause of truth, the likely audience in Wagga this evening is likely to be a mostly gathering of credulous, elderly hayseeds with a rusted-on conservative ideology that entertains no recourse to real fact; a gathering that is willing to pay good money for the privilege of having their misconceptions reinforced.
There are none so blind...
I heard a rumour the train wreck was still going - perhaps it's an asymptotic decline, doomed to continue forever ;-)
TC should be careful what he wishes for:
> It is gratifying that the paper's main thrust, the non-applicability of Michaelis-Menten to climate models projecting [CO2] into the future, has not been challenged.
Given his other stupid claims, I don't think anyone had bothered to investigate when he wrote that, but it seems that Lee has likely [pwned the main thrust](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) of TC's vaunted paper. ``
> ...please note that you confirmed my interpretation that CO2 is indeed an input, when it should be an output;
Goodness gracious! That appears extra-stupid, even for someone with TC's record of fallacy. I guess a firm belief in that point would explain some of the derived silliness he so earnestly touts.
Lee: 1. When one has a complex world with many recursive features (aka feedbacks that may be + or -), it is not appropriate to introduce fixed parameters like the hyperbolic function that sets a ceiling on the uptakes of anthro CO2 emissions. Nowhere in IPCC are the uptakes modelled other than by the M-M hyperbola, or the only slightly relaxed restrictions in the Bern suite of models.
Why do NONE of the myriad GCMs simply assume that as has been the case since 1958, 56% of future anthro CO2 emissions will be absorbed by land and sea?
2. If the sinks are saturated or soon will be (Canadell et al, Wigley via M-M), that means (i) atmospheric CO2 grows faster than when 56% of emissions is absorbed by land & sea, by 1% pa instead of 0.41% pa, and (ii)that no increase in photosynthesis will be possible (by the M-M assumption of saturation of sinks); with world population projected to grow by at least 2 billion from today's level of c7 Billion by 2050 if not before, in the absence of additional photosynthesis they will have to subsist on the same quantum of food production that suffices, just, for today's 7 billion.
Remember at least 40% of world food consumption consists of carbon in one form or another, and 9 billion will want to consume it at least pro rata with today's 7 billion.
There is little evidence that there was more plant biomass present when atmospheric C02 levels were higher than they are today. And it is almost certain that when man arrived on the scene, there was more biodiversity - in terms of species and genetically disticnt populations - than at any time in the planet's long history.
As I have said innumerable times, primary productivity total plant biomass is determined by a wide range of parameters (both biotic and abiotic) that Curtin ignores. In many terrestrial ecosystems 20% or more of plant biomass is consumed by herbivores. It is even higher in agroecosystems. My guess is that Curtin believes that to counter the plague of insect herbivores that will feed on our crops under increased C02 regimes we will just have to spray more and more insecticides. And to combat the plague of early successional weeds and invasive plants that will compete with crops I suppose Curtin will argue that we will have to apply more and more herbicides. Forget the serious deleterious effects these will have on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and at least the big multinational corporations who manufacture the stuff will profit.
As Clive Hamilton says in his outstanding book "Requiem for a Species", going beyond 450 ppm C02 is likely to have serious consequences for the planet's climate and ecological life-support systems; beyond 550 ppm and we are talking about catastrophic effects. James hansen echoes this in his book, "Storms of my Granchildren". Talk of feeding the world by using the atmosphere as an open sewer for carbon emissions is IMHO madness. Most of my colleagues in environemntal science would agree with that.
>Why do NONE of the myriad GCMs simply assume that as has been the case since 1958, 56% of future anthro CO2 emissions will be absorbed by land and sea?
They don't need to. Up to the HadCM3/GISS Model E era 10 or 15 years ago none of them had carbon cycles. The carbon dioxide levels, as has been pointed out, are an input. All we want do is get an idea of 'if CO2 does this, what might the climate do?'.
I'm sure someone with more knowledge on the subject (Lee, I guess) can fill me in more on carbon cycle modelling - but I'm absolutely certain they don't assume a constant airborne fraction. That's one of the outputs.
>with world population projected to grow by at least 2 billion from today's level of c7 Billion by 2050 if not before, in the absence of additional photosynthesis they will have to subsist on the same quantum of food production that suffices, just, for today's 7 billion.
Tim, are you aware that more than one factor affects airborne fraction? For example, if ocean uptake decreases faster than photosynthesis increases, there is a net increase in airborne fraction. Indeed, theoretically if the oceans became an increasing net source of CO2 (they're currently a sink), then uptake by photosynthesis could increase indefinitely but at a slower rate and the airborne fraction would still increase.
So, as it's got multiple variables, an increasing airborne fraction does not imply no increase in uptake by photosynthesis. Thanks for playing and have a nice day.
PS. Two more points. First, there's actually nothing theoretically wrong with an airborne fraction > 1, physically however it's incredibly unlikely, as the biosphere would have to become a net source. That's just to make you aware that there's no mathematical limit on airborne fraction...
Second, Curtin (yet again) doesn't spot when a process is affected by more than one variable.
>in the absence of additional photosynthesis they will have to subsist on the same quantum of food production that suffices, just, for today's 7 billion.
Cos we couldn't, like, grow more plants? That's completely impossible, right? Wake up, Tim. Developing countries will increase their food production vastly if they can transition from mainly subsistence farming to mainly commercial agriculture. How have you not realised that CO2 is not the only (or even the main) variable that affects food production? FFS!
Wow. If the above reads as if I'm drunk, I'm not. Just tired.
stu: you must have been affluenced by inkahol as you came perilously close to agreeing with me, and we can't have that can we? I agree with your last para., but Michaelis-Menten as applied by Wigley's MAGICC in all its manifestations specifically assumes that the existing biosphere is or will very soon be "saturated", so that all new expansions of agriculture will simply "wither on the vine".
Of course CO2 is not the only factor, but it is certainly a NECESSARY precondition for all photosynthesis by land and sea. Existing biospheric usage of CO2 feeds the present population, a larger population will need more, but from whence if [CO2] is reduced to 350 ppm?
Remember, all cereals embody at least 40% carbon by weight, and similar proportions apply to other food - read the labels!
Odin on a stick, Curtin - we exposed your spuriousness on this point last year in your first Thread of Tragedy.
An extra 2 billion people embody about 25 megatones of carbon - and amount that would disappear in the current biospheric carbon content without any hiccup in overall fluxes of the element.
And even if the biospheric carbon budget couldn't adjust, perhaps you might care to remind us how much carbon humans emit each year from the combustion of fossil fuels? Hmmm?
The fact remains that your 'point' is still completely spurious.
And I see that [those questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) are still proving impossible for you to address...
Bernard J: Emissions from fossil fuels and LUC are estimated at c10.2 GtC in 2009; only around 4.02 remained airborne, in line with the average of c44% since 1958. CoP wants emissions to be reduced to c3 GtC, well below the UPLIFT of c6 GtC in 2009. Soooo?
[So](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)?
Consider the additional carbon released from its fossil prison by humans. Consider the amount of carbon circulating in the biosphere.
Consider the amount of carbon that resides in humans now, and how much would thus reside with an additional 2 billion people.
Exactly how is your perceived carbon dearth occurring?
By the way, Tim Curtin, [John Cook](http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-Good-for-Plants-Another-Red-Herr…) is taking pots at your pet theory now.
@ Stu:
"I'm sure someone with more knowledge on the subject (Lee, I guess) can fill me in more on carbon cycle modeling - but I'm absolutely certain they don't assume a constant airborne fraction. That's one of the outputs."
Stu, I'm not a modeler - just an interested observer from a distance. But I clearly know a hell of a lot more than Timmy-boy.
Inclusion of a carbon cycle in the AOGCMs is recent - this last decade - and most of the development if I understand correctly as been post AR4. However, many of the models used in AR4 did include a carbon cycle based on phsyical and somewhat parameterized biological modeling. I'm sure modelers here - if they haven't long ago given up on timmy in disgust and abandoned this thread - can add to this and correct me if necessary.
Models that include a carbon cycle (ie models that no longer rely on a simple hyperbolic saturation parameter that timmy keeps saying is absolutely all that exists) all generate positive carbon-cycle feedback of 0.5 - 1.5 C / 2xCO2.
For a general overview, try this, Especially Section 6.2.1, and figure 6.2:
[report](http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/sap3-1-fi…)
I enjoyed reading the guest posting by Mariana Ashley on John Cook's site.
The arguments that Curtin forward with respect to carbonizing the atmosphere, photosynthesis and net primary production are, to be blunt, utter horses***. He stopped responding to my demands that he discuss the improtance of other abiotic and biotic factors weeks ago, as if by ignoring them he would deem them as being irrelevant. Curtin apparently has not read any of the important reviews which have examined the top-down and bottom-up factors that regulate terrestrial plant biomass, presumably because they do not fit in with his narrative. Here are just a few empirical studies and reviews addressing the question of biotic factors regulating plant biomass in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (there are literally hundreds more which suggest both top-down and bottom up forces are involved): Hairston et al. (1960); Carson and Root (1989); McQueen et al. (1989); Hunter and Price (1992); Power (1992); Strong (1992); Rosemund et al. (1993); Fraser and Grime (1998); Pace et al. (1999); Polis (1999); Schmitz et al. (2000); Loreau et al. (2001); Hillebrand (2002); Shurin et al. (2002); Dyer et al., (2003); Gratton and Denno, (2003); Silliman and Zieman (2008).
These studies are just for starters (there are many more published). They shatter the myth that we can reliably predict global, and especially local, patterns of plant productivity and biomass on the basis of atmospheric C02 concentrations. Note how those parroting the 'C02 as plant food' line are primarily climate change denialists who are trying to spin a good light on the current global 'experiment'. Suggesting that we can manage the global commons even when pumping more and more C02 into the atmosphere is reckless in my view; arguing that it will benefit humanity is IMHO equally reckless and illogical.
I won't even go far into some of the abiotic effects - such as changes in the stoichiometry of plant tissues and those of associated herbivores, predators etc. It is becoming increasingly clear that increases in C02 may be accompaned by phosphorus deficiency that may offset any gains in biomass from increased C02. Also, as Ashley points out, water availability is crucial. If precipitation regimes are altered, then any benefits of increased C02 will be offset. Any then again, we must factor in the biotic variables, even if Curtin patently ignores them.
Jeff.
In Curtin's world if one ignores the elephants in the room, they don't exist.
Zaphod Beeblebrox would be proud.
Bernard: you said I should "Consider the amount of carbon that resides in humans now, and how much would thus reside with an additional 2 billion people?". Yes, indeed, when as Wigley's MAGICC's, Solokov et al 2009, Meinshausen et al 2009, all assume M-M hyperbolic produces a ceiling to biospheric absorption of [CO2], the extra 2 billion will have to fight us 7 billion for access to our food supply. So we or our descendants will all be more hungry.
Given your scientific training, I do not understand why you will not accept that [CO2] is the necessary condition for photosynthesis, and that regardless of any extra [CO2] in the absence of reducing to 350 ppm as demanded by Hansen, the biospheric sinks according to MAGICC and its clones are or will soon be saturated, there CANNOT be the extra photosynthesis required to feed 9 billion people by 2050, still less if we achieve Hansen's goal of 350 ppm.
Rising CO2 emissions of which only 44% become airborne means that 56% fuels rising food production across the globe. Absent those rising emissions, there will be no rising food production even without M-M saturation; WITH M-M saturation even 100% of rising CO2 emissions will not be able to yield rising food production.
His idiocy is impregnable. We do a takedown of his idiocy about M-M in models,and here he is right back raving about "Wigley's MAGICC'" et al.
GAh.
adn for good measure, he addas another one:
"Rising CO2 emissions of which only 44% become airborne means that 56% fuels rising food production across the globe."
Good freaking god...
Tim that ~ 56% is absorbed in all carbon sinks. Are you seriously attributing all 56% to ag productivity? Really?
You're an economist - I thought quantitative argument was important for you. Try this. Calculate the amount of carbon represented by that "56%". Then calculate the amount of total global NPP in terms of carbon fixation. Then calculate the fraction of that global NPP carbon fixation attributable to agriculture. Then calculate the fraction of THAT attributable to increased agricultural output.
Then compare the numbers. Then shut up.
then compre the two numbrs
Tim appears to be once again basing an argument based on the implicit assumption that CO2 is a limiting factor in plant growth.
Tim, CO2 *still* is not a limiting factor on plant growth. Why must you be told this again?
Or, to put it another way - CO2 content in the atmosphere has been much lower in the past. The Earth was nevertheless green in those times.
What a crackingly dumb argument: "[CO2] is the necessary condition for photosynthesis, and that regardless of any extra [CO2] in the absence of reducing to 350 ppm as demanded by Hansen, the biospheric sinks according to MAGICC and its clones are or will soon be saturated, there CANNOT be the extra photosynthesis required to feed 9 billion people by 2050, still less if we achieve Hansen's goal of 350 ppm."
No reply so far from Bernard to my last, that's encouraging.
So first up, Lee: Why do you expect me to reply to you when you adopt that tone? You have been reasonably civil in the past, please try to be again. I taught Africans et al at school and various universities in my younger days and found them both civil and intelligent. Not my experience here.
As for you, first you attack my comment "~ 56% is absorbed in all carbon sinks. Are you seriously attributing all 56% to ag productivity? Really?" Really, in a blog do I have to begin by explaining that 2+2 usually = 4? My many papers and seminars are on line at my website (www.timcurtin.com), where can I find ANYTHING you have published?
Why do I have to copy everything I have published here for you to realise that I am fully aware that the biosphere also includes the ocean, where photosynthesis for which [CO2] is the sine qua non generates phytoplankton for all marine life, especially whales, whose greatest threat is not the Japanese but Jim Hansen's 350 ppm and zero CO2 emissions which will severely limit the phytoplankton that is the feedstock for krill, and they are the food for whales, and much else.
Reduction ad absurdem seems to be the last refuge of people like you. What does it achieve in this case?
Time for lunch, if I can summon the energy I may respond to your other less than brilliant queries later.
Tim, even for you that is extremely idiotic.
I mean, really, truly, eye-poppingly silly.
Get a grip, man.
Tim,
You're jumping to conclusions. I know it seems logical to think that extra CO2 will stimulate growth, as it is indeed a plant nutrient. However many if not most phytoplankton possess carbon-concentrating mechanisms. Also in the presence (or rather absence) of even more limiting nutrients, the effects are unexpected (see below).
Some early results (unpublished) suggest that higher CO2 has an effect of shifting the size of primary producers (phytoplankton) towards a smaller average cell size.
The main vector in the Southern Ocean to transfer primary production up the food chain to fish, squid, birds and large mammals is Krill (Euphasia superba). Now krill cannot eat anything of a particle size much below 5-6 microns. When you push the average size of the primary producing biomass below those sizes, which krill can't eat, you end up with an increasing proportion of that biomass entering the microbial loop, where the majority of the carbon is quickly remineralised (broken down by bacterial respiration) and outgassed.
Thus you cannot equate higher primary production with higher production up the food chain, because you can get one without the other.
All this is partly because the majority of the world's oceans are NOT limited by availability of carbon, and the main limiting nutrient (severely so) is iron. Unless you can think of a way of supplying that missing iron (and as a bonus, silicate, so you can encourage diatom growth which is ideal to feed upper levels of the food chain), the extra CO2 will not have the effect you desire, instead serving to change the community composition (favouring small weedy species) without affecting overall production.
I hope this makes sense.
[Curtin chortled](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
He chortled for no good reason.
Curtin, as I keep explaining to you, I do work - in addition to caring for my children, volunteering one or two days per week, growing my own food, and indulging in a number of other interests.
Keep you knickers on old man.
To further discourage you, I have to say that your mathematics, however you imagine them to operate, are not in fact operating correctly.
Forget your strawman comment about CO2 being "the necessary condition [sic] for photosynthesis" - your statement is a peurile simplificatoin of a biosynthetic process about which you demonstrate no intuitive understanding.
Forget your misrepresentation about the MAGICC modelling, misrepresentation which Lee has addressed.
Forget your collection of vanity publications which are a rocky-road amalgam of nutty misconstrusions clued together in a fudge of ignorance.
Explain, as was requested of you on the original Thread of Tragedy, why the biosphere did not suffer a carbon calamity before the Industrial Revolution. Explain, as I [asked of you previously](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), exactly what fraction of biospheric carbon is embodied in humans. Explain how it is that the increase in carbon sequestered in the growing human population alters the overall equilibrium of carbon flux through the biosphere.
Explain why the biomass of many species is less now than before the Industrial Revolution, if rising atmospheric CO2 is the manna from heaven that you claim it to be.
Dammit, Curtin, explain how human population growth would be in any way starved for carbon when the total biospheric mass of carbon is, depending on one's source of figures, around one hundred thousand times greater than that present in human bodies.
Explain the process that you believe starves humans of carbon as their population grows.
Of course, you do have one possible, almost credible justification for your fruitloopery...
...you, Tim Curtin, are so full of bullshit that you, on your very own, are probably hogging a substantial proportion of carbon on the planet. I posit that unless your condition is contagious, any risk that your idiocy has legs would certainly evaporate on your demise and the carbon is freed once more for equitable biospheric circulation...
> Why do you expect me to reply to you when you adopt that tone? You have been reasonably civil in the past, please try to be again. [...] civil and intelligent. Not my experience here.
...says the guy who accused another of being a "latter day Pol Pot", never mind the various accusations of racism and the like.
Sanctimonious hypocrisy doesn't paper over the gaping crevasses in your arguments or provide sound responses to the multitude of questions that you refuse to answer.
Tim Curtin, have you heard of "Dry July?"
Just a thought.
I still cannot believe that Curtin, as outrageous as most of his guff is, would say this: *[whales] whose greatest threat is not the Japanese but Jim Hansen's 350 ppm and zero CO2 emissions which will severely limit the phytoplankton that is the feedstock for krill*.
Totally, shockingly stupid. This statement should make anyone realize that Curtin has no grasp on reality.
The great baleen whales have existed for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. During times when C02 concentrations were under 300 ppm, these marvellous mammals thrived in the oceans. Populations of most of the largest species - Blue, Fin, Sei, Right, Bowhead, Humpback - are now estimated to be 2% or less of historic (pre-hunting) numbers, due entirely to human depredation. In other words, populations of these species are a fraction of the size they were when C02 concentrations were 100 ppm lower than they are now.
Essentially, overhunting combined with technology made it easier and easier to decimate the populations of these species. This fact also shoots down one of the great tenets of neoclassical economics, of which I assume Curtin to be a disciple. That is, the fallacy of unlimited substitution. The great whales were systematcically slaughtered on the basis of their size, which was correlated with their profitability. The effort to catch a large whale paid off in the fact that there was more biomass to exploit, menaing that smaller species like Minke wahles were not worth the effot so long as the largest baleen species existed in sufficient numbers. But of course, as we now know, they were hunted mercilessly for a century or more, and given their low fecundities and long gestation times, it was easy to understand how human-induced mortality far exceeded natality until populations crashed. Some, like those of the blue, may never recover. Krill has nothing to do with it. There is abundant krill in the southern oceans.
To draw such a loony correlation between atmospheric C02, phytoplankton production and its effects on zooplankton, as Curtin has apparently done, is so far-fetched that it staggers the imagination what is going on in that man's head.
MFS: Thanks for that. I trust the unpublished study you mention is not as biased as it sounds!
It would be great if you could try explaining the carbon budget cycle to Bernard and Lotharsson. I tried for BJ at #597, and I now give up after this my last attempt for Gaz:
I was talking of incremental [CO2] from emissions, which amounts on average to 44% of annual emissions. The increment when emissions are 10 GtC pa is therefore 4.4 GtC p.a. The balance of 56% of annual emissions is absorbed by the global biospheres by land & sea (but including some just as DIC in the oceans).
Annual food production increases thanks to absorption of some 2-3 NEW GtC p.a.; the balance of say 2-3 GtC of the 5.6 GtC not remaining aloft in 2008-09 is taken up in the oceans and forests including the insatiable demands for CO2 of growing timber plantations and tree crops (in terms of CO2 uptakes, eg by oil palm, cocoa, coffee, tea etc). Check the FAO for the exact data (including livestock and fisheries).
Now it is true that annual incremental CO2 uptakes by the biopsheres also lead to annual additional exhalation and respiration of CO2, but those are all in the E (Emissions) term of the Carbon Budget, which is d[CO2] = dE - dU.
This item is ALWAYs neglected (except by Graham Farquhar, who made this very point at my seminar), and especially by Canadell, Wigley, et all of the IPCC. As my seminar paper explains, given [CO2], as we are by Mauna Loa, then when we add total respiration and exhalation to that part of dE which is just emissions from cars and power stations, then dE is much bigger than reported by Le Quere Canadell et al at their www.globalcarbonproject.org site, where it is given as just 9.87 GtC in 2007-08.
Annual NET increases in the world population of plants and animals of all kinds and including marine species means not only increased uptake of CO2 but also an increase in storage (S)of Carbon in body mass. Let's say such dD = x.dU, and guess that x = 0.5. Then of dU half is stored, and half is respired. With dU = .56*dEff = 5.6 GtC (ignoring DIC for simplicity), that means we should add 2.8 GtC to fossil fuel emissions of 10 Gtc for total dE of 12.8 GtC. But then since d[CO2] at Mauna Loa was evidently c 4.4 GtC in 2007-08, with a grand total dE of 12.8 GtC, the TOTAL dU MUST have been 8.4 GtC. We can attribute some of that extra dU to dDIC in the oceans (and perhaps some in soils etc), but perhaps some also represents another missing sink, or, perish the thought, that photosynthetic absorption is simply much larger than given by Le Quere et al, Wigleyâs MAGICC, Meinshausen et al 2009, and Solokov et al 2009.
Gaz, it seems to me your problem is not understanding the word "incremental", i.e. new or additional to pre-existing.
It seems from some reports like [this](http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-account-of-the-Watts-event-in-Perth…) that weatherman Watt's Curtin featurin' travellin' circus is attracting between 60-100 attendees per gig.
Given that David Icke who is visibly deranged can attract three or four times that number, I think it's fair to say the Aussie tour has been a monumental flop and one conclusion could be the public just aren't that interested in Curtin's et al absurd pseudo-science. And most notably so amongst the demographic that will be alive to endure the AGW already in the pipeline.
Curtin muses: "Annual NET increases in the world population of plants and animals of all kinds and including marine species means not only increased uptake of CO2 but also an increase in storage (S)of Carbon in body mass".
The fact is that annual cycles of plant and animal populations are the result of a huge number of factors including stoichiometry. C02 plays a role, as do (*sigh* as I have said a billion times earlier, many, many other biotic and abiotic processes). Moreover, most animal and plant populations do not exhibit NET increases but are in equilibrium according to the local and limited supplies of nutrients and water, as these are balanced and distributed over the community. However, given that humans are attempting to take over more and more of the planet's net primary production (some 40% according to Vitousek et al., 1986) as well as 50% of freshwater flows, thus leaving less for nature, there is no doubt that the populations of a third or more of the planet's species are in decline (30,000 genetically distinct populations disappear every day, according to Hughes et al., 1998). So much for Curtin's grade school level understanding of the demographics of plant and animal populations. And all this is occurring as atmospheric C02 levels get higher and higher. Where is the big boost for biodiversity? A: there isn't any. Humans are consuming nature like there is no tomorrow. The solution lies in reducing consumption amongst the rich and social justice for the poor; to argue that the world will be a green utopia if we continue to pump ever more C02 into the skies is pure insanity. As long as humans continue to plunder the planet, nature will lose, and in the longer term so will we.
Trust Curtin to write such a simple (and incorrect) remark. The rest of his calculations are pure and utter gobbledegook, devoid of empirical reality.
The sad truth is that the only way to reduce human planet plundering is to reduce the number of humans. Eli plans to contribute in a couple of decades.
>The sad truth is that the only way to reduce human planet plundering is to reduce the number of humans. Eli plans to contribute in a couple of decades.
If that's not a signed and dated confession of plans for mass murder, I don't know what is ;-)
Curtin, if you so fervently believe [your own tripe](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), why will you not address the fact that life ticked over very nicely for hundreds of millions of years thank you very much, and that it managed to achieve unprecedented diversity and complexity of evolution in that time, all before and up to the Industrial Revolution of the last few hundred years?
All before the anthropogenic emission of fossil carbon...
What's up with that?
Why won't you [address the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) about how exactly it is that adding a few score megatonnes of human carbon to the mix (compared with thousands of gigatonnes of biospheric carbon) pushes the planetary carbon budget on a trajectory to 0 ppm before 2080, according to slide 15 of [your self-vaunted presentation](http://timcurtin.com/images/RMAP_Presentation_Final_May2010.pdf), when you have no evidence that overall global biomass is increasing, nor in fact that it is showing a propensity to shift from an æons-long equilibrium that allowed life to flourish until modern times?
And why are you [avoiding the questions about pH and salinity](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)?
Eli.
You makes me wonder what colour Soylent might arise from leporids...
Lee: I cannot see that citations you gave to AR4 WG1 (S 6.2.1 and Fig. 6.2) are relevant to the M-M issue. However Fig.10.26 and discussion thereof at p.804 are pertinent and confirm my point by acknowledging WG1's use of MAGICC and Fried. (et al inc. Knorr) 2006 to determine d[CO2] with respect to dE, and so base themselves on M-M (but have now been disowned by Knorr GRL 2009).
chek: you are quite wrong about the demographic at the 3 Watts tour events that I spoke at, there was an even distribution, and a recent ANU science graduate was at the Labor Club and has just invited me to meet up with him for more discussion. At Wagga there were several youngsters, one that I spoke to was on his own and is still at school doing 12th year Biology. Known true believers like Gavin at Belconnen Labor Club (see Jen Marohasy's for his account) kept quiet; same goes for Stephen James at Wagga, well known CACC activist, looked grumpy but said nuffink (ht to The Advertiser's good report and nice pic of Anthony, who as always spoke brilliantly and incontrovertibly, because he was simply descriptive of the way CC is measured by NOAA in flagrant disregard of its own guidelines.
Watt's pics of the met stations at Canberra Airport, Melbourne, and Sydney Observatory (all gamma minus) wnet down well.
Many in the audience had travelled long distances to be there, at Wagga some were from as far away as Deniliquin, Wallenbeen, Cootamundra, Holbrook, and Albury, as also young Emma from Albury that I met (with Gavin) at the Belconnen do.
Beautiful countryside en route to Wagga via Gundagai, many thousands of cattle and sheep contentedly munching on green grass and turning some of it into CH4 after best rains since 2002, blissfully unaware of the Garnaut plan to have them expunged (even though they cannot exhale more GHG than they have absorbed from the grass they were ingesting).
We went to the Wagga Met station at the airport, given 5 stars by Anthony Watts, unlike 90% of NOAA's in USA, because ALL instruments were well away from buildings and the runway. Good to see they do solar surface radiation even tho' actual data is sealed into black box and not available for download at Wagga Met itself.
Interesting drive back, 7 oC when I left at 10 am, down to 4 oC at Yass at noon, and still only 7 oC when I reached north Canberra, despite hot air emanating from Wong's DCC. Global warming has really kicked in!
>chek: you are quite wrong about the demographic at the 3 Watts tour events that I spoke at
But not the numbers, right? ;-)
And hey, if they swallowed what you're pushing, it doesn't matter what age they are. That demographic is known as the gullibles.
>Interesting drive back, 7 oC when I left at 10 am, down to 4 oC at Yass at noon, and still only 7 oC when I reached north Canberra, despite hot air emanating from Wong's DCC. Global warming has really kicked in!
Yes, I'm sure Watts was praying for unusually cold weather during his tour. Looks like his prayers have been answered. Did he happen to mention the chilly weather in the way you did Curtin, even tongue-in-cheek?
Omigod. It gets cold in winter. Hold the front page!
Tim continues to amaze:
"Lee: I cannot see that citations you gave to AR4 WG1 (S 6.2.1 and Fig. 6.2) are relevant to the M-M issue."
Not a surprise, given that I never cited AR4 WG1 (S 6.2.1 and Fig. 6.2).
"However Fig.10.26 and discussion thereof at p.804 are pertinent and confirm my point by acknowledging WG1's use of MAGICC and Fried. (et al inc. Knorr) 2006 to determine d[CO2] with respect to dE, and so base themselves on M-M (but have now been disowned by Knorr GRL 2009)."
Tim, I already discussed the way that the WG1 report used MAGICC as a Simplified Climate Model, TUNED TO the output of the full models. It is used as an emulator - do you understand what that means? Do you plan to respond on subject to my earlier points?
Furthermore, the results in the sections you cite are also independently confirmed by the BERN-CC model - as pointed out by YOUR OWN DAMN CITE.
They also point out in YOUR cite, that the MAGIC model includes several carbon feedbacks - it is not just a simple saturating hyperbolic curve, as you keep claiming. Even if it were - and it is not, see your own damn cite - your point is simple gibberish. You claim that the MAGICC model only gets the results it shows because of the saturation of the simple hyperbolic function that you claim - incorrectly - is the entire basis for the calculation of the airborne fraction, and your 'evidence' is your claim that the function has a Vmax saturation point. However, you have never - because you can not - shown that the function - even if it were there and doing what you claim - ever approaches anywhere near the saturation point of an M-M-like hyperbolic function.
Again, to try to make it clear enough that even yo cant squirm away form it, timmy - MAGICC is tuned to emulate the full AOGCM models which include of carbon cycle models - and you refuse to acknowledge this simple fact - which devastates yro entire argument. MAGICC includes "a number of climate-related carbon-cycle feedbacks driven by global mean temperature" (YOUR OWN DAMN CITE), which shows that even your simpel description is wring.
You are wrong, timmy.
Now will you EVER respond to the things that are actually put to you, timmy?
Lee, thanks, your text implied your refs were to AR4, which I have so I did not hit your link to âreportâ. Now that I have I find that the Report completely vindicates my position, not yours. First its Fig. 6.2 has nothing on forward projections of terrestrial and oceanic photosynthesis which is what I thought we were debating.
Secondly, its #6.2.1 cites its (acknowledged) main source, Fried, Knorr, et al 2006 as concluding:
âA recent study examined carbon-cycle feedbacks
in 11 coupled AOGCM carbon-cycle
models using the same forcing (Friedlingstein
et al. 2006). The models unanimously [wow!] agreed
that global warming will reduce the fraction of
anthropogenic carbon absorbed by the biosphereâ
a positive feedbackâbut the magnitude
of this feedback varied widely among models
(Fig. 6.3). When models included an interactive
carbon cycle, predictions of the additional
global warming due to carbon-cycle feedback
ranged between 0.1 and 1.5°C. Eight models attributed
most of the feedback to the land biosphere,
while three attributed it to the ocean.â
That is almost word for word what Fried et al said:
âThere was unanimous agreement among the
models that future climate change will reduce the efficiency of the earth system to absorb the anthropogenic
carbon perturbation. A larger fraction of anthropogenic CO2 will stay airborne if climate change is accounted
for. By the end of the twenty-first century, this additional CO2 varied between 20 and 200 ppm for
the two extreme models, the majority of the models lying between 50 and 100 ppm. The higher CO2 levels
led to an additional climate warming ranging between 0.1° and 1.5°C.All models simulated a negative sensitivity for both the land and the ocean carbon cycle to future climate.â
Amazing, so the models delivered what was put into them, an assumption of positive feedbacks in the climate cycle. Well I never! So here again we find that suites of models constitute evidence of the real world.
Fried et all offered NO evidence to support their modelsâ âpositive feedback in the form of declining or saturating sinks meaning that a larger proportion of anthro CO2 will stay airborneâ. To repeat, when one of Friedâs mob, Wolfgang Knorr, did check the evidence, he found none from 1850 to now to support that crucial claim of âpositive feedbackâ.
Reversing the models to take account of the actual relationship d[CO2] = x*dE, where x = .56 (since 1850 according to Knorr) , then we will of course have reduced, repeat REDUCED, climate warming of between 0.1 and 1.5 oC.
Lee, I hope you can see now that your Report leans heavily on Fried et all, but things get worse for you, as Fried at all make it very clear (p.3338) that the models they report use the M-M function (MAGICC) or similar (Bern):
âFirst, the carbon cycle models use a PRESCRIBED climate
change pattern to calculate the carbon fluxes and the
atmospheric CO2 for a GIVEN emission scenario; then
the RESULTING atmospheric CO2 trajectory is used to
drive OAGCMs in order to calculate a climate change.â (my emphasis, again, note the word prescribed).
So future climate chnage in in fact scripted - prescribed - by an assumption that ever more of CO2 emissions remain airborne, contrary to all the evidence from 1850 to now.
In particular, the "presicption" is in all the 11 C4MIP models assessed by Fried including Friedâs own model âThe
terrestrial carbon model [Scheme for Large-Scale Atmosphere
Vegetation Exchange (SLAVE); Friedlingstein
et al. 1995] [which] calculates NPP following a light use
efficiency formulation (Field et al. 1995) that is a function of temperature and water stress. NPP increases
with CO2 under a MichaelisâMenten beta factor formulationâ. Gaa!
Then we also have ORCHIDEE, "which is a global vegetation model that calculates the energy and hydrology budgets, carbon assimilation, allocation, and decomposition for 13 plant functional types (PFTs). It uses the Farquhar et al. (1980) and Collatz et al. (1992) C3 and C4 photosynthesis
model [viz. Michaelis-Menten] and the Ball et al. (1986) and Collatz et al. (1991, 1992) formulations for stomatal conductance.â
If all this is not enough we have Karoly & Enting (CASPI & Garnaut 2008):
âUnder increasing CO2 concentrations, the proportional sinks will decrease as the sustained Emissions growth rate increases. Again this is a characteristic of essentially ALL
Carbon cycle models. The effect can be quantified in terms of how the airborne CO2 fraction increases as the emission growth rate increases [15:Figure2].â [my emphasis]
So, dear Lee, the truth is that alarming projections of [CO2] to 2100 are determined by a false assumption that delivers the âpositive feedbackâ all you lovely people so earnestly crave.
Oops! that should read
"Reversing the models to take account of the actual relationship
d[CO2] = x*dE,
where x = (1-0.56)
(since 1850 according to Knorr), then we will of course have reduced, repeat REDUCED, climate warming of between 0.1 and 1.5 oC"
Tim Curtin.
Last Saturday's Science Show on the ABC should stir the hive of bees that are resident in your bonnet.
Ros Gleadow of Monash University [throws her several dollars worth](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2943500.htm) into the elevating atmospheric CO2 ring, providing more inconvenient facts for you to address, in addition to those [questions that you are so afraid of](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Come on old boy - you should be able to malign yet another reputable scientist, whilst simultaneoulsy taking another swipe at one of your most loathes science commentators.
So, I return from my 4 nights in the mountains, and see that Timmy-boy continues apace with his idiocy, at 619.
First Timmy - a description of the results of the models, is NOT a statement that the results were assumptions. A statement that the OUTPUT was of M-M form, is NOT a statement that there was an M function in the model. You need to learn to read.
Second Timmy - you have been arguing all thread that the only reason [CO2] reaaches levels near 1000 ppm (give or take a couple hundred) in the end of century projections, is that the 'MM' function you claim is embodied in the models, is 'assumed' to saturate completely an therefore cause all emmitted CO2 to stay airboren, which, y claim, causes the model projections to give an 'assumed'rate of rise in CO2 of 15/annum. Elsewhere, you argue inconsistently that the 1% is input. We savaged that 1"% argument above - the 1% value you continue to cite after being corrected on it, is from calibration runs of the models, not from scenario runs.
But even more, the AOGCM models have carbon cycles modeled, not input as "MM" functins. Including the carbon models, as YOU YOURSELF CITE!!! Timmy, cause an additional increase in [CO2] at century end of, at the extremes, between 20 - 200 PPM, with almost all models between 50 - 100 PPM.
That is the TOTAL additional increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by including carbon feedbacsk, Timmy. This is a far cry from your claim that the only reason that CO2 reaches those levels as because of the 'MM' carbon feedback function removing all carbon absorption.
You are simply wrong on this, Timmy. Once again. Stop embarrassing yourself. Or alternatively, stop being so dishonest.
Bernard J. If you believe anything Ros Gleadow writes or Robyn Williams says, you like your twins believe in tooth fairies.
Lee: before I comment in detail on your last, I'd be interested to know your view of the following:
Terrestrial Gross Carbon Dioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate
Christian Beer, Science 5 July 2010.
Terrestrial gross primary production (GPP) is the largest global CO2 flux driving several ecosystem functions. We provide an observation-based estimate of this flux at 123 ± 8 Pg C aâ1 using eddy covariance flux data and various diagnostic models. Tropical forests and savannahs account for 60%. GPP over 40% of the vegetated land is associated with precipitation. State-of-the-art process-oriented biosphere models used for climate predictions exhibit a large between-model variation of GPPâs latitudinal patterns and show higher spatial correlations between GPP and precipitation, suggesting the existence of missing processes or feedback mechanisms which attenuate the vegetation response to climate. Our estimates of spatially distributed GPP and its covariation with climate can help improve coupled climateâcarbon cycle process models.
No Tim, I am not going to let you divert the conversation away from my response to what you've already said. Respond to my post, the key point of which is:
Including carbon cycle models in the AOGCMs causes an additional increase in atmospheric [CO2] of between 20 - 200 ppm in the most extreme models, and between 50-100 PPM in almost all the models. MAGICC is tuned to these models - therefore the impact of sink 'saturation' in MAGICC is an additional contribution [CO2] of somewhere between 50 - 100 PPM at century end. Not, as you keep claiming, a complete saturation of the sinks and retention of all emitted CO2 in the atmosphere.
You claim that projected century-end CO2 concentrations of the close order of 1000 PPM are due entirely to MAGICC having a saturated carbon sink and there foe growth of CO2 at 1% / annum. You are wrong, as the actual model results shows.
Respond to that, Tim, without trying to bring in irrelevancies about the fact that the carbon models don't perfectly handle terrestrial production.
Lee: how's this for perfection?
IMPLICIT ACCOUNTING OF CARBON UPTAKE
Natureâs leading article âTime to Actâ (30 April 2009)8 supports the claim in
Meinshausen et al.1 that it is total cumulative or annual emissions that determine
climate change, not the atmospheric concentration that emerges after taking into
account net uptakes of carbon: âThe 500 billion tonnes of carbon that humans have
added to the atmosphere lie heavily on the world, and the burden swells by at least 9
billion tonnes a year (sic)â (p.1077), even though the actual increase in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 (i.e. [CO2]) recorded at Mauna Loa between May 2008 and May
2009 was only 1.68 parts per million by volume (ppm), equivalent to
3.56 billion tonnes of carbon (GtC), while the total increase in the atmospheric
concentration since the pre-industrial era is only from 280 ppm to 390 ppm (May 2009).
That 110 ppm equates to 233.2 GtC, somewhat less than the 500 GtC from
which Nature claims it has âimplicitlyâ subtracted the ânet carbon uptakesâ.
This claim is in Natureâs associate editorâs (Michael White) comment to this author
(pers. comm.), âthe models used [by Meinshausen et al. and Allen et al. in Nature
30 April 2009] are in fact designed to represent the behaviour of more complex
coupled models, which include a consideration of the full carbon cycle. Thus, the net
uptake of carbon is implicitly simulatedâ.
So âimplicitâ accounting for net carbon
uptakes apparently raises the actual net increase in CO2 at Mauna Loa from 3.56 GtC
since May 2008 to Natureâs âat least 9 GtC a yearâ6. Or does White believe that net
carbon uptakes are in fact zero or even negative as postulated by Allen et al.2?
It is true that in the Supporting Information (SI) to Allen et al.2, various models
are mentioned that do refer to the full carbon cycle, but only in a tendentious fashion.
The projections of the net carbon uptakes in all models relied on by the IPCCâs
Solomon et al.3 assume that the proportion of emissions taken up by oceanic and
terrestrial sinks declines either monotonically (Bern) or asymptotically (MAGICC et
al.).
Allen et al. use the latter assumption (first introduced by Wigley)4 and although
it has never been validated empirically, it asserts that beyond a certain level of
atmospheric concentration of CO2 (or emissions), no further increase in net uptake
of carbon will be possible, as the sinks will be âsaturatedâ4.
Allen et al state explicitly (SI, p.6) âthe terrestrial carbon cycle model has both
vegetation and soil components stores. The vegetation carbon content is a balance
between global average net primary productivity (NPP) (parameterized as a function
of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which asymptotes to a MAXIMUM VALUE multiplied by a
quadratic function of temperature rise in order to represent the effect of climate
change) and vegetation carbon turnoverâ (my EMPHASIS).
Thus the Allen paper explicitly
assumes that net carbon uptakes become first zero and then negative as allegedly
âclimate changeâ reduces NPP.
Amongst other questionable features, this asymptotic
assumption implies that after saturation, it will never again be possible either to plant
new land to high yielding crops or to develop and grow new higher yielding crops with
their automatic increased photosynthetic uptake of CO2.
The asymptotic assumption conveniently generates projections that future
emissions will result in more than doubling the observed rate of growth of [CO2] of
0.41% p.a. between 1958 and 2008 to 1% p.a. between 2000 and 2050 (e.g. ref.(1),
p.1158).
Meinshausen et al.1 state âlimiting cumulative CO2 emissions over 2000â50 to
1,000 Gt CO2 yields a 25% probability of warming exceeding 2o C and a limit of 1,440
Gt CO2 yields a 50% probabilityâ.
These authors do not explain why when
cumulative emissions over the period 1958 to 2008 were actually 25% larger than their
benchmark, at 1,253 Gt CO2, for an observed warming of only 0.46°C over that period,
a lower cumulative increase in emissions from 2000â50 than in 1958â2008 has 25%
probability of raising warming by over 4 times more.
Their paperâs Fig. 2 also relates
temperature changes only to total cumulative emissions and therefore explicitly makes
no allowance for the net carbon uptakes that will reduce the impact of their emissions
scenarios on the future level of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (i.e.[CO2]).
Allen et al.2 concur: âWe find that the peak warming caused by a given cumulative carbon
dioxide emission is better constrained than the warming response to a stabilization
scenarioâ.
The underlying issue raised here has very serious implications for the emission
reduction policies just adopted by the USAâs House of Representatives (26 June 2009)
which seeks to enact (if the Senate concurs) that the USAâs emissions will be reduced
by 88% from the 2005 level by 2050.
If emulated and applied globally, this implies that
by 2050 global emissions (mainly from burning fossil fuels) will be reduced to 1.16
GtC (including reductions in land use change), far below the global biospheric net
uptakes of carbon, at 4.3 GtC in 2005, an El Niño year, and 6 GtC in 2006 (La Niña)7.
Ironically, and contrary to the apparent beliefs of both Nature and the US Congress,
there is an alternative to reducing total emissions below the current level of natural net
uptakes of carbon, and that is to raise the net carbon uptakes (which have averaged
57% of total emissions since 19585, of which the terrestrial component rose from an
average of 1.24 GtC in 1960 to 1969 to 2.32 GtC in 1998â2007) to say 80% of the
ongoing rising level of emissions.
That would imply raising food availability across the
globe, a demonstrably more cost-effective solution than the geo-engineering solutions,
like creating stratospheric sunshades, that Nature favours8. Why are Nature, its authors,
and the US Congress opposed to this possibility?
1. Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S.C.B., Frieler, K., Knutti, R.,
Frame, D.J. & Allen, M.R. Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming
to 2°C. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038, 1158â1162 (2009).
2. Allen, M.R., Frame, D.J., Huntingford, C., Jones, C.D. Lowe, D.A., Meinshausen, M. &
Meinshausen, N. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth
tonne. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038, 1163â1166 (2009).
3. Solomon, S. et al. (eds). IPCC Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. (CUP,
2007)
4. Wigley, T.M.L. Balancing the carbon budget. Tellus, 45B, 409â425. (1993).
5. Canadell J.G., C. Le Quéré, M.R. Raupach, C.B. Field, E.T. Buitenhuis, P.Ciais, T.J.
Conway, N.P. Gillett, R.A. Houghton, G.Marland. Contributions to accelerating
atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of
natural sinks. PNAS, 104.47, 18866â18870. (2007).
6. NOAA, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ (2009).
7. NOAA, www.ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/ (2009).
8. âA world slightly shaded from the Sun while its carbon levels are brought down by means
of active capture would be a strangely unnatural placeâbut not necessarily a bad one,
compared with the alternativesâ. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038, 1077â1078
(2009).
Sigh..
1. Tim, stop squirming. Respond to my points.
2. Food does not sequester carbon. It's a carbon CYCLE, Timmy. If I eat food with a pound of carbon, I emit a pound of carbon. This is simple biology, Tim. Take a class.
Lee,
Either that or you put on a pound of weight :) Worse for you but better for the planet!
Tim,
The Southern Ocean, specifically the Subantarctic Zone (SAZ) and the Polar Front Zone (PFZ) dissolve a large proportion of the CO2 we emit on an annual basis. This is because the water is cold (providing higher gas solubilities), and the surface very turbulent (roaring forties, furious fifties, screaming sixties...), providing very good mixing. As we pump CO2 into the atmosphere, and the atmospheric concentration becomes, say, 5ppm higher than that in the ocean, CO2 will begin dissolving into the ocean. Not instantly however. More importantly, the ocean needs not saturate in CO2 to stop taking it up from the atmosphere. It merely needs to come up to equilibrium. If we ceased increasing the level of atmospheric CO2, the uptake by the biosphere AND physical dissolution into the oceans would indeed take place in an asymptotic manner, with the asymptote denoting the equilibrium level at which the effective concentration in the biosphere and ocean is the same as in the atmosphere, in no way needing to be equated to saturation as such.
Curtin.
I've asked you many times already, but I'll ask you again...
Given:
can you describe the actual dynamics in carbon fluxes that would lead to the claim that you make in slide 15 of your presentation, that atmospheric CO2 will decrease to less than 100 ppm by 2070, and be completely absent by 2080, should human emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels be reduced?
Note: I expect that a proper addressing of this question would examine the dynamic changes in the relevant fluxes as concentrations/masses shift. To frame it another way, and as you seem to be so fixated on Michaelis-Menten kinetics, you might pause to consider the underlying equilibria in the system about which you claim you have a functional understanding - most especially, you might describe how fluxes change as the relative sizes of reservoirs change... and how the size of the human carbon mass (and it food/carbon requirement) fits into the overall scheme.
And can you confirm that you actually understand what it is that is being requested of you?
Lee: thanks for the armwaving. My previous dealt with all your points. Now I deal with only your latest idiocy: âIf I eat food with a pound of carbon, I emit a pound of carbonâ.
Sure, but when?
In addition to the carbon cycle you mention, there is the carbon budget, which is really just another way of looking at it.
SO, for the nth time here and before, we know from Mauna Loa the increase in A YEAR in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, which I term d[CO2], and it was 1.78 ppm in 2009, or c3.78 GtC. That resulted from emissions of CO2 during the year of say 10.2 GtC, so Uptakes HAD to be 6.42 GtC.
If the emissions were say only 10 GtC, then the uptakes would have been less, at 6.22 GtC, and likewise larger, for emissions greater than 10.2 GtC.
Now when you Lee eat food with a carbon content of day 40%, that resulted from photosynthesis using the [CO2] and/or the Emissions during the period before your gourmet meal, while your post-prandial exhalation/excretion of carbon also enters the budget of d[CO2]/dt = dE/dt â dU/dt, but in the dE term, NOT the dU term.
Now what we have had since reliable stats on both [CO2] and dE/dt began is an increase in [CO2] since end 1959 of some 77 ppm or c155 GtC, so with cumulative anthropogenic emissions of c. 351 GtC (according to Le Quere, Canadell & Co. Ltd), NET Uptakes must have been c 196 GtC, as otherwise the change in [CO2] would have been more than the actual recorded by Mauna Loa Slope Observatory of 155 GtC.
But actually cumulative Net Uptakes were hugely larger than those CDIAC/Le Quere stats imply, since their Emissions omit all the exhalation/excretion and respiration by all non-plant life that Lee mentions. The EPA states that current exhalation of the worldâs 7 billion people amounts to over 2 GtC p.a., so in 2009 gross dE was not 10.2 GtC but over 12.4 GtC, and we need to add also the emissions of all livestock, terrestrial wild life, marine life (whales & Co), etc, so letâs assume that the total emissions by all non-plant life in 2009 was at least 6 GtC, for a grand total of dE/dT in 2009 of 16.2 GtC. But as only an extra 3.78 GtC remained airborne in 2009, the grand total of dU/dt in 2009 MUST have been at least 12.42 GtC, nearly double the Le Quere/Canadell estimate.
MFS: the above partly responds to your comment, which I value very much indeed. But it seems to me your comment only deals with âDICâ, dissolved oceanic CO2, and not the uptakes by phytoplankton and other marine plants or terrestrial photosynthesis.
BJ: when you achieve a more civil tone, I may reply to you.
Don't talk to Curtin. Talk to any poor fool who reads Tim's posts and thinks he may have something.
Don't ask Tim, he won't change because he DARE NOT change. See the psychological problem "investing" in an idea.
Tell others what Tim has wrong. Let Tim counter. That will be wrong too.
[Tim Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
What part of my [last post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) was so uncivil that you are not able to respond to it?
[Wow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Essentially, my exchanges with Curtin are following the path that you set out. That Curtin seems to be unable to start from first principles and answer properly the most basic of my questions, and that no-one has come to Curtin's defense (except sunspot, who doesn't count in anyone's book), seems to indicate that Curtin's nonsense is indefensible.
I wait with bated breathe for anyone to show that I am wrong in my assessment.
Bernard, Lee is trying to get Tim to state his position on something Tim knows will show him wrong (if he answers honestly) or a liar (if he doesn't). Therefore he throws a wall of text at Lee.
It would be better if Lee talked to anyone who may be reading Tim's rubbish and wondering if it's solid because nobody is explaining the alternative ("teach the controversy" of Tim's posts).
Of course, all IMO. Could be wrong, but a suggestion to Lee and any others trying to pin Tim down in his lies: talk to those who may learn his lies, not to Tim. He won't admit lying.
Bernard. Can you confirm that you actually understand the carbon budget I described above?
Can you explain what is wrong with my explanation?
Can you line by line refute my lengthy post to Lee, as he cannot?
"Now when you Lee eat food with a carbon content of day 40%, that resulted from photosynthesis using the [CO2] and/or the Emissions during the period before your gourmet meal"
"Bernard. Can you confirm that you actually understand the carbon budget I described above?"
Tim, it is understood. It is rubbish. For anyone unable to follow the streamofconsciousness babble there:
That 40% carbon content doesn't come from the 1.78ppm increase since CO2 doesn't KNOW where it came from, it just exists.
So 1.78/390 of that 40% carbon came from emissions, but that just meant that the 388.22/390 of that 40% carbon came from natural sources. That means the natural sources are not taken up as much. It's less than 100% (for the Curtisian mathematicians out there).
The net change from that food eaten in reducing the natural CO2?
Nil.
BUT, in addition to that, Lee breathes out CO2. In fact, except whilst growing bigger, all that 40% carbon is breathed out.
You may remember many denialidiots proclaiming "We breathe CO2! How about we ban breathing!!!!oneoneleventyone!11!". They weren't wrong, but they were "forgetting" that that Carbon came from the hydrocarbons in the food eaten.
Tim here is forgetting the "breathing out" so he can kid on you're eating the carbon and that's proof that CO2 will go down.
Every time Tim breathes out, he's proving himself wrong.
Tim Curtin.
Before you ask me to answer [your questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), why don't you first answer all of the questions on this thread that I have repeatedly put to you and that you consistently persist in avoiding?
Is it perchance that [Wow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) is correct when he suggests that you are psychologically conflicted as a consequence of your investments in extremely poor intellectual stocks?
Oh, and with respect to your attempt at fudging the biospheric carbon flux at [#629](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), you might want to consider that biospheric emissions are essentially in equilibrium within the carbon cycle - you cannot add them to tallies in the same way that you are attempting to do with humanity's fossil carbon emissions.
Think about it old man - your uses of adjectives such as "Net" and "extra" are misplaced...
@ WOW:
"BUT, in addition to that, Lee breathes out CO2. In fact, except whilst growing bigger, all that 40% carbon is breathed out."
Well, some fraction of it does exit the other end, as methane or as the massed carcasses of coliform bacteria, which will in turn be metabolized into mostly CO2 and methane. Doesn't change the equation any - my own personal internal carbon cycle is in equilibrium.
My consumption of carbon in foods also puts me in equilibrium with the production of the food. A pound of carbon got fixed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis last year, I eat that pound of carbon, metabolize it, and it gets re-emitted back to the atmosphere.
There is a slight glimmering of something real in Curtin's ravings. Carbon that exists in biomass is not in the atmosphere. This is the tonnage of carbon existing in that period between photosynthetic fixation from the atmosphere, and metabolic re-emission to the atmosphere. If there is a _persistent increase_ in _carbon fixed as biomass_, then it does in fact remove carbon from the atmosphere.
This is the basis for a lot of carbon-credit schemes, BTW. It is hardly ignored, as Timmy-boy likes to allege.
Thing is, it is possible - hell it is trivial - to calculate the persistent increase in biomass tonnage (not in photosynthesis, Timmy, in persistent biomass accumulation) necessary to reduce atmospheric CO2 by, say, 1ppm.
Curtin has been claiming that increasing food production, and feeding it to our human population, will solve the increased CO2 issue.
Bernard has been persistently trying to get Timmy-boy here to calculate the increased tonnage of human biomass - in terms of mass or of numbers of people - that would be necessary to get the effects Timmy claims. This is the simple and necessary calculation required to demonstrate quantitatively that Timmy's scheme makes any sense.
Strangely, given that he is an economist and economist's stock in trade is quantitative analyses - strangely,Timmy-boy refuses to show this calculation, or even to admit that he understands why this would be needed. I believe that Wow at 632 has nailed the reason. It is "...trying to get Tim to state his position on something Tim knows will show him wrong (if he answers honestly) or a liar (if he doesn't)."
Actually, since I'm reasonably sure that timmy won't do it, here is a back-of-envelope calculation. Let's use big, round, accurate within 20% numbers, to make the math easy for our timmy boy.
There are approximately 1 billion tons of carbon in 1ppm of atmospheric CO2.
Therefore, to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 1ppm, requires a net persistent increase of approximately 1 billion tons of carbon content in humans.
Humans contain on average approximately 17.5 kg carbon each - lets call it 20, to make this easy for timmy and to be generous to his argument. So, there are approximately 50 humans to the ton of carbon.
50 humans to the ton of carbon, times 1 billion tons of carbon per 1ppm CO2, tells us that we need a persistent population increase of 50 billion new humans to sequester 1 ppm of atmospheric CO2. Or I guess all 7 billion of us existing humans could just overeat until we each weigh 8 times as much as we do now - maybe this is what timmy-boy has in mind? That we all end up weighing 500 kg each?
It should now become clear why we're all laughing at timmy-boy.
In reality it isn't quite that bad - we should also include potential additional stores of unconsumed food. Perhaps we could instead get by with 25 billion new people, and an additional 500 million tons of carbon (ie, 1.25 billion tons of total mass) in permanent additional unconsumed food stores
All for a 1 ppm recuction in atmospheric CO2.
To get a 120 ppm reduction - ie, to offset the expected near-future increase of CO2 from present 380 to 500PPM - we would need 50 billion people, times 120 PPM, or a total of 6 trillion new people (1,000 times our current population), or alternatively 3 trillion new people and a new net storage of some 150 billion tons of unconsumed food.
Laughing yet?
And finally, to get back to the points Curtin keeps dodging with his 'walls of text'.
1. It is NOT true, as Curtin claims, that the [CO2] projections are based on a 1% / annum increase. I've explained above, using Curtin's own cites, where that 1% number comes from, that it is something different than what Curtin says it is and irrelevant to Curtin's claims, and Curtin has not responded to this point, and still makes the false claim in his PPT.
2. It is NOT true, as Curtin claims, that the CO2 projections are based on an assumption of Michaelis-Menten kinetics running to saturation in the near future. I've explained above, using Curtin's own cites, that the MAGICC model is tuned to emulate the output of AOGCMs, which use modeled, not assumed, carbon cycle feedback. Curtin has not responded to this point, and still makes the false claim in his PPT.
3. It is NOT true, as Curtin claims, that carbon feedback in the models (MAGICC or otherwise) lead to dramatically enhanced CO2 increases by century end. I've shown above that Curtin's own cites put the increase due to carbon feedback is in the range of 50-100 ppm total additional [CO2], of a final value on the close order of 1000 ppm. Curtin has not responded to this point, and still makes the false claim in his PPT.
Lee: everything you have said overnight is laughably wrong. There are in fact not 1 GtCO2 per 1 ppm but actually 7.79 GtCO2 per 1 ppm (or c. 2.123 GtC per 1 ppm).
The rest of what you write is also dribble, showing a total lack of understanding. The fact is that the global biosphere and ocean disolvings are absorbing over 6 GtC (22 GtCO2) of claimed total anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement and LUCL of over 10 GtC (36.7 GtCO2), given that [CO2] increased by only 1.78 ppm, or 3.78 GtC (13.87 GtCO2). These are all INCREMENTS recorded in 2009; in addition there are the ongoing annual fluxes of CO2 to and from the atmosphere, and as the biomass increases along with populations of all species (pace Harvey) so these base fluxes also increase (they are up from some 150 GtC 10 years ago to 162 GtC now (see Houghton 2004 p.30 for the carbon cycle with [CO2] at then 760 GtC, today it is at 822 GtC).
Stop being certifiable for your ravings and do some reading of what I have actually written here, not what you imagine I have said. Everything I have posted here is very securely based on the mainsteam literature (eg Houghton of IPCC ARs1-3).
You are correct, Timmy. I was wrong. - I worked from memory rather than checking the number. There are in fact a bit more than 2 billion tons carbon per PPM CO2.
So, my rough calculations of the biomass of humans needed to sequester 1ppm of CO2 are wrong. They are half of the correct numbers - thank you for being honest enough, Timmy, to point out that I made a mistake that made things look rather better for you, and to allow me to correct to the proper numbers, which make things rather worse for you.
The new correct values, viz Curtin's correction, are that it would require a new additional 100 billion humans (not 50 billion as above) to create enough human biomass to sequester 1ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, or 12 trillion new people (not 6 trillion as above) to sequester the 120 PPM increase from the present ~380 to the 500ppm projected in our near future..
-----
All this, of course, is in response to this:
"there is an alternative to reducing total emissions below the current level of natural net uptakes of carbon, and that is to raise the net carbon uptakes (which have averaged 57% of total emissions since 19585, of which the terrestrial component rose from an average of 1.24 GtC in 1960 to 1969 to 2.32 GtC in 1998â2007) to say 80% of the ongoing rising level of emissions.
That would imply raising food availability across the globe, a demonstrably more cost-effective solution than the geo-engineering solutions,"
Here is a more general biospheric look at the same problem, for those (like Tim) unable to see beyond my somewhat macabre human-absorption-only example of the absurdity of Timmy's ravings.
There is today, as Timmy points out, a bit over 800 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere.
Living plants and animals contain some 560 billion tons of carbon, mostly in the form of trees.
Plant and animal organic remains not oxidized into CO2 (not including fossil fuels - this is the biological cycle we're considering) contain about an additional 1400 billion tons of carbon.
We want to prevent atmospheric CO2 from climbing to near 1000ppm in this century. We are currently a bit under 400. Lets say we need to sequester 600 ppm of carbon in this century.
As Timmy points out, there are 2 billion tons of carbon per ppm of CO2, so that means we need to sequester 1200 billion tons of carbon.
If we capture that CO2 as living plant and animal matter, that means we need to more than triple the living biomass of plants and animals, from 560 billion tons to 1760 billion tons. Remember that most of that 560 billion tons is forest - crop lands contain much, much less carbon than forests - so, effectively, we need to triple the amount of mature forest.
If we capture all 600 ppm as unoxidized organic matter in soils, etc, we need to almost double the total amount from 1400 billion tons, to 2600 billion tons.
Timmy's argument that increased CO2 will limit itself because of increased photosynthetic fixation (which requires a persistent increase in biomass to actually sequester any carbon) is going to very quickly run into the limits for biological production, things such as water and nutrient availability, which are greatly more important than CO2 in controlling primary productivity.
Think about these numbers, think about Timmy's raving, and then... go ahead and laugh.
BTW, I note that timmy still has not addressed the points I restated at 638.
Here's one source for the numbers I use above:
http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s4/cycleCarbon.shtml
Curtin, you must be wheelchair-bound, given the way that you persist in shooting yourself in the feet.
Lee has given you figures to relate human biomass (-> food requirement) with atmospheric CO2 concentration. Will you please address the mass balances involved, with reference to [my patiently waiting questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Note: Lee was being generous to your 'cause' with his estimations of the carbon content of humans - in reality the greater proportion of children in the Third World, and the overall lower incidence of obesity in these countries, mean that the figures used, which were calculated for Western countries, are slight over-estimates.
And I'm curious - did you ever figure out the simple little algorithm I used to generate [my extrapolation of the Mauna Loa data](http://i47.tinypic.com/x532g5.jpg)? Did you ever arrive at an answer for your [pH/salinity homework](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)?
Hi Lee & BJ, I think I detect some very small signs of progress in raising your level of understanding of the carbon cycle. But I fear neither of you has yet come to terms with stock and flow analysis let alone basic math.
Lee, you are absurdly wrong when you say it âwould require a new additional 100 billion humans (not 50 billion as above) to create enough human biomass to sequester 1ppm of CO2 from the atmosphereâ. There has been a net increase in the world population of some 4 billion since 1959, and all those who have been alive between 1959 and 2009 (rather fewer than 100 billion) have witnessed successful sequestration by the biospheres and oceans, themselves included, of 192 GtC (or 90 ppm) of anthro emissions (56-57%), repeat 90 ppm, not just 1. The mother of my children used to teach remedial maths to 1st year African economics and science students at what is now the Uni. of Zimbabwe, she is rolling in her grave if she reads your garbage.
BJ: what is your famous algorithm? How do you get 800 ppm by 2100 instead of the 562 ppm that results from extrapolation from 2009 of the actual growth rate of [CO2] since 1958 (0.41% pa).?
Curtin:
"all those who have been alive between 1959 and 2009 (rather fewer than 100 billion) have witnessed successful sequestration by the biospheres and oceans, themselves included, of 192 GtC (or 90 ppm) of anthro emissions (56-57%), repeat 90 ppm, not just 1."
Correct, Timmy-boy. And 90 ppm is 180 billion tons of carbon. Guess what, Timmy - the curent biomass of 560 billion tons, is not 180 billion tons more than there was in 1959.
Given the numbers I've shown above, where do you imagine the overwhelming majority of those 180 billion tons of carbon have gone? An what does that tell you about your absurd projections of future CO2 to lower and lower values, if we stop emitting CO2
Hint: Henry's law, and the concept of equilibrium are relevant here.
And one more time. @638. Deal with it, Timmy. Your refusal to respond just makes it more and more obvious that you are being dishonest in your approach to those issues.
Lee: address my "wall of text" which does actually answer most of your stuff at #638. Do you call everybody you know that you disagree with dishonest? I guess so. It is wearisome.
I may get back to you later after my neighbour's birthday party, but you do not encourage me so to do.
Tim, this is simple:
1. Are IPCC [CO2] projections are based on a 1% / annum increase? Yes or no.
2. Are IPCC CO2 projections based on an assumption of Michaelis-Menten kinetics running to saturation in the near future? Yes or no.
3. Do carbon feedbacks in the AOGCMs or IPCC projections lead to CO2 increases of more than 50-100 ppm total additional [CO2] by century end? Yes or no.
These are simple yes or no issues, Tim. Your initial response requires exactly three words.
However, your yes or no answers will each want further response, given your presentation and what you've said above.
For each question, if no, when will will you remove those claims from your presentation,and all claims dependent on them? If you answer yes, then EXPLICITLY respond to the citations (your citations, which I quote above) which say otherwise. A wall of text talking about some other papers' analysis of carbon turnover and flux is not responsive, Tim.
My irony meter just [red-lined](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Lee: 1. âAre IPCC [CO2] projections are based on a 1% / annum increase? Yes or no.â
NO, see IPCC, Chap. 10:
10.A.1 Scaling MAGICC Results
The MAGICC SCM was tuned to emulate global average surface air temperature change and radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere (assumed equal to ocean heat uptake on decadal time scales; Section 5.2.2.3 and Figure 5.4) simulated by each of 19 AOGCMs in scenarios with [CO2] increasing at 1% yrâ1 (Section 10.5.3).
Using your unpleasant and unchivalrous terminology, who is the LIAR?
Lee, here is my answer your next question:
2.Are IPCC CO2 projections based on an assumption of Michaelis-Menten kinetics running to saturation in the near future? Yes or no.
Using my strategy in my previous post, when I say No I mean Yes. The quote in my previous confirmed IPCC's use of MAGICC with its built-in M-M function.
Lee: Your 3rd question was âDo carbon feedbacks in the AOGCMs or IPCC projections lead to CO2 increases of more than 50-100 ppm total additional [CO2] by century end? Yes or noâ
Unambiguously, YES.
See Fig. 10.26 in AR4 WG1, p. 803, where the level of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2100 is projected as follows:
A1B:>600 ppm
A1F1:>800 ppm
A1T:>500 ppm
A2:>800 ppm
B1:>500 ppm
B2:>600 ppm
All these are >100 ppm more than the 389 PPM at present.
You will of course never ADMIT TO ERROR OR APOLOGISE, SO GOODBYE
Oh, good god, Curtin.
1. One more freaking time. - the quote that says 1% is discussing TUNING runs of the AOGCM models, to which the simplified MAGICC model is TUNED. They are not PROJECTIONS - the projections do not use 1% / annum, and the quote you offer most decidedly does not say the PROJECTIONS use 1% per annum. Your cite is discussing using an artificial 1% increase to create a shared baseline across all the models, which is then used to set the MAGICC parameters so that MAGICC best emulates the AOGMS models. MAGICC, once tuned, is then used in scenarios using something other than 1%. And the AOGCMs use other than 1$/1nnum, when run to make projections - which they are, not all projections in IPCC result from the MAGICC mode.. Another fundamental thing Timmy has wrong.
Shouting added, because Timmy doenst seem to have gotten this point last time I made it, pointing out why Timmy was wrong last time he offered thoat or a similar quote. Timmy, you have yet to offer ANY evidence that the PROJECTIONS shown in IPCC, either temp or CO2 projections, use 1%/annum. YO do. however, demonstrate that yo still dont ahve a clue aobut the difference between teh tuning and the scenario runs of the models.
2. My second reads "Are IPCC CO2 projections based on an assumption of Michaelis-Menten kinetics running to saturation in the near future? Yes or no."
See the part about saturation, Timmy? And the part about 'assumption?" Those are part of the question, Timmy. Do they 1:ASSUME, 2:SATURATION, 3: of an MM model? The modified MAGICC model, as used to make the scenario projections for the IPCC report, is tuned to the full calibration runs of the AOGCMs, as mentioned in part 1 here. That is, the parameters in MAGICC are set so that the output of MAGICC very closely matches the output of the AOGCMs. There is no ASSUMPTION involved. They do not saturate the sinks Timmy keeps claiming that in the very near future, the models assume NO, NONE, NADA increase in CO absorption. He has shown no evidence for this, and it is not true. And finally, he claims the CO2 absorption is based entirely on a M_M model embedded in the MAGICC model. However, as I pointed out somewhere above, his own cites say the MAGICC contains modeling of ocean surface absorption emission, as well as some other carbon modeling - it does NOT treat carbon feedbacks simply via a single parameterized curve, hyperbolic or otherwise. No ASSUMPTION, no SATURATION, no single MM model.
3. My third asks if carbon FEEDBACKS lead to ADDITIONAL increases in CO2 of more than 50-100 ppm. That is what a FEEDBACK does, it adds additional beyond what human emissions do. Timmy, pointing at predictions of total increases of mor than 100ppm, is not responsive to a question askng aobut FEEDBACKS of more than 50-100 ppm.
Try again, timmy. You've failed on al 3.
Can I ask a question?
*[Not in this thread you can't. Tim]*
Brent, can I ask you a question?
It took the Russell Inquiry no time at all to rustle up their own independent analysis of the temperature data which compares favourably with every other dataset in the world, including CRU's.
Now the question is, are your ... ahem ... sceptic brainboxes too stupid to have already done that themselves, or are they smart enough to keep letting dumbasses like yourself keep eating Fantasy FUD and pretending it couldn't be done without whatever they pretended to you they hadn't got access to?
I know which one I find more likely, how about you?
Off to your thread Brent.
Good Grief.
I don't know whether to laugh at TC invoking pleasantness and chivalry, or cry at his complete inability or unwillingness to comprehend simple questions and (admittedly more complex) descriptions of various procedures (even after multiple attempts at explaining why his interpretation is wrong). If that's the filter he views the world through, no wonder his average pronouncement is almost 100% bogus.
I also wonder if this is the final TC "GOODBYE" - not a good look to go out asserting blatant error is truth, but if you've staked your position on that error maybe it's easier to boldly advance in a backwards direction from the field and hope no-one notices...
Lee: thanks for your wiley defence of the WG1 usage of MAGICC, and I have to confess that I had not noticed your #3 referred only to "carbon feedbacks". But that is a very dubious term, partly because it begs the question of the much larger negative feedbacks, namely the well attested correlation of biospheric Uptakes (and oceanic DIC) with Emissions, in part because of the roles of rising partial pressure of [CO2] and rising temperatures in raising such Uptakes. Look forward to growing wheat in Antarctica! Moreover how do you MEASURE (NOT model) that part of d[CO2] which is due to emissions minus uptakes, and that part due to positive feedbacks?
I now append some quotes from the MAGICC User Manual 5.3:
"MAGICC has been one of the primary models used by IPCC since 1990 to produce projections of future global-mean temperature and sea level rise. The climate model in MAGICC is an upwelling-diffusion, energy-balance model that produces global- and hemispheric-mean temperature output together with results for oceanic thermal expansion. The 4.1 version of the software uses the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR) version of MAGICC. The 5.3 version of the software is consistent with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (AR4)."
"The MAGICC climate model is coupled interactively with a range of gas-cycle models that give projections for the concentrations of the key greenhouse gases. Climate feedbacks on the carbon cycle are therefore accounted for". [Lee: please note!]
"Carbon cycle model and CO2 concentration stabilization scenarios Parameters in the carbon cycle model have been changed to give concentration projections consistent with the results from the C4MIP carbon-cycle model intercomparison exercise (Friedlingstein et al., 2006). {I cited Fried et al extensively above} In this exercise, the SRES A2 scenario was used as a test case. MAGICC projections for A2 agree with the average of the ten C4MIP model results, and the uncertainty range that MAGICC gives matches the 90th percentile of the C4MIP range".
"4. Running MAGICC: âIn Windows, from drive âCâ (Local disk), click successively on âSG53â, âSCEN-53â, and âMAGICCâ to enter the operating directory. Then click on the MAGICC application (EXE) file. This will bring up the primary MAGICC/SCENGEN window â belowâ. [See MAGICC User Manual 5.3 V2. Pdf 2008; Lee, please advise where the M-M function is variable rather than pre-set].
However Wigley et al do admit: âCurrently, only results for CO2, CH4 and N2O can be displayed. The default is CO2. The selected display shows CO2 concentrations for the default carbon cycle model, for both scenarios, together with an uncertainty range that is controlled solely by uncertainties in ocean uptake and CO2 fertilizationâ [this is the one and only reference to CO2 fertilization â Hamlet without the Prince!].
âThe central, or âbest - results include the effects of climate feedbacks on the carbon cycle, but the uncertainty ranges do not account for parameter uncertainties [!!!] in the way climate feedbacks on the carbon cycle are modeled, nor for uncertainties associated with the effects of climate sensitivity uncertainties on the magnitude of these climate feedbacks.â
More for Lee: âA key component of CO2 projections is the feedback on the carbon cycle due to global warming. This is really a complex set of different feedbacks operating on a regional scale, some positive and some negative. On balance [sic], however, these climate feedbacks are positive [oh yeah!] leading to significantly higher concentrations than would be the case if they were absentâ.
Wigleyâs MAGICC ONLY assumes POSITIVE feedbacks, and totally ignores what I suppose he would call negative feedbacks, i.e. biospheric uptakes via photosynthesis, because of the built-in Michaelis-Menten function.
Thus Wigley states âMAGICC uses emissions as its primary input. So, to study concentration stabilization issues we need to determine specific emissions scenarios that will lead to concentrations that follow the WRE profilesâ.
As always, biospheric uptakes are ignored in MAGICC, including the simple observation that
d[CO2] = E -U = f(E) = .56(E) since 1958.
Bernard and Lee,
I ahev bneen following your continued demolition of all thing's Curtin. Its amazing watching him try to squirm out of his hole with his dodgy statistics.
I also note how Curtin refuses to address the important points raised by plant scientist Ros Gleadow in her interview. She alludes to the findings of her research which shows that under elevated Co2 regimes many plants increase their carbon or nitrogen allocations to the production of toxic allelochemicals (phenolics and phylogenetically conserved toxins such as alkaloids, iridoid glycosides, glucosinolates, furanocoumarins etc) whilst exhibiting reductions in foliar protein concentrations. In other words, herbivores will need to consume more plant tissues to obtain the same amount of nutrients they would under lower Co2 levels, but in doing so they will ingest more harmful toxins. The effect on herbivores and organisms further up the food chain is anyone's guess, but it is likely to have profoundly negative effects on fitness-related traits such as fecundity, longevity, motility, and survival. The bigger picture shows that it would be potentially catastrophic for the functioning of communities and ecosystems. Again, it is another example of the non-linear nature of global change and further researchw ill hope to show us how different levels of organization are affected by changes in plant quality in terms of primary and secondary metabolites under elevated Co2 regimes.
But of course, since he does not understand basic plant biology, Curtin sticks with his simple models which ignore Co2 related effects on plant physiology and on the nutritional ecology of associated consumers. Again, the idea that increasing Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere is a remedy to reduce hunger is a dangerous illusion. Anyone working in community ecology will tell you this, but when people are distorting science to promote political agendas do not expect them to listen.
Tim are yo really, relay ths kclueless about stuff tht is teh core of your very own presenttin?
Net carbon feedbacks are easily measured by looking at changes in the airborn fraction - that's kind of been the entire point of all this. Remember? Individual fedacks can b measured by things such as comapring net primary productivity or net oceanic absorption/emission, to carbon emissions to or carbon concentration in the atmosphere. Your entire freaking argument depends on what you (incorrectly) claim are measurements of the carbon feedbacks - and now you dispute whether they can be measured at all?
Gee...
Then TC, amazingly, cites this:
""The MAGICC climate model is coupled interactively with a range of gas-cycle models that give projections for the concentrations of the key greenhouse gases. Climate feedbacks on the carbon cycle are therefore accounted for". [Lee: please note!]"
Timmy, I not only note that, I've freaking cited it to you, earlier in this thread. Thank you for repeating it - that quote is a direct refutation of your claim that carbon feedbacks in MAGICC are modeled entirely by use of a M-M function - or any other simple function, hyperbolic or otherwise.
Timmy then asks:
"Lee, please advise where the M-M function is variable rather than pre-set]. "
Tkm p22 of that manual mentions the adjustable carbon cycle parameters. Pages 25-32 are an extended discussion of the effects of those parameters, including on p26 a screen shot of the panel where one chooses high, medium low, or use adjustable carbon cycle feedbacks.
And then, even mro amazingly, Timmy quotes this:
"A key component of CO2 projections is the feedback on the carbon cycle due to global warming. This is really a complex set of different feedbacks operating on a regional scale, some positive and some negative. On balance [sic], however, these climate feedbacks are positive"
After which he attempts this:
"Wigleyâs MAGICC ONLY assumes POSITIVE feedbacks, and totally ignores what I suppose he would call negative feedbacks, i.e. biospheric uptakes via photosynthesis, because of the built-in Michaelis-Menten function."
No Timmy. A statement that there are both positive and negative feedbacks, and that when one models them together one finds a net positive feedback, is NOT a statement that they ignore negative feedbacks and assume a positive feedback. This is rather simple English, reading comprehension and logic, Timmy. Are yo really that utterly incapable of comprehending even something as simple as this, or are you being dishonest? That's an honest question - I cant figure out which it is, Timmy.
BTW, I have now spent significant time searching references for inclusion of a Michaelis-Menten function in MAGICC, and I can't find anything except your stuff, Timmy. I do find references for inclusion of Michaelis-Menten kinetics in the responses of individual plants to carbon and other impacts to photosynthesis, as a part of for example the TEM model of terrestrial net primary productivity (Sokolov et al), but this is not what you are claiming. I've asked before, you didn't respond, I'll ask again - what is your cite for the use of an M_M hyerbolic function for carbon feedbacks in the MAGICC model?
Lee do take a deep breath before you start typing, and put your Laphroaig on one side.
You said: "Net carbon feedbacks are easily measured by looking at changes in the airborn fraction - that's kind of been the entire point of all this. Remember?"
True. And what we have as I keep showing is an increase in [CO2] in every year since 1958 that is only on average 44% of anthropgenic emissions. In my book that means the "net feedback" is negative, because d[CO2] < dE. But in your dreamworld negatives are positive.
Not only that, but also in the Wigley dreamworld of his MAGICC, net positive feedbacks imply a greater increase in [CO2] than has ever been observed, when clearly the GROSS net feedback is self-evidently NEGATIVE, because despite his best efforts, actual d[CO2] than dE.
As for citations on the explicit usage of M-M, I have given them again and again, in my Seminar, my E&E paper, and here repeatedly, from Wigley in Tellus 1993, Wigley & Enting at CSIRO 1994, 2000; Fried et al 2006, Enting & Karoly 2008, Sokolov et al 2009, all of which explicitly state use of M-M in order to increase the otherwise boring actual rate of growth of [CO2] at only 0.41% p.a. since 1958. All those cited and you are in the same league as Bernard Madoff.
Tim, are you having us on?
An unchanged airborne fraction year after year IS NOT A FEEDBACK, TIMMY!!!!! It is simply a description of the partitioning of emitted CO2 into different reservoirs. It describes a feedback of zero - no chagne in airborne fractinin response to increase [CO2] (yet). A positive feedback in this context means that as [CO2] increases, sinks become less efficient and the airborne fraction gets larger. Negative means that as [CO2] increases, sinks become more efficient, and the airborne fraction gets smaller. And I can not freaking believe I just had to explain that to you.
The entire point is that as[CO2] increases, there is good reason to believe that net feedback will be positive, the fraction absorbed will decrease, and the fraction remaining in the atmosphere will increase. This has nothing to do with whether some fraction of emissions are removed from the atmosphere - it has to do with whether that fraction changes in response to changes in [CO2].
Do you really not know this? Can you really not distinguish between static and dynamic processes, between partitioning and feedback? Really? Good god, Timmy, this is the central point of your entire thesis, and you don't understand it, at all?
And those citations, Timmy?
Sokolov 2009 is about a medium complexity model from MIT, not about MAGICC. Magicc is a low-complexity model - something different. Searching the PDF for 'magicc' reveals one occurrence, in a citation. Searching within for PDF for 'michaelis-menten' or 'michaelis' or 'menten' reveals one occurence, talking about modeling terrestrial plant uptake ( one carbon sink, Timmy, among many) in the TEM model. That citation is irrelevant to your claim about MAGICC, Timmy - the paper is about something else entirely.
Fried et al 2006 appears to be a draft white paper for the State of California, examining the impact of climate change on wildfires. Frist author fried is an employee of the US Forest Service. Searching within it for 'MAGICC' or 'MAGIC' or 'Michaelis' or 'Menten' finds nothing. Searching for 'AOGCM' finds a description of two models, neither of them MAGICC, and a statement that all the work in this paper is doe=ne with output from those two models. Irrelevant to MAGICC and the IPCC, Timmy.
Enting and Karoly 2008 appears not to exist - Enting has 3 papers that year, 2 of them sole-author. The third is found as citation in two other papers, of a report to an agency, and ahs several other authors - none of them Karoly. Searching both Scopus and Google Scholar yields similar results.
I gave up there, timmy. If you actually have citations supporting your claims about MM and MAGICC, please provide them as full usable citations.
Tim Curtin.
You seem to be having some difficulty with the words:
[net](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
[feedback](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
[projection](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
[model](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
[stock](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
[flow](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
[uptake](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
[reservoir](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
[citation](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
A hint - if you learn the real meanings of these words, Lee might not have to wipe the floor with your dignity as much as he has been doing over the last few days...
> Do you really not know this? Can you really not distinguish between static and dynamic processes, between partitioning and feedback? Really? Good god, Timmy, this is the central point of your entire thesis, and you don't understand it, at all?
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
This has been another edition of simple answers to basic questions...
Lee at #660
You really are hopeless â and very funny as well, not to realise that Fried. et al is my appropriate shortening of Friedlingstein 2006 et al.
How many times do I have to restate my citations that are in the Seminar that launched this thread, and that have been restated here n-times? Go to my website (www.timcurtin.com), and there they are.
[This Blog's software seems to refuse to accept some ppt slides, but if you give me the magic formula I will gladly repost then here]
But first is my slide re your mate Fried:
â¢âThe terrestrial carbon model [Scheme for Large-Scale Atmosphere Vegetation Exchange (SLAVE); Friedlingstein et al. 1995] calculates NPP following a light use efficiency formulation (Field et al. 1995) that is a function of temperature and water stress.
â¢NPP increases with CO2 [but only]under a MichaelisâMenten beta factor formulation [that sets a ceiling].â
â¢[As a result] âIn the coupled simulations, atmospheric CO2 concentration ranges between 730 ppm for LLNL and 1020 ppm for HadCM3LC by 2100 (Fig. 1a)â. [It only reaches 562 ppm by 2100 at the 1958-2010 rate of 0.41% p.a.]
NB: All but one of the [Fried] models show the Airborne Fraction well above the 44% of 1959-2009 (Table 2).
â¢
And here is my ppt slide #30 on the egregious Sokolov:
â¢âIn TEM, the potential uptake of atmospheric CO2 by plants is assumed to follow Michaelis-Menten kinetics, according to which the effect of atmospheric CO2 at time t on the assimilation of CO2 by plants is parameterized as follows:
â¢
â¢f(CO2(t)) = (Cmax CO2(t)) / (kc + CO2(t) ) (3)
â¢
â¢where Cmax is the maximum rate of C assimilation, and kc is the CO2 concentration at which C assimilation proceeds at one-half of its maximum rate â¦
â¢TEM takes in to account nitrogen limitations on net carbon storage. These significantly decrease sensitivity of the terrestrial carbon uptake to the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration and affect sign of the feedback between terrestrial carbon cycle and climateâ [from Sokolov et al 2009, p.12]â.
â¢
As I said, this is the pure âscriptureâ of economistsâ Law of Diminishing Returns that underpins Malthus and Wigley and produces climate scientistsâ desired results. The fallacy is that of assuming that at all times only one of a range of inputs can be increased, in this case CO2, while all others are held constant. But increasing CO2 itself does something to increase availability of Nitrogen, and there are such things as nitrogenous fertilizers.
My next slide (#31) shows the Sokolov et al Fig. showing their claim there is an absolute maximum for CO2 absorption of 5.5 GtC p.a. thanks to their M-M assumption. Their Fig. at my Slide #33 then shows that as a result [CO2] reaches 850-950 ppm by 2100, impossible at the observed rate since 1958.
Back to my Seminarâs references, see if you can find Fried. et al 2006 and Enting and Karoly 2008 (this was a report commissioned by the Garnaut Review at amazing expense and available at its website as well as quoted at length in the Review itself).
And dear Lee, your first para. shows the fathomless depths of your incomprehension of the budget identity. Hint: the airborne fraction is that part of annual CO2 emissions that remains airborne, only 44% since 1958. By now you should know that the widely used square brackets term [CO2] is shorthand for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 arising from incremental annual net emissions thereof, i..e. NET of all feedbacks of whatever sign.
Further to my last here is why I call Pierre Friedlingstein et al 2006, Fried et al., because they literally cooked the books. Here is their Abstract with my comments in square brackets:
"Eleven coupled climateâcarbon cycle models used a common protocol to study the coupling between climate change and the carbon cycle. The models were forced by historical emissions and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 anthropogenic emissions of CO2 for the 1850â2100 time period. For each model, two simulations were performed in order to isolate the impact of climate change on the land and ocean carbon cycle, and therefore the climate
feedback [sic] on the atmospheric CO2 concentration growth rate".
As I have noted here recently, it is impossible to differentiate between CO2 molecules in the atmosphere arising from anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and CO2 molecules allegedly arising from âthe climate feedback (sic) on the atmospheric concentration growth rateâ. If there are such feedback molecules they belong in the E category of the carbon budget of
d[CO2] = dE â dU.
Moreover each new feedback molecule in a year implies an equal Uptake of such a molecule by the biospheres and oceans, given the datum of d[CO2] at end of year at Mauna Loa.
Fried again: âThere was unanimous agreement [joke!!!] among the models that future climate change will reduce the efficiency of the earth system to absorb the anthropogenic
carbon perturbation. A larger fraction of anthropogenic CO2 will stay airborne if climate change is accounted forâ.
[Why is there NO evidence of that since 1850, see Knorr GRL 2009, recalling that said Knorr was one of Friedâs co-authors, and clearly the ONLY honest member of that delinquent mob].
More Fried: âBy the end of the twenty-first century, this additional CO2 varied between 20 and 200 ppm for the two extreme models, the majority of the models lying between 50 and 100 ppm. [How could they tell? did these ppm have colour markers?]"
"The higher CO2 levels led to an additional climate warming ranging between 0.1° and 1.5°C. All models simulated a negative sensitivity for both the land and the ocean carbon cycle to future climate". [How so when there is zero evidence for any of that since 1850? see Knorr 2009].
"However, there was still a large uncertainty on the magnitude of these sensitivities. Eight models attributed most of the changes to the land, while three attributed it to the oceanâ.
How very democratic: one model one vote, the land has it! But what a load of garbage!
Fried again: âAlso, a majority [sic] of the models located the reduction of land carbon uptake in the Tropics.[aha! So higher temperatures reduce crop yields! Tell that to the Dutch]. However, the attribution of the land sensitivity to changes in net primary productivity versus changes in respiration is still subject to debate; no consensus emerged among the modelsâ.
How could that be, when these models are so sentient that they can vote and are generally more savvy than the octopus that correctly predicted the winner of the World Cup?
What a shame that the models unable to reach consensus, but that is because of the twits who run them, devoid as they are of any common sense, with their ignorance of GIGO, apart from Knorr, and their utter disregard of any observational evidence whatsoever, as shown by their Abstract and the whole of their text, with the complete lack of any historical evidence for their main assumptions, as epitomised in their statement: âNPP increases with CO2 under a MichaelisâMenten beta factor formulationâ [which prevents any increase above a prescribed ceiling].
Once more around the goldfish bowl...
Gaah.. what does one do?
Aargh! No Greasemonkey on my laptop ... rectified!
And Cur is an appropriate shortening for a dog!
Cur to [kill file] on all 'puters now. Sanity restored!
[Lee](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), you devil, you:
I empathise with your frustration. I have a [backlog of questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) awaiting Curtin's attention, and they are just a fraction of the questions I have asked on this thread - and that's ignoring the huge list of questions that were put to Curtin on his original Thread of Tragedy.
And the goldfish just swims around and around...
Ah, Lee and BJ, but didn't you realise ... that a goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus) is a member of the crap family (Cyprinidae).
Tsk, tsk.
Many thanks guys (Lee, P. Lewis twice, Bernard J), if your last is the best you can do re my posts on Fried et al, that's game set and match to me. See my upcoming peer reviewed paper.
BTW, saw Frank Fenner at the Emeritus Faculty this afternoon, rejoicing that at 95 himself none of the rest of us and our descendants (my grandson would be exactly his age in 2100 DV) will see out this century.
Curtin, if your performance on this thread is any indication, your "peer reviewed paper" will be rebutted faster than, and more completely than, any of the other denialist tripe that has masqueraded as science and stumbled over the first hurdle.
The beauty is, that once it's in print, you'll have no wiggle room, and no recourse to dissemblance and an apparent inability to receive challenges. Which reminds me - how are [those questions going](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)?
And how many times now have they been put to you?
Bring on the 'paper'. The responses will be merciless.
And he swam, and he swam, right out of the damn....
Damn I'm in a lyric mood...
Oh, and Curtin...
...[your characterisation of Fenner](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) as "rejoicing that at 95 himself none of the rest of us and our descendants... will see out this century" is despicable. And quite possibly actionable.
As I have said before, Fenner has some solid grounds for being pessimistic, even if his pessimism is unlikely to be fully realised. However, to impune that he takes any pleasure in any such thought is way beyond the pale. I fervently hope that someone passes on your comment to him, and that he has recourse to response.
It's grubby in the extreme to attribute such nastiness to someone, without permitting them the opportunity to present their own case. At least you don't get that opportunity here, in the context of your attempts to refute the science that you simply do not understand...
As Bernard said above. IMHO despicable may be too kind a description for Tim Curtin's last posting.
Moreover, Tim, you have not told us where your'"peer-reviewed" paper is going to be published. Please tell. I would like to see this classic work for myself, and it might be online early.
Methinks you ought to practice a little more humility too, although I guess for you that is a virtual impossibility. IMO you have made this 'peer-reviewed' paper of yours out to be some sort of defining moment in science. I have 5 papers in press at the moment and 5 out already this year, but I would never brag about this fact like the way you seem to be doing about your one paper that is in press. I just hope for your sake that your 'peer-reviewed paper' comes out in some journal with a respectable impact factor. Otherwise, like most of the other stuff coming out of contrarian circles, it will gather dust.
Bernard (at #628)
Your first âgivenâ âthat the amount of carbon in the biosphere is 20 to 100 thousand times greater than that embodied in the human populationâ, is a meaningless statement and irrelevant for most purposes. NB, do note that your huge error margins are a factor of 5!!!
Your second âgivenâ is equally meaningless: âgiven that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is at least 8500 times greater than that embodied in the human populationâ. So what?
Your third shows some enlightenment: âgiven that the biosphere functioned with perfectly adequate carbon cycling and (until recently) with ever increasing biodiversityâ. Tell that to Jeff H.!
Then you ask : âcan [I] describe the actual dynamics in carbon fluxes that would lead to the claim that you make in slide 15 of your presentation, that atmospheric CO2 will decrease to less than 100 ppm by 2070, and be completely absent by 2080â.
Yes, I can.
Bernard, you have shown here again and again that you cannot grasp simple inventory analysis.
Increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (hereafter d[CO2]) which according to IPCC and Uncle Tom Wigley and all is what determines CCC (Catastrophic Climate Change) are a Function of dE-dU, where E and U are emissions and absorptions of CO2 in any given year.
IF dU continue to grow at their current rate since 1958 while dE are reduced in line with CoP 15, then simple arithmetic implies that [CO2] will fall, as intended, but to below the target level of 350 ppm ,with serious consequences for all of us. (See my Note at Royal Economic Society Newsletter, 2007, at my website, www.timcurtin.com).
However if dU falls in line with falling dE thanks to CoP 15, then world NPP will also fall pro rata with falling [CO2] and/or falling dE, given that rising d[CO2] (or dU) is a NECESSARY condition for the increasing NPP that is needed to feed a growing world population.
Jeff H; you said - "I have 5 papers in press at the moment and 5 out already this year, but I would never brag about this fact like the way you seem to be doing about your one paper that is in press". But you just have bragged! - and no doubt all your wnderful new papers are about wasps. Gawd help us all.
Curtin,
I wasn't bragging at all - I was just putting the constant reminder of your 'peer-reviewed paper' into some sort of context. The thrust is: so what that you have a single paper in press? Who gives a damn? I have colleragues who publish 15-25 articles in the peer-reviewed literature every year. So what is so special about your one article?
And you still have not informed us here where your paper is going to be published. Of my 5 in press in which I am a co-author or senior author, I have one in Ecology, one in Biological Conservation, another in Biological Invasions, one in Basic and Applied Ecology and the last in press in Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. The papers cover a range of topics including the effects of invasive plants on native insect herbivores, a comparison of soil food webs in the grassland ecosystem, and only one (the commentary in Biological Conservation) actually involves the parasitic Hymenoptera: it is a paper arguing that to better understand the impact of invasive plants on native ecosystems a multi-trophic approach is required.
Anyway, the impact factors of the journals where I have papers in press range from 1.5 to 4.9. What about yours, Tim? What esteemed jounral is is to be published in? Or won't you tell us because you know what most of us here will think of it, or else because it is considered to be a 'bottom-feeding' journal?
Jeff: sadly, despite their amazing impact factor, none of your papers is relevant to the great issue of the day, which is what will be the impact of declining [CO2] on your species?
Tim,
My articles involve processes that are exceedingly important, given how little humans know about the factors governing the assembly, structure and functioning of ecosystems. Every little bit of knowledge we can add to the empirical literature gives us something to work on as humans continue their global assault on nature.
For the umpteenth time, where is your paper being published? Or are you afraid to let the cat out of the bag?
Lastly, even if humans were to stop emitting C02 today, the lag effects would persist well into this century. Moreover, the great issue of the day is not what you described; it is whether humans so alter and simplify the natural world that it will unable to sustain life in a manner that we know. There is little doubt that our species and nature are on a collision course, and that the effects of this are likely to impact the quality of life for future generations. Many scientists have repeatedly raised the alarm about the potential outcomes of the global experiment over the past 30 years, but it appears that many of those with power and privilege are quite content to see us go over the cliff as long as the short term benefits outweigh (in their view) the longer term costs. But natural systems are unforgiving and we are entering a period of consequences.
So timmy-boy, at 670, declares victory.
For those of you scoring at home, let me recast the game.
Timmy claims that the IPCC 'CO2 forecasts' are flawed, perhaps fraudulent, because, they are based on the MAGICC model, which timmy declares "assumes" that CO2 sinks will "soon" saturate so that the airborne fraction becomes 1 or close to it.
He further argues that this is because MAGICC models carbon feedback using a saturable hyperbolic function, the Michaelis Menten function, and his argument requires that he believes the allged MM function arrives at Vmax (saturation) in the near future.
He further claims that the projections of CO2 increases by century end are way too high, because of that saturation of the sinks.
I'm not sure he knows this is what he's claiming, but it is.
Note that there are many claims here, and I've been challenging him on several of them. Y'all can read back if you're feeling masochistic enough -
I'll point out here only that I've been pressing Timmy to justify these points, with appropriate citations, and that timmy keeps responding with those massive walls o' text, recycling the same handful of quotes from the same handful of citations, none of which are about MAGICC tuning, or about the IPCC projections, or about carbon cycle modeling in MAGICC, or about the effect on[CO2] of the carbon modeling in MAGICC, or even whethe rther eis a Michaelis-Menten function in MAGICC at all - in fact, they are simply not about MAGICC, and therefore not aobut the IPCC scenarios.
The cites he is so proud of are about OTHER models, and OTHER processes, and are irrelevant to the questions I'm asking.
One begins to wonder why he wont (can't?) give me the relevant cites...
Lee: the time stamp and your text show you were under the influence of Laphroaig. What you have to address is the citations in my last posts, not me, and show where they are wrong. For example, as Fried. et all 2006 and Sokolov et al 2009 said they used the Michaelis-Menten hyperbolic to set a ceiling for biospheric absorption of CO2 emissions, you have prove that they did not - and then explain how without it they get [CO2] up to 1000 ppm by 2100.
Timmy - THOSE ARE NOT ABOUT MAGICC!!!!!!! Good christ man. Show me some cites about what the MAGICC model does, as used in the IPCC scenarios - the claims you started with. These are not interchangeable parts - each has its own characteristics. You made claims about a specific model and specific uses of that model. Justify those freaking claims - which requires supporting cites about THAT MODEL and those specific uses of THAT MODEL!
Even for the cites you do make - yes, they use a MM function, which does have a saturating limit, the Vmax. They use it for the terrestrial primary productivity function, which is one part of the biospheric uptake, which is one part fo total carbon uptakes.
Even your cites about these models - which ARE NOT THE MAGICC MODEL, MAN!!! - don't support your claim that total carbon uptakes (in your posts upthread) or biospheric uptakes (more recently) are modeled by an MM function. Just one part of biospheric uptakes, which is turn is just one one part of total carbon uptakes is modeled by MM, in some specific models. Models WHICH ARE NOT THE MODEL UNDER DISCUSSION!!! But even with that, you have yet to show that teh MM function used for that one subset of carbon uptakes, ever reaches or come anywhere close to the Vmax part of the curve - and I've asked, several times now.
You have yet to address the point that the full AOGCMs with carbon cycles modeled - as used to define the IPCC scenarios, and to calibrate MAGICC in emulation mode - show only a difference of 50-100 ppm by century end as compared to running the models with essentially a fixed airborne fraction and no carbon feedbacks. Given that, how do you justify your claim that the MM function is necessary to get the high century-end [CO2] levels?
Ive been pressing yo on this stuff for many,many post snow - and yo just declared victory without ever adddressing them. Bernard suggested that you clarify the meaning of net, feedback, projection, model, stock, flow, uptake, reservoir, and citation. I would suggest you add 'victory' to that list.
> So timmy-boy, at 670, declares victory.
And previously at 650 declared some of his errors to be correct and bid "GOODBYE", at which point [I predicted a victorious advance backwards](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) ;-)
Each goodbye is followed by a hello, it seems. Hello Tim!
Which journal have you submitted your paper to?
Lee: Finally you made a non-whisky laden comment - "You [TC] have yet to address the point that the full AOGCMs with carbon cycles modeled - as used to define the IPCC scenarios, and to calibrate MAGICC in emulation mode - show only a difference of 50-100 ppm by century end as compared to running the models with essentially [sic] a fixed airborne fraction and no [sic] carbon feedbacks. Given that, how do you justify your claim that the MM function is necessary to get the high century-end [CO2] levels?"
Very easily. It is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve 800+ ppm by 2100 as per IPCC, Fried, Sokolow, Garnaut, Stern, from any SRES without M-M hyperbolic. Try, using your "fixed [sic] airborne fraction and no [sic] carbon feedbacks".
Lee: what I have learned from this thread is how few of those of you who gabble about AGW have achieved the level of maths I found when I taught black Zimbabweans in 1961-1970. As that was very low, qv Bob Mugabe's achievements, you too should soon qualify for Nobels.
"It is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve 800+ ppm by 2100 as per IPCC, Fried, Sokolow, Garnaut, Stern, from any SRES without M-M hyperbolic."
Anyone else care to detail just how many things are wrong in this one sentence? I'm getting tired of repeating the same damn things Ive said for the last couple hundred posts.
I'll just mention - still no citation, and still failing to address how this ffits in to the IPCC scenario runs..
I do believe,though, that timmy-boy has just cast an oh-so-polite racist imprecation in the general direction of us all. Good on you, old man.
BTW, Mugabe, didn't take over until well after you stopped teaching in 1970. Was he one of yours? Perhaps that explains it.
Lee, keep making sure that the summary of tim's state of play is kept visible (it won't change because curtin won't answer your questions). It will ensure that tim's gishing all over the place won't stun some readers into thinking he's answered all questions and has won.
Tiring work, though it be.
Thanks.
Tim: "Very easily. It is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve 800+ ppm by 2100 as per IPCC,"
This has nothing to do with whether there is saturation.
After all, it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a walk to Glasgow by the end of the week. This doesn't mean Glasgow doesn't exist, just that it would take longer than a week to walk there.
Leeky: there are oceanic as well as terrestrial biospheric uptakes, and they have a ceiling determined by M-M as used by Fried et al (2006) (and that paper is freaking constantly cited by Stern, AR4, and Garnaut).
Then you freaking claim I âhave yet to show that the MM function used for that one subset of carbon uptakes, ever reaches or come anywhere close to the Vmax part of the curve - and I've asked, several times nowâ â and I have responded again and again, check Garnaut (Fig.2.7) citing Enting & Karoly 2008 (CASPI Fig.18) (who produce continuous declines in the sinks) and Sokolov et al (Fig.12.) who show the land and sea sink ceilings perfectly in their Scenarios A & B, with actual declines in these sinks in C and D. Note their freaking âhalf saturation constant (kc)â in the second quote from Sokolov below which derives directly from their M-M equation as follows:
â¢âIn TEM [i.e. Terrestrial Ecosystem Model], the potential uptake of atmospheric CO2 by plants is assumed to follow Michaelis-Menten kinetics, according to which the effect of atmospheric CO2 at time t on the assimilation of CO2 by plants is parameterized as follows:
â¢
â¢f(CO2(t)) = (Cmax CO2(t)) / (kc + CO2(t) ) (3)
â¢
where Cmax is the maximum rate of C assimilation, and kc is the CO2 concentration at which C assimilation proceeds at one-half of its maximum rateâ¦â Sokolov, p.12.
âThe critical value of SAT [Surface Air Temperature]depends on changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the value of the halfsaturation constant (kc). For example, in case D terrestrial uptake peaks at 3 GtC/year near year 2080 and starts to decrease after increases in SAT exceeds 5.5°C (Figure 12). At the same time, in scenario C, despite similar surface warming, terrestrial carbon uptake increases through the whole simulation due to large values of kc used in this simulation and a larger increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. In some of the hottest cases the terrestrial ecosystem becomes a net carbon source during the last decade of 21st Century. In all four cases, carbon uptake by the terrestrial ecosystem is rather significant, on the order of 15 to 20% of anthropogenic emissions - cumulative uptake ranges from 215 GtC in scenario B to 350 GtC in scenario Câ (Sokolov et al. p.28).
Sokolov et al use these assumptions to drive the [CO2] level by 2100 to a range of 750-950 ppm depending on the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (p.32, Fig.15).
Lee, please explain why when authors say they use MAGICC and/or Michaelis-Menten you accuse me of false reporting.
BTW, the Garnaut-Enting-Karoly prescribed projections for the sinks justify the Fenner mass extinction claim, in fact they ensure it. But then let Paul Keating have the last word on Garnaut (in his letter to Bob Hawke, reprinted in The Australian on 15th July): ââ¦Ross Garnaut, your [Hawkeâs] rusted on, if one-eyed, adviser at the timeâ¦[and getting] a lot of unhelpful advice from Garnaut and other obsequious members of your staff". Plus ca changeâ¦as Rudd now knows to his cost after adopting the Garnaut mining tax, and but for Abbott, massive costs for all of us had the Garnaut ETS been adopted on the strength of the Enting-Karoly modelling using MAGICC & M-M.
It is rather amusing to see you use so many words to avoid answering Lee's questions (never mind Bernard's).
Why do you do that? It's not as if you're fooling ANYONE here except yourself. Is it to delude yourself? It's the only answer I can see that doesn't involve the need for those comfy wrap-around jackets.
Wow: actually it's Lee & Bernard who are avoiding my answers to their questions, mainly because the simple arithmetic of d[CO2] = Et - Ut is beyond their comprehension (and that of Wigley, Enting, Stern, Garnaut, and all involved in AR4).
In particular Lee at July 15 1.41 am is spreading disinformation when he claims the IPCC runs scenarios "with essentially a fixed airborn fraction and no carbon feedbacks". Check out WG1 Chap.7 (co-authors include Fried's team, namely himself, Ciais, Bousquet, Canadell, Raupach, Le Quere and Heimann) which explicitly claims a DECLINING airborn fraction.
The ludicrous Canadell, Raupach and Le Quere team's "Global Carbon Project" (www.globalcarbonproject.org) now also exhibits its total ignorance of basic accounting with NEGATIVE uptakes. Do show me the tomato or potato or cow or pig that manages to put up CO2 without having absorbed any!
I may be wrong, but Bernard's silence here lately may suggest that he is beginning to grasp that negative uptakes have to belong in the Et expression in my equation above, and not the Ut, and that when Et is bigger than thought, then given [CO2] at Mauna Loa, the Ut term MUST be bigger pro rata with the new Et.
But judging from you own vacuous comments here, Wow, I doubt you can get your mind around d[CO2] = Et- Ut.
Am I right, Wow, that you are like Lee yet another public servant using anonymity to avoid it being known that you spend most of your "working" hours blogging?
Oops, for declining please read INCREASING in my last post.
Tim, one more time: Sokolov is not the IPCC.
The methods used in Sokolov are not the methods used in the IPCC scenario projections. Sokolov was looking at a different question. Citing that paper to support your IPCC claims is ludicrous.
MAGICC as used for scenario projections in IPCC is tuned to emulate the output of the major state of the art AOGCMs - many of which use modeled carbon feedback,not a simply set of functions. As so tuned, allowing carbon feedback adds only 50-100 ppm at century end above models with no carbon feedback. I've shown you where it says this IN YOUR OWN DAMN CITES of the IPCC. I keep asking you, in the face of that, how in hell yo arrive at the clam that saturation fo terrestrial uptacke s in the model does anything mroe than, well, adding 50-100 ppm to the projections? Your citations of other studies is not responsive.
Curtin says:
"In particular Lee at July 15 1.41 am is spreading disinformation when he claims the IPCC runs scenarios "with essentially a fixed airborn fraction and no carbon feedbacks". Check out WG1 Chap.7 (co-authors include Fried's team, namely himself, Ciais, Bousquet, Canadell, Raupach, Le Quere and Heimann) which explicitly claims a DECLINING airborn fraction"
Actually, I say that IPCC COMPARES the scenario projections, which use MAGICC as tuned to the full AOGCMs, to the output with no change in airborne fraction. They USE the tuned model, which has declining airborn fraction, and COMPARE it to the case wit no carbon feedback, and tell us that including carbon feedback and declining airborn fraction causes only a 50-100 ppm increase in [CO2].
50-100 ppm, timmy. That's it.
I don't believe I ever said that MAGICC doesn not use a simple model (MM or some other) to model terrestrial uptakes - its a simple model, it certainly does use a simple functin - it is simplified model. You keep insistently proclaiming that MAGICC saturation is responsible for the high CO2 levels in IPCC scenario projections, and I keep asking you for cites for THAT - and you have nothing. You keep repeating over and over these same handful of cites about studies that are NOT the same thing, and whining that we won't beleive you. A is not B.
Stop embarrassing yo rself, timmy. Defend YOUR ON DAMN POITn with cites that support it, not with cites about some other set of studies.
"actually it's Lee & Bernard who are avoiding my answers to their questions, mainly because the simple arithmetic of d[CO2] = Et - Ut is beyond their comprehension"
Nope, you keep galloping that pony around, screaming, but you continue to fail to answer questions, instead piling up word after word hoping that people won't be able to read to the end of it and see that you've failed yet again to answer the questions.
It's the way you avoid answering honestly without appearing dishonest. Unfortunately for you, it only works so long then the avoiding becomes obvious.
You avoid answering the questions put to you. What do you have to hide?
Tim Curtin.
You did not, [at #675](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), answer my questions as you claimed, [at #691](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), to have done. What you did in fact do was to respond with the same sort of prevaricating waffle and dross that cohenite is offering up over at Codling's, and with about as much relevance to the questions...
I will note for the record that you have also avoided [those questions about pH and salinity](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) yet again. How many times now is it that they have been put to you, only to be studiously ignored?
Thanks Lee, I do appreciate your challenging if unkindly expressed arguments.
Here are my point by point responses, with a T/F box for you to tick as you please. If you respond, please do so point by point.
1.âTim, one more time: Sokolov is not the IPCC.â Really? He is a Contributing Author to Chap 10 of WG1, Global Climate Projections along with Tom Wigley, inventor of MAGICC. True or False? Moreover Chap. 10 relied heavily on Sokolov et al 2003. T or F?
2.âThe methods used in Sokolov are not the methods used in the IPCC scenario projections. Sokolov was looking at a different questionâ. How different? The Abstract of S et al 2009 asserts they were looking at exactly the same issue as AR4 WG1 Chap.10 and seeking only to make that look even more alarming. T or F?
3.Not only that, as my previous showed, Sokolov et al used the IPCC SRES and models for their own scenario projections. T or F?
4.âMAGICC as used for scenario projections in IPCC is tuned to emulate the output of the major state of the art AOGCMs - many of which use modeled carbon feedback, not a simply [sic] set of functionsâ. Lee, with the greatest of respect, I think you do need to distinguish between âcarbon feedbackâ, which is allegedly an increase in CO2 additions to the atmosphere arising from higher temperatures, and the M-M or similar functions that assume saturations of biospheric sinks, which imply that 100% of anthro emissions remain aloft in [CO2]. From an accounting perspective, âcarbon feedbacksâ have to be put in the Et expressions of the accounting identity d[CO2] = Et â Ut, and if they exist they mean that Ut is larger than indicated by Le Quere, Canadell et al. T or F?
5.Wigleyâs MAGICCâs M-M function deals ONLY with setting a ceiling for absorption of Et by Ut and has nothing to do with your carbon feedbacks. T or F? BTW, the co-author of MAGICC (CSIRO 1994, 2000) is Martin Heimann, and he is a Lead Author of WG1 (2007). T or F?
6.âAs so tuned, allowing carbon feedback adds only 50-100 ppm at century end above models with no carbon feedback. I've shown you where it says this IN YOUR OWN DAMN CITES of the IPCC. I keep asking you, in the face of that, how in hell you arrive at the claim that saturation [sic] of terrestrial uptakes in the model does anything more than, well, adding 50-100 ppm to the projections?â. BTW, Saturation of the sinks at their current level (c.6 GtC p.a.) adds 300 ppm to [CO2] over 100 years. Back to my #3: MAGICC and M-M have nothing to do with your âcarbon feedbacksâ, except that the latter unavoidably increase the observed Ut implied by the given level of [CO2] if M-M is not enforced. T or F? To repeat: MAGICC and M-M refer only to Ut by setting a ceiling or saturation level thereto, as M-M has nothing to say about feedbacks. T or F?
7.I am quoted as saying "In particular Lee at July 15 1.41 am is spreading disinformation when he claims the IPCC runs scenarios âwith essentially a fixed airborne fraction and no carbon feedbacksâ¦[and] Check out WG1 Chap.7 (co-authors include Fried's team, namely himself, Ciais, Bousquet, Canadell, Raupach, Le Quere and Heimann) which explicitly claims an INCREASING airborne fractionâ.â Leeky responded âActually, I [Leeky] say that IPCC COMPARES the scenario projections, which use MAGICC as tuned to the full AOGCMs, to the output with no change in airborne fractionâ. But at no point does IPCC (AR4) consider a case âwith no change in airborne fraction. T or F? or citation to contrary please (try Chap. 7).
8.Leeky: âThey [IPCC] USE the tuned model, which has declining [sic, actually Increasing] airborne fraction, and COMPARE it to the case with no carbon feedback, and tell us that including carbon feedback and declining [sic, should be increasing] airborne fraction causes only a 50-100 ppm increase in [CO2]â. Again, Leeky, you are in a muddle. âCarbon feedbackâ (sic) refers to an alleged and never demonstrated rise in CO2 emissions caused by rising temperatures. If that has happened or is happening now, it means higher Et than currently reported by IPCC and its minions Le Quere et al, and that means in turn higher Ut, given the known d[CO2]. Leeky, admit it, you are in a muddle. T or F?
"Although all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. You didn't answer my question, G'Kar".
I looked at Tim's question #1 from post #696, and ... wow, does he really not realize the difference between an author, and a paper (usually referred to by the lead author's name, admittedly)? Also, does he not realize the difference between a person and an organization?
Because ... that's the only way I can see that anyone would ask his question #1 with anything resembling sincerity, and it is an impressive piece of conflation.
Timmy, "with all due respect,' for you to post a list of questions and demand responses (Y or N at that!) is the height of audacity, given all the many questions you've ignored in this thread. Perhaps you're taking your lead from Cristopher Monckton, a man clearly your superior in this? Still, I'll go through this more or less in the order posed, and respond to them.
1) Yes, Sokolov is an IPCC author, and cited in IPCC. That does not make Sokolov 2003 (or any other single paper or set of papers by any author or set of authors) equivalent to the IPCC. We're discussing the IPCC scenario projections, timmy - citing papers that are NOT the IPCC scenario projections is irrelevant. Doing it a dozen times makes it no less irrelevant - it just make you look more and more silly.
2)"The Abstract of S et al 2009 asserts they were looking at exactly the same issue as AR4 WG1 Chap.10 and The Abstract of S et al 2009 asserts they were looking at exactly the same issue as AR4 WG1 Chap.10 and seeking only to make that look even more alarming"
False on both claims, timmy.
That Sokolov's abstracts asserts that they were "seeking only to make that look even more alarming" is just absurd, and not worth comment.
They were examining the same KIND if question as the IPCC scenario projections, but with different modeling of feedbacks, and looking at, to an extent, worst case instances. That is NOT what the IPCC scenario projections did, and citing Sokolov (again and again and again, when asked for an IPCC cite) is simply irrelevant. Continuing to claim that they are equivalent is just dishonest, timmy.
3) Yes, Sokolov used the SRES scenarios of future anthropogenic emissions as input, So what? We're discussing output, and what the modeling and feedbacks do to the output for a given input. Again (and again and again and again...) this poitn is irrelevant to the issue, timmy.
4) Timmy, with "the greatest of respect" you haven't got a freaking clue what you're talking about with carbon feedbacks.
A carbon feedback, in this context, is any alteration in carbon cycling in response to changes in atmospheric [C02]. (BTW, to respond to an earlier howler of yours, the square brackets mean 'concentration,' referring to atmospheric concentration of CO2, and is standard chemistry shorthand). Those feedbacks can be positive or negative, and can occur at any part of the carbon cycle. They can include increase in terrestrial vegetative growth, causing negative feedback on [CO2], or they can include a limit on the amount of increase vegetative growth in response to other limiting nutrients or available space or water, leading to positive feedback. They can include changes in absorption at the ocean surface in direct response to the increase in [CO2], and also an indirect response to the temperature rise subsequent to increases [CO2]. ALL OF THAT is carbon feedback, timmy, and more. Your insistence on considering only terrestrial biosphere response as the only thing under consideratien, and saying it is not carbon feedback, is absurd. As has been pointed out many times. And yet yo persist.
You say (again):
"the M-M or similar functions that assume saturations of biospheric sinks, which imply that 100% of anthro emissions remain aloft in [CO2]."
With all due respect, timmy: bullcrap!
An MM (or similar hyperbolic function) saturates ONLY if one traverses the function far enough to the right. You keep claiming that the IPCC assumes saturation, I keep asking you for cites to demonstrate that whatever function they use is forced to the point of saturation, and your only (ONLY!!!) response is to repeat over and over that they use an MM function. You haven't even shown that (although it is certain that MAGICC uses MM or a similar functin for SOME ASPECTS (not all) of carbon cycle response, you have yet to give a cite demonstrating that).
Again, modeling with an MM-type hyperbolic function means that for some low-forcing region of that function, increased CO2 leads to increasing terrestrial uptake. Depending on where we are on that function, increased [C)2] may in the short term lead to increasing, the same, or decreasing terrestrial productivity as a fraction of [CO2]. Your claim is equivaleant to saying that IPCC assumes we are way out on the tail of an MM function already, that the MM function gets forced to Vmax saturation in the near future (years, maybe a decade or two).
In response to my showing you evidence to the contrary, and asking for cites about that specifically - in this model used for these projections, where on the hyperbolic curve do responses to [CO2] fall over the next century - all you can respond its that its an MM function, therefore SATURATION!!!!111!!1!!! This is incompetent, and absurd.
5) "Wigleyâs MAGICCâs M-M function deals ONLY with setting a ceiling for absorption of Et by Ut and has nothing to do with your carbon feedbacks. T or F"
Absolutely false. As discussed above, an MM function sets a range of responses, from no uptake at one end of the curve, to a maximum 'saturated' uptake at the other. Its sets a ceiling ONLY if it reaches the saturated Vmax portion of the curve. Whether it reaches the Vmax portion, or anywhere close, is precisely the question I keep asking you, and you keep failing to answer. Hint : it does not.
More in the next post.
For 6: "BTW, Saturation of the sinks at their current level (c.6 GtC p.a.) adds 300 ppm to [CO2] over 100 years." No one is claiming saturation at current levels, timmy. Why do yo keep coming back to this?
"MAGICC and M-M refer only to Ut by setting a ceiling or saturation level thereto, as M-M has nothing to say about feedbacks. T or F?"
As explained above, absolutely false timmy. You are being either embarrassingly incompetent, or dishonest, on this.
And 7:
"But at no point does IPCC (AR4) consider a case âwith no change in airborne fraction. T or F?"
They consider a case with no carbon feebacks, and compare to it the cases with carbon feedbacks (which add 50-100 ppm by century end above the no-feedback case). No feedbacks, as explained above, is the same as keeping the airborne fraction constant.
and 8:
"âCarbon feedbackâ (sic) refers to an alleged and never demonstrated rise in CO2 emissions caused by rising temperatures."
No, timmy. That is not what carbon feedback means. That is one of many expected carbon feedbacks - different feedbacks modeled by different algorithms in the models.
To reiterate -
timmy keeps claiming that an MM function is used to model terrestrial uptake of CO2 in the MAGICC model -and he may be right, but he has not demonstrated it.
timmy keeps claimig that changes in terrestrial uptake as modeled by such a hyperbolic functin are nto a carbon feedback - and he is simply wrong on this
timmy keeps claiming that the MM function in MAGICC is at Vmax saturation in the near future, that in fact its only purpose is to set a ceiling on terrestrial uptake - he is wrong. Depending on where we now are on the MM hyperbolic curve, increase in [CO2] could cause in increased rate of uptake - a positive feedback. Portion of the MM curve are inflected upwards. It matters where we are on the curve. timmy should know this. Whic hmakes me wonder why he is so damned adamant about not responding, when I ask him for some evidence of what exactly in the models is modeled by MM, and where on the MM curve our resposne is, in the modeling of the next century.
damn - what I get for posting fast. Not 'inflected upwards, but 'appproximately linear". Makes no difference to the argument.
Tim,
Could you please provide three references so we can follow your argument:
First, for the IPCC's exclusive reliance on MAGICC for its atmospheric CO2 forecasts.
Second, for the implementation of MM function in MAGICC, and its parameters.
Third, if not covered by these two, for the assumption of saturation of the system in the MM function?
Thanks!
[Lee](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
On the matter of the square brackets notation for "concentration", I drew this to Curtin's attention several years ago when he was using it to simply mean "atmospheric". I made this point several times, after which he claimed that he was referring to "atmospheric concentration", but given the context of the usage Curtin was stretching credulity beyond all reason - as he is wont to do.
I wish that I could find the threads where this exchange took place, but it doesn't jump out with a search of the basic terms. If anyone has an idea about which thread the coversation took place on, I'd be keen to know.
More generally, I find it bamboozling that a person who cannot understand the connections - and the lack of connections - between salinity and pH, believes that they are more informed about the nuances of climatological physics and terminology than are the professionals who work in the field.
Especially when said person has no scientific education or experience themselves.
One thing I have to say for Curtin though - he's damned persistent in his delusion of competence...
Persistent as toothache.
Re MFS, who asked me for references for the following:
1: âIPCC's exclusive reliance on MAGICC for its atmospheric CO2 forecastsâ.
I have never said it was âexclusiveâ reliance and provided direct quotes from WG1 for how it used MAGICC, but it did use it extensively, hardly surprising given the deep involvement in WG1 of the authors of MAGICC, especially Wigley and Heimann, and of the importance attached by WG1 to Fried. et al 2006 which explicitly bases itself on MAGICC.
BTW, the earlier Sokolov et al suites of models (2003, 2005) are one of the 8 sets of model inputs into WG1 Chaps. 8 and 10, as shown in Table 8.3.
2. âimplementation of MM function in MAGICC, and its parametersâ.
Look, I have provided these refs and explained all that in my ANU Seminar paper that TL used to launch this thread. However, for ease of reference, here we go again. The paper trail runs from Gates 1985 to Wigley mis-using M-M in Tellus 1993 and Enting-Wigley-Heimann and their MAGICC (CSIRO 1994 and 2001). MAGICC was actually commissioned by the IPCC for SAR and TAR, so perhaps itâs not surprising that IPCC uses what they paid CSIRO for.
In Tellus 1993:421 Wigley (then at CRU Uni East Anglia) objects to the logarithmic representation of the response of NPP to increasing [CO2] which is deployed in many of the models used by IPCC, but not in MAGICC, because âit allows NPP to increase without limit as [CO2] increasesâ, and we canât have that can we, even though that has been the case since Malthus anticipated the Wigley view in 1798.
Instead Wigley proposes Michaelis-Menten as per Gates 1985:
NPP = N = (C-Cb)/(1+b(C-Cb))â¦.(A3).
Where C = [CO2] at time t, and Cb = the minimum level of [CO2] below which there is no NPP (as devoutly desired by most here), and sets a limiting value as [CO2] tends to infinity of No(1+(1/b((Co-Cb))), where the b parameter is fixed for NPP enhancement between 340 ppm and 680 ppm and Co and No are pre-industrial levels of [CO2] and NPP.
Applying Wigleyâs equations A3 A5 and A7 produces the gratifying result that soon after 2100 the response of NPP to rising [CO2] will be zero, hallelujah! At no point does any of Wigleyâs work offer any observational evidence for the claim of an already falling response of NPP to rising [CO2] â and my E&E paper offers plenty to show there has been none, to judge from the FAO data on cereals yields & production from 1961-2008.
Wigleyâs M-M function is explicitly adopted by both Fried et al 2006 and Sok et al 2009 (although neither can bring themselves to acknowledge Wigley 1993 or Enting et al 1994, such is the generosity of spirit for which climate scientists are renowned; ironically the IPCC herded all these spitting cats together as Lead/Contributing Authors of Chap 10 on WG1):
Fried et al. 2006:3340 âThe IPSLâCM2C is based on the IPSLâCM2 physical oceanâatmosphere GCM (Khodri et al. 2001). The atmospheric model has a resolution of about 400 _ 400 km at 50°N. The ocean model spatial resolution over high latitude reaches a maximum size of 4° by 3°. The terrestrial carbon model [Scheme for Large-Scale Atmosphere Vegetation Exchange (SLAVE); Friedlingstein et al. 1995] calculates NPP following a light use efficiency formulation (Field et al. 1995) that is a function of temperature and water stress. NPP increases with CO2 under a MichaelisâMenten beta factor formulation".
Fried et al 2006 also show how some other models apply Wigley as above to get land CO2 sinks to have become sources by 2100 (eg. p. 3344). By an amazing coincidence Fried himself is one of the Lead Authors (with Sok & Wigley among the led contributing authors) of WG1 Chap.10, but if Lee is right, Fried abstained from making use of his own work!
Sok et al 2005 do allow some increases in NPP in their ISGM models (Fig.23), but in Sok et al 2009: âthe potential uptake of atmospheric CO2 by plants is assumed to follow Michaelis-Menten kinetics, according to which the effect of atmospheric CO2 at time t on the assimilation of CO2 by plants is parameterized as follows:
f(CO2(t)) = (Cmax CO2(t)) / (kc + CO2(t) ) (3)
where Cmax is the maximum rate of C assimilation, and kc is the CO2 concentration at which C assimilation proceeds at one-half of its maximum rate (i.e. Cmax). The sensitivity of plant uptake on kc is defined not by the absolute value of f(CO2(t)), which decreases with kc, but by the ratio of f(CO2(t)) to f(CO2(0)) which increases with kc. This ratio can be approximated as
1+αlog(CO2(t)/ CO2(0)).
3. âfor the assumption of saturation of the system in the MM function?â
MFS, I think the above are enough to answer your #3.
What we see here is that just as the hockey stick teams at CRU-UEA and Penn clubbed together to eliminate the MWP, here, led by the same Wigley who was a member of the hockey stick team, we have his other team determined to scare the s*** out of all of us by claiming that by 2100 if not before, NPP with respect to rising [CO2] will be zero.
MFS, the underlying issue is the integrity and truthfulness of the M-M team in adopting and propagating at the highest levels of world policymaking suites of models based on moonshine. Nobody questions the validity of Michaelis-Menten at the level of individual items of living matter: the heights of all of us have exhibited the M-M growth trajectory ending in a ceiling, but Wigley claims that what has been true for all extant individual living matter means that sooner or later, he hopes sooner, but by his formulae no later than 2117, no future living matter will be able to extract from [CO2] what is necessary for life.
He and Fried and Sok et all are guilty of serial impropriety based on their fallacies of composition: if you have children/grandchildren, they all exhibit almost identical M-M growth trajectories to your own, albeit some ending at 5â10â and others at 6â4â â but their descendants will also achieve similar trajectories, unless deprived of life by the insane reduction in [CO2] promoted by the IPCC (Hansenâs target of 350 ppm implies death for billions) on the basis of the Wigley fallacy that growth of NPP will terminate around 2100, perhaps as he hopes sooner.
Once more around the [mulberry bush](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)...
Bollocks.
I ["questioned" it before, at #567](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and I'll bloody well call you on it again: a Michaelis-Menton enzyme kinetic model is not used in biology to model organism or population growth.
Michaelis-Menton kinetics are based on an initial reaction rate being a function of substrate concentration. Thus, starting reactant concentration is the independent variable, and initial reaction rate is the dependent variable. If one were ignorant enough to transport the model to growth of organisms or populations, what one would be doing would be to base maximum growth rate on the initial size of the organism/population and, furthermore, to assume that the rate of growth is fastest at the beginning of the trajectory.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with growth models of organisms/populations will tell you immediately that such assumptions are complete garbage.
The growth rates of most organisms/populations reaches their maxima some time between the start of growth, and the end of growth - the exact point varies for different contexts, and this is reflected in the fact that different models are appropriate to these different contexts.
Moreover, growth is never calculated as a function of the starting size - the equivalent parameter if applying a Michaelis-Menten model. It is most frequently determined using time as the independent variable, and initial size is simply one of several parameters that fix the location and the shape of the trajectory on the Cartesian plane.
Growth of organisms/populations is modelled using a variety of sigmoid functions including, but not restricted to:
They are most definitely not hyperbolic functions, as a Michaelis-Menton function is, and although some may superficially resemble a Michaelis-Menton trajectory, mathematically they are different beasts entirely.
That you persist in ascribing a Michaelis-Menton function to biological growth phenomena is a super-nova indication of your serious ignorance of this whole field of mathematical analysis.
Feel free to disagree Curtin: however, it won't make you correct. And keep in mind that I have an inkling of what it is of which I speak, because growth curves whiled away many many months of my PhD time...
More bollocks.
You persist in ignoring so many biological phenomena here that I am not even going to bother to begin to list all of them.
You might however describe to us here how it is, exactly, that a decreasing CO2 concentration would lead to the cessation of all life, and how all metabolic processes would continue to function linearly, with no hint of feedings-back, as CO2 concentration decreased.
You might also describe to us how such a precipitous decrease in CO2 concentration has not occurred in the billions of years leading up to the Industrial Revolution, especially as overall biodiversity essentially continued to increase up until this time. Given my [repeated queries](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) put to you about the embodied carbon in an increasing human population, relative to the carbon in the biosphere and in the atmosphere, you might also explain how the increasing numbers of humans act to tip the balance to catastrophic carbon loss.
Oh, and please give me the reference, down to the page and line number, where Wigley says what you claim he does.
The only insanity here is yours.
Bernard, you really are a bore. I gave the page refs to Wigley in Tellus 1993 where his equations A3-7 show that NPP response to rising [CO2] ceases by 2117 at the latest.
If you are up to it, which I doubt, (1) set up a gmail account to protect your cretinous anonymity (what have you got to hide? I think we and AFP should be told) then (2) email me and I will send you Wigley 1993.
"Persistent as toothache.
Posted by: adelady"
And as hard to shift as your bowels after a month on the Atkins diet...
Tim Curtin,
I reiterate that you answer the questions spelled out by Bernard at # 706. Your arguments are devoid of any biological realism. Like everyone else here, I acknowledge your complete lack of acumen with respect to terrestrial ecology and the multitude of factors determining NPP, but could you explain to me in your opinion how you think the planet could have evolved more species and genetic diversity when atmsopheric C02 levels were < 250 ppm? The fact is, when humans began to cultivate crops some 8,000 years ago, the planet contained more biological richness than at any time in the planet's history. And all this occurred with C02 levels much lower than they are now; more importantly, biodiversity was also much higher in recent history than in previous periods of the Cenozoic and Mesozoic Eras when there was much more atmospheric C02. How do you explain the fact that live has thrived under low ambient C02 levels?
Dear Bernard and Jeff,
Many thanks for your very supportive arguments in favour of my own view that the Wigley version of Michaelis-Menten, as embodied in his MAGICC models and in those of Fried et al 2006 and Sok. et al 2009, is utter rubbish. I plan to make use of your valuable points when I get around to finishing my next paper on this.
What puzzles is why you both think I endorse Wigley's version of Michaelis-Menten? For example, Bernard claims that it is me who "persists in ascribing a Michaelis-Menton function to biological growth phenomena" when of course it is Wigley and the rest of his IPCC team who apply Gates 1985 and Farquhar et al (Planta 1980) to use M-M in that way.
Bernard, this confusion betrays your surprising ignorance of the whole field of biological analysis as it is applied by Team IPCC to projecting future accretions to [CO2]from anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
All the same, I wish you would both forward your critiques to Wigley, and I may do so myself - though I tried to get a response from him last year, to no avail. His address is:
Dr. T. M. L. Wigley, NCAR, P.O.
Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307.
E-mail: wigley@ucar.edu
Reverting to one of BJ's earlier attacks on me, it is perfectly true that animal populations store enormous amounts of CO2 in their bodies, but there is only a net increase when there is growth of the total population, as mortality leads to respiration (and additions thereby to dEt).
BJ, it seems to me you neglect that in the carbon cycle there is also the evident annual NET uptake of CO2 by all plant life on sea and land; again this is partly offset by respiration, but manifestly, given the continuous growth in anthropogenic emissions of CO2 at c3% p.a., with increments to [CO2] at only 44% of those emissions, (even less after accounting for respiration) there is a huge net contribution of the biospheres to restricting the growth of [CO2] to only 0.41% p.a. on average.
The real danger is that measures to limit the feedstock for growing plant and animal populations, which is growing [CO2], will lead to seriously damaging negative feedbacks for all of us. I'd like to know why you both discount this.
Regards
Tim
Lee: Refer to Wigley & raper, J of C October 2002, Table 3 which states that the CO2 modelling in both SAR and TAR was based on the Wigkley 1993 model (i.e. MAGICC). And here's a definitive statement on MAGICC in TAR and AR4 by Knutti, Fried, Wigley et al, J of C 2008 which shows that although MAGICC was not the main model in AR4, the results being so similar means they used the same basic M-M formulation for the carbon budget:
"The central values given in AR4 for each scenario are
lower than those in the TAR, but the differences are
small, and they should not be interpreted as a revised
understanding of the relevant processes. They are
caused by the fact that the MAGICC model results
(which are tuned to the idealized CMIP3 1% pa CO2
increase scenarios) are slightly higher than the CMIP3
results for the SRES projections mainly due to different
forcing assumptions. The AOGCM mean was used in
AR4 as the central value, while the MAGICC model
results were used as the central numbers in the TAR.
Differences between MAGICC and the CMIP3
AOGCMs arise primarily from the fact that many
AOGCMs do not prescribe all radiative forcing components,
whereas MAGICC does. In particular, accounting
for the indirect aerosol effect (which is not
included in many AOGCMs) in MAGICC leads to a
larger radiative forcing increase between the base period
1980â99 and the end of the century and causes the
projected change for the years 2090â99 to be higher by
a few tenths of a degree. Small differences can arise
from the fact that the MAGICC climate feedback and
ocean heat uptake is tuned to the 1% pa CO2 increase
rather than the scenario simulations".
[Tim Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
If you are bored by my repeated askings of questions, you should consider attemtping to answer them for once, rather than to ignore them, or to respond with irrelevant waffle. Face it, old man, if someone actually counted up the number of questions that I have put to you on this this thread and its parent one, and the number of times that I have repeated these questions, and then compared the total with the number of times that you have actually answered satisfactorily, the ratio would be skewed in my favour by two or three orders of magnitude.
This simple fact, in and of itself, is clear evidence that you are unable to address basic matters of the science when they are put to you, whether the science is biology, chemistry, or physics.
However, once more unto the breach...
I have Wigley 1993, so I need not communicate* with you in order to obtain it.
What I want to know is where in the paper Wigley says anything like the interpretation that [you ascribe to him](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Further, I would like you to define in your own terms what you take the parameters in Wigley's paper to mean, because it is apparent that you are confabulating very different entities. The consequence of this is that your conclusions are completely in error - let's see you you can figure out why this is so.
I would encourage other readers here to consider the paper (available [here](http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119302741/PDFSTART) if you do not already have it) and see for themselves what Curtin is doing wrong.
It's quite amusing really - until one remembers that Curtin is egregiously libelling Wigley as a result of his inability to understand (or of his deliberate misrepresentation of) Wigley's work.
And finally, Curtin, wafflanching about one aspect of my previous post, in the hope that no-one will notice that you did not address my main point about your complete non-understanding of the mathematics of growth trajectories in biological systems, won't fly. Every one here knows that you were unable to address my points.
*[As well you know, I maintain my semi-anonymity here in order to protect my personal and my professional email addresses from exactly the sort of spamming that Monckton encouraged on WUWT recently - the sort of spamming that has, in the past, rendered email addresses of mine effectively useless. If it eats at the withered husk that you call a soul that you do not know who I am, well, that is your issue - and it is an irrelevant issue compared with your inability to justify the litany of nonsensical and libellous things that you say.
Justification which, over the years, you have consistently demonstrated that you are completely incapable of engaging in.
And please - can you explain why you think that the AFP should know who I am?]
AT LAST!!!!!!
"I gave the page refs to Wigley in Tellus 1993 where his equations A3-7 show that NPP response to rising [CO2] ceases by 2117 at the latest."
I've been asking timmy all this time for references to his claim that IPCC AR4 CO2 scenario projections at 2001 can only be reached by implementing a Michaelis-Menten 'cap', and what the saturated levels actually are.
Tiommy has now given us a cite. True, its a 17 year old cite to a 1993 paper, which must have been awfully prescient to implement what AR4 did. Still, it's a cite - an actual set of equations.
Wigley 1993 uses a 6-box model to describe the carbon cycle. There are 4 terrestrial biomass boxes, an atmosphere box, and an ocean box. He is explicitly modeling the sizes of the sinks, their fluxes, and the feedbacks among them in response to rising [CO2]. Note that he explicitly calls them 'feedbacks,' and that he completely and explicitly neglects effects due to rising temperature - thus rather putting the lie to timmy's claim above that 'carbon feedback' refers only to ocean effects from rising temperatures. Thanks timmy - I'd forgotten that was so clearly stated in this paper. Will yo now restate correctly what you believe to constitute the 'carbon feedbacks?'
In appendix 1, Wigley 1993 starts by introducing the two commonly used curves for modeling changes in NPP with rising [CO2] - the logarithmic (which timmy favors, as it exhibits the economist's favorite behavior of climbing to infinity without bound, real world be damned) and the rectangular hyperbolic, or Michaelis Menten, which timmy says is fraudulent, and claims is entirely responsible for massive inflation in projected [CO2] levels by end of century.
In equations A1 - A7, to which timmy-boy explicitly refers, Wigley derives the forms used to determine the relevant constants, and also compares the results from the two forms, the logarithmic, and the rectangular hyperbolic. And what does Wigley say about the differences in output, between the model timmy wants, and the model timmy considers fraudulent?
"The main distinction between eqs. A1 ([logarithmic] and A2 [MM] lies in their behavior for large C (gt 1000 ppmv). For any given r value, a B value can be chosen so that the two formulae behave quite similarly over a wide range of concentrations. Nevertheless, when the B and/or r values are obtained by tuning the model to past values [as Wigley did], the two fertilization formulations give noticeably different results for concentrations substantially less than 1000 ppmv."
This paragraph is precisely in the midst of the equations timmy-boy cites. It tells us that using MM instead of a logarithmic formulation, cause differences in behavior that short 1000 ppmv, are at the most 'noticeable,' and only at the higher end of the range.
And yet, timmy-boy tells us that using MM 'as in Wigley' results in a projection of complete cessation of increase in NPP as of "no later than 2117." But Wigley himself tells us that short of 1000 ppmv, there are only 'noticeable' differences from the logarithmic form - is timmy telling us that by 2117, [CO2] is going to reach not only 1000 ppmv - where there at most 'noticeable' differences from a logarithmic projection - but actually the several times higher than 1000 ppmv required to approach the asymptotic portion of the MM curve? He must be, his ravings make no sense any other way. Hell, they make no sense anyway, do they.
And this, of course, without even addressing timmy-boys absurd claim that a rectangular hyperbolic MM projection reaches its asymptotic value precisely in any given year - it NEVER will reach complete cessation of increased NPP, in 2117 or any other year - that is what asymptotic means.
This is precisely why I've been pushing timmy to let us in on his secret of what the Vmax, saturating level is for [CO2] in the IPCC AR4 projections - because he seems to have some knowledge that no one else has, that set Vmax at absurdly low levels that become absolutely determining to feedbacks by the time end-of-century [CO2] levels are reached. He steadfastly declines to reveal that information to us, referring again and again to the same handful of papers - which do not say what he says they say.
See, its even worse than that for timmy. The Wigley model he cites is a 6-box model, using 6 carbon-containing stores and modelling the sizes and fluxes in and out of each box. There are 4 terrestrial carbon boxes - a rapid exchange box, a living plants box, a detritus box, and a soil box. All 4 boxes are coupled to an atmosphere box, which in turn is coupled to an ocean box. The 'fertilization effect' which is modelled by either logarithmic or MM function as described above, applies ONLY to the INCREASE in NPP caused by increased [CO2],and ONLY in the living plants box. So, above and beyond the issue timmy has, that the use of MM function instead of logarithmic causes at most only 'noticeable' differences in increases in NPP, and only as one gets near 1000 ppmv - he has shown us nothing of what that difference causes when applied to the entire 6-box model, and whether it actually makes much difference.
I have shown above, quoting from an IPCC AR4 WG1 cite that timmy himself offered, that including all carbon feedbacks adds only 50-100 ppmv additional [CO2] by century end, as compared to running models with carbon feedbacks turned off. This is yet another piece of evidence that the modelled carbon feedbacks simply do not have the huge results that timmy claims. Timmy-boy consistently has been avoiding that point - and it is a key point he needs to address. In fact, that observation destroys his entire argument -one of many observations that do - and leaves him with no point to make, at all.
I predict that timmy-boy will, as he has done several times above, simply ignore this all and repeat his same argument, without addressing the points raised by me and others. That goldfish is getting tired. Perhaps he'll surprise us
Bernard at #712.
That last post of yours contributes nothing to the debate.
Accusing me of libeling Wigley is itself justification for me to refer you to the AFP, as I said nothing of which he did not proudly claim authorship. Take care, I might well take you up on your false accusation.
That you are unable to find a service provider that does not block all spam shows how useless you are at everything you attempt. Try my server (iinet) which has blocked all spam on my email address for many years. Your excuse for maintaining your anonymity here is thus both vacuous and despicable, when you feel free to libel me constantly from the sanctuary of your anonymity.
And if your intellectual career was as stellar as you believe it to be, what have you got to fear from outing yourself, other than that it is far from stellar? The truth is that you are a literally worthless nonentity, amply exhibited here by your inability to grasp that your attacks on my interpretation of Wigley are attacks on him.
Nevertheless dear Bernard, despite my harsh words above, I am grateful for your admirable critique of the absurdities in everything Wiggles says.
Lee "I predict that timmy-boy will, as he has done several times above, simply ignore this all and repeat his same argument, without addressing the points raised by me and others."
Tim "That last post of yours contributes nothing to the debate."
Nailed it?
I think so.
On the subject of anonymity - this from Bug Girl:
"The one topic Iâd really like to write a book about would be the whole Rachel Carson/DDT BS business, but frankly the people who are promoting that stuff scare me. I have gotten many, many threats over those posts, most of them threats of sexual assault. I canât be force-fucked into believing their lies about a brave woman and a wonderful writer, but I have been convinced that I want to stay under their radar IRL. Iâve also had some rather unpleasant encounters with white supremacists, which further reinforces the need for me to write as Bug Girl, not my real name."
Despite Curtin & others accusations of cowardice & assertions that no excuse is reasonable there are very definite reasons for it.
Tim Curtin writes, "I'd like to know why you both discount this".
I discount your remark because it omits a range of processes that regulate plant and animal biomass as well as population dynamics within their ranges. First of all, no matter much atmospheric C02 there is, populations of organisms are kept within well-defined boundries due to both top-down and bottom up regulatory forces. With the exception of outbreaking or invasive species, if one were to examine the dynamics of, say, eastern cottontail rabbits or wood thrushes in eastern North America over the past 100 years, they would find that the populations have more or less osciullated around the same point, even though many abiotic and biotic changes have occurred in that time. Populations tend to increase or decrease when critical conditions are altered; for example, if habitat or climatic conditions become more favorable (e.g. within the thermoneutral zone of the species or else when forests are cleared or regrow). Species that have increased their populations have done so for reasons that have nothing to do with atmospheric C02 levels. Similarly, population related declines are also driven by the same parameters that have nix to do with C02.
I do not know where to begin dismantling the rest of Tim Curtin's apparently simplistic view of NPP and ecology. There is just no realism whatsoever in the argument that reducing atmospheric C02 levels will negatively impact humanity via negative feedbacks on terrestrial NPP and thus on animal biomass. This argument is so shoddy and nonsensical that it really does not deserve a response. I have wasted enough of my busy time on this thread as it is. As I said yesterday, a huge range of factors have played a role in determining the evolution of both species richness and genetic diversity over many millions of years. Over the last 8,000 years, there was probably more diversity in both senses than at any time in the planet's history, including eras and periods when C02 levels were appreciably higher than they were when humans arrived on the scene as the dominant terrestrial organism, yet life thrived. Many factors were involved: stability in tropical realms and seasonal climates towards the poles are both drivers of diversity. Most importantly, riotous diversity evolved under low ambient C02 conditions. Over the past 100 years, humans have consumed nature like there is no tomorrow. Certainly we are wll into the 6th great extinction to afflict the planet, and the first to be caused by one of its evolved inhabitants. As C02 levels rise rapidly, and the climate changes along with it, we are challenging nature to adapt at rates unforseen in 65 million years. Remember that these changes are ocurring against a suite of other anthropogenic stresses (see Root et al., NATURE, 2003). Climate control systems cannot be managed by humans, because they are so unpredictable and exhibit both positive and negative (both linear and non-linear) feedbacks; I would agree with those who liken them to an angry sleeping beast that humans are prodding with a hot poker. In my view it is therefore wholly irresponsible, given the potential consequences of this global experiment, for anyone to argue that (1) humans can manage systems whose functioning we barely understand, and (2) that pumping more and more stored carbon into the atmopshere as C02 is a recipe to reduce hunger. IMHO it is most certainly NOT! There are too many UNKNOWNS and complexities inherent in ecophysiological processes across various scales of space and time to make any kind of assertion in this direction. The productivity of ecological systems is driven more by species interactions and by local conditions than by the concentrations of one atmsospheric gas. As others have shown, plants did not evolve to be eaten. Most plants possess a range of strategies aimed at reducing herbivory or else are directly toxic to herbivores. One can look at phenolics, proteinase inhibitors, and specialized allelochemicals found in wild plants (and their domesticated relatives) and see that plants are anything but 'optimal' food. By toying with the atmosphere, there will be all kinds of effects on carbon and nitrogen based secondary metabolities as well as on primary plant metabolites that will cascade up through the food chain in both soil and above-ground food webs.
I am not a modeller but an empiricist. Models have their utility, but depend on the empirical data fed into them. Using them to suggest - and that is all they can do - that a C02-enhanced world is going to be a green utopia is, in my opinion writing as a plant-insect ecologist, without empirical support. In fact, it is dangerous, given all that we do not know. The potential ecologial consequences of this 'experiment' may be disastrous, and I am not alone in saying that. I know full well that the vast majority of my peers would agree with me. It is those saying otherwise who are out on a very thin limb. For that reason, I believe that it is prudent to decarbonize the economy asap. IMHO we should try and ensure that levels of C02 do not exceed critical climate tipping points - would would mean about 450 ppm. We should do everything in our power to limit C02 to that point and then to reduce it to 350-400 ppm, an argument made by many climate scientists including James Hansen. Only in this way can be avoid the serious planet-wide consequences of exceeding 450 ppm that are likely to impact many of the most important ecosystems on Earth.
Tim Curtin [goes all precious about the fact that I point out his libellous claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
False accusation, huh?
How about [#99](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
or this, from the same post (and including the ironically hypocritical tail):
There was this, [at #354](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
and then this, [at #472](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
and also this, [at #565](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
What of this, [at #659](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
or this, [at #691](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Perhaps this, [at #705](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
There's this corker also [at #705](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
And to finish the round, this [at #710](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
[Emphases mine]
Hmmm... Let's just remind ourselves [what libel is](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation):
You made claims against Wigley (amongst others) that give him a negative image. You made them not to Wigley himself, but to the readers of this thread, and you have no proof that they are true: certainly, some are patently false.
It would seem that you are engaging in libel.
I, on the other hand, pointed out the simple truth that you have made libellous claims about Wigley, and moreover, I made that observation directly to you. That is hardly libellous. I doubt that the AFP would think differently, although I could ask a former classmate who is in the Force what their opinion is, if you so desire. Of course, if that constitutes libel, then I am sure that I could find even more egregious material from you - "shows how useless you are at everything you attempt" and "[t]he truth is that you are a literally worthless nonentity" spring to mind...
And on the matter of the AFP, you still haven't explained why it would be a necessary thing for them to have my identity in the context of posting on Deltoid â are you threatening me with menaces?
And now that the matter of your nastiness is attended to, how are you going with [the questions that you pretend have not been asked](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)? These questions include an explanation of what you take each of Wigley's terms to mean, in his Appendix - I am trying to decipher exactly what it is that you think you have on him and the rest of the world's climatologists, and I would like to be sure that we are all clear on what it is that you are claiming.
After all, we wouldn't want to misrespresent you, would we?
Bernard, you don't understand.
Tim is an evil small minded misanthropic scourge of a man who delights in the small evils his tiny ego can maintain.
This means that he either
a) has to admit he's not a nice person
or
b) project those scabrous evils onto everyone else he meets
Since it's far nicer to believe he's no worse than anyone else, he plums for (b).
It's called "projection".
Your quotes there indicate how deeply into this mechanism TC is. The deeper the projection runs, the worse the human doing so.
So feel no shame with TC's accusations. Merely point out to others who may not know you where his real problems lie: behind his eyes. Your quotes and questions do this admirably.
> Accusing me of libeling Wigley is itself justification for me to refer you to the AFP, as I said nothing of which he did not proudly claim authorship.
Wow! TC has all the legal acumen of Monckton - which is to say he is woefully misinformed and prone to fabulous misapplication and empty pontification.
Come to think of it, that applies to more than legal matters...
Keep drinking the seawater timmy.
I should point out that - disregarding the misconceptions about the subject matter - TC's threats to report alleged libel of an individual to the AFP (Australian Federal Police) means that he was thinking of the Australian legal jurisdiction.
In Australia [libel of an individual is a civil matter](http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html#civcrim), so TC's attempt to report it to the police would be met with disinterest and instructions not to waste police time - possibly accompanied by gales of laughter.
Lee, thanks for all that (at 713).
You said â[IPCC] have shown ... that including all carbon feedbacks adds only 50-100 ppmv additional [CO2] by century end, as compared to running models with carbon feedbacks turned offâ.
As almost always, misunderstandings arise from alternative terminologies. You are right, for Wigley âcarbon feedbackâ refers to âCO2 fertilization feedbackâ, which is negative in the carbon budget, because it REDUCES the addition to the atmosphere that would otherwise occur from CO2 emissions, and since 1958 this total âfeedbackâ has averaged 56% of fossil fuel and LUC emissions (but actually more than that when ALL emissions such as exhalations and respiration are taken into account).
However, I believe your and the IPCCâs âfeedbacksâ refer to EXTRA [CO2] allegedly generated by rising temperatures rather than by anthro. fossil fuel emissions and LUC. In my view these belong to the dE expression in the budget equation
d[CO2] = dE â dU,
and thereby imply, if they exist, that dU is larger than it would be otherwise, given known d[CO2] at Mauna Loa.
If I am wrong, please advise.
Bernard J. Re the AFP, I surmised that since dealing with spam emails is absurdly easy â get a decent ISP, or simply block further incoming emails from undesired sources â which is your pathetic excuse for your anonymity, you have much else to conceal from us (and the AFP?).
As for libel, you have confirmed (with Lee and Jeff) much of my own critique of Wriggles, so my defences will be (1) truth and (2) public interest, with you and even Lee and Jeff as my star defence witnesses.
Loathsome: as ever you are a bad joke.
Tim,
*As for libel, you have confirmed (with Lee and Jeff) much of my own critique of Wriggles*
I suggest that you read Bernard's last post over and over again until it sinks in. I think it is pretty devastating as far as your arguments are concerned.
My advice: throw in the towel now, as it is round 10 and you have lost every round comprehensively thus far and have been battered into submission. If I was the referee I would have stepped in and stopped the bout in round one.
I think Lee will concur with me on this. I have made my empirical arguments elsewhere on this thread. Models are only so good as the parameters that are fed into them. IMO the most accurate models must take into account biological realism, including stochastic processes at small scales and determinisitic processes at larger scales. In my view as a reductionis working in a depratment that examines both mechanisms and emergent processes you have omitted critical variables that are, like it or not, association-specific. Where are the secondary effects on plant physiology and these effects on trophic interactions and food webs? Plant stoichiometry? Allocation of extra C02 to primary and secondary metabolites? How will this influence the nutritional quality of plants, and the fitness of consumers associated with them both directly and indirectly? For instance, natality and mortality? Longevity? Immunity?
Scale up local scale processes as affected by increased C02 concentrations and then determine how this affects biodiversity and ecosystem functioning? Bear in mind that the rate of change is probably unprecedentedf in the planet's biological history. Previous episodes where atmsopheric concentrations of important gases changed probably occurred over hundreds of thousands of years, not in the space of 200. Species with longer generatiosn times will notr be able to adapt to these changes as fast as those (like invertebrates) with rapid generation times. There will thus be winners and losers. Combined with its attendant climate change, the current process is an ecperiment, as I have said before. Speaking as a scientist, I feel that it is ridiculous to make bold predictions on the basis of any models with such limited inputs. Modellers will tell you you this - that their models should be interpreted with caution. Tim, I do not see any caution in your modelling exercise. You give the impression, to me at least, that you have worked out every angle. But of course you haven't. You admitted that you could only feed so much into them, and that biological processes I have described are omitted. I am telling you that this is a key fatal error. You do not want to believe it, so that is up to you. But if scientists are supposed to be sceptical, then I am. You do not appear to be - a common trait I see in many of the denialati. This is why they do so well in debates, where a naturally cautious scientist is pitted against a totally convinced denialist. Hence why the term 'denial' is in vogue. A sceptical scientist would accept that there is much that we do not know, and few would be so confident as to argue that pumping more and more C02 into the air is a wise thing to do.
Think about this before you send your usual type of riposte. Accusing your critics of being like Madoff or Pol Pot is hardly a way to win friends and influence people.
Jeff: I agree, that as you say
"Models are only so good as the parameters that are fed into them. IMO the most accurate models must take into account biological realism, including stochastic processes at small scales and deterministic processes at larger scales".
So why do you support Wigley et all who defy that concept? Wigely's parameters are a disgrace to Science, based as they are on zilch evidnce.
There is NO evidence that rising [CO2] will ever result in falling Uptakes by the biospheres, and since we have all including your wasps benefited from the increase in [CO2], what's your problem?
You have NEVER been able to cite any evidence that rising [CO2] is bad for any living species.
*You have NEVER been able to cite any evidence that rising [CO2] is bad for any living species*
This is not how science works Tim. You just don't get it. In your view, its fine to tamper and fiddle and meddle with Earth's ecological life support systems until somebody comes along and says, "Hey, we have definitive proof that this tampering is having deleterious effects!".
There are many problems with this. First of all, by the time we do have definitive proof - if ever - it will be too late. Far too late. By then the consequences will be upon us. Secondly, ecological systems, as I have said before, are incredibly complex, and cover infinte numbers of scales. Read "Untangling Ecological Complexity" by Brian Maurer (1999) which devotes a lot of effort to modelling community and ecosystem dynamics, and which tries to separate stochastic for determinsitic processes. It is a fantasatic book. You may actually learn something. Until you can coherently show me that you understand the issues at hand, I really think that I might get more logic from a brick wall.
Most importantly, the time frame necessary to judge the effects of increased C02 is decades, perhaps even centuries. There are time lags in cause-and-effect relationships that increase with spatial and temporal scales. We now know that the destruction of rainforest and temperate habitat can take years - in some cases several hundred - to ripple through and affect the dynamics of ecological systems. The extinction debt has been used to describe this phenomenon.
It mkes no sense, therefore, for me to have to 'prove' anything to you or anyone with respect to the global human 'experiment'. We know enough about the non-linear effects of changes in various biotic and abiotic processes on ecological mechanisms to know that these will potentially work there way up through food chains through to communities, ecosystems and biomes in time. That should be enough for us to realize the possible traps and pitfalls that lie ahead. It seems to me that you think that everything in nature is instantaneous. That is the problem of you and like minded thinkers, who base everything on the scale of a human lifetime, and just cannot see beyond that. I have been trained as a scientist to look in to the future at processes that may take centuries to unravel. And on this basis I know that human alterations of biogeochemical cycles, as well as other ecological processes, will alter the way in which these systems function in ways that are impossible to predict now but which could very well be disastrous. By that time the current generation will be long gone, and future generations will look back and shake their heads with shock and disbelief that we proceeded along the current path in full knowledge of the possible repercussions.
Tim, you ought to listen for a change, to what I have to say. Read some broader ecological literature. Until you can show me that you understand the importance of scale, and of cascading effects in this regard, then I am wasting my time replying to you.
[Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Once again, I ask you to define what each term in Wigley's appendix mean.
It's not a difficult question - none of the ones that I put to you and that you always ignore (from fear of revealing your ignorance, no doubt) are actually difficult.
Your ignorance of biological optima aside, there appears to ba a mathematical misinterpretation on your behalf. I'm keen to hear your side of the story though, before I expend the time deconstructing it - after all, if youare correct, you might be able to teach me and the others here a thing or two, without having to circle the blodding bowl yet again...
Come on old man - if you're preparing a paper on the subject you should already have a review of all the terms there at your fingertips.
Out with it.
Jeff: I repeat that "There is NO evidence that rising [CO2] will ever result in falling Uptakes by the biospheres, and since we have all including your wasps benefited from the increase in [CO2], what's your problem? You have NEVER been able to cite any evidence that rising [CO2] is bad for any living species."
Just provide statistical evidence to the contrary, or forever hold your peace!
Until you do, "I am wasting my time replying to you".
Tim,
Do you actually read what others write? Its like everything I said bounced off your head.
Au contraire, on what basis can you conclude that biodiversity and ecosystem frunctions are benefitting from increased atmospheric C02 and attendant climate change? There is NONE!!!! Get this through your head, as I have said several times before: THE PLANET EVOLVED MORE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY UNDER LOW C02 REGIMES THAN AT ANY TIME WHEN C02 CONCENTRATIONS WERE HIGHER (repeat x 100). When humans beghan cultivating crops, there were probably more species and genetically distinct populations (in other words, the planetary DNA library) was probably richer than it had been at any point in 5 billion years. And what were C02 levels when this happened? Less than 250 ppm!!!! This is absolute incontrovertible proof that C02 levels are not a pre-requisite for life to thrive. What is a pre-requisite are a range of ecological and biotic characteristics of habitats - long term stasis in some, rapid turnovers in others - that enable adaptive radition through evolutionary change.
As I said, we know that there are going to be consequences of increasing atmospheric C02 levels that may take 100 years or more to play themselves out. If we extrapolate from small scale aspects of plant-consumer physiological interactions (e.g. through changes in concentrations of primary and secondary metabolites on consumer ontogeny and fitness) through food and interaction webs to ecosystems and ecosystem-level processes, there will be both positive and negative feedbacks caused by the current human 'experiment'. Determining exactly what these will be is very hard, given that, as I have said again and again and again (let it sink in!!!!!!) that our understanding of complex adaptive systems is rudimentary. Therefore it is impossible to predict the outcome of the current 'experiment' on ecological systems and biomes. You cannot do it. With our current knowledge, however,there is ample evidence to show that the effects mighrt be very negative down the road. Period.
The good news is that IMHO nobody in their right mind would be convinced by your 'models' except the D-K crowd in which you mix and those on the far right end of the political spectrum. Thankfully, with a few sad exceptions, utter laymen like you have no influence on public policy. Real scientists - especially those who work in the actual fields - are the ones who will ultimately influence policy (thank God). And you would be hard pressed to find a single systems or population ecologist who would give you or your 'models' the time of day. To be honest, I don't know why I do, given the vacuity of your arguments. I still wait with baited breath for you to prove to me that you understand even basic ecology. So far you have failed to do so big time.
Let me get a bit more specific, timmy.
You claim that including 'Wigley's' MM 'terrestrial feedback' formulation in the models, causes dramatically inflated overestimates of century-end [CO2]. Correct?
And you cite Wigley 1993 for evidence. Correct?
Tiimy, you have teh sign backwards. Wigley 1993 actually shows that including the MM-NPP-modeled terrestrial fertilization carbon cycle model, REDUCES the estimates of century end [CO2] by 115 ppmv.
Look at figure 6.
The upper dashed curve shows a 'no-feedback' or 'passive biomass' model run, using IPCC 1990 emissions projections - and that scenario arrives at 2100 [CO2] of 795 ppmv. This is your worst-case fantasy on steroids, timmy. This is a model that flat-lines any [CO2] fertilization effect, starting in 1990. NO increase in NPP allowed for the entire century, and the century-end [CO2] is 795 ppmv.
Now look at the 'central' bold curve. This curve uses the same emissions scenario, the same parameters as the dashed 'no fertilization' curve. It also includes a 'fertilization effect' using the MM formulation you consider so terribly fraudulent, and entirely responsible for terribly inflated century-end [CO2] values. It gives a 2100 [CO2] value of 680. 115 ppm LOWER than if it were not included. 115 ppm LOWER than the IPCC projections of 1990.
You keep claiming that this paper, Wigley 1993, inflated the IPCC estimates of century-end [CO2]. In fact, it LOWERED those estimates by 115 ppmv, as compared to the IPCC estimates in place when Wigley published in 1993.
Yo have the sign backwards,timmy. This is absurd as your claim that increasing atmospheric [CO2] would render the worlds oceans fresh,.
But... you also claim that Wigley erred in using the rectangular hyperbolic 'Michaelis-Menten'function, and that using you favored (and previously used) logarithmic function instead would have given much lower century-end [CO2] model results. However, recall that Wigley compared the two formulae, and found that they only differed noticeably at values 'appreciably short' of 1000ppmv.
Using the MM formulation Wigley modeled century end values of 680 ppmv - well under 1000 ppmv. Furthermore, for most of the century, they would have been way, way under that. IN this range of values, Wigley reported that there is no difference between the MM and the logarithmic formulation. So, the MM function doesn't matter, either.
I predict that timmy will not respond on point to this (yet again) and will further thank me for supporting his (delusional) version of what this paper reports. I cant quite decide if he'll deign to report me to the Australian Police.
Tim,
Thanks for providing some references. I see you state first off that the IPCC did not rely exclusively on models based on MAGICC. I note especially in WG1, chapter 8, page 604, section 8.2.3.1:
Similarly, chapter 10, page 750, section on carbon cycle states clearly:
Which seems to say that even when you include biomass effects in your models, the modelled value NOT CONSIDERING biomass carbon sinks still falls within the variance of those that do. This being so, why do you focus so strongly on MAGICC, which is only used for some?
In your answer you also say:
So is it your position that natural ecosystems use CO2 as their one and only nutrient resource? The only way that NPP can increase without limit with increasing CO2 is if the biomass is relying on it exclusively, and not on any other nutrients, for its resources. In other words, NPP can increase without limit with increasing CO2 if CO2 is the only limiting resource. What about Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, iron, manganese, zinc, boron, cobalt, vanadium, molybdenum, chromium, etc, all of which are essential plant nutrients? They are never all available in excess so that only the concentration of CO2 drives the potentiall biomass.
There are published papers already showing that CO2 increases are reliant on adequate nutrients in order to trigger a consequent increase in biomass, for example [Oren et al. 2001](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6836/abs/411469a0.html), and [Thompson et al 2004](http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/faculty/gbala/pdf_files/thompson_etal_GRL2004…).
Given this, how can you support your assertions that MM is fr*udulent, as you produce [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and others which I just noticed Bernard has already linked to? It seems to me that your entire case hinges on the question of whether CO2 is the sole limiting resource in terrestrial and marine environments, or there are other limiting resources.
I would be interested to know what "scares the S#1t out of you", as you state above, about the fact that increases in NPP over increasing CO2 may cease by 2100. There are many improvements other than pumping CO2 we have made to world agriculture already, and presumably many that remain to be discovered. The point has already been made that agriculture was carried out perfectly well for 10,000 years with an average atmospheric CO2 concentration of only 280ppm... I think you're being unduly alarmist!
Finally, it would be really helpful if you could support your [statements](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) that
or that M-M applies to the growth of an individual organism, as when you write
with some references. Specifically of Wigley having stated that "no future living matter will be able to extract from [CO2] what is necessary for life."
> Loathsome: as ever you are a bad joke.
Attempted distraction followed by trying to supply some other explanation seems to be a common tactic whenever I point out an error on your part. I take it as an implicit admission of error, of which there are many.
> I surmised that ... you have much else to conceal from us (and the AFP?)
Let us imagine the ensuing gales of laughter when TC waltzes in to the AFP requesting that the AFP investigate for possible criminal activity a pseudonymous commenter on a blog **merely on the basis that** the commenter won't give TC his real life name...
...and then ask who is the "bad joke" here.
Or maybe TC is admitting that he's a joke, and a highly amusing one at that if you can look past the tragedy of it?
Lee, many thanks for your comments.
Wigleyâs 1993 paper needs to be set in context. He was one of the first to realise that there was a âmissing sinkâ between observed CO2 arising from fossil fuel burning etc, and the smaller amount annually observed being added to [CO2] as measured at Mauna Loa.
Keeping that in mind, the upper curve in his Fig.6 explicitly assumes there is no missing sink, yet his whole paper is about the existence of such a sink, and how to measure it.
This means your comment about Fig.6 is misleading, as everybody, even the IPCC, knew that additions to [CO2] were less than CO2 emissions.
Moreover Wigleyâs Fig.6 is anyway misleading, as it produces curves from flat average decadal changes in emissions and [CO2]. It thereby abstracts from the compounding actual growth rates, which show up in his Fig.7. Why do you fail to mention that there [CO2] can reach 900 ppm? A case for your referral to the US Justice Dept, perchance?
However in Wigleyâs world, anything is possible. And his algebra is pathetic, see his equation A5, which would have failed him in my Year 5 class at Pridwin School in Johannesburg in 1949.
But thanks all the same Lee for your as ever challenging comments, I may revert in more detail later, but now I have to get back to the cricket in Leeds, where my father did his B.Sc., hopefully to see Pakistan complete their demolition of Australia (born in India when that included Pakistan & Bangladesh, I always support them against my adopted land).
Timmy continues to display a truly extraordinary ability to get something wrong in nearly every sentence.
"Wigley... a âmissing sinkâ between observed CO2 arising from fossil fuel burning etc, and the smaller amount annually observed being added to [CO2] as measured at Mauna Loa."
No, timmy, that was NOT the "missing sink" that Wigley 1993 was examining. The surprise was not that [CO2] was growing slower than emissions, but rather that the growth was even slower than the proposed carbon budgets of the time could reconcile.
This means that forecasts of the time were thought to overestimate growth in [CO2]. Wigley 1993 created a model to estimate the 'missing sink, and therefore adjust the forecasts. You keep claiming that Wigley fraudulently overestimated future growth in CO2. In fact, Wigley 1993 REDUCED future forecasts in growth of CO2, by including precisely the fertilization term that you accuse him of attempting to eliminate.
"This means your comment about Fig.6 is misleading, as everybody, even the IPCC, knew that additions to [CO2] were less than CO2 emissions."
Of course everyone did - that is hat both Wigley 1993 and my comment were about. Misleading how, timmy? Be precise.
"Wigleyâs Fig.6 is anyway misleading, as it produces curves from flat average decadal changes in emissions and [CO2]. It thereby abstracts from the compounding actual growth rates, which show up in his Fig.7."
Timmy, Figure 6 and Figure 7 use exactly the same compounding and growth methods - in fact, curve a is the same damn curve in both figures. How one earth do you claim a difference here? Do you just make this stuff up out of whole cloth? Do you expect no one to check? Do yo uthnk that telling new lies will cause us to fail to notice that you havent responded on point to any of the substance of my message?
I explain above what figure 6 is - it uses IPCC 1990 emissins scenario a, their 'most likely' scenario, with different assumptions, to see what the effect is of including the [CO2] feedbacks that Wigley is modeling. The effect is to REDUCE the extant forecast by 115 ppmv - exactly the opposite of what you accuse Wigley of doing.
Fiure 7 applies exactly the same damn model to scenarios a-f, using the exact same damn parameters as in Figure 6, to derive adjusted forecasts for those emissions scenarios. In every case, they give reduces forecasts as compared to the IPCC scenario forecasts they emulate.
In every case, except perhaps with minor differences in the scenarios giving the highest century-end forecasts, the results are the same as if his NPP model had used a logarithmic rather than a hyperbolic model.
Yo are wrong on all counts here, timmy, and you need to address that, rather than making up out of whole cloth some false claim of some imagined differences between figures 6 and 7.
Refer me to the Justice Department? What??!?! Get help, timmy.
And finally, I'll give you props for finally deciding not to make a gratuitous mention of the fact that your students at Pridwen were black, when attempting to insult people by comparing to them - maybe you are capable of learning.
Lee, thanks again for your often insightful comments. Howver your account of Wigley 1993 does not,as it seems to me, square with his Abstract or with much of his text, including Fig.7-9 and Table 4. The last line of the Abstract states merely that "This [paper] leads to a range of projections and provides some insights into the uncertainties surrounding these projections".
Table 4 and Figs 7-9 indicate anything is possible for the outcomes of Wigley's modelling of the IS92a-f emission scenarios, with [CO2] by 2100 ranging from 424 ppmv to 1056. Well hedged bets!
Table 4 uses a range of 1.08 to 1.51 for the fertilization factor "r" in runs LOW, MID, and HIGH, but in NFB r is of course 0.
Wigley's Conclusion adds: "By accounting for the sink using CO2 fertilzation alone, the present model constrains the form of these future changes [in CO2]". I entirely agree with that.
Where Wigley goes beyond the main thrust of his paper is in Appendix A, where he derives his Michaelis-Menten function (which so far as I can see is absent from the main text). It is this hyperbolic form that in effect justifies his "NFB" (= no CO2 fertilization feedback) projections in Table 4 that became the basis of MAGICC and its invariably top projections for [CO2] in 2100 for all IS92 and SRES emissions scenarios.
I have to go now but hope to respond to your other points later.
I give up. Timmy, you cant be this vacuous, can you?
timmy sayas:
"It is this hyperbolic form that in effect justifies his "NFB" (= no CO2 fertilization feedback) projections in Table 4 that became the basis of MAGICC and its invariably top projections for [CO2] in 2100 for all IS92 and SRES emissions scenarios."
That is exactly wrong, exactly backwards, exactly not the truth, as I have explicitly shown in detail in my last two responses. The NFB projections in Wigley 1993 are when he does NOT use the hyperbolic model, or any other model. You are pointing to the case where he does NOT use MM, and claiming he justifies that result from using MM. This is false. Repeating a falsehood over and over, hoping no one will notice?
It is clear that you don't "hope to respond to [my] other points later" - you're clearly hoping not to have to respond to them at all. Give it up, man.
I cant let this go - it is astonishing:
timmy says:
"Where Wigley goes beyond the main thrust of his paper is in Appendix A, where he derives his Michaelis-Menten function (which so far as I can see is absent from the main text)."
The entire "main text" of Wigley 1993 is about examining whether a carbon fertilization effect can account for the 'missing sink' that was plaguing attempts to balance the carbon budget, at that time. He models the carbon fertilization effect using a growth curve for NPP - and the growth curve he uses is the one derived and justified in Appendix A. The MM / carbon fertilization function is used in and underlies every analysis in that paper.
Including that 'carbon fertilization' term, modeled using MM, REDUCES the forecasts of future [CO2] from those in IPCC 1990, which did not include a carbon fertilization term, and had a known missing sink that was not accounted for. Exactly the opposite result from the one that timmy claims
Wigley "fraudulently" achieved.
For timmy-boy to claim that the MM function is "absent from the main text' is to betray that he has not the faintest clue what that paper is about, and how Wigley approached the subject.
This is as astonishingly incompetent as timmy-boy's attempt, upthread, to show that ocean acidification will render the words oceans fresh, based ultimately on his misunderstanding 'total alkalinity' as a measure of pH. It is incompetent on even the most elementary facts - in this case, it betrays an inability on timmy's part to simply read and understand a well-written, clearly-detailed scientific paper. Every single claim he has made about that paper is simply wrong - the opposite of true.
Astonishing.
Tim Curtin.
Lee, patient fellow that he is, has very carefully been pointing out many of your errors to you, even if you are not able to see them.
I still have a few pointings out of my own that I am considering throwing into the mix (if Lee doesn't pre-empt me...), but first I really am interested to hear of your understanding of each of the terms in the appendix of Widley's that so offends you.
I've [asked once already](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) - are all of my questions so difficult that your only recourse is to avoid them whenever you can? Or are you anticipating yet another drubbing, and hoping that by not answering you can claim that your interpretation is actually other than it has appeared to be to date, once you are demonstrated yet again to be wrong?
Come on Curtin. You've had an awful lot to say about Wigley, his equations, and his statements. Be brave and tell us exactly what each parameter in his appendix is. Be clear, and take as much space as you need to make your points.
I can be very patient in waiting for your response, so putting it off is not going to make me go away.
Although, on the other hand, if you believe that you can keep mum and just publish your 'analysis' in E&E or something similar, it would be entertaining to then rebut you in the literature, and render your humiliation all the more telling. So perhaps it would be more fun if you did not respond...
And this:
"Table 4 and Figs 7-9 indicate anything is possible for the outcomes of Wigley's modelling of the IS92a-f emission scenarios, with [CO2] by 2100 ranging from 424 ppmv to 1056. Well hedged bets!"
Timmy, the range of 2100 [CO2] values is NOT due to vagaries of 'Wigley's modelling." It is due to different scenarios for human CO2 emissions - and he took those emissions scenarios directly from IPCC 1990. That range of forecast values says simply that if we humans choese to drastically curtail our emissions, we can get lower [CO2] in 2100, perhaps as low as 424 ppmv, and if we have accelerated emissins growth, we will get higher values, perhaps as high as 1056 ppmv.
For each emission scenario, 'Wigley's modelling" gives precisely one curve, with one forecast 2100 value. That cue and forecast value is LOWER than teh previous model results, because Wigley included a carbon fertilization term in an attempt to close the carbon budget and account fo rthe missign sink.
To imply that this range is due to Wigly setting out to get any result he wants, is simply wrong. The opposite of true.
Re Lee @736
I said "It is this hyperbolic form that IN EFFECT justifies his "NFB" (= no CO2 fertilization feedback) projections in Table 4â¦â. The NFB matches Wigleyâs justification for using M-M in Appendix A when he says his Equation A2 âbehaves more realistically [than the log. in A1] in that it leads to zero NPP at C= Cb and has a limiting value as C tends to infinity = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb))) where Co = 278 and Cb = 31 ppmv, and b is the enhancement in NPP that occurs for a PCO2 increase from 340 ppmv to 680 ppmv.â¦â.
Go on to Wigleyâs equation A7 which derives B* and âwhich tends to ZERO for large C. For larger and larger C, the hyperbolic formula therefore gives smaller and smaller enhancement of NPP relative to the logarithmic formulaâ.
Using Eq A7, with Co in 1900 at 278, and incrementing by just 1 ppm p.a. it reaches 478 by 2100, and then using Wigleyâs Cb at 31 with r = 1.1, B* is 0.005 by 2100, and 0.002 if r = 1.2; and if r = 1.4 (top of the very narrow range used by Wigley), B* falls effectively to 0 by 2100.
If we next increment Ct by 0.65 ppm p.a. until 1958, we get the observed value at Mauna Loa, and if we increment Ct from 1958 at the observed annual growth of [CO2] since 1958, which was 0.41 % p.a., we get the observed 389 by 2009 and 564.4 ppmv by 2100.
Then with Wigleyâs r = 1.4, B* is negative by 2070, while with r = 1.1, B* is barely positive in 2100.
Using Wigleyâs (2003 et seq.) 1% pa growth of [CO2] from now to 2100, we achieve 961 ppmv by 2100, and that gets B* negative as early as 2060 with r = 1.1, and with r = 1.4, we achieve nirvana, negative B* (and thus, response of NPP to CO2 fertilization) by soon after 2030.
Following Wigely's inversion trick, you can then get what you want for [CO2] by playing around with r.
These results follow using only Wigley's parameters in Tellus 1993.
Tim,
As I see it, fundamentally, you still have not shown any proof that NPP increases with increasing CO2 don't follow a rule of diminishing returns. You have not produced any evidence to back up your statements that NPP can rise unconstrained with rising CO2.
It is basic ecology that every organism depends on a range of resources in order to grow. You have not shown us that, under present condition, CO2 is THE limiting resource to plant growth.
More importantly, you have neglected to include into your calculations the point at which CO2 fertilisation ceases to be of benefit to plants, in the absence of other essential resources. And as far as I see it that is THE essential point of contention here: You contend that there is no upper bound to CO2 fertilisation, and the rest of us contend that unless you can show that CO2 is the only limiting plant nutrient, added growth from added CO2 must necessarily reach a limit.
MFS, many thanks once again for your very worthwhile comments.
1.You said: âAs I see it, fundamentally, you still have not shown any proof that NPP increases with increasing CO2 don't follow a rule of diminishing returns. You have not produced any evidence to back up your statements that NPP can rise unconstrained with rising CO2â.
The main thrust of my seminar paper that began this Thread is that the Law of Diminishing Returns has for 200 years been superseded in most economics textbooks by the Law of Constant Returns to Scale, and as one of my slides showed, Monsanto (et al.) have delivered that in spades. So, more CO2 plus more N2O or H2O or whatever equals ever increasing returns.
2.âIt is basic ecology that every organism depends on a range of resources in order to grow. You have not shown us that, under present condition, CO2 is THE limiting resource to plant growthâ.
Well, I have not, because obviously it [rising CO2] has not limited plant growth â but FALLING [CO2] will achieve that if you and the CoP15 Greens have their way. Farquhar and many others have shown that rising CO2 itself does quite a bit to raise N2O, and so there really is no shortage of N2O etc, while the IPCC itself admits that globally rising T means rising evaporation and then increased precipitation of H2O, aka rain (see also Farquhar passim).
3.âMore importantly, you have neglected to include into your calculations the point at which CO2 fertilisation ceases to be of benefit to plants, in the absence of other essential resources. And as far as I see it that is THE essential point of contention here: You contend that there is no upper bound to CO2 fertilisation, and the rest of us contend that unless you can show that CO2 is the only limiting plant nutrient, added growth from added CO2 must necessarily reach a limitâ.
See my comments at #2, as clearly CO2 is NOT the only limiting plant nutrient, but with pro rata increases in N2O and H2O added growth from added CO2 does NOT necessarily reach a Malthusian limit. That is why Malthus has been wrong for over 210 years, as my Seminar of 29 April showed very clearly.
This is becoming surreal. Timmy, can you do algebra?
You claim that B* becomes negative by certain dates. B* can never become negative. It tends to zero from the positive side - you quoted Wigley to exactly that. For increasing CO2, there are no negative terms in the equation. B* CAN NOT ASSUME NEGATIVE VALUES in this analysis, timmy!!!!
Do you even know what B* is? Bernard keeps asking you to tell us, and you refuse to do so.
"Using Wigleyâs (2003 et seq.) 1% pa growth of [CO2] from now to 2100, we achieve 961 ppmv by 2100,"
What?!?! No, timmy. Just... no. Wigley uses the IPCC 1990 scenarios a-f. He does not use a fixed 1% per annum. We covered that way, way above, you were wrong then, you are wrong now. There is no Ct in Wigley, and I think you're just squirming and presenting algebraic gibberish to avoid admitting that you don't know what the hell you are doing.
Timmy, you keep claiming that Wigley shows that NPP stops increasing sometime in this century. You are wrong. There are several ways to show it, but I'll go to basics.
Wigley uses r in a range of 1.1 - 1.4 r (forgive me, Bernard: I'd like timmy to define it for us, too, but I can't do this without defining r)...
r is the fertilization effect, defined as the growth in NPP for an increase in [CO2] from 340 to 680 ppmv. He uses a range of between 1.1x and 1.4x.
Equation A2, the hyperbolic equation, does not use r. It uses b. b is related to r by equation A5, and for r = 1.2, b = 0.0069.
There are two forms of the hyperbolic equation A2, an absolute and a relative form. Using the absolute form, with b - 0.0069, Cb = 31, and C = 380, Wigley's A2 calculates a present-day NPP of 101.7. I won't derive the units, timmy - I'd like to see you respond to Bernard's request to show us that you actually know what each parameter is in Appendix A, and giving the units would give this away. Lets just call it a present-day NPP of 101.7 'units'.
What happens if we increase [CO2], ising Wigley's analysis in Appendix A?
For [CO2] = 1000 ppmv, we get NPP = 126 'units.'
For ]CO2] = 2000 ppmv, we get NPP = 135 'units.'
That is, using Wigley's analyusis in Appendix A, NPP continues increasing substantially, for levels of [CO2] way beyond what he analyzes through the year 2100.
When you say that Wigley's hyperbolic 'Michaelis-Menten' function causes NPP growth to cease, you are simply wrong. The opposite of correct. Not right. Untrue.
And it takes only the simple application of algebra to Wigley's equations A2, A5, and A7 to get the right answer. So I ask again, timmy - can you do algebra?
Astonishing...
Thanks for [your reply](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) Tim,
I don't think that Thomas Malthus, who was concerned exclusively with demography and political economy, had a single thing to say about the behaviour of biological systems. The Law of Diminishing Returns applies to biological systems in every case and with a vengeance when a single resource becomes increasingly available in the absence of a corresponding increase in other essential ones. This applies to every single living being.
Let me give you an example. Among the necessary resources for your survival are food, water, rest, oxygen, and a comfortable environment. You may survive but will not thrive if any of these is in short supply. You will be healthier if you eat enough, but eat more than you need and you will not do better. Neither will you if you have more food available than it takes to optimally cover your needs. The presence of either of the resources you require in larger supply will not give you any benefit.
If instead you look at a population, as we should be, say a pioneering village in a remote location, you will see a similar thing. They have X, Y and Z amounts of food water and shelter. The population will grow given there are adequate resources. But the availability of more than adequate water will not help increase the population if they cannot procure extra food and shelter to match.
I hope I'm making sense. Where we have managed to thwart Malthus is in developing technologies to overcome our obstacles. We have fount better ways of making water potable. We have found ways of increasing crop yields. We have better building technologies than our forebears. We have discovered new resources we can exploit to do all this, such as plentiful coal and oil.
But when you say that these rules do not apply to a natural system because economically we have managed to thwart Malthus... well, at least to me it makes no sense. I hope my simile above helps explain why.
I should politely remind you that essential plant nutrients are more than carbon and nitrate, as I wrote in my previous post. Natural growth of ANY species is constrained by the single resource that is most limiting. As a marine biologist I should remind you that 67% of the world is ocean, and in the world's oceans it is iron that is the limiting resource.
Finally, I think you have at least partly confused the decreasing ability to uptake CO2, that is, the amount absorbed becomes less and less, with an ACTUAL decrease in CO2 concentration. You keep talking about the evils of falling CO2, yet we have done perfectly well in the range of 280+ ppm, considerably lower than at present, for quite some time, and nothing seems to show that 280ppm of CO2 is anywhere near limiting to plant growth. Again going back to the sea, I have observed first hand marine ecosystems in the Southern Ocean, during the spring diatom bloom, where CO2 has been drawn down to less than 90ppm by biological activity. Even at this level, and with an abundance of nitrate, phosphate, and most essential elements, the low CO2 does not impact NPP because the limiting resources are iron and silicate.
Show me a biological system that can behave as you describe, and I may be less skeptical.
[Timmy said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
This ridiculous statement shows Curtin knows as little about agriculture as he does about climate science.
GM has not increased yields in comparison to traditional breeding and has mostly caused a reduction in the rate of yield increase.
See [Failure to Yield](http://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/fail…):
Also try reading up on the disaster BT cotton has produced in India.
Curtin, your big business buddies are trying to destroy the world as we know it. If you are as intelligent as you think you are you should be using your "expertise" to show up these fraudsters (climate and agricultural fraudsters that is).
Many thanks Lee, I fear I did mislead you, as I unwittingly used Wigley Eq A5 in my last, and I apologise profusely that I had forgotten to bring A7 into my spreadsheet. Please forgive me, but I plead only that for the last 3 weeks sundry house guests have restricted my concentration on this Blog.
My blunder is very annoying for me also as I had noted before that A5 is not a real equation, having no variables at all, with r just a pre-determined âfertilization feedback parameterâ that has little or no empirical justification, and none at all from A5.
However you could also be in error when you say âThere are two forms of the hyperbolic equation A2, an absolute and a relative formâ. Whichever, Wigley states that A2 âleads to zero NPP at C=Cb, and has a limiting value as C tends to infinity of Ninf = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb))).
What was No at Wigleyâs âpre-industrial levelsâ? Neither you nor Wigley lets us in on this Masonic number.
And why can neither Wigley nor you let us in on the secret of what is âthe enhancement in NPP that occurs for a PCO2 increase from 340 ppmv to 680 ppmvâ?
Wigleyâs r = N(680)/N(340) is of course a meaningless exercise as there is an infinite number of N(680) and N(340) that would yield his r. Why can he not say what the Ns are?
Using Wigleyâs A7 to get his β*, it falls from 0.458839 in 1900 to 0.327342 in 2100, when Cb is a given at 31 ppmv. That is actually a large fall, of nearly 29% between 1900 and 2100. What is the justification? Again, Wigleyâs paper is devoid of supporting observational data, because on the contrary, as Knorr (GRL, 2009) has shown, there has been no such fall since 1850 .
And Lee, you are totally wrong when you say âthere is no Ct in Wigleyâ, as his paper throughout uses C to mean the level of [CO2] in any given year. I added the t to differentiate his C from his Co and Cb.
Lee, at the end of the day, the problem with Wigleyâs in many ways very clever but, alas, mendacious paper, is the lack of ANY empirical evidence to justify his adoption of the M-M hyperbolic function in his MAGICC in preference to the Keeling and Bacastow (1973) logarithmic version (which in effect goes back to Arrhenius 1896).
Also, Lee, you said: âEquation A2, the hyperbolic equation, does not use r. It uses b. b is related to r by equation A5, and for r = 1.2, b = 0.0069â. That is not true, because A7 unlike A5 has variables, notably C (or Ct in my terminology), so there is no invariant relationship between r and b. Anyway, I cannot find one.
Thanks again for your most helpful comments, I apologise again for my own errors, and thank you for spotting them.
Sigh.
First, read between timmy's lines, and find his admission that when he claimed 'Wigley's Michaelis-Menten" causes increase in NPP to fall to zero in '2117', or in any other year, or at any finite [CO2] - that timmy's claim is false. The opposite of true.
This is THE key claim underlying Timmy's thesis. It is wrong. Timmy refuses to back down on his thesis - in fact, he announces that he was wrong on the facts, and still proclaims his thesis. Gee.
Timmy continues to argue that Wigley would have appropriately used a logarithmic model for NPP, and the results would have been appropriate. The fact is, timmy, that through the range under consideration in Wigley 1993, there simply is not substantial difference between the logarithmic and the hyperbolic formula. There are modest differences at the upper end of the range, as [CO2] approaches 1000 ppmv, and Wigley uses a hyperbolic formula because he is attempting to model the 'missing sink' as accurately as possible.
Timmy, your entire thesis rests on the idea that including an MM model for NPP reduces forecast growth in NPP to zero or close to in this coming century or soon after. You are simply wrong. It does nothing of the sort. You make other errors, but this one alone is fatal to your argument. No wonder you're squirming.
I will give you the benefit of doubt, Timmy, and assume you were confused in making that claim. Now, you know.
NPP is NOT forecast by Wigley or by MM to stop increasing in this century, or next, or thereafter, as [CO2] increases.
NPP is NOT forecast by Wigley or by MM to stop increasing at C=1000, or C=2000, or C=5000, or thereafter, as [CO2] increases.
If you continue to make that claim, it would become appropriate for us to describe your doing so, using the same derogatory and defamatory terms you have cast so freely at Wigley [et al] in this thread and your presentation. We might almost describe you, as you do @746 re Wigley, as 'mendacious."
Timmy, stop making claims that require you to assume something you now know to be not true.
---
Further, timmy continues to proclaim absurdities that let us know he STILL simply does not understand what Wigley 1993 is doing - or understand elementary algebra, for that matter.
"Lee, I fear I did mislead you, as I unwittingly used Wigley Eq A5 in my last, and I apologise profusely that I had forgotten to bring A7 into my spreadsheet."
What- ever, timmy. A5 is an identity, relating b to r. It is trivially derived from A2.
It ALSO can never assume negative values. How on earth do you get a claim of negative values for anything, much less for B* as you so loudly proclaimed a@740. If you have any hint of understanding of what B* is, how could you possible think it might assume negative values?
It is clear that you simply do not understand what these parameters are - so, would you please address Bernard's repeated request that you tell us what each parameter is, in Appendix A?
Timmy:
"What was No at Wigleyâs âpre-industrial levelsâ? Neither you nor Wigley lets us in on this Masonic number."
@743, I calculated N for r=1.2, and [CO2] of 380, 1000, and 2000 ppmv, using A2, A5, and A7. I did it by hand - it took about 5 minutes, including checking my results. Wigley tells us that No (preindustrial) is 278 in his analysis. Calculate it, timmy. Derive the units - which I will not do for you; I'd prefer that your glaring incompetence on this remain starkly apparent. The answer you want is there - you are simply incompetent to discover it.
Timmy:
"And why can neither Wigley nor you let us in on the secret of what is âthe enhancement in NPP that occurs for a PCO2 increase from 340 ppmv to 680 ppmvâ?"
He uses range of 1.1 - 1.4 x the NPP at 340 ppmv. He cites an authority for that range. No secret, timmy. He spends a couple paragraphs discussing this.
Timmy:
"A7 unlike A5 has variables, notably C (or Ct in my terminology), so there is no invariant relationship between r and b. Anyway, I cannot find one. "
If you cant find an invariant relationship, you need to go review your first two weeks of elementary school algebra, timmy. b, in Ea 7, is a constant for any given r. C varies, and the result is a value of B*. This is trivial, timmy. Are you really this incompetent, or just hoping you can get away with it?
Timmy:
"Using Wigleyâs A7 to get his β*, it falls from 0.458839 in 1900 to 0.327342 in 2100, when Cb is a given at 31 ppmv. That is actually a large fall, of nearly 29% between 1900 and 2100."
Why yes, timmy, it does. Please tell us what B* is. What is falling, in A7? It isn't NPP - that continue to rise, quite substantially, as B* is falling through that range.
It becomes clear, timmy, that what you are doing now is casting about for some value in Appendix A that declines through the period and the range of [CO2] under consideration, and offering that decline as if it is some kind of supporting argument for your position - without bothering to tell us what it is that actually is declining.
> Lee, you are totally wrong when you say âthere is no Ct in Wigleyâ, as his paper throughout uses C to mean the level of [CO2] in any given year. I added the t to differentiate his C from his Co and Cb.
Shorter TC: your accurate statement is totally wrong because of my misrepresentation.
Correction:
I said:
"Wigley tells us that No (preindustrial) is 278 in his analysis.""
I meant, of course, that Co was 278, not No. No is what timmy claims is not revealed, but that timmy could calculate by hand in about 2 minutes, if he so chose.
Lee at 747: âNPP is NOT forecast by Wigley or by MM to stop increasing in this century, or next, or thereafter, as [CO2] increasesâ.
Wigley 1993(421): Wigley states that his âEquation A2 behaves more realistically [than the logarithmic A1] in that it leads to zero NPP at C=Cb, and has a limiting value as C tends to infinity of Ninf = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb)))â¦(A3).â
Now Lee, I know I have to bow low to your so much superior algebra than mine, but if I use Wigleyâs Eq.3 and his stated values for Co=278 and Cb = 31, while his b for his r = 1.1 = 0.0154 (from Wiggleâs A5), then WHATEVER value you assign for NPP in say 1750, e.g. 100, you derive NPP in 100 of 27.28, and NPP of just 46.7% of that in 2100 (allowing Ct to grow at its observed rates from 1900 to 2009, and at the 1958-2009 rate of 0.41% p.a. from now until 2100). Try it, and do report back please.
Thus, unless I have again erred, it seems to me that Wigleyâs Equations A2-7 achieve what he desired, namely REDUCING NPP by using hyperbolic M-M, rather than the increasing NPP that results from the more normal logarithmic function. That means, IF my algebra is correct, you are wrong to have claimed as in your #747 that "NPP is NOT forecast by Wigley or by MM to stop increasing in this century, or next, or thereafter, as [CO2] increasesâ.
Drat: "100" in this "...derive NPP in 100 of 27.28, and NPP of just 46.7% of that in 2100.." should read "in 1900 of 27.28...". Apologies.
Timmy, you keep quoting this:
"Wigley 1993(421): Wigley states that his âEquation A2 behaves more realistically [than the logarithmic A1] in that it leads to zero NPP at C=Cb, and has a limiting value as C tends to infinity of Ninf = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb)))â¦(A3).â"
It does not say what you think it says.
This part, "it leads to zero NPP at C=Cb" mans that at very low, but non-zero, [CO2], NPP falls to zero. Wigley uses 31 ppmv, citing authorities, but tells us that the analysis is not sensitive to the value of Cb. This is an improvement on the logarithmic form. In any case, it is irrelevant to your argument - you're making claims about what the MM function forecasts at higher and increasing [CO2].
This part:
"has a limiting value as C tends to infinity of Ninf = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb)))â¦(A3)" gives us the Vmax for a given No and b (using Cb = 31, a constant). This is Eq A3. It is the horizontal asymptote, the value that NPP converges to at very high [CO2], as [CO2] increases. NPP converges from lower values - there is no place on the MM curve, as given in Eq 2, where it has a negative slope - no place where increasing [CO2] leads to lower NPP.
None, Never, Nada.
Graph it, timmy. It is Eq A2, the rectangular hyperbolic Michaelis-Menten function. There is no interval with negative slope. Hell, if you have even the slightest competence to be making your (untrue) claims, you do not have to graph it. This is a fundamental property of MM functions.
Timmy says:
"I use Wigleyâs Eq.3..."
What?!?!?! Just... no. No, timmy. What on earth are you doing with Eq A3? That equation calculates the Vmax, timmy. Vmax is the NPP at fully saturated [CO2], the level from which any additional [CO2] will not cause an increase in NPP. This is at VERY high [CO2]. Because the function is asymptotic, it is formally the NPP at infinite partial pressure of [CO2]. Practically, for these values of r = b, it is the NPP at levels much higher than 10,000 ppmv. It is a single value for any given r = b. It is irrelevant to the NPP for any given [CO2]. And I'm not quite sure how you could have tortured it to give you ANY result for any particular [CO2], much less the values you derive.
The Michaelis Menten formula, the one YOU are saying is flawed, the one YOU want to say leads to negative growth in NPP and which can not do so, because there is no interval in which the slope is negative - is Equation A2. Why do you keep refusing to simply plug sequentially higher [CO2] values into Eq 2, and see what happens? Or to graph it?
Why do you keep distracting us, first calculating incorrect values for r, and then showing a negative slope for B*, and then using Eq A3 which is not applicable, when all you have to do is graph Eq A2?
Why, timmy?
I'll echo Bernard again, timmy. Tell us what each parameter in Appendix 2 is - because it is stunningly clear now that you simply do not know, and that is fatal to your understanding and to your argument.
I'll help you out, timmy. Here are some key values for [CO2] in Wigley, and their forecast NPP (using the first form of Eq A2, r = 1.2, and 'units' as explained above).
[CO2] = 31, NPP = 0. This is Cb.
[CO2] - 278, NPP = 91.5. This is 'preindustrial.'
[CO2] = 380, NPP = 101.7. This is present-day NPP. Note that NPP has grown by 10 units, about 12%. This is the 'missing sink' for carbon emissions through now, if all of the missing sink is attributed to increases in NPP.
[CO2] = 680, NPP = 118. This is the 'most likely' 2100 value for [CO2] in Wigley's Figures 6 and 7, as discussed above, timmy. Note that NPP continues to grow - at this [CO2] 'Wigley's Michaelis-Menten' forecasts NPP to be ~ 129% of pre-industrial levels, and ~ 116% of today's NPP.
[CO2] = 1000, NPP = 126. This is the upper end of the [CO2] range in Wigley's analysis. Note that NPP is higher still than at [CO2] = 680.
[CO2] = 2000, NPP = 135. Note that this is higher still than at 1000 ppmv.
[CO2] = 5000, NPP = 140. Still increasing, timmy. The slope is flattening enough that it now matters, when comparing to a logarithmic function, but the slope is still positive, and growth in NPP is still substantial. At an input value of 5000 ppmv CO2, way, way, way higher than the range under discussion, NPP is still increasing substantially with increasing [CO2]. Not negative, timmy. Not now, not at any [CO2].
[CO2] = inf, NPP = 145. This is Vmax, the NPP at saturating, asymptotic [CO2] values. The horizontal asymptote - the slope is not negative. Ever.
Timmy says:
"Thus, unless I have again erred, it seems to me that Wigleyâs Equations A2-7 achieve what he desired, namely REDUCING NPP by using hyperbolic M-M, rather than the increasing NPP that results from the more normal logarithmic function."
Yes timmy, you have erred. You are wrong. Do the damn calculations - they are so trivially easy I didn't bother to create a spreadsheet, I simply calculated them by hand. Hell, you don't even need to calculate them now - I've given you enough representative coordinate pairs that you could graph it by hand with about 30 seconds and a simple piece of graph paper.
The MM function DOES NOT, EVER, IN ANY PART OF ITS RANGE, give declining NPP for increasing [CO2]. It does not, timmy, It can not - this is a fundamental characteristic of the Michaelis-Menten function.
Further, throughout the range of preindustrial [CO2], through reasonable century-end [CO2] levels of 1000 ppmv or lower, the MM function gives forecast NPP values that are not substantially different from those obtained by using the hyperbolci functin. Do I need to do the basic maths on that for you too, timmy? Too bad - I can't be arsed to do something so trivial for someone who is so clearly and utterly incompetent to understand it, Ive already done your work on the MM function - and you could do it your self by hand in 5 minutes. Nevertheless, it is true, and it is trivial for you to demonstrate this to yourself.
If you now continue claiming that the MM function is 'fraudulent,' that it predicts declining NPP with increasing [CO2], that it predicts anything substantially different than your own favored logarithmic function - for you to continue making those claims now, timmy would be fraudulent. You need to withdraw your abstract, as quoted at the top of this comments thread, and you need to withdraw your presentation, which is fundamentally dependent on these incorrect - that is, the opposite of true - claims.
Thanks for the lengthy breakdown Lee,
I think at the root of the problem, Tim, is that you still seem to be confusing the reduction in uptake capacity with a reduction in total capacity..
Lee & MFS: Yes of course, but Appendix A does not say what you say, that N in Equations A1-3 stands for Change in NPP with respect to [CO2], whereas my Seminar always did and shows the hyperbolic asymptote for NPP in several of my slides (19,21,22) as further explained in slides 8,9,28,30.
In none of my slides do I suggest falling NPP, in all I mention only falling dNPP.
It is Wigley's careless notation in A1-3 that is at fault, and since he says his N in A3 is absolute NPP, and when plotted against Ct it is found to be constantly declining, so be it.
Lee, why don't you write Wriglet and get him to amend his paper?
For myself, I stand by my seminar paper, it needs no correction.
Oh good god... again!
Timmy:
"but Appendix A does not say what you say, that N in Equations A1-3 stands for Change in NPP with respect to [CO2], "
I have never said anything but that N (for Eqs A1 - A7 n Wigley 1993) stands for Net Primary Production, or NPP, timmy. Please don't project your own misunderstandings onto me.
Timmy:
"It is Wigley's careless notation in A1-3 that is at fault, and since he says his N in A3 is absolute NPP, and when plotted against Ct it is found to be constantly declining, so be it."
There is nothing careless about his notation, timmy. You are simply inventing things that are not there. Eq A3 does not have N as a variable, it has Ninf - which is Vmax, not N. It does not have variable Carbon, either as his notation C, or as your invented notation Ct. It can not be used to show N "plotted against Ct" because there is no N and no Ct in equation A3. He does not, as you claim, refer to N at Eq A3 as "absolute NPP," - he ca'nt, because there is no N to refer to in Eq A3.
Eq 3 is NOT the Michaelis Menten formula, nor is it a version of it. Eq 3 is the equation of the horizontal asymptote of the MM function. Plotting it results in a straight horizontal line at Vmax (Ninf). I don't know what the hell you are doing with Eq A3, timmy - but if it gives you any other plot than a horizontal line at Vmax, it isn't correct.
Timmy:
"my Seminar always did and shows the hyperbolic asymptote for NPP in several of my slides (19,21,22) as further explained in slides 8,9,28,30.
In none of my slides do I suggest falling NPP, in all I mention only falling dNPP.'
You are correct - it is throughout this thread that you falsely and repeatedly refer to falling NPP with rising [CO2].
What you do say, in your presentation in several places, and here over and over, is that the MM function in the various models causes dU (in your notation) to either already be at or soon become 0, and that this is responsible for the high (gt 700 ppmv) [CO2] forecasts for year 2100. It is the central claim of your presentation, it is the core of your abstract, you repeat it at slide 8, your graphs (carefully presented with no dates on the time axis, or graphed vs emissions and not [CO2], with no indication where we presently are on that curve, or what the future time scale is) - your graphs emphasize the point, while carefully avoiding quantitative detail.
Upthread, I and other pushed you thru many, many fruitless exchanges to give us a cite showing the actual numbers, showing that the MM hyperbolic function caused the kind of dramatic enhancement of forecast [CO2] that you claim.
Finally -FINALLY!- you specifically cited Appendix A in Wigley 1993. So I responded by looking to see if Wigley 1993 offers quantitative support for your claims.
It does not.
I have now shown:
- that you simply don't understand your own cite - badly munging simple calculations and misunderstanding equations and variables.
-that dU in the MM forecasts does not fall to zero or anywhere near, not in this century or next or the one after that, and not for many more thousands of ppmv in [CO2],
-that Wigley himself says that over this century, the hyperbolic function is only modestly different from the logarithmic function that you yourself said would be appropriate.
Even further, I've lead you by the hand to the calculation that would compare the hyperbolic and the logarithmic functions and let yo show yourself that they don't make more than a small difference. An intellectually honest man, when told "here is a 10 minute exercise that will show you your error and let you correct it - will immediately do that exercise, and use the result to either defend himself or to retract his claim. You do not - you will not - show us the results of that calculation. Yo do not - yo will not - respond to Bernard's request that you demonstrate by defining them, that you understand the various parameters in Appendix 1 that are key to your claim. Why, timmy?
I've shown that you were wrong on many many other things, but those are sufficient alone to prove that your [co2] claims in your abstract and your presentation are incorrect. You can stand by that presentation if you wish. Yo have accused Wigley and many other good scientists of fraud, over and over - I'd suggest that standing by an obviously false presentation might mean you want to distance yourself from that word and use it much less frequently than you do.
[Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Permit me to remind you of just one of your posts, namely, #705 above:
See, to me "by 2100 if not before, NPP with respect to rising [CO2] will be zero" means that net primary productivity will be zero irrespective of further rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
And, to me, "by his formulae no later than 2117, no future living matter will be able to extract from [CO2] what is necessary for life" very much means that you are claiming that near the Michaelis-Menten asymptote there is no net primary productivity.
Oh, and I think that in your head you still use "[CO2]" to mean "atmospheric CO2", because "by his formulae no later than 2117, no future living matter will be able to extract from CO2 concentration what is necessary for life" makes no sense.
And let's go back to first principles for a moment.
If human carbon emissions were to cease today, what do you believe would happen to net planetary primary productivity over the next 1000 years, compared with productivity today, and 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and 1 million years ago? What would happen to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the next 1000 years if human carbon emissions were to cease today?
In answering these questions, please inform us what you believe the values would be if the human population were to increase to 9 billion individuals over the next 50 years - how would this alter the carbon budget? And if humans somehow stopped increasing their population today, how would this affect the carbon budget?
Exactly why do you believe that the gigatons of carbon buried for hundreds of millions of years is suddenly required to add a few billion humans to the planet, when those humans are co-opting the carbon embodied by other species that are being ousted anyway?
response in moderation
TC said:
> "...by 2100 if not before, NPP with respect to rising [CO2] will be zero..."
And FWIW, if TC meant that "the change in NPP with respect to [CO2] increases would be zero" (which we could perhaps fudge as d(NPP)/d([CO2]) = 0, not having time right now to figure out how to make HTML display the partial differentiation symbol)...
...then it seems to me (assuming I've correctly understood that the formula in question approaches an asymptote) that TC fails the very basic mathematical understanding of the characteristics of curves that approach an asymptote.
Which makes one wonder how the heck he did any work in economics that wasn't immediately laughed out of the room by 1st year undergrads, who learn about asymptotes...or if that wasn't the case whether it was a deliberate decision to leave his basic competence behind when addressing climate science.
Bernard: re your 755: just do your own plots of Wigleyâs Eq. A3, using
Ninf = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb)))â¦(A3)
With No = 500, b = .0154 (from A5 for r = 1.1), Co = 278, Cb = 31, and Ct starting at 278 in 1990 projected to 2100 by actuals to 2009 and at 0.41% p.a. from 2010, then NPP by 2100 is 35.94, less than 10% of the initial value of 500. If that is not starvation, what would be?
Likewise, if No=100, then Nt by 2100 is 7.99. Do choose your own NPP (No) and see what you get.
Using only Wigleyâs Eq. A1-5 for NPP with his parameters and starting data for C, mass starvation by 2100 is the only outcome, and it is little better even if as Lee believes, N is really dN, for then it is dN that falls from 27.29 in 1900 (with No=100) to 7.99 in 2100 despite [CO2] rising from 278 ppm in 1900 to 960 ppm in 2100 (using the Wigley & Solomon 1% pa growth rate from 2009).
If instead we use the 1958-2009 growth rate of 0.41% pa from 2009, the situation is better, with dN as high as 13.2 in 2100, but still only half its level in 1900 â and down to 6 by 2300.
Now it is an interesting and incontrovertible corollary of this that Wigleyâs âcarbon feedbackâ on NPP implies that the higher is [CO2], the lower is dN. He offers no evidence for this effect either in 1993 or since, and there is none, see Curtin 2009 and Knorr 2009.
To substantiate my starvation prediction even if Lee is right that Wigleyâs N is really dN, assume that No is 100 so that total N in 1900 is 127 (letâs say billions of whatever unit we measure N in), then world NPP per capita in 1900 was 79, and rises to a peak of 561 in 1950 (using only Wigleyâs A3 and data, with world population data from Maddison 2003). But it is thereafter downhill all the way as with declining dN, total NPP fails to keep pace with population growth, such that by 2100 NPP per capita is down to 418, and it keeps getting worse despite the projected slowdown of population growth this century.
So it could be only 327 for a population of 10.3 billion in 2050 â and by 2100 only 240 for 17 billion people, its lowest since 1920.
Yet as my Seminar showed, NPP of just cereals has increased much faster than population growth since 1961, allowing per capita cereals consumption to increase by 25% between 1961 and 2007 (see my Slide #40). Methinks Wriggles is the one offering only garbage despite your and Leeâs best efforts to defend him.
Drat again - last sentence of last but two paras. should read "But it is thereafter downhill all the way as with declining dN, total NPP fails to keep pace with population growth, such that by 2000 NPP per capita is down to 418, and it keeps getting worse despite the projected slowdown of population growth this century"....
Tim,
Your seminar is worded more accurately than your comments here, and I have to acknowledge that in it you make the distinction between uptake increases and total increases, though your comments above are less careful making that distinction.
I'd like to draw your attention to the slide where you present Norby and Luo's (2004, wrongly dated 2006) adaptation of the graph by Long (1991) showing the modelled (yes, not real life observations here) prediction of light saturation rates for different CO2 concentrations and light curves.
You don't seem to make the necessary link between higher photosynthetic capacity and higher overall biomass in natural ecosystems. However this is not the root of the problem as I see it.
Even if you made this link, you still have not shown that the capacity of natural systems to continue increasing their uptake of CO2 is unlimited. You make a case that increased CO2 leads to a concurrent increase in useable N, yet neglect any other plant nutrient here. Does phosphate follow the same effect? What happens to plants if they have increased availability of nitrate and carbon, but limiting phosphate. Do you think NPP will respond the same?
The root of the argument seems to be whether increased CO2 alone (but with its concurrent increases in temperature and possibly NO3-) is capable of increasing worldwide NPP in an open-ended way, as you claim, or whether other, constant parameters need to be factored in, limiting the total uptake capacity and CO2 fertilisation effect. These are parameters like light availability, and diverse nutrients necessary for plant growth.
You have shown us some examples from food crops and sugar maples. However in order to make your argument above, what you'd need to show is that, in a natural system (not a tended crop, which is artificially fertilised and often watered), the CO2 fertilisation effect follows a linear trend directly proportional to the CO2 level. You'd need to show that as you add more CO2, dry biomass continues to increase linearly and does not taper off. What you have shown us are graphs showing us that CO2 fertilisation increases biomass, a fact that nobody is disputing, but not that it does so in a linear, open-ended manner.
[Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
One of Tim Curtin's little ineptitudes is that he uses the calculus 'd' when he means 'Î'.
The form dx/dy indicates the instantaneous rate of change in y for any value of x, and such a definition certainly doesn't apply to Curtin's usages in the context of carbon flows, where rates are calculated on an annual basis, and not on an instantaneous basis. As an example, [at #629](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) Curtin said:
There are a number of reasons why emissions and uptakes, as Curtin has referred to them, are not connected at an instantaneous level, but if he thinks that they are I'd be happy to see his proof.
MFS,
You are wasting your time. Tim thinks its perfectly OK to extrapolate biomass from ecosystems on the basis of a few controlled experiments in greenhouses or laboratories in which plant biomass in response to increased C02 concentrations has been examined. Since Tim's understanding of ecological complexity is IMHO at the level of a grade 5 student, he expunges not only the abiotic processes that you mention, but more importantly critical biotic interactions in the soil and above-ground domains that critically influences terrestrial NPP. Some estimates are that 20% of NPP is consumed by vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores, and in agro-ecosystems this figure is likely to be much higher, given that these sytems are spatially homogeneous and the crops themselves have usually been artificially selected to reduce levels of plant secondary metabolities (= allelochemicals). We know that increases in atmsopheric C02 can lead to dramatic changes in allocations of C to both primary and secondary metabolites, thus resulting in significant differences in plant nutritional quality in high or ambient C02 regimes. What effect this will have on herbivore fitness is anyone's guess, but there is evidence that as nutrient levels decrease in higher C02 regimes that concentrations of allelochemicals will increase, making plants more toxic. Thus, herbivores will have to consume more plant biomass to accrue the same level of nutrition as they did when C02 levels were lower, but in doing so they will ingest more phytotoxins. Plants have evolved all kinds of strategies to avoid being eaten, and in this scenario humans are inadvertently helping them to defend themselves better, whilst disrupting consumer based interactions and, ultimately, the structure and function of food webs and ecosystems in which they are embedded.
As i said above, Tim does not understand any of this, so he ignores it. I expect ridicule about my own research from him (e.g. something witless about parasitic wasps) because that is his only recourse. I have worked on plant-insect interactions for the past 10 years, have published many studies examining the role of primary and secondary chemistry on multitrophic interactions, and can assure you that the effects of rapidly increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02 are not going to create a wonderful green utopia. This is pure and utter fantasy. Theoretical models are only as good or accurate as the parameters that are fitted into them. Models that ignore key ecophysiological processes and mechanisms on NPP are, in my opinion speaking as a scientist, mostly worthless.
MFS, Many thanks for your again very helpful and illuminating comments of 24th and 26th, and I agree with virtually all of them. In the course of a 45 minute seminar I could not cover all angles let alone in the depth needed to address your comments, especially on your distinction between CO2 fertilization of natural vegetation and cultivated crops and on the importance of iron as limiting factor in the oceansâ ability to use increasing CO2.
On the former I would suggest you take a look at the work of Graham Farquhar (he was at my seminar) e.g. â¦
Effects of rising temperatures and [CO2]
on the physiology of tropical forest trees
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.0032
Jon Lloyd1,* and Graham D. Farquhar2
1Earth and Biosphere Institute, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
2Environmental Biology Group, Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia
Using a mixture of observations and climate model outputs and a simple parameterization of leaf-level
photosynthesis incorporating known temperature sensitivities, we find no evidence for tropical forests
currently existing âdangerously closeâ to their optimum temperature range. Our model suggests that
although reductions in photosynthetic rate at leaf temperatures (TL) above 308C may occur, these are
almost entirely accountable for in terms of reductions in stomatal conductance in response to higher leaf-to-
air vapour pressure deficits D.This is as opposed to direct effects ofTL on photosynthetic metabolism.
We also find that increases in photosynthetic rates associated with increases in ambient [CO2] over
forthcoming decades should more than offset any decline in photosynthetic productivity due to higher D
or TL or increased autotrophic respiration rates as a consequence of higher tissue temperatures. We also
find little direct evidence that tropical forests should not be able to respond to increases in [CO2] and
argue that the magnitude and pattern of increases in forest dynamics across Amazonia observed over the
last few decades are consistent with a [CO2]-induced stimulation of tree growth.
It follows from this Abstract that reducing pCO2 to equivalent 350 ppmv could have serious implications, given the evident increases in even Amazonian biomass as [CO2] has increased to todayâs 389 ppmv.
I hope you can access this amazing paper, because it also answers the question you posed to me today when you said:
âHowever in order to make your argument above, what you'd need to show is that, in a natural system (not a tended crop, which is artificially fertilised and often watered), the CO2 fertilisation effect follows a linear trend directly proportional to the CO2 level. You'd need to show that as you add more CO2, dry biomass continues to increase linearly and does not taper offâ.
Fig.3 in Lloyd & Farquhar shows how rising pCO2 works linearly to 550 ppm, and only after that with M-M, to maximize the CO2 assimilation rate despite rising Temp.
Wigley does not rate a mention, but John Maynard Keynes does, probably a first for him in Proc. Roy Soc., and a joy for me as I lectured on Keynesian economics in 1961 and 1964-66 at then UCRN in what is now Zimbabwe.
Another quote from L & F that bears on your
comments: âMoreover, numerous mechanisms exist that allow extra phosphorus to be taken up from the soil solution to support increased growth in response to higher [CO2] (Lloyd et al. 2001).â
From other work by GDF I have learnt much on the important role of pCO2 in all photosynthesis, whether in tropical forest, other natural vegetation, or in crops.
Re the oceans, I am not a marine biologist, but know enough statistics to see the bull**** in recent work by Glen Deâath, and sadly, Janice Lough, on the âdeathâ of the GBR (in Science 2009). From memory I donât recall that paper mentioning oceanic iron or lack of it! (Iâve checked, it does not).
Tim says, *Re the oceans, I am not a marine biologist*
No kidding! You had me fooled!!!!!!
Tim, you are cherry picking. You pick one or two studies that suit your narrative, ignore many others that categorically do not, and bingo, you think you have proof positive for the benefits of higher C02 levels on terrestrial NPP.
This is not how scientific discourse is conducted. Why are the one or two studies that you cite 'correct' whereas many others are not? Lomborg does the same thing in TSE. The worst thing is that you are not in a position to be able to gauge the accuracy of articles leaning one way or the other. So why do you ignore research that does not fit in with your views whereas any that does you highlight?
As I have said before, the answer should be obvious to anyone who has read this thread and your 'other' one on Deltoid.
Aother from the [Curtin Vault of Innumerate Gems](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
"[I]t" would be a mistake, I would say.
First, I must point out that atmospheric CO2 concentration was 354 ppm in 1990, and not 278 ppm.
From this, I am not sure what figure your "actuals to 2009" would give, and thus I cannot ascertain what your extrapolation at 0.41% p.a. to 2100 would be. However, no matter what approximately real world values I enter for any value for Ct, I obtained a larger value for Nt.
For example, using the values:
C0 = 278,
Cb = 31,
r = 1.1 (b = 0.0154),
N0 = 100,
I obtain
Nâ = 126.27
For
Ct = 390, I obtain Nt = 106.94,
Ct = 450, I obtain Nt = 109.33,
Ct = 600, I obtain Nt = 113.34.
It matters not how one chooses to set r (b), N0, and Ct - in my hands Ct+x always comes out larger in value. There is certainly no case where I can derive a net primary productivity a hundred years into the future, that is in the order of 10% of the value that the model indicates for contemporary productivity.
Which is exactly as one would expect with a model that says that net primary productivity increases monotonically with increasing atmospheric CO2, to an asymptotic maximum.
It isn't difficult arithmetic Curtin, but you seem to have screwed it up. And that's even before you have fumbled the real-world meanings and significances of the terms involved.
I suggest that you very carefully and clearly show your definitions and derivations, if you feel that you have a case. Otherwise, you should simply concede that you entered into several disciplines in which you are completely and abjectly unqualified to challenge the professionals, and that you apologise unreservedly for:
Bernard: what do you mean by "Aother" at the beginning of your last? That is the sort of stupid question that sums you up. When I mis-typed 278 in 1990 obviously (from Wigley 1993) I meant 278 in 1900, but you could not grasp that. Grow up.
However, you are right with this:
"For example, using the values:
C0 = 278,
Cb = 31,
r = 1.1 (b = 0.0154),
N0 = 100,
I obtain
Nâ = 126.27" except it's Nt=1900, not Ninf.
but you are wrong wrong with all the rest:
"For
Ct = 390, I obtain Nt = 106.94,
Ct = 450, I obtain Nt = 109.33,
Ct = 600, I obtain Nt = 113.34".
Rubbish, back to the drawing board, or that dreadful Excel! Using Wigley A3 as defining dN (or Delta N if you prefer), you have to add that amount to No + preceding dNs.
Add the word "incremental" to your "Which is exactly as one would expect with a model that says that [INCREMENTAL] net primary productivity increases [actually DECREASES] monotonically with increasing atmospheric CO2, to an asymptotic maximum [actually MINIMUM]."
If you want my Excel sheet, email me.
Why, oh why, do I bother?
[Curtin says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Curtin, take a second look at the quote from you that I based my last post upon:
I see you referring to Net Primary Productivity on multpile occasions, and never to incremental changes thereof.
So what is your point?
Again, so what? It is trivially obvious to anyone that a trajectory monotonically increasing toward an asymptote is doing so in ever decreasing increments, approaching but never (in practice) reaching zero.
In the case of net primary productivity, this translates as indicating that increasing CO2 concentration will not afford a linear response in primary productivity, as any rate limitation - based upon the concentration of CO2 as a reactant - will soon be subsumed by rate limitations based upon other factors. One Carl Sprengel made this point almost 200 years ago; in crop growth as it happens, although it is applicable throughout biology.
And it's exactly what Wigley is saying.
Let's revisit your statement, which I have twice quoted already:
Now, I might be missing something, but to me it looks as though you are referring to (non-incremental) net primary productivity, which you set to an initial value of 500, and which you claim drops to 35.94 by 2100.
As I said, my use of Wigley's equations gives asymptotically increasing values with increasing CO2 concentration, in keeping with the logic of both the model and of the underlying physics upon which the model is based. And yet you - somehow - derive a value where (non-incremental) net primary productivity is reduced to less than 10% of the starting value, even though the overall concentration of the independent variable and reactant, CO2 has increased.
Exactly how do you propose that this occurs within the definition of the Michaelis-Menten model?
You can toss a wafflanche of words around to avoid the point, but you have yet to provide any evidence at all that you are performing your arithmetic correctly. And bugger your suggestion of emailing - this is a public discussion, and it would only take a few lines anyway to reproduce your equation syntaxes here.
I for one would much rather figure this out in the bright light of public scrutiny, so that everyone is well aware of who says what, and so that you aren't able to tighten the apparent validity of your vaunted paper with the (unpaid for) work of others.
I'm happy to be shown where my errors are, whether they are of arithmetic, of syntax, or of underlying physical and biological principles. Time and again you fail to do so, however, and I doubt that you would be able to prove Wigley, his thousands of professional colleagues, Lee, MFS, and even my humble self wrong, where you have not yet done so.
And to make your case you would need to prove so very many tenets of science wrong.
Best start now - you have a lot of ground to make up.
Timmy is misusing Eq A3. He finally gave me enough detail of what he is doing, that I can see it.
A3 is the equation of the asymptote of a Michaelis-Menten function. It is not the MM function itself. Solving A3 does not give a point on the curve, it gives the asymptote. Timmy has been using Eq3 to generate what he is calling Nt - but which are actually from asymptotes of a family of curves that are NOT the curves under consideration.
Curtin kindly types A3 for us, as:
"Ninf = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb)))â¦(A3)"
In A3, Ninf is Vmax, the asymptote.
No and Co are carbon and NPP -AS AN ORDERED PAIR- at some arbitrary point on the curve. b, of course, represents the fertilization effect r, transformed to the proper value and units for an MM function.
So, the critical inputs to Eq A3 are an ordered pair (Co, No)defining a point on the curve, a 'zero point' Cb, and a value b that determines the shape of the curve.
The output Ninf is the asymptote of the curve, the value to which N trends as C approaches infinity. The asymptote is not, anywhere, a point on the curve.
Somehow, timmy has decided that he can use this equation of the asymptote to determine future points on the curve for N. He tells us above:
"do your own plots of Wigleyâs Eq. A3, using Ninf = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb)))â¦(A3) With No = 500, b = .0154 (from A5 for r = 1.1), Co = 278, Cb = 31, and Ct starting at 278 in 1990 projected to 2100 by actuals to 2009 and at 0.41% p.a. from 2010, then NPP by 2100 is 35.94, less than 10% of the initial value of 500."
Timmy enters the equation with (C,N) = (278, 500). This is NOT A POINT ON THE CURVE!!!. Using b = 0.0069 (r=1.2), and Wigley's '"preindustrial" C = 278, N = 91.5 see @752 for theorigin of these values), I get an asymptote of Ninf - 145. Using r = 1.1 will get a lower value than this for the asymptote. Timmy's No = 500 is some 3.5 times higher than the freaking asymptote - it is nonsense input into Eq A3.
He doesn't tell us what Ninf he gets when he inters A3 with (278, 500)- it is certainly going to be a number way higher than 500, because the equation will return THE FREAKING ASYMPTOTE!!!! for an MM function with b = .0154, and passing through the point C = 278, N = 500. These are values completely and ludicrously irrelevant to Wigley's analysis.
The value MUST be higher than 500, but he apparently never bothered to check. If he had, he would have seen that entering an Nt of 500, returns Ninf, what he is treating as Nt, of much higher than 500. Perhaps the inconsistency would have alerted him to an error - it is far from a sure thing.
Again, Eq 3 gives the asymptote, not a point on the curve. Timmy is treating the results as points on the curve. No wonder he gets nonsense results.
He seems to use some procure to iterate this incompetent procedures, keeping No at 500 while varying C0. Depending on what he is doing, he either is getting a series of asymptotes for a family of curves with b = 0.0154, but passing through various semi-random and irrelevant values of (C,N), or he is getting values of N for semi-random pairs of Ninf and Ct (asymptote and [CO2].
In either case - or even if Ive guessed wrong on his application and he is doing something else random and inappropriate with Eq 3 - these are NOT values of N for a given C, because Eq 3 is NOT THE MICHAELIS-MENTEN EQUATION!!!.
timmy shows us this, when he quotes and then "corrects" Bernard:
---
However, you are right with this:
C0 = 278,
Cb = 31,
r = 1.1 (b = 0.0154),
N0 = 100,
I obtain
Nâ = 126.27" except it's Nt=1900, not Ninf."
-----
No timmy, it is NOT Nt=1900. It is NOT A POINT ON THE CURVE, TIMMY!!!! It is Ninf, the asymptote.
So no, timmy I am not using dU, or dC, or dN or dAnything. Neither is Bernard. He and I are simply plugging values of C into Eq2, the actual Michaelis-Menten equation that Wigley gives adn that returns points on the curve generated by the MM function, and then returning values of N for a given C. We are using Eq 3 only to generate the asymptote, ad Bernard said in the point where you ludicrously "corrected" him.
Again: Eq2 is the MM function. Eq3 returns the value of the asymptote for a given set of inputs b and (C,N) from Eq2. You have been using the wrong equation, timmy.
How many more truly astonishingly fundamental and simple mistakes do you need to make, timmy, before you start to entertain the thought that perhaps, just maybe, you might not know more or be more competent than the entire community of scientists who's work you are dismissing?
Tim Curtin.
Lee has [very kindly explained to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) what I had hoped you might be able to deduce yourself, with some prompting. Read his posts again, and MFS's, and mine, very carefully - between us we have given you a very clear précis of the fundamentals underlying Wigley's paper, and of the correct use of the equations in the appendix.
At some point you are going to have to admit that you were wrong about Wigley and about the relationship between CO2 and net primary productivity, just as you were wrong about pH and salinity, about [avian taxonomy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…) (and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…), and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…)), and about forestry, fisheries, and photosynthetic physiology (see the [entire thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php)). You were wrong when you told me that I was wrong in calculating carbon mass in humans (see [P. Lewis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…) and [sod](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…)).
You are wrong about the dynamics of carbon fixation in a non human-impacted biosphere: a carbon-availability crisis is not about to manifest if we do not release within a period of several centuries the fossil carbon sequestered over hundreds of millions of years. You were wrong about [Arrhenius' Nobel prize](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…). You have been wrong so many times about matters ecological that I won't even bother trying to link to examples - they're dispersed throughout [your other thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php).
Tim Curtin, you are just wrong, wrong, wrong. Time and time again. I shudder to think how many times you've been shown to be wrong - it really would make an interesting exercise in collation to gather all of the examples of such on Deltoid.
However, back to the matter at hand, and to the seed for this thread. You are wrong about Wigley. So, will you now formally withdraw your seminar? Will you withdraw the papers that you have promoted on your website and through vanity periodicals, that rely on your faulty analyses?
If not, why not, and should we then ask the relevant promoting bodies to consider the evidence for your incorrectness, and withdraw the material themselves?
It's about time to pay the piper old man - he's long been playing the durge to accompany the lingering death of your analytical capacities, such as they might ever have been.
Hi Lee and Bernard, thanks for your daily hate mail, I could not live without it, but thanks perhaps to the Famous Grouse, I have a thickish skin - and in forcing me to check my calculations and assumptions you have your uses.
The problem for all of us with Wigley 1993 is his misleading algebraic syntax. You are as wrong about his Eq. A3 as perhaps I have been, but as MFS has acknowledged, I got it right before you did.
His Ninf. is actually dN (or DELTA N), and for No=100, Co=278 in 1900, Cb=31, and b=0.0154 for r=1.1, his "Ninf." in 1900 is 27.2895, which when added to his No=100 (or whatever) produces 127.2895. Plot that for changes in C since 1900, actuals to 2009, and at 0.41% p.a. from 2009 to 2100 and you reach 4144.9 for total N, but dN will have fallen from 27.2895 to 13.197. The total N curve rises ever more slowly without ever quite reaching its asymptote, while the dN curve falls monotonically and inexorably to 6 by 2300. NPP per capita by then may well be half what is was in 1900, and way below what it is now.
Please note again that dN falls continously as C increases at the actual rates I use for 1900-1958, and 1958-2009 (0.41% p.a.)and projected forward at that rate to 2100, so that by 2100 dN has fallen to only 13.197, but total N (i.e. No+ cum. dN) has reached 4144.9 (but if the additions from dN are not cumulative then total N will be only 113.197 in 2100).
Assuming cumulative No + dN, then Eq A3 yields 2 curves, one for dN (wrongly labelled by Wriggle as Ninf) which slopes down inexorably, and one for total N, which slopes up, but at an ever decreasing rate so that total N never quite reaches the asymptote.
My previous spelt out the implications for this in terms of per capita consumption of NPP.
So much for Eq A3.
Now Wigley 1993 is not a wholly bad paper, as it does move beyond IPCC FAR with its assumption of zero terrestrial uplifts to address the question of the IPCC's obviously missing sink, given the evident smaller accretions to [CO2] than emissions of CO2.
Where Wigley shows his adherence to the values of CRU at East Anglia of which he was then the Director is in his determination to downplay the role of the terrestrial sink by finding a way of producing an inexorable decline in it via his "Ninf" (actually dN) in A3.
So let us consider the "sink". In carbon budget terms, NPP or the sink is something which reduces the accretion to the atmosphere from emissions of CO2, to the tune of 56% +/- 1% since 1958. If Wriggle could get dNPP/d[CO2] to decline, then [CO2] could be got to grow faster than 0.41% p.a., and that is what he evidently set out to do.
And so, while in reality rising [CO2] as Lloyd and Farquhar have shown repeatedly, most recently in Proc Roy Soc cited above in my reply to MFS, does not reduce and probably RAISES dNPP, Wriggle's tortuous algebra proves to his satisfaction, and all of the IPCC, that rising [CO2] produces falling dNPP. Naturally when you are a CRU or IPCC climate scientist, observational evidence like that in Lloyd and Farquhar passim counts for nothing.
I eagerly await your next hate mails for the odd nugget of truth that they sometimes have.
> ...NPP per capita by then may well be half what is was in 1900...
...or may well not, given that predictions are for a peak global population of around 9 billion somewhere around the middle of the century (barring catastrophic population reduction events), rather than an ever-growing curve.
(Hmmm, where have I heard an ever-growing curve being inappropriately assumed before?)
Today's nugget of truth...
Tim Curtin, you're either deluded, senile, a mendacious prevaricator, completely incompetent, or a combination of some or all of the preceding.
A well-intended word of advice Curtin:
...you are embarrassing yourself with your perpetual manufacturing of ever more ludicrous nonsense in response to the ongoing deconstruction of your incompetence. You cannot hope to outrun the inevitable consequence of your ridiculous paseudoscience. Admit your errors, or simply slink away and hope that you are soon forgotten, otherwise your name will be all the more tainted and despised for the lengths to which you have pretended to actually have a clue when you patently do not.
This is not hate mail; it is simply a statement of the obvious.
Wake up, old man - you are embarrassing yourself more than you seem to understand.
Curtin:
There is nothing even slightly confusing about Eq A3. You have quoted Wigley's introduction and explanation of A3. This comes immediately after Wigley presents A2, the actual hyperbolic equation relating C and N. I've copied YOUR quote of it, which you have presented several times upthread:
"Wigley states that his âEquation A2 behaves more realistically [than the logarithmic A1] in that it leads to zero NPP at C=Cb, and has a limiting value as C tends to infinity of
Ninf = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb)))â¦(A3).â"
Read that, over and over.
Eq A3 returns Ninf, the "limiting value as C tends to infinity"
The limiting value, the asymptote, is a constant, Timmy.
Nâ means exactly that - the value of N as C approaches infinity. THE value. One single value. The asymptote for N, as C approaches infinity. A horizontal line.
The output of A3 can not decline, it can not increase, it is a horizontal line, BY DEFINITION. It is the value of the asymptote, nothing more. Period.
In Eq A3, there is no dN, or delta N, or derivative of N, or any other variation of N. Ninf does NOT mean dN, or 'delta N,' or any other variation of N.
The [CO2] and NPP inputs to A3 are Co, an arbitrarily chosen historical starting [CO2], and its corresponding No, the NPP at that same point as determined by Eq A2. They form an ordered pair, (Co,No) which is a point on the Michaelis-Menten curve from A2.
Wigley suggests "preindustrial" Co = 278. The corresponding No is taken from Eq A2, for C = 278. As I've shown upthread @752, given b = .0069, and Co = 278, the corresponding value of No is 91.5.
Enter Eq A3 with (Co,No) of (278,91.5), b=.0069, and Cb = 31, and A3 returns a limiting value of 145. Pick any other ordered pair of (C,N) from my results @752, and you will return the SAME DAMN LIMITING VALUE of 145. That is because Eq A3, given b, Cb, and a point on the curve, returns THE ASYMPTOTE!!
There is nothing confusing about this. I was first introduced to the concept of an asymptote at age 15, in high school, in my Analytical Geometry class. We looked at hyperbolic curves in that context - this is bog-simple stuff, timmy.
Given an equation of a curve that approaches a limiting value (A2), derive an equation to determine the limiting value (A3). We returned to it when I studied the Calculus. We returned to it again in the Enzyme Kinetics portion of my Principles of Physiology course in 3rd year University.
You're a freaking economist, timmy. Don't you understand the concept of deriving an equation for the limiting value of a function, given a function that approaches a limiting value? Really?
That is what A3 is , timmy, the equation of the limiting value. For any given MM curve from A2, determined from a particular b and (No,Co), A3 returns a constant.
A CONSTANT, timmy. The limiting value. THE limiting value. The asymptote.
You have been deriving curves using an equation that BY DEFINITION returns a constant, timmy.
That you try to defend this, just illustrates how hopelessly and utterly wrong you are.
Thanks Lee, so Wigley's statement "Equation A2 behaves more realistically [than the logarithmic A1] in that it leads to zero NPP at C=Cb, and has a limiting value as C tends to infinity of Ninf = No(1+1/(b(Co-Cb)))â¦(A3).â" and yours "Read that, over and over. Eq A3 returns Ninf, the 'limiting value as C tends to infinity'" is the total nonsense I surmised at the beginning, since A3 has no expression for changes in C.
Taken as written A3 does indeed return a single value for future Ninf, and that is always LESS than No.
Brilliant! So today's global total NNP (Ninf)is unavoidably LESS than it was in the pre-industrial era, at 54.69 if No is your 91.5 and b is your 0.0069.
Those are your numbers, Lee, stand by them and explain how today's 7 billion are being fed by NNP that is less than it was for 1 billion in 1750.
If you believe that to be the case, pigs have wings!
Curtin.
You manage to be wrong in ways that haven't even been invented yet.
Seriously, walk into the ANY office of any lecturer in university mathematics, physics, statistics - heck, even economics - and ask them to interpret Wigley's appendix for you.
They will all tell you what Lee, and I, have been telling you.
I invite you to prove me wrong.
Timmy says of Eq A3:
"the total nonsense I surmised at the beginning, since A3 has no expression for changes in C. "
Tim. This is simple. A3 has no term for changes in C, because A3 is not concerned with changes in C. A3 is concerned with the limit of N, as C approaches infinity. One more time, A3 is the function that returns the asymptote.
The function that has a term for changes in C, is A2. A2 is the actual, honest-to-god, Michaelis-Menten function. You know, the MM function that you have been saying is flawed, is fraudulent, is inappropriate - but that you have never, it seems, actually ever used to do any calculations. You want an equation that "has [an] expression for changes in C." There it is, timmy, in print, about 5 lines of text above A3, the equation you have been misusing in place of the actual Michaelis-Menten function.
Which, just in case it isn't clear to you yet, is Eq A2. If you want to do a calculation using Michaelis-Menten, timmy, and with a term for changes in C, move your eyes about 1 inch higher on the page and use Eq A2. The equation that Wigley clearly says is Michaelis-Menten. The equation Wigley used, when he got the numbers you can't seem to reproduce. It's right there.
Christ almighty on a flaming pogo stick, timmy, I can't believe this needs to be said. Do I need to say it again?
Eq A2 is the Michaelis Menten formula, timmy. With an actual honest-to-god term for varying C. If yo want to see what happens with the Michaelis Menten function, you need to USE the Michaelis Meenten function. And that, timmy would be Eq A2. Not A3.
---
Timmy says:
"Taken as written A3 does indeed return a single value for future Ninf, and that is always LESS than No. "
No. Good god, no, timmy. Just... no.
This is simple arithmetic. You can't get even that right. Plug and chug, enter terms in an equation and do the arithmetic to get the result. And I just walked you through it, step by step, for the second or third time, @774.
Once again.
Step 1. Convert r, the fertilization factor, to d. Use r = 1.2, enter Eq A5, plug and chug, return d = 0.0069. You seem to be able to manage this step, timmy. Congratulations.
Step 2. Pick a reasonable value of Co. You can use "preindustrial" C = 278, today's C = 380, projected C = 700. It doesn't really matter, as long as the selected C returns a non-zero value for N at the next step. Wigley used Co = 278, so I'll follow that.
Step 3. Use Eq A2 to find No for the selected Co. (Eq A2. You know, the MM function? The one you keep telling us is improper? The one you seem not to have ever actually used?) Enter A2 with d = 0.0069 (from step 1), C = 278 (from step 2) and Cb = 31 (from the text). Plug and chug, simple arithmetic. Eq A2 returns N = 91.5.
Step 4. Stop and think. You know, timmy. Use a neuron. In your case, two neurons. Wigley says that he uses Co = 278. Step 3 tells us that at Co = 278, No = 91.5. This defines a point on the curve generated by the MM function, using these parameters. An ordered pair. (Co,No) = (278,91.5).
Step 5. Use Eq A3 - which wonder of wonders, has terms for Co and No, as well as b and Cb. Eq A3, we are told, returns the limiting value, so use it to return the limiting value. Use (Co,No) = (278,91.5), b = 0.0069, Cb = 31. Plug and chug. Do the arithmetic. Eq A3 returns a value for Ninf of 145.
Step 6. Think, again. (I know this is hard for you, timmy, but I have faith. Recruit a third neuron. You must have a viable one in there somewhere, perhaps hiding behind a dollop of Old Grouse).
Think: No = 91.5. Ninf = 145.
It's risky, I know, given your history timmy. This is complex, perhaps beyond your ability. But I will give you the benefit of doubt, and leave you to figure out if indeed as you claim "Ninf... is always LESS than No" Hint: look at the one-line paragraph immediately preceding this one.
Oh my - I just noticed this.
Timmy says:
"as written A3 does indeed return a single value for future Ninf"
And then:
"So today's global total NNP (Ninf)is unavoidably LESS than it was in the pre-industrial era"
Ninf is the limiting value, the asymptote. All of this, the mathematical mangling, the misuse of the wrong function - and now timmy tells us that Ninf, the limiting value, the asymptote, is "today's global total NNP (Ninf)".
No wonder he misused Eq A3. He doesn't understand what an asymptote is - and he's charging fraudulent misuse of an asymptotic function. Christ.
Good flaiming grief! TC, are you trying to top your previous howlers? Or are you straining to win a "most idiotic claim by an apparently highly educated individual" award?
When you read Wigley's statement "Eq. (A2) ... has a limiting value as C tends to infinity of [Eq. (A3)]", do you seriously contend that (A3) defines (or should define) a time-varying quantity, and/or requires a time-varying C value as input?!!! Go back to 1st year undergrad maths and determine the limit of (A2) as C tends to infinity. Any competent 1st year can manage that in under a minute without introducing your massive clangers.
And when you read (A3) which says N_inf = N_0(1 + (1/(b(C_0-C_b))) and (should) note that C_0 > C_b for the last umpteen million years, you still claim that N_inf is less than N_0? How utterly embarrassing. Many primary school kids could refute that - and yet you *repeat* the claim after it's been clearly refuted.
It's hard to take seriously someone who argues that more is less, and that limiting (i.e. asymptotic) values are actually curve values for a given point in time. Perhaps you are delusional, or losing your faculties, or happy to espouse known falsehoods for ulterior motives. Maybe there's another explanation, but "TC is right on these points" is just not one of them.
> ...explain how today's 7 billion are being fed by NNP that is less than it was for 1 billion in 1750...
Very good question. I'm no biologist, but I suspect if you discard your presumptions and actually attempt to answer the question you may get somewhere.
Is annual global consumed nutritional content (either total, or per capita) necessarily linearly related to NPP, and why or why not? How about you precisely define the term "NPP" for starters...
Lee you are right! "A3 has no term for changes in C, because A3 is not concerned with changes in C. A3 is concerned with the limit of N, as C approaches infinity. One more time, A3 is the function that returns the asymptote." I agree with Bernard re Excel, my Excel's version of A3 left out 2 brackets, and when those are added achieves your Ninf=145, which is larger than No=90.76, but still absurd, when No is NPP in 1750, and N from A2 is only 102.59 in 2010 (for actual Ct 1900-2010), according to Excellian algebra.
Lee, I must apologise again, and would very much like to see your N in 2010 as per A2.
The Crawford School of Economics and Government, within the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, and [which hosted Tim Curtin's 'seminar'](http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/rmap/events/), has [a webpage with the 'Abstract' from his guff](http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/media/more.php?id=723). At the bottom of this webpage is an email link and a 'phone number.
For those so inclined, these offer a first port of call to pursue enquires with the School about their policy of retracting presented work which has subsequently been demonstrated to be based upon flawed analyes and ignorance of the basic science. Presumably the School prides itself on a minimum professional standard of material with which it associates itself, and I am curious to see whether they will address any such association with work that is demonstrably below any informed person's expectation of a minimum level of quality.
I am about to pen an enquiry to this effect, and it might carry more weight if the School received several other such submissions. I don't want them to be flooded with mail in the way that the House of Lords has been with regard to Monckton's fraudulent claim that he is a member, or in the way that the University of St Thomas has been by Monckton's minions demanding censure of Abraham, but it would be handy to have a couple of other blips on the radar so that someone within the School actually takes the time to follow up on Curtin's mistakes as they have been detailed on this thread. Controversial, maverick ideas are one thing, but ill-informed and patently error-ridden ideology is another thing entirely.
If the old man hasn't the sense to correct the record himself, perhaps we can organise to have it done for him. Let's take this into an academic arena and have appropriately-experienced people amongst his own peers review his work, and either provide a formal support of his claims, or an acknowledgement of his errors.
"Lee, I must apologise again, and would very much like to see your N in 2010 as per A2."
There is no term for year or time in Eq A2, timmy. Are you daft?
If you want to know what Eq A2 says for NPP in 2010, simply look up [CO2] for this year, enter it as C in Eq A2, then plug and chug. Your answer will differ depending on what value you use for r, so be sure to use the same r if you compare to other values of N at different C.
But you do it, timmy. I will be damned if I'm going to hop to your request that I do your elementary school arithmetic for you.
I will comment on another continuing error of yours, though, and see if I can preempt and squelch this latest attempt, before you send us on another absurdly incorrect tangent.
The MM function as used in Wigley or any other carbon cycle model where it or similar function is used, does NOT, NOT, NOT model net uptake, or even net terrestrial uptake.
It simply does NOT.
It is one component linking the 'terrestrial biomass' sink in Wigley's model to the atmospheric stores. It models flow of CO2 from the atmosphere into the terrestrial biomass sink - the terrestrial sink model has other processes describing flow through and back out of that sink.
Wigley's Appendix 2 outlines those processes.
Wigley's projections are net of ALL those processes, in and between this and 5 other 'boxes' describing different stores of carbon. The Michaelis Menten function, where you have shown yourself to be so dismally and utterly incompetent and wrong, is only one part of a net exchange between two of those boxes, the atmosphere box and the and terrestrial biomass box.
Also, NPP is NOT agricultural productivity. Agricultural photosynthesis is only one small part of NPP. An order of magnitude increase in agricultural productivity does not necessarily imply any increase AT ALL in NPP. You seem to be confusing those concepts as well.
Stop embarrassing yourself, timmy.
[Tim Curtin]():
Excel doesn't leave out brackets; the user leaves them out. Sometimes Excel is able to catch errors of syntax, but it is not reliably able to do so. It can be a damned pain trying to debug one's own formulations, but any such bugs are nearly always one's own fault.
This is why one should have a basic level of understanding of the nature of the material with which one is using Excel to anaylse. This is why one should graph one's output, and why one should compare it with real world examples. This is why one should use routines whereever necessary, that can check data for consistency, and that can flag problems.
This is why one should construct 'dummy' sets of data, with values known a priori to be consistent with the theory/models being followed. The Denialati derided such practice when it was evidenced in the stolen "Climategate" emails and data, without actually understanding the very valid reasons for the existence of such datasets. It would seem that its utility escapes you too.
One should also very seriously consider the opinions of those who indicate that one is in error, especially when the people who so indicate have at least some competence in the procedures with which one is dabbling, and most especially if one is contradicting the world's foremost experts in their own specialities, where one has no training nor experience of one's own in said specialties.
Over the years I have found real bugs in Excel (such as an incorrect formula in one of the regression options, and a hiccup in using multiple iterations of cells referring to other cells), but in most cases the problems have simply been through mistakes of my own.
My advantage is that I know my material, and can test my outputs and backtrack when inconsistencies appear.
Blaming a spreadsheet is not an excuse for making serious mistakes.
[Tim Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Lee has patiently explained to you how to derive the number. I'll give you a clue to help in doing so...
...the answer, using the input Lee referred to, and assuming [CO2] = 390 ppm, is 103.3878 (to several excessive decimal places).
"Blaming a spreadsheet is not an excuse for making serious mistakes."
Agreed. But the alleged error in his Excel formula, is minor compared to the really stunning thing.
Timmy was taking the equation of the limiting value, clearly labeled as such, clearly derived from the equation of the curve, a derivation that any competent practitioner could have done himself in a minute or two - and treating the equation of the asymptote AS IF it were the equation of the curve.
In doing so, he was inventing variables and inputs that simply did not exist, and grafting them onto the equation.
He continued doing this despite repeated explanations of what he was doing wrong, and how he was misunderstanding the equations.
His attempted descriptions of what he was doing made it abundantly clear that he simply did not understand even the most basic things about what Michaelis Menten function is, what an equation of an asymptote is, what Wigley had done.
He still shows that he does not understand what role the MM function plays in Wigley's analysis.
He was - still is - incompetent on the most basic, the simplest, elements of those equations and of Wigley's work.
And yet, from that position of stunning arrogant incompetence, he repeatedly accused Wigley et al of intentionally fraudulent choices in the analysis - and attempts to do so even now, with his "but stil absurd" comment @780.
His mangling of the MM function is central to his presentation - it is the topic of his presentation - and it is clear that he understood nothing of what he presented, and got every relevant argument wrong - every one.
And yet, he still has not withdrawn that presentation, he has not withdrawn and apologized for his accusations about the actions and motivations of the scientists whose work he has so egregiously misrepresented. In fact, the latest from him is that he stands by his presentation.
Your move, timmy. Make it the right one.
Lee, don't hold your breath.
We're all still watiing for Curtin to issue an apology for his disgraceful comments about Raupach, Canadell et al in the orignal Tim Curtin Thread.
You may recall that in the original Tim Curtin thread, he referred to them as "half-wits" with an "utter incapacity to do even primary school maths", when the subsequent discussion showed clearly that Curtin simply didn't understand their paper.
The grovelling apology his behaviour demanded is still pending.
It seems that some things never change.
"Good flaiming grief! TC, are you trying to top your previous howlers? Or are you straining to win a "most idiotic claim by an apparently highly educated individual" award?"
He's punishing you for daring to correct him, Lee.
By refusing to change and continuing even more desperately obvious ploys to spout BS at you, he wants to make the experience of correcting him so painful for you that you will refrain from doing so.
In this he has an advantage since he doesn't have to get anything actually correct, he only has to be annoying, whereas if YOU make an incorrect statement, he'll keep that one around for decades to beat you over the head with.
The trick is not to care that he's a useless waste of oxygen and beat him down with the truth. Make HIS life an affliction, only averted by either refraining from lies or telling the truth.
Wow, what a feeding frenzy you have joined!
Gaz: Knorr GRL 2009 is a sufficient vindication of my remarks on Canadell and Raupach.
Bernard: bring it on!
Lee: you said "NPP is NOT agricultural productivity. Agricultural photosynthesis is only one small part of NPP. An order of magnitude increase in agricultural productivity does not necessarily imply any increase AT ALL in NPP".
Interesting. Tell that to Haberl et al PNAS 2007: "Actual NPP is calculated by using harvest indices to extrapolate NPP on cropland from harvest statistics, whereas LPJ is used in wilderness areas, forests, and grazing areas. On grazing areas, the effects of fertilization, irrigation, and soil degradation on NPP are explicitly included in the estimate and results are cross-checked against grazing demand" etc.
Then there is this Wiki cite: "NPP is a measure of plant growth obtained by calculating the amount of carbon absorbed and stored by plants. NPP is equal to photosynthesis minus respiration. It is sometimes expressed in grams of carbon produced per square metre per year. NPP is a major component of the carbon cycle. ..."
cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/subsite/ecoleap/definitions
And from the Ehrlichs et al 1986 there is this: âNPP provides the basis for maintenance, growth, and reproduction of all heterotrophsâ¦IT IS THE TOTAL FOOD RESOURCE ON EARTHâ â which is of course why Bernard & co seem to want to eliminate it or rein it in (like the Ehrlichs who want to limit our own speciesâ use of NPP).
BTW, the log growth rate of N in Eq A2 for actual [CO2] from 1900 to 2010 is only 0.234 to 0.235 % p.a with respect to either r=1.2 or 1.4. That does not match known growth of NPP since 1900.
Finally, I stand by everything in my Seminar of 29 April as at my website. Here in the blogosphere of course one often flies kites and even heaven forfend, makes mistakes, and I am grateful to all of you when you pounce and correct me.
Here's Tim Curtin's latest howler: *like the Ehrlichs who want to limit our own speciesâ use of NPP*
Good God Curtin, humans already appropriate more than 40% of NPP, leaving less and less for the rest of nature. The more NPP that we redirect for human consumption, the more that we will see a breakdown in critical supporting ecosystem services without which agricultural productivity will be greatly reduced irrespective of the amount of your dream gas circulating in the atmosphere. This is because it is not psosible to retain viable ecosystem functions when NPP is so overwhlemingly monopolized by a single species.
Some of the stuff you write defies any sort of logic. Lee and Bernard have destroyed your arguments and calculations, yet, as expected, you cling to your precipace by the tips of your fingernails.
Jef, I knew you would rise to my bait, and follow up with a complete contradiction. You said "...humans already appropriate more than 40% of NPP, leaving less and less for the rest of nature. The more NPP that we redirect for human consumption, the more that we will see a breakdown in critical supporting ecosystem services without which agricultural productivity will be greatly reduced irrespective of the amount of your dream gas circulating in the atmosphere. This is because it is not possible to retain viable ecosystem functions when NPP is so overwhlemingly monopolized by a single species".
So which ever, we all lose? Can you not see the contradiction between you decrying our human species' appropriation of NPP, which you abhor, and your bewailing on our behalf (allegedly) of the impact of that on our future well-being? What would be best for our species' well-being, starvation or biodiversity?
Ever read any Darwin or Dawkins? The selfish gene is what you abhor, yet that is the ineluctable truth of the matter, and so far, for many millennia and more than ever now, homo sapiens is doing just fine, with more people better off now than ever before in the history of this universe, even if tant pis for some but far from all of the rest. C'est la vie.
Tim, try to understand, that there are no trades off between what NPP we leave for the rest of nature and what we appropriate for humanity. You write as if the choice is clear cut, and that there is only a moral imperative (and no other reason) for preserving natural systems. The more we take from nature, the more it will rebound on us negatively.
I have to respond to people like you all of the time, people who think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature, and that our species has evolved above and beyond constraints imposed on us by natural systems and the services that freely emerge from them.
If you knew anything remotely about the machinery of nature, you'd realize how much our species totoally and utterly depends on an array of supporting services that emerge over variable scales of space and time and which are based on a stupendous array of biotic interactions. The good news, at least, is that more and more people are waking up to realize that, the more that humans take from nature, the more we undermine the planet's ability to sustain us. If you are as clever as you clearly think that you are, you'd realize this simple fact, and there are plenty of examples I present at lectures and seminars where the economic value of different kinds of supporting services has been estimated. If full cost pricing internalized the cost of current economic activity on critical ecosystem services, then we would be fully aware of the cliff towards which we are headed.
Lastly, of course I have read both Dawkins and Darwin, and they would both abhor and ridicule you and your fatuous ideas. The selfish gene principle in now way begets the ability of the human species to persist, as long as we continue to consume natural capital as if there is no tomorrow, reduce biodiversity at the rate that we are and thus undermine our ecological life support systems. It was Darwin who once said, "Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge", and IMHO this statement sums you up well, Tim. You are out of your depth on discussions alluding to the value of nature in multiple ways, and this is because you have never studied anything remotely around the field of ecology and environmental science. To be honest, your comments in this capacity are so simplisitic and without substance that I pity you. I really do. The only saving grace is that most policy makers, as beholden as they are to commercial interests, are intelligent enough to realize our dependence on nature, even if many of the dinosaur neoclassical economists do not. In this regard, your views carry no substance, wheras those of esteemed ecologists like Ehrlich, Wilson, Lovejoy, Tilman and Raven do. And it is gratifying to see the field of economics embracing the views of people like Daly, Costanza, Viedermann, Heal, Gowdy and others who realize that hman welfare and the vitality of nature go hand in hand.
But I digress. The bottom line is that you and your ilk are being left behind, Tim. You can all enjoy your brief and fading moment in the twilight of economics.
Timmy,
First, global terrestrial NPP can be represented (too simplistically, but there it is) as the sum of agricultural NPP + non-agricultural NPP. My point is that your argument throughout has seemed to pretend that the second of those two terms is irrelevant.
And yes, NP is the foodstuff for everything - that includes every heterotrophic species on the planet, timmy, not just humans. "Food" is NOT equal to "agriculture"
Second. You stand by your presentation. Lets start with just the first sentence of your abstract, shall we?
"This seminar challenges the quasi-Malthusian assumption going back to Wigley ( CRU-UEA & CSIRO, Tellus 1993) and maintained by Sokolov et al (MIT, 2009), that there is a fixed limit to the volume of CO2 emissions that can be absorbed by land and ocean biospheres."
In your slide 6, you say that the claim is that "the ocean and land sinks are close to if not already âsaturatedâ."
Slide 8 "Now virtually ALL models used by the IPCC, and above all their favourite, Wigley's MAGICC (a kind of meta model), assume that dU has already or will soon reach a hyperbolic maximum, and therefore is approaching 0, and so d[CO2] will rapidly equate to dE"
You claoim throughout that section of your presentation, timmy, that MM reaching 'saturation' is the reason for the century end forecast of 700 - 1000 ppmv. We have shown repeatedly upthread, that the MM function does not reach a maximum, not in this century, or next, or the one after that. You claim that they modelrs forecast or 'assume' that NPP uptake is NOW or will SOON BE zero, is false. In fact, through 700 ppmv, the MM model is so similar to your favored logarthimic model as to be barely distinguishable, and through 1000 ppmv, the difference is 'noticeable' at most.
Your claim that saturation of the MM function is what drives this increase in CO2 is simply nto true. Do I need to go back and cite the stuff you've been responding to the alst 1200 or so posts? The calculations of NPP at various C, that shows continuing increases in NPP at [CO2] up to and above 10,000 ppmv?
This claim is central to your argument, timmy, it pervades the entire first part of your presentation, and it is false. Untrue. Not correct. Wrong. The opposite of correct.
And you have now admitted that it is incorrect. But you stand by your presentation? Really?
Do I need to go on? The Part about the 1% per annum forecast increase in CO2, which we showed above is an artificial increase taken from CALIBRATION runs of the models, not forecast runs? This also pervades that part of the presentation timmy, and is stated in your abstract, and it is WRONG.
Timmy, when you admit that the claims taht form the core of your presentation are wrong - and you did, just above, when yo admitted that my presentation of the result of Eq A2 and A3 are correct - - but that you continue to stand by your presentation, the only conclusion I can come to is that you don't give a damn about telling the truth. Do you?
> He's punishing you for daring to correct him, Lee.
Actually, your quote was from me.
But since he can't seem to respond to me without primary school name-twisting games ("Loathsome" is a frequent variant) I suspect he's frustrated that his punishment attempts are not working.
> I knew you would rise to my bait, and follow up with a complete contradiction.
It's a shame that you are apparently not smart enough to see that your response provides one answer to some of my [earlier questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
> Is annual global consumed nutritional content (either total, or per capita) necessarily linearly related to NPP, and why or why not? How about you precisely define the term "NPP" for starters...
...which thus answers your own [antecedent question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
> ...explain how today's 7 billion are being fed by NNP that is less than it was for 1 billion in 1750.
And in case you're not smart enough to deduce it via that pathway, [Lee has spelled out another explanation more explicitly](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
And there are still other explanations which you are - astonishingly for one making grand claims in the discipline - apparently entirely ignorant of. (Never mind that you haven't pondered the possible distinction between Jeff's use of "to appropriate" and "to eat with no possible substitution".)
> I stand by everything in my Seminar of 29 April as at my website.
Like others, I can therefore only conclude that you are a fool, a liar, or both. But to be fair, that was pretty evident already.
Tim Curtin.
Further to Jeff's comment about Dawkins and Darwin and 'selfish' genes, you need to understand several thing:
Of course, there are many more things that you need to understand, but considering how little you have managed to comprehend over the last several years, in spite of some very competent people trying to set you right, and considering that you are in the twilight of your years, there's really no point trying to communicate to you more fact than you will ever be able to take on board.
I just hope that third parties who have been exposed to your recalcitrant ignorance are better able to learn scientific truths than you have demonstrated with your own pitiful efforts.
Rubbish.
You claimed, in the most childishly insulting terms, that got their mathematics wrong.
In the ensuing discussion it became crystal clear that there was not the slightest thing wrong with their mathematics but that, instead, it was you who were wrong.
You didn't, as it turned out, understand what a proportional rate of change was. Anyone can go back to that thread and verify this.
Knorr offers no support whatsoever for your misguided criticism of Raupach et al.
Show some character and apologise.
Lee I am glad you now agree that global terrestrial NPP can indeed be represented (even if too simplistically) as the sum of agricultural NPP + non-agricultural NPP. âMy point is that your argument throughout has seemed to pretend that the second of those two terms is irrelevantâ.
Well that is not true: my slides 11-15 deal with total Uptakes, obviously agricultural NPP does not represent total NPP, and I deal with agric-only NPP only from slide 16 onwards. My #40 shows the rather remarkable association between dU of CO2 emissions and cereal yields which itself contradicts the Wigley A2 equation, which thanks to your help I see produces a DOWN sloping curve for dN/dC for actual [CO2] 1959-2009 and resulting N.
But according to Canadell et al including Steffan passim, dN/dC is indeed negative because of âsaturating [if not yet saturated, to their annoyance] sinksâ (see Chap. 6 by Canadell Pataki et al in the book by the same authors Territorial Ecosystems in a Changing World, Springer 2007). The chapter title is âSaturation of the Territorial Sinkâ.
What does the word âSaturationâ convey to you? Does their Conclusion âThe sink strength shows high interannual
variability and there is evidence [sic â actually none] that the sink cannot [sic] be sustained indefinitely. It is conceivable that by the end of this century or earlier [NB] the terrestrial sink may significantly decrease or disappear [i.e. NPP=0 or negative]â.
Bravo! As this claim supports both my Abstractâs assertion "This seminar challenges the quasi-Malthusian assumption going back to Wigley ( CRU-UEA & CSIRO, Tellus 1993) and maintained by Sokolov et al (MIT, 2009), that there is a fixed limit to the volume of CO2 emissions that can be absorbed by land and ocean biospheres" and my Slide 8 "Now virtually ALL models used by the IPCC, and above all their favourite, Wigley's MAGICC (a kind of meta model), assume that dU has already or will soon [before 2100] reach a hyperbolic maximum, and therefore is approaching 0, and so d[CO2] will rapidly equate to dE"
But Lee you say: I âhave shown repeatedly upthread, that the MM function does not reach a maximum, not in this century, or next, or the one after that. You claim that they modelers forecast or 'assume' that NPP uptake is NOW or will SOON BE zero, is falseâ. So according to you it is Canadell et al who are the liars!
And again Lee says: my âclaim that saturation of the MM function is what drives this increase in CO2 is simply not trueâ¦[given] the calculations of NPP at various C, that shows continuing increases in NPP at [CO2] up to and above 10,000 ppmv..â So how do you explain zero NPP before 2100 according to Canadell et all?
Best â and thanks again for the argument, Tim.
Golly gee, a new study is coming out in Nature showing a century-long decline in the abundance of marine phytoplankton:
www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/07/29/2967447.htm
But - under Tim's vacuous scenario, should not the abundance of phytoplankton increased during a century when atmospheric C02 levels rose by a third? Is this not another huge spanner in Tim's biologically depauperate calculations?
Expect the usual rejoinder. Tim's patch of ice is shrinking more each day, leaving him and his vacuous calculations more and more intellectually isolated in a sea of facts.
Jeff: if that "new study" you cite is in Nature you know in advance that it is rubbish, like the Meinhartsens et al et al last year (April). See my Note at my website (www.timcurtin.com) on Nature's deliberate frauds on all aspects of climate theory.
I had thought you were reasonably honest. Once you cite anything published in Nature I know you may not be. Why? Because it has never ever nor ever will publish any deviation from the Koran of the CC conspiracy.
Alles van die beste, Tim
"Nature's deliberate frauds on all aspects of climate theory."
If the deliberate fraud is so easy to see, should be easy to sue for it, shouldn't it?
Are you kidding me?!?!
Timmy quote Canadell from their conclusions [with timmy's absurdities inserted]:
"âThe sink strength shows high interannual variability and there is evidence [sic â actually none] that the sink cannot [sic] be sustained indefinitely. It is conceivable that by the end of this century or earlier [NB] the terrestrial sink may significantly decrease or disappear [i.e. NPP=0 or negative]â."
I haven't fact-checked this - it's dangerous, but I'll take timmy's word this is what it says.
First, timmy, you have been claiming that the end-of-century [CO2] projections are high BECAUSE OF sinks saturating in this century. You have said that analyses assume that the sinks are now or soon will be fully saturated, with 0 uptake.
And in support, you quote Canadell saying that "it is conceivable" that at the end of that period, the sinks MAY decrease or disappear.
ie, one can imagine that it might get that bad.
Timmy, that quote DOES NOT SAY that assumptions or forecasts of zero uptake are driving forecasts IN THIS CENTURY.
You are engaging in egregious quote mining, and even so, the quotes you're picking out are of very, very low assay, timmy.
And then this part.
"the terrestrial sink may significantly decrease or disappear [i.e. NPP=0 or negative]â."
I cant believe I'm saying this one more freaking time.
NPP is the route by which CO2 flows from the atmosphere into the biomass sink. Other processes cause carbon to flow within, and out of, that sink. Terrestrial biomass is only a sink if the amount of carbon in the biomass is increasing - plant growth greater than death and decay, or transfer of carbon to dead detritus at a faster rate than decay of the detritus, etc. Wigley models this - it is what Appendix 2 is about. If NPP is increasing, but outflow is increasing faster, the sink can saturate or even become negative even as NPP is increasing.
Which is what Canadell is looking at.
Which you don't understand, timmy, because you still don't get that:
NPP. IS. NOT. THE. FREAKING. SINK!!!!!
You do not have a clue, timmy. You misunderstand and misrepresent what Wigley, Canadell, and all the other modelers are doing.
You said yourself that "Wigley's Michaelis-Menten" is the basis for modeling NPP in these models (You're wrong there, too,but you said it. It does a reasonable job of standign infor more complex models, so we'll go with it).
@752 above I've shown that 'Wigley's MM' calculates NPP of:
[CO2] = 278, NPP = 91.5.
[CO2] = 380, NPP = 101.7.
[CO2] = 680, NPP = 118.
[CO2] = 1000, NPP = 126.
[CO2] = 2000, NPP = 135.
[CO2] = 5000, NPP = 140.
[CO2] = inf, NPP = 145. This is Vmax, saturated NPP.
From 'preindustrial' [CO2] = 287, to ~ year 2000 [CO2] = 380, there was a growth in NPP of 10 units, ~ 12 %.
If year 2100 [CO2] is 680, Wigley forecasts NPP growth in this century of another 16 units, about 16% from 2000 levels.
Read that carefully, timmy. "Wigley's MM," to which you attribute all these imagined failings of the models, actually forecasts 60% GREATER INCREASE IN NPP (16 units) over this coming century, than in the entire industrial revolution to date (10 units).
You are wrong. These failings to understand, and the errors rising from them, form the core of your presentation. Your presentation is wrong. That you continue to stand by it, while once again @799 insulting those whom you don't have the capacity to understand, tells us all we need to know about your intellectual ethics, timmy.
Why don't you save yourself some time and just make a list of scientists who you think are honest and competent. Shouldn't take long.
Tim Curtin, you really are a useless old tosser.
And before I am barraged with accusations of ad hominem, potential accusers should spend some time reviewing Curtin's performance on this thread.
Curtin completely FUBARed the chemistry of pH and salinity. Curtin FUBARed completely the ways in which growth in biological systems is modelled. He FUBARed the explanation of [how much carbon is embodied by human biomass](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and how an increase in human numbers might impact biospheric carbon flows. He completely FUBARed the simple use of Wigley's Michaelis-Menten equations.
Moreover, he has also completely FUBARed the comprehension of [the basic definitions of the terms](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) involved in the construction of these equations. And without a proper working understanding of the terms involved, one cannot comment with any validity at all on carbon flow through the biosphere.
I've been asking Curtin to [provide](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…
) [definitions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…
) [for the terms](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…
) he uses. Just as with the dozens of repetitions of asking for his explanation of the salinity of pH-adjusted sea water, Curtin has ignored this simple, repeated request.
Probably because he knows that I have a list of examples of his misunderstanding of net primary productivity, and of carbon flow through the biosphere...
Lee, the ever-patient and ever-clear man that he is, has [laid it out for Curtin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). And the definitions are rather clear too, in [the Canadell paper](http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/Canadell.2007.SinkSaturat…) to which Curtin himself referred:
...and here:
Curtin, I'll repeat my request yet again: define the terms in Wigley's equations, and indicate not only what they mean, but how Wigley, Canadell, and Lee are wrong in their interpretations. This is not a trick question, although of course, once you reply (if you have the courage to reply) I will be comparing your answer with your previous posts, and with the science.
Your crap on Deltoid really is useless - it provides a naïve reader with no advancement of their scientific understanding, and in fact severely disinforms them.
Your age, whilst only tangentially relevant to the matters here insofar as it might contribute to loss of mental faculty, is nevertheless indisputable.
Your participation in a discourse of science, when you are so obviously ill-equipped to do so, and when you persist in doing so in spite of repeated indications that you are so ill-equipped, is a wank of the highest order.
I stand by my first paragraph.
Classic Tim Curtin: if you do not like something, lash out at the journal which publishes it. *Nature* is the most eminent journal in science, along with *Science*. Both reject >90% of submissions, and having worked as an Associate Editor at * Naturë* I am deeply shocked (but not surprised) at Tim's latest whopper. Hell, I'll be that he hasn't even read the paper.
At the same time, non ISI-listed comic books like E & E are, I assume, to be held in high esteem by the likes of Tim Curtin. Why? Because they publish the contrarian crap that he so clearly loves. The strenght of the underlying science doesn't matter: it's the agendas behind them that appeal to our old Timmy.
Tim, you ought to hang up your cleats now. Your last comment was the final straw for me. As I said before, the good news is that your articles and views are squarely aimed at the right wing/libertartian anti-scientific crowd but will have no impact whatsoever in the broader scientific community. Let those words sink in.
TC @420:
Well, we can presume you didn't submit it to Nature.
zoot; I did try with Nature, see my website for the Letter it rejected last year "Nature's New Theory of Climate Change", where I pointed out that its symposium of 30 April 2009 (Meinhausens et al ad nauseam) went beyond even Wigley and Canadell et al by assuming that Uptakes are already zero.
Lee: I confess that I have erred all too often - âNever attribute to Malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.â (ht E.M. Smith) - but many thanks all the same for your contributions.
There are as it seems to me at least two mistakes you and Wigley make serially.
First, you both exhibit the fatal âmodellismâ of all associated with the IPCC, whereby the only facts are those that have been modelled, like your claim from Wigleyâs serially misleading models (1993) that there âwas growth in NPP of only 10 units, ~ 12 % associated with the growth in 'preindustrial' [CO2] = 287, to ~ year 2000 [CO2] = 380â.
Neither of you tests the Wigley model against actual data on NPP, such as FAO indices of agricultural production. For example, just world cereal production increased by 67% between 1961 and 2007, rather more than your 12% for NPP from 1750 to 2000.
Similarly, world cattle population increased by 41% between 1961 and 2008, although many of them subsist on unimproved pastures in Africa and India etc. (FAO).
The second is the assumption throughout Wigley that although he began by seeking to model the âmissing sinkâ, namely the CO2 emissions that do NOT become airborne because of N, his only independent variable determining N in A2 is [CO2] which is itself ex post all sinks including the terrestrial.
Thus his N in A2 is said to be determined by a variable of which its dt is actually by 56% (of CO2 Emissions) the result of N.
In reality N is first and foremost determined by Emissions of CO2, not by [CO2], not least because they are more accessible to N than [CO2], most of which is out of reach of the terrestrial biosphere most of the time.
BTW, I have shown repeatedly that variability in Uptakes of Emissions through NPP is much more subject to ENSO than to any other factor. ENSO is not mentioned in Wigley 1993 or in MAGICC.
*For example, just world cereal production increased by 67% between 1961 and 2007*
Which had absolutely nothing - read that again Tim Curtin - NOTHING - to do with increased C02 levels in the atmosphere, but with intensive agricultural practices and other processes associated with the so-called 'green revolution'. You fall into the unforgiveable trap of linking correlation and causation, at least where it fits in with your narrative. No wonder that IMHO your new studies will be completely and utterly ignored, will be hardly if ever be cited, and will therefore disappear into the black hole of ignorance from which they emerged.
Any credibility you may have had - and there was very, very little of that left, Tim - was used up in your comments about the Nature/phytoplankton study. You have not even read the bloody paper, and yet the first thing you do is ridicule it and the most important scientific journal on Earth (Nature, and no, not E & E). And this coming from an utter layman with no pedigree in any biological field. What utter gall you have.
Ain't technology grand?
There have always been Tim Curtins, but in the past their feverish scribblings were inflicted on only a few. Now the wonders of the interent can disseminate their befuddled musings far and wide.
For those who matter on this thread:
The D.G. Boyce et al article I mentioned above (in Nature, 29 July, and widely covered in the media today) is entitled, "Global phytoplankton decline over the past century".
From the abstract:
Here we combine available ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll observations to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at local, regional and global scales since 1899. We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of ~1% of the global median per year. Our analyses further reveal interannual to decadal phytoplankton fluctuations superimposed on long-term trends. These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures. We conclude that global phytoplankton concentration has declined over the past century; this decline will need to be considered in future studies of marine ecosystems, geochemical cycling, ocean circulation and fisheries.
Its an outstanding read, because it takes into account multiple abiotic processes that determine marine phytoplanktonic production. This is essentially another 'nail in the coffin' for those who are attempting to predict NPP in terrestrial systems on the simple basis of atmospheric increases in one gas (C02). Given that terrestrial ecosystems are much more complex in the way they function than marine systems, this excellent paper adds to the growing empirical evidence that predicting sources and sinks in the allocation of N, P and C under increasing concentrations of C02 is IMO almost impossible to make because of the interplay between other critical abiotic (and especially for terrestrial systems) biotic processes.
Great to see this seminal study getting the media coverage that it deserves. It helps that it is published in the world's pre-eminent scientific journal.
"see my website for the Letter it rejected last year "Nature's New Theory of Climate Change", where I pointed out that its symposium of 30 April 2009 (Meinhausens et al ad nauseam) went beyond even Wigley and Canadell et al by assuming that Uptakes are already zero."
Yet you continue to reject Lee or Bernard or Wigley papers.
Is this not proof for you that YOU are biased and fraudulent, TC? It's enough for you to claim proof that Nature is fraudulent. It should be enough to prove to yourself you are fraudulent, too.
Thankyou Lord!!!! I praise you TIM CURTIN!!!! It is an absolute pleasure to read a report on climate change with a little truth exerted! For all those who criticise Tim's data you really need to take a reality check, and question your existence in this blog (World)!
greenhouses elevate CO2 levels to at least 1500ppmv (depending upon the plant species grown). Why?, because plants grow better that way; the plants convert CO2 and water into organic products (in the presence of light and with chlorophyll) and produce oxygen as a by-product! More basic science. If our earth had a CO2 concentration of 1500ppm instead of the puny 375ppm, we'd all be much better off! WATER VAPOR is the primary "greenhouse gas" NOT CO2. The temperature rises caused by CO2 are greatest at the first 210ppm and dramatically decline as CO2 increases to levels greater than that. CO2 IS NOT a pollutant now and will never be in the forseable future and will never produce a much warmer earth. The factors which WILL produce a hot earth are increased solar energy levels and the wobble of the Earth's axis which produces maximum warming. Has anyone out there ever heard of the Hysithermal Interval of 7000 years BP? The earth was much much warmer then - but WHOA!! no people burning pertroleum or massive amounts of coal existed during this warm period. Ever wondered what caused these very high temperatures of the earth's surface if we people weren't there?
> ...lash out at the journal which publishes it.
Which is just a form of ad hom.
> ...whereby the only facts are those that have been modelled, like your claim from Wigleyâs serially misleading models (1993) that there âwas growth in NPP of only 10 units, ~ 12 % associated with the growth in 'preindustrial' [CO2] = 287, to ~ year 2000 [CO2] = 380â.
Your confusion and habit of goal-post shifting is showing again.
The growth of 10 and 16 units was reported in response to **your** claim that Wigley's limited use of Michaelis-Menten was used (deliberately, falsely and corruptly) to impose a constraint on the models that NPP must go to zero in the next 100 years, or total carbon sinks must go to zero, or that growth in NPP must cease quite soon, and/or other various claims along those lines which you have repeated ad nauseum despite being patiently corrected over and over again.
And the response about the 10 and 16 units showed that the very formula you claim was deliberately used to commit malfeasance does NOT EVEN PRODUCE THE RESULTS YOU CLAIM IT IS USED TO INAPPROPRIATELY FORCE INTO SOME MODEL OR OTHER:
> "Wigley's MM," to which you attribute all these imagined failings of the models, actually forecasts 60% GREATER INCREASE IN NPP (16 units) over this coming century, than in the entire industrial revolution to date (10 units).
This was clearly a response showing that your claims based on use of Michealis-Menten equations were trivially false, because **even** the simple application of the Michaelis-Menten equation devoid of any other modeling context does not produce the outcomes that you rely on to make your claims about the models.
It was clearly **not** claiming to be an accurate NPP change measurement - not that you've provided one either. And so far I haven't seen any evidence that you:
(a) even understand exactly what NPP is.
(b) understand the relationship (or otherwise) between NPP and total global anthropogenic nutritional consumption - which you seem to imply is linear, or at least that NPP has been a constraint that has been imposing an upper bound on agricultural productivity over the last N decades/centuries. Both of these propositions seem absurd at first glance, and you have demonstrated support for neither of them.
Are you really that highly dedicated to being blind to any fact that contradicts your precious assertions, or ("never attribute to malice..." and all that) are you actually that mind-numbingly stupid?
Michael "Ain't technology grand?"
Absolutely. When it comes to these sorts of maunderings, the internet saves us from the onslaught of green biro.
Loathsome: that's you in spades. Just go to my riposte to Nature of 30 April 2009 at my website (are you up to that?) with its claim that already emissions are 100% airborne.
Or read Jos above, if you are even up to that.
Finally, the proof of your terminal stupidity (not malice) is your claim that I say "NPP has been a constraint that has been imposing an upper bound on agricultural productivity over the last N decades/centuries".
Go back to Glasgow. You are beyond redemption. I have NEVER said nor is it possible that "NPP is a constraint etc". In your case I now begin to fear that malice more than stupidity is after all your driving force.
Tim, may I just say: You're a silly twat.
Trust Tim to defend the latest raving lunatic to enter this thread.
Jos, are you some kind of a sad joke? Do you understand the dynamics of basic ecological systems in response to differences in atmospheric concentrations of C02 and other gases? The effects on primary and secondary plant metabolites? On ecological interaction webs? On communities and ecosystems? On trophic cascades in respect to both bottom-up and top-down processes that regulate system productivity? Have you ever heard of the 'green world hypothesis'? Or is your rant just another example of Darwin's quote (which I repeat) that "Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge". You are an example of Dunning-Kruger to a tee.
Jeff: It is you who is an "example of Dunning-Kruger to a tee". That kind of comment from you in response to Jos' very thoughtful and well founded post, devoid as your riposte was of any substance whatsoever, proves my case.
Jos is way ahead of you on all the points you claim. Truly, you are the Bishop Usher of our age.
Anyway, ever keen to help the stupid, here are my responses to your questions:
1. "Do [I] understand the dynamics of basic ecological systems in response to differences in atmospheric concentrations of C02 and other gases? YES
2. "The effects on primary and secondary plant metabolites?"
Such as?
3. On ecological interaction webs?
None at all.
4. "On communities and ecosystems?"
Only beneficial, all communities and ecosystems need food, and only CO2 provides that.
5. On trophic cascades in respect to both bottom-up and top-down processes that regulate system productivity?
Do these cascades do better or worse with more CO2?
6. Have [I] ever heard of the 'green world hypothesis'?
YES, and it is total garbage.
[Jos Butler @ 811 said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) "Has anyone out there ever heard of the Hysithermal Interval of 7000 years BP? The earth was much much warmer then - but WHOA!! no people burning pertroleum or massive amounts of coal existed during this warm period. Ever wondered what caused these very high temperatures of the earth's surface if we people weren't there?"
But Jos, people have been around for a million years with modern humans appearing about [50,000 years ago](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution). Yet our recorded history only takes us back about [6,000 years](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history).
Perhaps these historical warm paradises weren't quite what you like to imagine them to be.
Curtin @ 806:
"Lee: I confess that I have erred all too often - âNever attribute to Malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.â (ht E.M. Smith) - but many thanks all the same for your contributions."
Yes timmy, you have erred "all too often." On everything, in fact. The stupidity is self-evident. The malice can be easily inferred from your absolute unwillingness to withdraw your false presentation, and your willingness to continue with the egregiously slanderous allegations about good scientists.
The core concept in your presentation, the foundation from which all else builds, is your allegation that 'Wigley's Michaelis Menten' forecasts that uptakes 'are now or soon will be zero.'
We have shown absolutely and unmistakably that this allegation is false, that the MM function is not doing what you claimed it to do. MM does not model uptakes. Neither MM (ever) nor its slope (at [CO2] levels expected in the next several centuries) gets anywhere near zero. Wigley 1993 actually models an ACCELERATED increase in NPP over the coming century. This error alone (but there is much more) is enough to invalidate your presentation. That you admit the error, but continue to stand by that presentation, is an indictment of your intellectual honesty, timmy.
Curtin:
"...the assumption throughout Wigley that although he began by seeking to model the âmissing sinkâ, namely the CO2 emissions that do NOT become airborne because of N."
Timmy, you continue to demonstrate that you simply do not understand what Wigley 1993 was about. The 'missing sink' was a hot issue in the early 90s. It was NOT (as you claimed earlier in this thread) the fraction of emitted CO2 that did not remain airborne - our understanding was much more advanced than this. We knew where much of that 'absorbed' CO2 was going. We had good quantitative values for sinks and sources, natural and anthropogenic. The problem was that when those were added up, they could not be made to balance - more CO2 was being absorbed, somewhere, than we could account for. Some fraction of that absorbed CO2 was going somewhere we didn't know.
Wigley didn't assume that the missing sink was due to an increase in NPP. He ASKED if ti was.
In Wigley 1993, he examined whether it was possible to account for the missing sink in terms of in [CO2] fertilization effect causing increased NPP. He added a term to the model that would cause INCREASED transfer of CO2 from the atmosphere to the terrestrial biomass sink. He took reasonable values for a possible fertilization effect (r=1.1 to r=1.4) from the literature, ran his models against observed [CO2] from the recent past, and found that indeed, with reasonable values of r, one could balance the carbon budget.
He then continued, and asked, given that the CO2 fertilization effect might be the missing sink, what happens to future [CO2] projections if one includes the fertilization effect. He found that it REDUCED forecast [CO2] at 2100, by 115 ppmv for the most probable case.
You keep claiming that Wigley 1993 was an attempt to cook that books to cause falsely inflated projections of [CO2]. In fact, as we pointed out to you several times way, way upthread, the sign of the effect Wigley modeled was exactly opposite of this.
You are wrong, timmy. Wrong in fact, wrong on the sign of the effect, wrong on the math, wrong on the application of the model, wrong on its relationship to the terrestrial sink, wrong on the question that was being asekd, wrong on the answer to that question, and wrong on its relationship to the claims you make in yr presentation.
You need to withdraw your presentation, timmy.
Curtin again:
"Neither of you tests the Wigley model against actual data on NPP, such as FAO indices of agricultural production. For example, just world cereal production increased by 67% between 1961 and 2007, rather more than your 12% for NPP from 1750 to 2000."
First - Wigley tests against the missing sink, and finds that it CAN be accounted for as in increase in NPP, with reasonable values. He dos so, by comparing to real world [CO2] growth.
Second, one more freaking time timmy - agricultural NPP is NOT a measure of total terrestrial NPP.
Ag NPP + non-ag NPP = total NPP.
If A + B = C, A grows by 67%, and C grows by 12% - what was the percent growth of C? I very much look forward to your attempts to solve this for us, timmy.
@806, timmy quoted me thus:
"âwas growth in NPP of only 10 units, ~ 12 % associated with the growth in 'preindustrial' [CO2] = 287, to ~ year 2000 [CO2] = 380â."
@ 801, I said:
"From 'preindustrial' [CO2] = 287, to ~ year 2000 [CO2] = 380, there was a growth in NPP of 10 units, ~ 12 %."
Timmy-boy here edited my quote. AT first glance, ONLY a slight change. He switched the order of the phrases. If this were the ONLY change, it might ONLY have been a minor issue, of interest ONLY to the pedantic.
But that was not the ONLY change.
He inserted a word. ONLY one word, but nonetheless, a word. If ONLY that word was of no significance to the meaning, his dishonest manipulation of my quoted words almost be overlooked.
And if ONLY timmy weren't such a dishonest twit, I might have said to myself, 'gee, did I really write something so stupid, that the increase in [CO2] was ONLY 10 units?' and not gone back to check.
But this is not the ONLY instance of intellectual dishonesty on timmy's part,so I did go back to check. And sure enough, timmy inserted the word "ONLY" into my quote, making it look like I implied something that I never did imply, and never meant.
Gosh, if ONLY timmy weren't so god-blasted stupid and incompetent as to attempt to misquote me and mangle my meaning only 5 posts after I said it, and if ONLY he weren't so freaking dishonest that this is the kind of thing he stoops to, this might have been a productive thread.
If only...
At the end of @819, I mean, of course for timmy to calculate the percent growth in B. Not C - the typo matters here.
Thus:
If A + B = C, A grows by 67%, and C grows by 12% - what was the percent growth of B? I very much look forward to your attempts to solve this for us, timmy.
Oh dear, despite the best prose your dear Bishop, and his mates Christopher Bonkers and Richmal North et al could cobble together with all their combined years of 'experience', the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ohio Coal Association, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Peabody Energy Company, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the State of Texas, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all did what you - in your own idiosyncratic way - are doing here right now.
And the EPA told the real world denying arses to go take a [hike](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html), because your line of thinking just doesn't match what's happening out in the real world. That is, you're attempting to canute reality, which never ends well.
Before toddling off back to your thread Brent, go get yourself some sandwich boards and a piss-stained coat. At least then there'd be a chance you might be taken slightly more seriously, at least by some lone drunk somewhere.
Lee: I apologise for misplacing the ", and note you are not immune from typos yourself. The fact remains that Wigley's model's increase in NPP of c. 12% between 1750 and 1990 is a monstrous perversion of the historical truth, which saw an increase in world population from many fewer than 1 billion to around 6 billion over that period, wholly impossible if NPP increased by only 12%, for as Jeff keeps reminding us we are dependent on the whole ecosystem, not just agriculture. And if Wigley is demonstrably wrong about the past, he will prove to be even more so with his future projections, where his N appears to look good only because it was so wrongly low for the past.
To repeat, it is not good enough to make N only dependent on [CO2] when [CO2] itself is largely determined by N - and dCt would be 56% larger without N. What sort of "Science" is that, or maths, or stats? The sort that only people like you and Wigley are capable of?
Mr. Curtin says, in response to my @820:
"Lee: I apologize for misplacing the ", and note you are not immune from typos yourself."
That was no typo, sir. That was an intentional editing of a quote - my words from @806, edited and altered by you and attributed to me, surrounded with perfectly placed quotation marks. Not a typo in sight, Mr. Curtin. You didn't err - you added a word to the middle of my sentence, in a way that could only be intentional and that altered the intent of the statement.
When called on it, you take the coward's route and attempt to blame it on a typo. Much the same as when, upthread, you attempted to blame your utter misunderstanding of Eq A2 and of asymptotes on Excel 'leaving out brackets.'
You, sir, have shown yourself to be despicable, beneath contempt. You show yourself to be dishonest to your core, and you couch your dishonesty in an arrogant contempt for others that allows you to blithely toss around the most egregious of unfounded libelous accusations. You've left a clear trail upthread attesting to it. Have you no concern at all for your honor, Mr. Curtin? None?
I see Lee makes no attempt to address the real issue posed in my last post, while just contesting that my putting "only" inside the quotes was unintentional, which it was.
The rise in N of only "10 units, c.12%" produced by the Wigley-Lee model from 1750 to 1990 really is preposterously small by many orders of magnitude, and Wigley's Appendix A is misleading when it makes Nt depend on a variable substantially reduced by past Nt-1.....n, thereby reducing Nt now and in future.
Lee's sublime anger suggests he has lost the argument.
> Or read Jos above, if you are even up to that.
Your approval of that rant further degrades your remaining credibility.
> I have NEVER said nor is it possible that "NPP is a constraint etc".
Eagerly slaughtering another strawman, I see!
I never said that you **said** it either. Go back and read what I wrote again - carefully this time. Note the phrase "you appear to imply" and ponder how that might differ from "you said".
If you can't see any difference in those two, then you should probably consider ceasing to make public claims about what other people said, because you've lost the ability to make critical distinctions between different concepts expressed in fairly common English.
TC now:
> ...nor is it possible that "NPP is a constraint etc".
TC before:
> ...explain how today's 7 billion are being fed by NNP [sic, clearly meant NPP from context] that is less than it was for 1 billion in 1750.
Which TC to believe?
TC 1:
> ...an increase in world population from many fewer than 1 billion to around 6 billion over that period, wholly impossible if NPP increased by only 12%...
TC 2:
> ...nor is it possible that "NPP is a constraint etc".
Which TC to believe? The first one, that implies that NPP is indeed a constraint on agricultural production, because he asserts that only 12% NPP growth could not possibly lead to feeding 6 times as many people as before?
Or the second TC who denies saying (or implying) that NPP has been a constraint limiting agricultural production?
Or perhaps a third one who perhaps thinks that NPP **is** a constraint (and has been unfortunately limited by insufficient atmospheric CO2) but significantly increased agricultural production is due to much higher NPP increases than the MM formula provides?
Or perhaps a fourth one that refuses to [specify how he thinks agricultural production is related to NPP, and (by implication) how it is related to other factors](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)?
> I see Lee makes no attempt to address the real issue posed in my last post, while just contesting that my putting "only" inside the quotes was unintentional, which it was.
I see TC numerous times makes no attempt to address the real issues pointed out by numerous posters, whilst loudly proclaiming that others who have provided devastating rebuttals of his core presumptions are ignoring "real issues". Comedy gold indeed.
Mr. Curtin says, in response to my @820:
"Lee: I apologize for misplacing the ", and note you are not immune from typos yourself."
That was no typo, sir. That was an intentional editing of a quote - my words from @806, edited and altered by you and attributed to me, surrounded with perfectly placed quotation marks. Not a typo in sight, Mr. Curtin. You didn't err - you added a word to the middle of my sentence, in a way that could only be intentional and that altered the intent of the statement.
When called on it, you take the coward's route and attempt to blame it on a typo. Much the same as when, upthread, you attempted to blame your utter misunderstanding of Eq A2 and of asymptotes on Excel 'leaving out brackets.'
You, sir, have shown yourself to be despicable, beneath contempt. You show yourself to be dishonest to your core, and you couch your dishonesty in an arrogant contempt for others that allows you to blithely toss around the most egregious of unfounded libelous accusations. You've left a clear trail upthread attesting to it. Have you no concern at all for your honor, Mr. Curtin? None?
I see somehow I got reposted. That's OK - it bears repeating.
And Curtin: the "real issues" in your post above have been addressed over and over and over. You appear too dishonest to admit it, or too incompetent to know it.
"ONLY" 10 units? 10 is nether big nor small, unless one specifies units. You've been asked several times to tell us what those units are, you have ignored that. I don't think you're capable of figuring it out.
"ONLY" 12%? The total annual photosynthetic output of the planet has perhaps increased by 12% in just a couple hundred years, with another 16% perhaps forecast for the next century, and that's "only?" Good christ, man, what do you consider a big change in the functioning of our planet?
You consider this to by, "preposterously small by many orders of magnitude." Are you seriously suggesting that real-world NPP has increased by 1,200%,or 12,000% or perhaps 120,000%, or - many orders yo said, and preposterously small - perhaps 1,200,000% over the last couple hundred years? Many orders of magnitude? Seriously?!?!?!
and - Once again, would you please explain, quantitatively, why an ag increase of some 60%, and a human population increase of several fold, is inconsistent with "ONLY" a 12% increase in global NPP? Jeff Harvey has pointed out to you several times that humans now ultimately appropriate some 40% of global NPP - do you think maybe an increase in the percentage of NPP that humans use might have something to do with it? That's a real question, Sir. It wants a quantitative answer.
BTW, that last is the same question as this, which you've also ignored, perhaps because you are incapable of addressing it, or you realize that an honest answer to it is fatal to your argument:
"If A + B = C, A grows by 67%, and C grows by 12% - what was the percent growth of B? I very much look forward to your attempts to solve this for us, timmy."
And take care, Mr. Curtin , if you quote me again, not to let your word processing software accidentally and without your knowledge insert a meaning-altering word into the quote that you copy form my responses above, rearrange, and then attribute to me with the attribution of "[Lee's} claim" in 'literal' double quote marks.
I realize that technology can be tricky - it appears that your computer often inserts text and rearranges equations without your knowledge and approval, in ways that reflect badly on you. I wonder, though, that this ONLY seems to happen to you, Mr. Curtin. My sympathies. ONLY by being vigilant can you guard against this conspiracy of technology to make you appear ONLY an idiot and dishonest.
Oh, and one more point for you to address, Curtin, while looking at the relationship between ag productivity and NPP.
An increase in the grain yield of a field, does not tell us anything useful about NPP EVEN IN TAT SAME FIELD. Yes, modern blant breeding and ag practices arein part designed to increase photosynthetic capacity per unit area - but even more, it is designed to shift photosynthetic output from vegetative growth to grain, fruit, etc.
A hypothetical example - which parallels real-world examples I've studied, but I cant remember the actual numbes, and I can't be arsed to dig them out right now. Not for timmy-boy.
Take a wheat variety which grows 75 cm tall, and produces 80% vegetative mass and 20% grain mass. Replace with with a variety that produces precisely the same biomass per unit area - thus the same NPP - bu grows only 45cm tall and produces 60% vegetative mass and 40% grain mass. Bingo - doubes grain yield, no change in NPP, for the same damn field.
Or - a farmer grows 100 hectares of dryland wheat, next to 1000 hectares of open prairie. He plows the prairie, plants it to wheat also. Bingo, his grain yield doubles with no increase - more likely, a small decrease - in NPP.
Timmy, ag yield simply IS NOT a proxy for NPP. It isn't. Not even a little bit.
And magically appearing inserted words in the quotes you attribute to me won't change that.
Another Curtin absurdity:
"To repeat, it is not good enough to make N only dependent on [CO2] "
Curtin, Wigley DOES NOT make N only dependent on CO2. Why the hell do you think he chooses a hyperbolic equation? A model that has a saturating value, with asymptotic approach to it?
The reason for that choice, which you have been decrying all thread as fraudulent and dishonest, is precisely because Wigley recognizes, and a hyperbolic equation appropriately models, that N is dependent upon factors other than CO2, and those other factors can be limiting even as [CO2] increases.
Do you even realize that you're arguing against yourself here, timmy?
TC, Lee has given [some answers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) to [my questions about the relationships between agricultural yield, NPP - and other significant variables](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) - the questions you refused to answer. Others gave further answers earlier.
The relationship implied by your argument - i.e. that over the timescales in question anthropogenically useful agricultural production cannot have significantly increased without a similar level of NPP increase (or to put it in alternative mathematical terms that in practice NPP increases constrains anthropogenically useful agricultural productivity increases, or yet another way a similar level of NPP increase is a necessary condition for a given level of agricultural productivity increase) - simply does not hold in the real world. This fact is (and has been) obvious to most people.
Are you smart enough to understand **now** why your arguments that "Geez, we're feeding a lot more humans now than we once were, therefore NPP must have increased by enormous amounts too" (and corollaries flowing from that) are unjustified?
And if so, are you man enough to admit it?
Lee: I am glad you seem to have calmed down a bit but even so, after this I intend to take a break unless someone has anything new and interesting to say.
For now I remind Lee of his shriek:
NPP. IS. NOT. THE. FREAKING. SINK!!!!!
So what is Wigley 1993 all about? He says the missing sink is fertilization effects of rising [CO2] on NPP (p.420) and that âby accounting for the sink using CO2 fertilization ALONE, the present model constrains the form of these future changes in [concentration]â (my caps).
As for NPP and agricultural yields, I previously quoted from Haberl et al PNAS 2007; here it is again:
Actual NPP is calculated by using harvest indices to extrapolate NPP on cropland from harvest statistics, whereas LPJ is used in wilderness areas, forests, and grazing areas. On grazing areas, the effects of fertilization, irrigation, and soil degradation on NPP are explicitly included in the estimate and results are cross-checked against grazing demand [eg number of livestock, see my post above].
Argue with them, not me. Certainly Haberl et al confirm my point that the Wigley-Lee computation of N as having increased by only 12% between 1750 and 2000 has to be a gross under-estimate when just since 1961 cereal production has increased by 167%:
19612007% Increase
Total cereals, billion tonnes 0.877 2.342 167.14
> Actual NPP is calculated by using harvest indices to extrapolate NPP on cropland from harvest statistics...
TC, that quote does NOT mean that agricultural production is linearly proportional to NPP, or vice versa. To put it another wya, it does not mean that other factors do not affect agricultural production. Geez, you were an economist - they're supposed to be able that understand relationships with multiple factors exist, if not actually work sensibly with them.
(And if you're going to quote it in support of your argument, you also need to demonstrate that the definition of NPP in that quote matches the one Wigley is using...and matches the one you are using - and you've steadfastly refused on the latter two.)
> ...the Wigley-Lee computation of N as having increased by only 12% between 1750 and 2000 has to be a gross under-estimate when just since 1961 cereal production has increased by 167%...
Sigh.
Apparently you **can't imagine** any other factors that can account for parts of the **cereal** production increase, therefore you stupidly conclude **it must be** CO2 wot done it.
Is that the level of intellect you demonstrated in your economics career?
G/day Brent, cooold summer there i believe.
Keep up the good work Tim.
lol Brent
Lotharsson: Here I am breaking my abstinence pledge yet again. Ah well, I will try to stop annoying you all ever again.
You say "Actual NPP is calculated by using harvest indices to extrapolate NPP on cropland from harvest statistics...
"TC, that quote does NOT mean that agricultural production is linearly proportional to NPP, or vice versa." What does it mean in Haberl et al?
"To put it another way, it does not mean that other factors do not affect agricultural production. Geez, you were an economist - they're supposed to be able that understand relationships with multiple factors exist, if not actually work sensibly with them."
So why did I report multiple regressions both in my Seminar and in my E&E Food and Climate Change paper?
"(And if you're going to quote it in support of your argument, you also need to demonstrate that the definition of NPP in that quote matches the one Wigley is using...and matches the one you are using - and you've steadfastly refused on the latter two.)"
Loth: there are standard definitions of NPP in Wigley, Haberl, Canadell et in IPCC 2007, thanks to Bernard for reprinting them above, and Curtin 2009; I do not go beyond them. Briefly NPP is net of the respiration out of GPP. And if anybody has a univariate determinant of NPP it is Wigley 1993 passim, and especially Appendix 2.
Then you quote my "...the Wigley-Lee computation of N as having increased by only 12% between 1750 and 2000 has to be a gross under-estimate when just since 1961 cereal production has increased by 167%..."
Loth: "Apparently you can't imagine any other factors that can account for parts of the cereal production increase, therefore you stupidly conclude it must be CO2 wot done it."
LOOK AT MY SEMINAR SLIDES
Sorry to shout, but really, I put up at least a dozen slides looking at factors determining cereals production etc, see e.g. my Malthus v Monsanto slide or the one analysing wheat yields in Moree, NSW, using the CSIRO (Crimp) model.
Loth: "Is that the level of intellect you demonstrated in your economics career?" Well, my Seminar gives the lie to that allegation. Why this constant reversion to ad hom abuse?
Loth: I am sure you could do better if you tried reading what I have actually published or presented, all are at my website.
Curtin,
Get your bloody facts straight:
The Dunning-Kreuger article applies to people who (1) have no pedigree in a field in which they speak as if they are experts; (2) produce arguments at odds with the vast majority of real experts in the field; (3) exhibit no doubts about the conclusions of their arguments.
So let us see: compare me and you in the three points above.
(1) I am a trained scientist who was educated in population, systems and evolutionary ecology at Liverpool University in the U.K. (1989-1991), and did my PhD (1991-1995) on life-history evolution in parasitoid wasps. Since then I have done three postdocs, was Associate Editor at Nature, and have been a senior scientist for the past 10 years at a major Ecological Institute in The Netherlands. I have 99 peer-reviewed papers in the empirical literature (ISI Web of Science), more than 1700 citations of my work, and my recent research has involved both studies continuing from my PhD work and more recently food webs in soil and terrestrial systems.
You, Tim Curtin are an economist. As far as I know, you never studied any form of environmental science at university or since. You have 0 publications in journals that appear in the ISI Web of Science, with 0 (naturally) citations.
(2) Your arguments with respect to the beneficial fertilizing effects of increased C02 on natural ecosystems are at odds with 99% of my peers, and those with whom I have spoken here and at conferences find your arguments completely and utterly irrational and dangerous. My peers are also scientists with years of sanding in their respective fields. The truth is if tomorrow levels of C02 in the atmosphere suddenly were elevated to 1,000 ppm we would probably experience a global ecological catastrophe that is too horrific to even contemplate. This is because we would be altering plant (and landscape) stoichiometry at such a rate that there would be profoundly significant effects on the physiology and ecology of plants and consumers. These effects would be asscoaition-specific, and would almost certainly lead to the unraveling and meltdown of communties and ecosystems across the biosphere. And even at the rate at which C02 levels are rising in the atmosphere, there will be profoundly negative effects on systems across different levels of organization. I say this speaking as a trained scientist; as someone with expertise in the field, and not as an economist with 0 publications and 0 citations.
(3) All scientists are, or should be, sceptical in making rash predictions on the basis of models that expunge critical biotic and abiotic variables. I am naturally sceptical of your frankly innane arguments on the basis of limited empirical data from strictly controlled environments (greenhouses and laboratories) or on correlating certain variables. These studies omit important interactions between plants and higher trophic levels which play a strong role in determining system productivity and which function in decidely non-linear ways. You, as a beginner, exhibit no doubt whatsoever as to the outcome of your models which exclude many critically important biotic and abiotic parameters. Then you have the unmitigated gall and stupidity to answer my questions as if everything is cut and dry, as if the outcomes of the global experiment humanity is conducting are going to be positive and linear. No caution expressed, no doubts spoken, and this coming from a 73 year old economist with no background in any related fields and no publications in ISI journals.
So who is the better example of the 'Dunning-Kruger' effect folks? Who - me or Curtin - better describes Charles Darwin's maxim that "Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge"? I think that anyone with half a mind will know the answer to this question. It is pretty obvious.
>G/day Brent, cooold summer there i believe.
Yeah Sunspot, England's been so cold that June was only 1.1C warmer than average, and provisionally July is 1.2C warmer than average.
Yep, freaking freezing.
Sunspot,
You don't count because as most everyone who reads Deltoid knows you are a complete and utter ignoramus who would believe a dying ameoba if it told you what you wanted to hear.
My question was aimed at the rational folk who realize a know-nothjing from someone who at least has the relevant training. I have worked with plants for 10 years and almost half of my research is based on experiments involving plants (both ecological and physiological). The last time I looked Curtin hadn't published anything on plants - or in any field of environmental science.
Therefore, on what basis can such a layman brazenly argue that the 'green world hypothesis' is garbage? Scientists have discussed and debated the hypothesis for years and there is some proof in support of it in simpliofied landscapes (such as agro-ecosystems) based on meta-analyses and the success of biological control programs. Curtin clearly hasn't read anything about it, but since it threatens the predictions his little econometric-type models he has no recourse but to take the high ground.
Anyway, sunblot, why explain this to you? You have not a clue about anything to do with environmental science, either.
madam harvey, your speil checkar is busted again. There you go big noting again, i beat you in the plant caper though, I planted my first tree plantation over 30 years ago and farmed BD for quite time since then, and still do FREE environmental work. You only talk about it, I do it.
Your just a shinny arse know all.
> And if anybody has a univariate determinant of NPP it is Wigley 1993 passim, and especially Appendix 2.
What makes you think it's **asserting** that no other NPP factors exist other than CO2 concentration, rather than modeling a relationship between NPP and CO2 concentrations *when all other factors remain constant*?
> Briefly NPP is net of the respiration out of GPP.
Briefly, that dodges the question yet again.
As one example, in your definition, NPP covers **what** scope of biological activity exactly? The entire biosphere or only anthropogenic activities? Only plant-based processes or all biological processes? If the former, only cereal plants or all plants? Does Wigley use the same scope in his definition? Does everyone else you quote regarding NPP? And is your definition consistent with your claimed relation of NPP to global atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
You say that **cereal** production has increased by 167% in a certain time period, and conclude that NPP **must** have dramatically increased over the same period in order to generate such an increase.
Just as one quick example, on which slide in your seminar do you graph (say) the *amount of land* dedicated to cereal production over that time period? (And how about measuring any shift in *patterns of land assigned to cereals production* - say, in aggregate from less-suited to more-suited climatic zones and soils. And also analysis of the change in proportion of total NPP - under Wigley's definition, since that's the one you're complaining about - attributable to cereal agriculture over time?)
I'm sure you've done all these, because I'm certain you wouldn't have made (say) the egregious mistake of *assuming* that cereal production is a fixed proportion of world agriculture, or of the global aggregate of biological carbon fixing processes, or whatever your definition of the NPP scope is, right? And I'm also sure you're competent enough NOT to assume that (say) land use is constant either, right?
Can you name any other factors that might affect cereal production that you have not considered, or are you asserting you've covered all of them?
841 Jeff,
Don't waste a single word on sunspot. Every comment he makes shows he's an arrogant ignoramus and in another thread he also shows he's a credulous cretin for falls for every over unity/perpetual motion scam going.
Jeff, another last word just for you re D-K. You once again cite your amazing career chronicling the exploits of wasps, 99 papers, and 1700 citations (but not one of those is in Haberl et al PNAS 2007), against mine with none in ISI. But I have never claimed to be nor ever was a scientist, and I ceased to be a paid academic economist in March 1970, not long after you were born.
So far as I know there not an ISI for economics, but if there is do you figure in it? And as I ceased to be an academic in 1970 I probably would also not feature, even though my paper The Economics of Population Growth and Control in Developing Countries (Review of Social Economics, 1969) featured in the standard British textbook on the Economics of Development until well into the 1990s.
Other stuff I have written over the years on such topics as sanctions against Rhodesia and more recently on economic development etc in Papua New Guinea has been cited in the admittedly restricted areas of interest that such topics entail, and I moonlighted from my paid work to contribute to not a few books (most recently ANU E-Press 2009) including one under my own name (UPNG 1991) and another due out shortly with a co-author (David Lea). So for a non-academic I have actually published quite a bit on a wide range of subjects (see my website for full listings).
As for my recent work on climate change, all that you complain of in regard to the Wigley issue here is something you should address to him, because he ignores all your concerns.
Finally, I am glad you are not cited by Haberl et al (all too many from Schellnhuber's mob at Potsdam, he communicated their paper to PNAS, and amazingly, another (?) Schellnhuber (editor at PNAS) accepted it, no doubt without serious peer review). All the same they follow your line, that "land use [to feed a growing population of our species]... results in changes in biogeochemical cycles (1) and in a deterioration of the ability of ecosystems to deliver services critical to human well-being [other than food?]"
Ergo, get the trains running to you know where (your own prescription, nicht waar?) in order to reduce us humans' "Appropriation of NPP".
Loth: there's cricket on, so I will only add this to your last: most of the increase in cereal production since 1961 comes from yield, as land devoted to cereals did not change much over that period. As my Seminar explained and showed in various Slides, about 40% of cereal consumption by weight comprises carbon, so 167% increase in output involves a lot of carbon uptake on annual basis (2007 v 1961).
Whoa!
I leave the computer for a day and there's been a spasm of nonsense on this thread.
One question that I've been meaning to ask for weeks now has actually been [pre-empted by Lotharsson above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). Nevertheless I'll phrase it myself in the manner I've been thinking about: Curtin, what forms of negative control did you include in your analyses?
Note, I (and I am sure others) will be watching your new material with interest, to see if you add to the guff that you've previously published in order to account for the significant points that I, Lee, Lotharsson, Jeff and others have been attempting to draw to your attention. Just to see how polite you are in acknowledging that others have been responsible for any accuracy that may somehow slip into your work.
And when will we see the answers to the lingering questions about your claimed [pH/salinity relationship (and lack thereof)](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), about why you are correct about how growth is modelled in biology, [contrary to how all professional biologists modell growth](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and about how [growth of human-embodied biomass apparently requires the release of hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered, fossil carbon](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)?
And on a point of house-keeping - we really need to disinfect that damned spot...
Jeff, humility isn't one of your strong points is it? Mr "Ive got a PHD in being an arrogant God knows what!".
Jeff, humility isn't one of your strong points is it? Mr "Ive got a PHD in being an arrogant God knows what!".
Indeed, Paddy, how DARE someone with some knowledge SAY they have knowledge!!! The sheer CHEEK of it!
WOW- It's great for someone to have knowledge and success in their chosen field. I really mean it, it is a great quality in a person. However is it really necessary to feel the need to brag about such success in nearlly every post?
As a gay man i find this quality highly unattractive. I would rather Jeff demonstrate his knowledge to me through his research, by giving us a plethora of facts, and empirical data. Instead he chooses to belittle Tim in an arrogant, and weak manner. Tim merely provides facts, and his own research to reiterate his opinion! He might not always be correct, he might not have a PHD in environmental science, however it is clear to me he demonstrates a passion for the subject (whether right or wrong), and as a human-being i find this quality rather warming! Im no award winning scientist, but from the literature available it is evident to me that neither view point has found the definitive answer to the climate change debate! So like this blog, it will just continue to go, on and on, and on, and on!
Humility is a spirit of meekness and modesty, and not being prideful or arrogant. If only more people with a special talent or knowledge in a select field would display this, then the World would be a happier place! Instead it is filled with people like Jeff who feel the need to brag about such successes, and belittle others who haven't yet reached the highest heights of a cannabis factory in Amsterdam!
C'mon Paddy.
Jeff and all the other knowledgeable commenters on this thread have done a sterling job of trying to get facts straight, scientific processes explained in detail, the precise scope of investigations and reports explained in detail - again and again and again. Did you *read* all the exchanges on pH, salinity, alkilinity, acidity and potability of seawater?
"Humility is a spirit of meekness and modesty, and not being prideful or arrogant."
This is excellent advice to someone venturing into areas in which they *know* their knowledge is limited and they *know* that others are available with the relevant facts, figures and expertise to fill those gaps.
Paddy,
Could you clutch at those pearls any tighter?
Paddy, I'll give you another quote:
Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can at upon them.
T Jefferson.
TC has no distinct idea, merely continued misapplication of overexcessive verbiage. You have not even that.
Humility should be yours and TC's, especially after all the idiocies spouted and all the overweening arrogance you have displayed so quickly.
But no, the problem is that someone who knows something and says they do, and that MUST be shouted down, lest "the elites" win.
Pathetic.
Tim: your expertise in economics is (almost) as irrelevant as your ability to do backward handflips when it comes to determining whether you have any understanding of ecology.
Your insistence that global grain yield is a good proxy for NPP would be enough to tell me that you have little clue about the subject, even if I had not been treated to the spectacle of you insisting that seawater only needs to have its pH changed to make it drinkable. That is destined to go down in history as one of the classic displays of idiocy.
Ah it's Brent again, another of Bishop von Daniken's delusional retirees little realising that the Alzheimer's is making him repeat himself again and again. And again.
Written to any good Members of Parliament lately Bwent?
Or rather more accurately, have you been told to write to any Members of Parliament lately Bwent?
Because that's what obedient little bishopy zombie ants do isn't it? Do what their glorious leaders have told them to multiply the numbers into double figures. Maybe you'll earn Lawdy Lord Lawson another chin, if you work really, really hard till that Bic is burnin'.
Btw way, it's not just here that you're a joke Brent - the U.S. Govt. too finds your grip on reality [tenuous too.](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html)
Did you read those links on that page yet?
Or better yet, understand them?
I expect not, but the hope that there may once have been intelligence there shows I at least used to be an optimist.
Is it really necessary to feel the need to brag about your sexual orientation?
Jeff's qualifications are, at least, germane to the matter of Curtin's ability - or rather, his inability - to engage in an an analysis and a critique of disciplines of science in which he has no training. It is an unfortunate reflection upon Curtin himself that he continues to believe his own over-estimated (to the point of vastly over-inflated) perception of his own capacity to conduct scientific enterprise. Jeff would not need to remind Curtin of the disparity between his his abilities and Jeff's, if the old economist didn't keep making such egregious mistakes of science.
And the fact that new numpties continue to appear here, making the same mistakes of science, is another driver for Jeff's repetition of his bona fides. It is telling that none of them ever seem to have the nouse to find out who Jeff is, and to find out that he actually has a clue about ecological processes.
And speaking of mushrooms, I note that the latest one (who is tresspassing, according to the conditions that Tim Lambert has placed upon him) has dropped any pretense of effort to arrive at the truth of the science, and has well and truly nailed his real colours to the mast. It would seem to make a lie of the hundreds of posts that he made prior to his ideological decloaking, a revealing that shows he has no interest in the science.
It's a sad reflection on the Dunningly-Krugered section of our society that no matter how many of us draw attention to our PhDs, Masters, and professional experience, they will continue to believe their own mythologies about the Great Scientific Conspiracy, the Great Scientific Fraud, and the Great Scientific Incompetence, and that their perpetual-motion versions of science somehow trump the work of professionals.
As if.
So Paddy has no problem with calling people Pol Pot or Loathsome or racist or genocidal any of the other offensive and ungrounded insults that TC throws around with er, ... abandon to hide his incompetence - but is quite offended by someone pointing out that, Yes Virginia, they do have relevant qualifications in the field when talking to someone who apparently has no clue.
I admit it's getting to be very hard to tell. Clever Poe, or fantastically one-eyed tone troll?
> ...about 40% of cereal consumption by weight comprises carbon, so 167% increase in output involves a lot of carbon uptake on annual basis (2007 v 1961).
Firstly, you're still not getting it.
You **really** need to define your terms **with precision**. I speak as someone who has no qualifications in the area - just like you - but finds your argument entirely unconvincing because (amongst other things) the lack of precision gives the strong impression that you've jumped to any number of unjustified conclusions. This thread provides ample evidence of you doing that with other claims, so it's certainly not an implausible hypothesis.
Tim, *define your terms*. **Precisely**.
Or admit that you're unable to provide a robust case for your hypothesis.
You throw around various terms as if they mean precisely the same thing, or are at least very strongly related, when you have presented no evidence for either case (and quite often countervailing evidence has been supplied). This kind of sloppiness is rather often a strong indicator of sloppy thought, and probably of fallacy.
Your steadfast refusal to precisely define your terms suggests that you either (a) cannot because you really haven't thought about it to that level of detail, or (b) will not because it will damage your thesis. There may be other options - feel free to tell us the real reason if it's not (a) or (b) - or to just go ahead with the precise definitions.
And once you've done that, revisit the cites you rely on for your argument (starting with, say, Wigley and cereal stats) and show that they use precisely the same definitions; or failing that, show a defensible and robust transformation from their definition to yours.
At this point you might (for example) be able to demonstrate that you understand *in precise terms* what the Michaelis-Menten ("MM") equation as used by Wigley *means*. To date you've given the strong impression that you:
(a) have not understood the definition of the terms used in the MM equation;
(b) have egregiously misunderstood even *which* equation was MM;
(c) have egregiously misapplied MM to compute irrelevant non-physical values, and then mischaracterised the implications of those bogus outputs;
(d) have egregiously mischaracterised the form of the MM equation;
(e) have egregiously *inverted* the effect of the use of the MM equation on model predictions of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations - and then slandered the scientists for what you claim is a deliberate and corrupt attempt to employ your imaginary inverted effect to bias the models in one particular direction;
(f) have assumed, quite likely incorrectly, that MM is intended to - and is deployed by Wigley in order to - predict real world NPP changes due to **all** relevant factors rather than changes due to one particular factor *when all others are held constant*;
(g) appear to have assumed that global cereal production changes over a time period allows one to directly infer - or at the very least significantly constrain - NPP changes over the same time period, without providing supporting evidence to justify extrapolating from the specific to the general;
(h) have furthermore assumed that your inferred NPP changes show that MM is *wrong*, when you haven't gone remotely close to establishing the necessary presumptions and a plausible chain of logic for that claim;
(i) ...have derived the corollary that the models are way out of whack because you think MM is so wrong, but show no evidence of understanding whether (and how) the models may deal with the other factors that impact NPP - or even that you've got the *sign* of the impact of MM on the models' predictions wrong;
I could go on, but I haven't all day.
And you'll note that I use "*have*" rather than "*once had*", because despite the demonstration of several egregious errors on your part that undermine key planks of it, you *still stand by the entirety of your seminar*!
Secondly, given your quote above, you will already be able to:
a) show how much land area for cereal agriculture changed rather than waving it off
b) in fact, show how *all* other factors that affect cereal production have changed over the relevant time period
c) show a defensible derivation of attribution of the observed cereal production changes to the various factors (and for extra points, produce and defend a likely future evolution of those other factors and their impact on production changes under reasonable future CO2 emissions scenarios - which unfortunately would seem to require biological and modeling expertise)
d) thereby quantify the extra amount of CO2 uptaken by the fraction of increased cereal output attributable to CO2-driven NPP increase rather than to other factors (and while you're at it figure out the amount of extra CO2 used in agriculture to produce and consume the extra cereal production)
e) then compare the amount of extra uptake to CO2 emissions and model predictions, to MM equations and so on - and for the latter, demonstrate how well MM is expected to apply specifically to cereals, given that it appears to be a non-cereal-specific equation
So you can just cut-and-paste your existing working into a post here, right?
Then you might try to define and defend a mechanism for extrapolating from the specific (increased cereals production attributable to increased CO2) to the general (NPP-CO2 models).
And perhaps *then* you might start on attempting the far larger task of arguing that increased CO2 won't ultimately impact the climate and ecosystem in ways that have significant negative impacts on agriculture overall, perhaps even far more negative than the yield increases you anticipate.
But currently you're a long way from the latter two paragraphs.
Thankyou Bernard for your comments. However unfortunately this debate has not reached a clear conclusion, and evidently wont for a number of years. I myself is just interested in establishing the truth behind this fascinating debate on climate change.
I remain objective in my analysis with regards to the comments made on this blog. I do sincerely find it very interesting (otherwise i would NOT waste my time here), to hear the points raised by bloggers. However to me it seems to be a complete merry'go round, and i refuse to believe all that Jeff says just because he has a PHD, and years of experience in ecological studies. I for one believe each and everyone of us has the power to unearth pioneering research, without needing a certificate from a university institute. All it requires is a degree of interest, intelligence, and application, all of which i can assume Tim Curtin has!
Im guessing Tim has retired now (I think Jeff slammed him with an agist remark about him being 73?) So it is quite evident Tim is dedicating most of his time to research the field of climate change. Therefore I do believe a proven economist has the power to dedicate their focus to a field in a different topic, like if Jeff where to offer substance with regards to economics! So long as what he is saying is accredited with science, mathematics, and logic (Yes I know you disagree with Tims logic, ha ha, very funny!) I believe he has the power to construct a formidable argument with regards to the climate change debate!
Jeff & Tim need to find common ground, and so far they clearly have not, however i think having scrolled through this thread that it is Jeff who fails to understand the serious deconstruction of his comments by Tim. In particular it is clear that Tim believes the human species do have, and should the priority in all decisions with regards to the future of the planet, and its ecosystems. Given the superior intellect of the human species relative to that of Jeff's wasps, lice, and mosquitos I tend to believe that the human species will achieve better outcomes than these that best meet the needs and desires of said mosquitos.
Loth, I think I should now call you Slotharthsson, with your program for about 5 Ph.Ds, none of which you are prepared to embark on yourself.
However I will do my best in the space of a single post on this Blog to achieve what would be worth at least 5 Ph.Ds.
First, you contest my statement that âabout 40% of cereal consumption by weight comprises carbon, so 167% increase in output involves a lot of carbon uptake on annual basis (2007 v 1961)â by saying âTim, define your terms. Preciselyâ.
Well, what can I say? Check the statements of composition of your breakfast wheaties or ricies or whatever on the box thereof, which state 80% comprises carbohydrates. Then Google for carbohydrates and you will find that roughly 50% of such comprises carbon and 50% water (aka H2O).
You then refer to Wigley, but at no point has Wigley EVER assessed or referred to data on world production of crops containing C derived from photosynthetic absorption of atmospheric CO2. Nor will he ever, as he would then have to resile from all the nonsense he has propagated since Wigley 1993 and MAGICC passim, to the detriment of all mankind (including all womankind, just to show how PC I can be).
So to repeat, Sloth, 40% of cereal consumption consists of Carbon, and 7 billion eat more of that now than fewer than 1 billion in 1750 despite the fatuous formulae in Wigley 1993.
As for the Michaelis-Menten formula, I have nothing to add to what I said about it in my ANU seminar. Wigley, Fried at al, IPCC, and Sokolov et al say they use it, and it is hyperbolic, such that there is a ceiling to future biospheric absorption of anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
Bullshit!
Finally, your claims re my assessment of the Michaelis-Menten equation are or would be actionable if you were not a totally worthless creature from whom not even $100 could be extracted.
This is evidenced by your â(c) show a defensible derivation of attribution of the observed cereal production changes to the various factors (and for extra points, produce and defend a likely future evolution of those other factors and their impact on production changes under reasonable future CO2 emissions scenarios - which unfortunately would seem to require biological and modeling expertise)â.
That is exactly what I did in Slide #38 of my ANU Seminar.
Tim, why do you persist in confusing grain production with total plant production? A major push by plant breeders in the last 50 years has been to change the relationship between the two.
That was one of the reasons why Jeff was asking you to define your terms.
For someone who has allegedly been a professional economist, timmy is extraordinarily averse to applying actual quantitative analysis to his claims.
tim, quantify your claims - from beginning to end - or they are meaningless.
Lotharson laid it out for you- he essentially wrote your paper for you, timmy, if you bother to pay attention. Do the analysis he lays out for you from beginning to end. If you use his logic, and the analysis can be quantified from beginning to end with supportable and verifiable numbers, and it shows what you claim it shows, that paper WILL get published in Nature. And it WILL challenge a lot of what we currently know.
But before it will do that, you have to SHOW that it does, and you have not, not in your presentation, not here.
Just a reminder of some key parts you have steadfastly avoided answering.
What fraction of global NPP is represented in your grain production numbers?
What is the quantitative relationship between changes in grain production, and changes in global NPP, and what is the basis for your making that claim. "They both have carbon" is not a basis for that claim, timmy.
And one more time - this question is equivalent to those above, timmy, and an answer to it will help to illuminate your claims, I think. This will be the third time I've asked - and you so far have not even acknowledged the existence of the question or this issue:
"If A + B = C, A grows by 67%, and C grows by 12% - what was the percent growth of B? I very much look forward to your attempts to solve this for us, timmy."
Paddy you say: I for one believe each and everyone of us has the power to unearth pioneering research, without needing a certificate from a university institute.
How lovely for you. And never before have there been so many google galileos pontificating on the internet with jacqueshit practical experience. Even your hero Tim declined the sea water drinking experiment when the reality hit him. But has he retracted one whit of his garbage theories? Of course not.
You also say: "Given the superior intellect of the human species relative to that of Jeff's wasps, lice, and mosquitos I tend to believe that the human species will achieve better outcomes than these that best meet the needs and desires of said mosquitos".
What Bernard, Lee, Lotharsson and especially Jeff in the context of this reply have been trying to drum into some thick heads is that mankind sits atop a pyramid of largely unacknowledged, especially economically so, biological support mechanisms that are being gradually eroded amidst an ongoing and present Great Extinction Event. The bad news is there are no replacements available either in the natural world or to our available technology.
The structural support that our species relies 100% on is indicated, as you so dismissively put it by the health of Jeff's wasps, lice, and mosquitos and their like. There's also this story about the [rapidly diminishing phytoplankton.](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-dead-sea-gl…) Do you think the fact that you may never have heard of it decreases its importance? Has Tim Curtin so much as considered any of that? Or is it more likely the case that folk who actually study these things for a living for years and achieve seniority in their field might actually have some real idea of what they're talking about?
As compared to say some random internet cranks like Curtin and Watts whose only qualification is that the confusion they create is in the interests of a global oligarchy currently running the most profitable enterprise, fossil fuel energy, that the world has ever seen, and who really see no reason yet to change anything.
Useful idiots have a very limited shelf life.
Paddy:
Paddy, have a read of Tim's theory that the atmosphere has constant mass, regardless of what we put into it, and then tell us what you think of Tim's science, mathematics and logic.
I really do not need to reply to Lee, Bernard, Simons et al as Piet Tans of NOAA's Mauna Slope Observatory has done it for me, with completely independent confirmation of my refutations of Canadell Wigley et et all. going back to 2007
The Reference is:
Tans, P. 2009. An accounting of the observed increase in oceanic and atmospheric CO2 and an outlook for the future. Oceanography 22: 26-35.
The following summary is by NIPPC: at www.nipccreport.org.
Periodically, even in some of the world's most prestigious scientific journals, it is said that the natural sinks of earth's carbon cycle are becoming ever less effective in removing from the atmosphere the CO2 that we routinely release to it as a result of our energy-intensive activities (Canadell et al., 2007; LeQuere et al., 2007).
Now, however, that scientific myth appears to have been put to rest by a new analysis of real-world data.
In a study published in the December 2009 issue of Oceanography that considered a number of related topics, NOAA's Pieter Tans employed measurements of atmospheric and oceanic carbon contents, along with reasonably constrained estimates of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to calculate the residual fluxes of carbon (in the form of CO2) from the terrestrial biosphere to the atmosphere (+) or from the atmosphere to the terrestrial biosphere (-), obtaining the results depicted in the figure below.
Figure 1. Five-year smoothed rates of carbon transfer from land to air (+) or from air to land (-) vs. time. Adapted from Tans (2009).
As can be seen from this figure, earth's land surfaces were a net source of CO2-carbon to the atmosphere until about 1940, primarily due to the felling of forests and the plowing of grasslands to make way for expanded agricultural activities. From 1940 onward, however, the terrestrial biosphere has become, in the mean, an increasingly greater sink for CO2-carbon; and it has done so even in the face of massive global deforestation, for which it has more than compensated.
In light of these findings, and the fact that they do "not depend on models" but "only on the observed atmospheric increase and estimates of fossil fuel emissions," Tans concluded that "suggestions that the carbon cycle is becoming less effective in removing CO2 from the atmosphere (e.g., LeQuere et al., 2007; Canadell et al., 2007) can perhaps be true locally, but they do not apply globally, not over the 50-year atmospheric record, and not in recent years." In fact, he goes on to say that "to the contrary" and "despite global fossil fuel emissions increasing from 6.57 GtC in 1999 to 8.23 in 2006, the five-year smoothed global atmospheric growth rate has not increased during that time, which requires more effective uptake [of CO2] either by the ocean or by the terrestrial biosphere, or both, to satisfy atmospheric observations."
And the results portrayed in the figure we have adapted from Tans' paper clearly indicate that this "more effective uptake" of CO2-carbon has occurred primarily over land.
This observation-based analysis of real-world data pretty much verifies both the reality and the tremendous strength of the CO2-induced Greening of the Earth phenomenon, which has been observed in numerous independent studies conducted throughout the world.
In addition, it refutes the unfounded arguments of climate alarmists, who contend that various environmental stresses and resource limitations will not allow the full potential of the well-documented aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment to be manifest in nature.
Indeed, this phenomenon is itself a "force of nature" that can be neither hindered nor halted, as it bestows its blessings upon wild and domesticated plants alike, without regard for artificial boundaries drawn on maps or the political persuasions of man.
Additional References
Canadell, J.G., LeQuere, C., Raupach, M.R., Field, C.B., Buitenhuis, E.T,., Ciais, P., Conway, T.J., Gillett, N.P., Houghton, R.A. and Marland, G. 2007. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 18,866-18.870.
LeQuere, C., Rodenbeck, C., Buitenhuis, E.T., Conway, T.J., Langenfelds, R., Gomez, A., Labuschagne, C., Ramonet, M., Nakazawa, T., Metzl, N., Gillett, N. and Heimann, M.. 2007. Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 sink due to recent climate change. Science 316: 1735-1738.
Archived 28 July 2010
Oh look.Rather than respond on point, timmy - again - cites a paper that is irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand, AND that he demenstrates he doesn't understand. Where have we seen this show before?
Timmy, Tans 2009 is fully consistent with Wigley 1993. I suspect it is just as consistent with Canadell - I'm away from my primary computer and don't have access to check. LeQuere isn't even about NPP.
Have you had your cognitive functioning checked recently?
Tim Curtin:
What a comedian, citing a global warming denial website www.nipccreport.org.
> First, you contest my statement that âabout 40% of cereal consumption by weight comprises carbon, so 167% increase in output involves a lot of carbon uptake on annual basis (2007 v 1961)â by saying âTim, define your terms. Preciselyâ.
Wrong again. The charitable interpretation is that it was a nice try at dodging the questions - again.
**That** is clearly **not** what I contested. Go back and and read it again. And if you still come to the same conclusion, rinse and repeat until it sinks in.
Hint: I wasn't contesting your statement, but pointing out at great length that as things stand, it *does not imply* what you *claim it implies*.
> Finally, your claims re my assessment of the Michaelis-Menten equation are or would be actionable if you were not a totally worthless creature from whom not even $100 could be extracted.
> This is evidenced by your â(c) show a defensible derivation of attribution of the observed cereal production changes to the various factors (and for extra points, produce and defend a likely future evolution of those other factors and their impact on production changes under reasonable future CO2 emissions scenarios - which unfortunately would seem to require biological and modeling expertise)â.
Comedy gold :-)
Please enlighten us as to your understanding of legal theory that would lead to this being "actionable"? Is it any more substantive than your [(mis-)understanding of libel law](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)?
> ...Slotharthsson, with your program for about 5 Ph.Ds, none of which you are prepared to embark on yourself.
**You** are the one *slothfully* making the claims.
If substantiating them needs 5 new Ph.Ds it seems rather like an admission that the current state of science doesn't back up your claims.
That's a useful clarification.
Tim Curtin:
Paddy,
You ought to get your facts straight before commenting. If you had read my earlier posts you would see that, time and time again, I have argued from a scientific perspective. And time and time again, Tim Curtin ignores it or comes back with insults about my research.
Furthermore, qualifications in a field DO matter. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Tim's arguments are at odds with the vast majority of my peers. And remember, he has no formal training in any related field. One of my colleagues here where I work, who did his PhD on the effects of C02 on plant-insect interactions, cannot believe some of the stuff Tim is saying, and tells me that I am wasting my time on this thread. As far as I am concerned, with Tim Curtin I am, because he writes as if he is some immense sage of widsom in fields that he has never studied, and dismisses scientists and science with whom his 'data' are at odds. And often not in a respectful way. I think that you ought to go through this and Tim's other thread a read some of his comments. They are IMO quite appalling. I contribute here for the simple reason that I want to reach those who might be sucked in by Tim's obfuscations. And it seems that I am doing this quite well. The reason I - quite reluctantly - mentioned my professional qualifications is that TIM accude me of exhibiting arguments beyond my competence (for the second time, he cited the Dunning-Kruger study). My riposte was to show how he has twisted the meaning of that paper to suit his own narrative.
From Wikipedia, here is a brief description of the findings of the Dunning-Kruger study (1999):
"The DunningâKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. *This leads to the perverse situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people*. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence: because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others". [Emphasis mine].
I will leave it up to you to see which of these traits better describes Tim or myself. But this is why I cited my scientific qualifications, and compared them with his.
Secondly, there is no common ground between him and me. I have argued that complex adaptive system across the biosphere will not respond linearly to changes in atmospheric C02 concentrations, and that there will be all kinds of hidden effects - not yet manifested - that are impossoble to predict right now (see my comments below).
In classic Dunning-Kruger fashion, Tim claims that the 'green world hypothesis is garbage', but note how he cunningly does not engage in discussion of the many studies which have examined the hypothesis. Why not? Because he has not read them. Certainly I will discuss the merits and shortcomings of studies by Hairston et al. (1960), Hunter and Price (1992), Halal and Wise (1999), Schmitz et al. (2000), Shurin et al. (2002), Gripenberg and Roslin (2007) as well as years of work by Donald Strong and the late Gary Polis with anyone, but since Tim has not got even a basic grounding in the field, it would be like me teaching a first year undergraduate student. Besides, instead of starting out, as anyone, even the most experienced scientist, should, Tim, of all people, starts out by saying 'it's garbage'. What does that tell you about him? This is proof positive IMHO that he is ideologically driven and that he does not give a rat's ass about the science.
You'd think a guy with no pedigree in any scientific field would be very cautious in making brazen remarks. As it turns out, there is a body of evidence that strongly shows a correlation between terrestrial biomass and the role of consumers (top-down effects), although these are more prevalent in aquatic systems (because of their simplified structure) and in simple terrestrial habitats, suich as in crop moncultures. This is important, because Tim has based his rather one-dimensional modelling exercise on the idea that increasing atmospheric C02 levels will benefit terrestrial primary production. In other words, his models are entirely quantitative, but completely ignore qualitative parameters (such as changes in levels of primary and secondary plant metabolites in leaf and root tissues as C02 rises), how these changes will affect consumer-based food webs, and how these changes will manifest themselves on ecosystem functioning. At the same time, if cropping systems are more top-down then bottom-up controlled, then the effects of changes in plant quality will profoundly affect food webs asscoaited with them, and quite possibly in very negative ways. What about the effects of C02 on carbnon-based plant toxins? On levels of phenolics? Digestibility reducers? Solubale amino-acids and proteins? And on N and P concetrations, given that these are vitally important in terms of plant fitness. How will these changes affect generalist and specialist herbivore assemblages, given the observed changes in levels of nutrients and toxins in plant tissues? What about nectar production and quality? Our crops are utterly dependent on pollinators, and changes in the content of nectars and their constituent sugars could signifcantly effect the survival, fitness and efficacy of pollinators. Then scale these effects up to the level of communities. Ecology is thye study of scale, and all of these scales work their way up to influence emergent properties such as productivity and reslience.
I have said all of this before, usually for Tim to come back with some non-response or to ignore it. But we cannot ignore the effects of rapidly increasing atmsopheric C02 levels on nature. As I have said before, our planet evolved richer biological diversity under low ambinet C02 regimes than under higher regimes. In other words, high C02 levels are not a pre-requisite for maintaining a healty, functioning biosphere. Because of some of the effects I describe, they may be quite negativem because they may shift the balance towards favoring (for the short-term) plant-based defenses, but in the end, given that plants depend on an array of interactions with mutulaists such as pollinators and solil microbes, as well as natural enmies to control pest populations, once plants become too toxic these consumer-mutualist based food webs break down, eventually reducing diversity and making systems more prone to collapse.
I can tell you that at this point in history our understanding of the parameters that determine the rules governing the assembly and function of natural ecosystems are still very poor and rudimentary. This is because cause-and-effect relationships that mediate the functioning of thse systems act in distinctly non-linear ways. Change one small parameter in an ecosystem - such as the addition of another herbivore, the loss of a key pollinator, or the loss of nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil - and it can ripple through the whole community over time and lead to dramatic changes in the stucture of the community.
Speaking as someone who has worked on plant ecology and physiology over the past 10 years, I can assure you that, as humans continue to fiddle with complex adaptive systems, that we are in effect conducting a massive experiment whose outcome could be very serious for all of humanity. The world is not as simple as Tim makes it out to be, and few real scientists would make such bold statements with such assurance as Tim does with respect to his views on C02-based primary production. And, to repeat, given his lack of training in the field, which is important, you would think that this would make him even MORE cautious in making predictions. Instead, he is as bold and strident as one can be.
Sorry for all of the typos in my response above (#871) but I responsed very rapidly without checking. It is a busy day.
> So long as what he is saying is accredited with science, mathematics, and logic...
Paddy, I agree - with the important proviso **so long as**.
Take your time and read the **entire** thread - take it in small doses over several days if necessary; heck, scribble some records of the issues raised against Tim's claims as they are raised and see if they are *ever* adequately answered by science, mathematics and logic - and then see if you can answer the "so long as" question.
Jeff, I looked you up, I'm very impressed and luved the photo of you collecting seal semen, I coming to Holland soon, would you like to hook up ?
Paddy,
One last point: your comment about wasp, lice and mosquitoes is sadly misplaced.
Here's a bet: eliminate all of the pollinating organisms from the surface of the Earth. They are mostly invertebrates, the kind of things you disparaged in your comment. Then similarly eliminate all of the nitrogen-fixing bacteria from the soil. Heck, they are just microbes.
Then see how long nature is able to sustain humanity in a 'manner that we know' in the words of ecologist Gretchen Daily (Stanford university). My guess on how long humanity survives? We can talk about years or months. No longer. Ever hear of the term 'ecosystem services'? These are processes that emerge over variable spatial and temporal scales, based on trillions of interactions involving billions of organisms that unwittingly generate conditions and processes that sustain viable ecological systems across the biosphere. When humans became the dominant terrestrial organism, some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, biological diversity was richer than at any time in the planet's long history. This richness permitted humans (and all other life forms) to exist and to persist, in that it provides both provisioning (consumptive) and supporting (indirect) services that are vital to the material economy.
Indirect services include purification of land and water ecosystems, detoxification of wastes, cycling of nutrients, pollination, pest control, seed dispersal, generation and maintenance of soil fertility, climate control many others. If these services carried prices, we would be aware of their value in supporting humnan civilization. But since the value of these services is externalized, we do no know how important they are until they are added to a system, or, more worryingly, lost.
Against that background humans are consuming nature like there is no tomorrow. We are draining fossil-age groundwater supplies, exhausting soil fertility, and reducing biological diversity at rates far exceeding the evolution of new species. Studies are showing that the ability of natural systems to sustain themselves - and us - is being seriously compromised by various human assaults (see Milennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2006). These include overharvesting of natural capital, habitat destruction, various forms of pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change) and a recent threat, that of invasive species into non-native ecosystems. In combination, these anthropogenic assaults are reducing the ability opf natural systems to sustain mankind. There are few, if any, technological substitutes for most of these services, and even where there are, they are prohibitively expensive.
As a scientist, I am well aware that at some point the debt humans are incurring on nature will have to be paid. The loss of key services will be one consequence. Right now there are very worrying signs. Ppopulations of many important pollinators are in freefall across much of the planet. The ability of marine and freshwater species to detoxify terrestrial wastes is being greatly reduced. Many soil ecosystems and their biota are being destroyed, rendering the soil useless for agricuture.
IMO Tim has never once addressed any of these points on this or on his other Deltoid thread. He is singularly pre-occupied with the idea that decarbonizing the economy is a recipe for famine. He seems to believe that the cure-all to hunger is to see to it that we keep pumping carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere, apparantly based on some models predicting net terrestrial and marine sources and sinks of carbon. However, this does not take into account that carbon is not necessarily a limiting nutrient as far as plant quality is concerned. A bigger plant may be a more toxic plant, if carbon-based allelochemical concentrations increase. This may occur at the expense of primary metabolites (nutrients) such as solubale amino acids and proteins. Plants with nitrogen-based allelochemicals may exhibit reduced toxicity, making them more susceptible to insect herbivores. At the same time, nitrogen is a limiting nutrient for herbivore fitness, and herbivores feeding on plants storing increased carbon may be forced to compensate their feeding rates to acquire sufficient N and other nutrietns, thereby incurring more damage. If plants with carbon-based toxins become less palatable, then herbivbores feeding on these plants will be put at risk, because they may need to feed more to obtain sufficient nutrients whilst ingesting more toxins. There are a vast array of 'unknowns' when prediciting the effects of increasing atmospheric levels of carbon-dioxide on individuals, communities, and ecosystems, all of which are linked.
Therefore, debates on the so-called costs and benefits of the current human experiment must take into account processes occurring at smaller scales and then try to connect them to more determinstic processes occurring at larger scales in order to predict with any sense of accuracy the possible outcomes. I speak as a scientist who knows the limitations of modelling exercises which generate simple quantitative outcmes on natural systems. These which are appropriately called 'complex adaptive systems' insofar as they are unimaginably complex, and somehow generate conditions which are adaptive in that they act as life-support systems for all forms of life. But we also know that ecology is the most complex of the life-sciences because cause-and-effect relationships are often non-linear, in that the loss or addition of one small component to a system - such as an exotic species like kudzu vine - can ripple through the system and lead to all kinds of nasty events that we were unable to predict at the outset.
The comparatively rapid rise of atmopsheric C02 constitutes one such experiment in which there are many possible outcomes that are anything but predictable. That is because different species will respond differently to this process, leading to all kinds of asymetrical responses amongst species with which they interact. Some of these effects will directly affect primary producers (plants), leading to differences in their rate of growth, seed production and competition with other plants. Early successional plants, such as many weeds, may thrive under elevated C02 regimes whereas later successional plants might not. This will mean that ecological systems will have to rearrange themselves from the 'bottom-up'. I have already explained how plant quality may be affected, and how this will ripple up the food chain, affecting the ontogeny of consumers and thus their growth, development and survival. Changes in the physical stucture of plant communities will also affect the dispersal and host-finding behavior of herbivores, pollinators, and predators. Just because we do not yet know what these effects will be is no reason to say that we should continue as we are until 'all of the data are in'. Science is rarely absolute. There will never be 100% proof for any process, because many of these effects will have to be studied at the level of linear trophic webs or, at the best, small-scale communities. Given that the biosphere is made up of billions of ecological communities, then we will have to rely on relatively few data sets.
But the main point that I am making is that, given that our species is utterly dependent on nature in a number of ways, it is unwise at best and frankly plain stupid at worst to continually meddle, tinker, fiddle - call it what you will - with complex adaptive systems whose functioning we barely understand. This is the crux of my strong criticism of Tim's models and arguments. They expunge biological reality. They are primarily quantitative. And they assume that nature will respond in simple linear ways to increased C02, a conclusion that is fully at odds with the opinions of the vast majority of the scientific community.
Paddy, you can believe whatever you want to. Certainly you are correct that one should argue science and not use qualifications to dismiss critics. But they DO matter, at least if the person lacking them expresses (1) views that differ with 95% or more of the scientific community, and (2) they routinely dismiss counter arguments as 'garbage'. Where was the science in Tim's dismissal of the 'green world hypothesis'? By calling it garbage? Similarly, a new study published last week in *Nature* by Boyce et al. revealed that chlorophyll levels in the oceans have been declining over the past century, meaning that there is reduced phytoplankton at the basal end of the food chain. This flies in the face of Tim's logic that there should be more marine phytoplankton biomass because of the rise in atmospheric C02 concentrations over this period of time. His response? *Jeff: if that "new study" you cite is in Nature you know in advance that it is rubbish, like the Meinhartsens et al et al last year (April). See my Note at my website (www.timcurtin.com) on Nature's deliberate frauds on all aspects of climate theory*.
How 'scientific' is that?
Tim Curtin:
Scientist:
Tim Curtin:
Scientist:
Tim Curtin:
Scientist:
Tim Curtin:
Scientist:
Tim Curtin:
Scientist:
Tim Curtin:
Scientist:
Tim Curtin:
Tim Curtin's dim-witted sycophant:
Scientist:
Meanwhile, back at the dude-ranch:
And this puerile, camp, teeth-grating nonsense is why Paddy Constantine has no scientific credibility, and nothing further to offer the discourse.
Bernard,
Brilliant! You had me on the floor with this one...
With respect to Paddy, I think his rather peurile post (#874) shows that he did not enter this thread to seriously engage in a scientific discussion. I should have guessed from his previous musings.......
> He is singularly pre-occupied with the idea that decarbonizing the economy is a recipe for famine.
...which is probably why he is so keen to claim that Michaelis-Menten grossly underestimates the effect of extra CO2 on agricultural productivity. Never mind that:
a) he would need to show that it also grossly understimates productivity *drops* for *decreases* in CO2 from present day levels back to earlier levels which is a different prospect - given that over the CO2 ranges in question it closely matches a logarithmic model which seems to be his own preferred form of model, and to my knowledge he's never presented any evidence that such a form matched to known historical conditions also grossly underestimates productivity drops;
b) by his own admission "there's plenty more land" which could be used for agriculture - which suggests total production could still significantly rise even if productivity per hectare fell a bit as a result of lower CO2 levels - and that's ignoring reports of significant levels of waste in Western agriculture, let alone the relative inefficiency of meat-heavy agricultural production if it comes to that;
c) he doesn't seem to break out - and seems to argue that it is unknown what are - the contributions of different factors to real world measures agricultural productivity, thereby avoiding addressing his own central contention - that CO2 level reductions would be responsible for a large productivity decrease.
"I coming to Holland soon, would you like to hook up ?
Posted by: Paddy Constantin"
I don't think he's going to be allowed to let you drink the samples, Paddy.
They're going to be used for research.
Go milk your own seals.
> Jeff, I looked you up...?
I think with that comment, plausible assessments have been reduced to the set {POE, sock puppet, troll}.
Either way one more twit enters the killfile.
Jeff Harvey.
I would like to put on the table my thanks for your tireless efforts in pointing out to Curtin and his ill-educated brethren how fundamenatlly dependent upon the ecosystem services provided by the biosphere humans are. I usually don't have the energy to do so when the hour comes around that Curtin requires his dose of reminding, and I (perhaps unfairly) know that you will always do a sterling job of it yourself.
Of course, in Curtin's case (and in the cases of his hench-boys) you are probably just casting pearls before swine. However, it is the third parties to which we are speaking, so don't ever think that you are wasting your time.
Thanks also to Lee, to MSF, to Lotharsson, and to all the others who are calling Curtin on his egregious pseudoscience. It all serves to lay down a record of his (and his groupies') lack of comprehension of basic science, and such records are useful for many reasons...
hahahaha, sorry, hahahahaha, oops
sorrrry.
yep, I've been rollin around on the floor pissin me duds at all that, hahahaha, oops sorry !
Jeff I also would like to thank you, you do a good job of getting the message across that there are many issues that need addressing other than just CO2, someone should be talking about it and you do it fairly well. I have been hoping that sooner or later you would give us your thoughts on GMO's.
The recent posts from Jeff & Bernard have been hilarious even by their standards, but Chris O'Noal surpasses them with his rejection of Tans in Oceanography 2009 simply because I got the link from actually first, Fred Singer's TWTWTW, and then NIPCC. As most here would agree with most of Tans except for the paragraph demolishing Canadell, I am happy to go along with Chris.
Otherwise the Jeff & Bernard show remains as vacuous - and longwinded - as ever, witness Jeff's failure or inability to defend Nature's "New Theory of Climate Change" against my demolition in my published paper (October 2009) (at www.timcurtin.com), 100% vindicated by Tans December 2009.
My Note pointed out that Nature's Symposium of 30 April 2009, led by 2 papers by the Potsdam SS team of the Meinshausens et al, assumed throughout that there are NO biospheric absorptions or uptakes of CO2 emissions, such that the annual change in [CO2] is identical with not only current annual fossil fuel and other anthro. emissions but cumulative emissions to date. Pitifully, Nature's leader of 30 April 2009 congratulating the SS endorsed their view that d[CO2] in any year is identical with emissions in that year, thereby sharing Bernard's inability to distinguish between an elephant (emissions of 10 GTC p.a.) and a mouse (d[CO2] p.a. 4.4 GtC).
Piet Tans knows much better, and sweetly forbore from commenting on Nature's ineptitude.
Il tell you once, i wont tell you twice IT'S GREY IT'S A MOUSE!
It's a sad day when somebody craves acceptance of their views while resorting to call others Pol Pot, or again using nazi terminology.
Very illustrating Tim.
More non-scientific discussion from Tim Curtin. In response to my comments re: the inportance of understanding increased carbon-dioxide on plant quality, as mediated through effects on primary and secondary metabolites, as well as non-linear effects up the food chain and in intra- and interspecific competition, we get this:
*The recent posts from Jeff & Bernard have been hilarious even by their standards*
Never once has Tim Curtin attempted to discuss these issues and processes. Never once has he said why the GWH is 'garbage'. With respect to the Boyce et al. study, we are left with a comment from Curtin alleging that the journal (Nature) in which it was published is systematically biased, thus the study must be rubbish. Nothing more. In just about every case where I ask Tim to explain why chnages in plant stoichimoetry are unimportant when scaled up, I get the same curt and dismissive retort, lacking anything whatsoever to do with science. Why are changes in plant nutrients and toxins unimportant, Tim? On what empirical basis do you argue that more C02 benefits ecological communities and ecosystems? On biomass alone? What about qualitative changes in plant tissues? Much of my research over the past 6 years has focused on the effects of plant allelochemicals on consumer-based food webs. There is considerable evidence that concnetrations of carbon and nitrogen-based phytotoxins will be affected by rapid increases in atmsopheric C02 levels, and far faster than many species are able to adapt to them. Plenty of studies have shown that herbivorous organisms have difficulty detoxifying or excreting plant toxins ingested in their diet. These effects work up food chains. Tim, prove to me that this is not a concern. Moreover, meta-analytical studies have shown that the total plant biomass in some simple food webs are consumer (= top-down) controlled. The success of biological control programs - e.g. for prickly pear cactus in Australia, cottony cushion scale in California, and cassava mealybug in Africa is proof that plant biomass can be regulated by organisms up the food chain. So please share with me why the GWH is 'garbage' again. Care to reveal to all and sundry here your deep knowledge of population ecology?
Here is the likely ripose from Tim Curtin: "Jeff is full of it. His arguments are garbage. We know that C02 is plant food". That's it. In fact, I may be giving him too much credit for making this kind of 'detailed' response. It will probably conist of just the first two curt sentences. Tim's reply can be interpreted in one of two ways: first, he does not know anything about plant ecophysiology, aside from a few isolated studies he has read with respect to greenhouse experiments conducted under strictly controlled conditions, in which nutrients were not limiting and there were no higher trophic levels present. Second, he is some kind of a genius who possesses innate wisdom and cannot bother himself with pedantic issues and arguments.
Well, Curtin, what is it? As far as I am concerned, it is pretty clear that you are attempting to camouflage the fact that you know absolutely nothing about plant physiology, ecology and chemistry, and instead of admitting it (which you have, in your own way, done), you think that mocking and ridiculing my comments somehow elevates you to the status of authority.
Well, it doesn't. It exposes your lack of basic knowledge in this important area for all to see. I have debated enough anti-environmentalists in my time to recognize their tactics for dealing with areas in which they know little if anything. You are a classic case. When your ignorance is laid bare (and in my last two posts I did so), you resort to belittling the messenger or his message. If old Paddy cannot see you for what you are, then he is as blinded by reality as you are.
I would love to debate you at some time in the future on the ecolgical consequences of increasing atmsopheric C02 concentrations. For me it will be a walk in the park, as you are left with nothing to say except that my arguments are 'garbage'. When I mention the effects of increasing C02 on primary and secondary plant chemistry, trait-remixing, context and trait dependent parameters in food webs, and on physiologicval responses such as P450 detoxification pathways, nitrile specifier proteins, sequestration, and then on higher trophic levels, et al. et al. and then ask you how all of these important ecological and physiological parameters will be affected in a warming world with increased C02 concentrations, I cannot wait to hear you gurgle.
I will come to Oz, perhaps in 2012, so you better be prepared.
Tans may well be a good paper. Only an idiot who doesn't care about credibility would cite it by using a global warming denial website.
Thanks Jeff.
Once again, your near saintly patience in describing and explaining things for the benefit of third party readers leaves me in awe.
What adelady said.
Just to inject a note of reality, here is the abstract from Canadell 2007:
The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000-2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% y-1. The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Since 2000, the contributions of these three factors to the increase in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate have been â65 ± 16% from increasing global economic activity, 17 ± 6% from the increasing carbon intensity of the global economy, and 18 ± 15% from the increase in AF. An increasing AF is consistent with results of climate-carbon cycle models, but the magnitude of the observed signal appears larger than that estimated by models. All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing. © 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA.
Lee,
In other words: "We have observed changes to the way CO2 is turning over in the carbon cycle that support the models as currently (2007) understood..."
Lee,
Also in other words: the models are conservative in forecasting the increase in AF.
Hansen 2009: âIf we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains â no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.â
Before turning later to more detailed comments, one reason why the Hansen model performs poorly against observations from the last century is that it seemingly ignores the uptakes of more than half of the anthropogenic additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide by oceanic and terrestrial photosynthesis. This is curious, because in an earlier paper (Hansen and Sato, 2004), Hansen showed himself fully aware of this effect. But he and Sato as well as the other 44 authors of their 2007 paper evidently could find no space to mention this rather large effect. This lacuna is nothing new, as it is standard in ALL the IPCCâs 64 SRES scenarios for GHG emissions to 2100, none of which take into account the impact of growth rates of GHG emissions on growth rates of uptakes. Yet the evidence from the very sources relied on by Hansen et al for both GHG emissions to 2004 and the level of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa is of a close relationship whereby the faster the emissions growth, the faster the growth of photosynthetic uptakes, and the resulting very slow growth of [CO2] at 0.41% p.a., far below the 3% p.a. growth of CO2 emissions...", as confirmed by Tan 2009.
@879...so Big Coal's the main john who funds your intellectual prostitution is it Tim? I must admit that hanging around this particular street corner is productive: it has elicited the most beautiful rebuttals and expositions of reality from Lee, Jeff, Loth, BJ, adelady et al. So keep up the good work, and stay crazy. Slainte
Whoops. @894...sorry. Damn these keyboards designed for (greying) primates, not for 6,500kg mice.
> An increasing AF is consistent with results of climate-carbon cycle modelsm but the magnitude of the observed signal appears larger than that estimated by models.
That would seem to be precisely the opposite of what TC claims.
*Again*.
Well, at least he's fairly consistent ;-)
A recent article in Acta Oecologica deals with bird diversity in China and the news could not be better, particularly given the results from three other recent studies from China that find that find that plant productivityâa primary determinent of species richness of Chinaâs birdsâis on the rise, quite probabily a result of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/f0m
Sloth: What rubbish, so you think I am Lee or worse, Canadell? I have spent years contesting the garbage in the Canadell et al Abstract so helpfully provided by Lee, with its untrue, FALSE, claim that there is
"...increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions... An increasing AF is consistent with results of climate-carbon cycle models, but the magnitude of the observed signal appears larger than that estimated by models. All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected (sic) climate forcing", except that it is not, as Knorr (2009) and Tan (2009) have both shown definitively, supporting my own evidence in my Submissions to Garnaut (2008) and in my Quadrant piece 2009 as well as twice in E&E 2009.
Looks like bugs will be wiped out by voracious human induced mastication.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is formally considering recommendations in a paper suggesting greater consumption of insects as a way of limiting global warming.
Research by Professor Arnold van Huis, an entomologist at Wageningen University in Belgium, has found that if people in developing countries were to replace meat consumption with eating insects, environmental impacts would be markedly reduced.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/f0r
ps, you will be happy to know I got a good smack in the ear last night by a warmer !!!!
> ...so you think I am Lee or worse, Canadell?
Huh?! No. Not sure what gave you that idea. If it helps, my comment was stating that the Canadell abstract appears to claim pretty much the opposite of what you claim.
And you'll forgive me if, based on your past track record, I don't take any claim you make about someone else's work - or indeed about science in general - at face value.
Foulspot, who continues to engage in his [habit of camouflaging his links](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…), [refers to](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) the World Climate Report's specious concoction implying the health of bird species in China.
The trouble is, it has a [few holes](http://soundbible.com/force-sounds.php?id=wav/Trash Truck Reverse Beep-SoundBible.com-1645900246.wav&clip=wav).
Tim,
I note with interest the paper by Pieter Tans that you lovingly cite above, and can't help but wonder if you have read it. [Here is the link](http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/22_4/22…). I note with especial interest the discussion in page 34 and the accompanying Fig. 5, containing the expected ocean acidification under given emission scenarios. A quote from page 33, where he says:
I can't say that I disagree with any of this...
Have you even taken a look at [the company it keeps](http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/22_4.html) in its journal issue?
I am delighted you have finally come to your senses and accepted that climate change and ocean acidification are real. Or is it a major case of 'foot in mouth'...?
The canary cage,
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/f14
and this for burnie http://www.tinyurl.com.au/f15
Svensmark may be correct burnie
MFS, 'Rapid invention, technical development,' ??????????
according to the warmers, science has advanced as far as it can, according to the warmers in here you are now a conspiracy nut, you will be sucked in by any new idea ! To suggest anything other than a carbon tax is pure and utter rubbish !!!!! Fool
MFS. My first post re Tans was based on the NIPCC summary which dealt only with the unfounded claim of Canadell et al that the sinks are rapidly saturating (see their Abstract in Lee's post above). Later I had time to download the Tans paper itself, and noted here that it does indeed adhere to the party line on most other issues, like most of the other papers in Oceanography Dec 2009.
However that section you quote from Tans is thought provoking, and like you I agree with almost all of it, especially as it seems to me he is more balanced than most, despite its overtones of impending doom.
However Tans offers no evidence to support his gloomy forecast of "accelerating environmental destruction, acidification of ocean waters, resource wars, and other negative impacts", and certainly there is none here in Australia, still less in Europe, North America, South America, China and the rest of SE Asia, for ANY of that, including âacidification of ocean watersâ, where the data offered in the Oceanography papers have been stretched to breaking point, as Gledhill et al in effect acknowledge with their many caveats.
Similarly note this from the Conclusion of Hansell et al: âalthough the elevated concentrations of DOM failed to hold up under the scrutiny of the scientific method, vindicating those shouting âheresy,â the renewed focus on
DOM resulted in vast new insights that continue to grow..â
MFS, it is impossible for me to do justice in the time and space available here to that remarkable set of papers in Oceanography, but neither Hansell et al nor Gledhill et al support the doom and gloom of Tans and you MFS, and I am sure you will agree that it represents work very much in progress that as yet lacks the time series data to support firm predictions of impending disaster in the oceanic biosphere.
That is specially evident in the papers by Feely & Doney, who rely inordinately on the IPCCâs scenarios which as I have shown here repeatedly grossly exaggerate the likely course of [CO2] in this century: âEstimates based on the (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenarios suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels could approach 800 ppm near the end of the century. Corresponding biogeochemical models for the ocean indicate that surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8 in the IPCC A2 scenario by the end of this century..â. Given the log nature of pH, if [CO2] is projected at its 1958-2010 growth rate of 0.41% p.a. it will only reach 566 ppm by 2100, which means that the pH then will be unlikely to be much if at all different from its current range of 8.0 to 8.2 (Feely claims 7.9 for 560 ppm in 2100 but provides no error bars).
Feely uses Excel to derive linear growth rates for [CO2], pCO2, ph, calcite and aragonite saturations, with R2 of 0.95, 0.3431, 0.289, 0.159, and 0.125 respectively for data since 1990 only. For all except [CO2] these R2 indicate poor linear fits and imply that regressions against [CO2] would yield statistically insignificant coefficients, which is no doubt why Feely does not display them!
Unfortunately the paper by Kleypas and Yates on Coral Reefs and Ocean Acidification suffers from its uncritical acceptance of the âresultsâ in the paper in Science 2009 by Deâath et al. which I and Peter Rigg have shown were largely fabricated.
So, dear MFS, I think the jury is still out on the imminent demise of the GBR and all other coral reefs worldwide, and even more so for âresource warsâ.
> ...was based on the NIPCC summary ...
*There's* your problem!
I looked at an NIPCC publication some time back purporting to communicate scientific information and it was *riddled with* errors and fairly blatant propaganda that was at odds with much known evidence. Anyone seeking credibility might want to avoid quoting their work and concentrate on primary sources instead.
*Unfortunately the paper by Kleypas and Yates on Coral Reefs and Ocean Acidification suffers from its uncritical acceptance of the âresultsâ in the paper in Science 2009 by Deâath et al. which I and Peter Rigg have shown were largely fabricated*
More typical Curtin blather. Moreover, Tim ought to be a bit more careful when he charges scientists with producing 'fabricated' results. And in what scientific journal do Curtin and Rigg 'show' this study to be flawed? None. Certainly not in Science. This is classic Curtin: try and give the impression that he has 'done the math' but that 'math' ends up on his web site or in a contrarian rag.
Then note the thrust of his following line: that the loss of the GBR and coral reefs around the world are 'not imminent' on the basis his previous throwaway line. Forget the dozens of studies which have examined the process of coral reef bleaching, and the results that they have produced.
For the uninitiated out there, this is not how science works. It might be the way that right wing economists conduct scientific research, but thankfully the scientific research of right wing economists is not taken seriously by the broader scientific community. And just because an economist claims to have done the maths in a field well outside of his or her area of expertise, in no way disproves the results generated by researchers all over the world, much of which is published in eminent journals.
Bear this in mind when reading Tim's 'rebuttals' here. Note also how he is an expert at 'moving on' when subjects - like those I raised yesterday in two lengthy posts - are raised. I have challenged him to discuss the science with me and he either ignores it or responds with some witless comments about insects. What does that tell you?
Slothful; actually NIPCC and Fred Singer both provide links to a wide range of resources, not all are one-sided, as clearly Tans is not. The NIPCC summary of Tans on Canadell is completely accurate, down to the graph. I was off to tennis, so that is why it was a few hours until I commented on the full paper. In no case did I comment on NIPCC, in each case I commented on Tans.
What you cannot accept is that Tans supports me against the Canadell et al view that the 'sinks' are saturating and will soon be saturated (as they already are in Meinshausens et al Nature 2009).
Oh dear, Jeff. Most of the trouble with you is that you are (a) longwinded, and (b) repetitive. When did you last say something new here or anywhere? All the same, I look forward to debating with you here in person in 2012, and you are most welcome to food and board chez Curtin.
Jeff, re De'ath et al, can you cite any instance where Science has published a crit. of anything it has published on AGW? It took a colossal effort to get them to retract their wholly bogus story on cloning by a Korean. I do not have the time for that re De'ath et al.
Just to repeat some of my criticisms of one of the most disgraceful papers ever published by Science:
Dea'th Lough and Fabricius (AIMS Townsville, Science, January 2009): âWe investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Their skeletal records show that throughout (sic) the GBRâ¦â
Not true, their archived sampling records are from south of Lat 18 oS, which is a small portion of the whole GBR, most of which is north of 18 oS
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 the SINGLE sample out of 328 which had that claimed longevity?
In fact only 12 of their 328 samples have data beyond 1991, and only one of those goes back 400 years, contrary to the claims by De'ath et al in Science.
NONE of their sites has data beyond 2001, yet they claimed to have sampled all 69 in 2005 and that ALL had 400 years of data across the length and breadth of the GBR, when in fact only one did, and both it and the other 11 with data beyond 1990 are ALL in a narrow band of the southern (and colder) GBR.
Letâs consider a concrete example, their Kelso 02A reef, at 18.42 Lat South, their most northerly â and therefore warmest - post-1990 sample (they implied that all their 69 reefs and 328 samples went up to 2005, and extended across the whole GBR to 2005, a blatant lie when the GBR extends north beyond 9.58 S, and their Kelso 02A sample like ALL their others ends in 2001). This reefâs Density declined by only 0.002% between 1900 and 2001, while its Calcification actually increased by as much as 0.01% and its Extension also increased, by 0.004%.
So by two out of three of their criteria, the most northerly of their samples, supposedly the one most subject to global warming, actually improved its growth performance between 1990 and 2001. In fact only 3 of their 12 samples with post 1990 data had negative outcomes for all three of their criteria, five had positive outcomes for two, and three had positive outcomes for one criterion.
You may wonder why all their sampled data end in 2001, although they claimed in theri 2009 paper to have reported data to 2005. Well of course, in 2001 the GBR was still recovering from the severe bleaching resulting from the hottest ever El Nino of 1998, whereas by 2005 it had fully recovered, so they would not have been able to claim any long term adverse effects at all. Such is your friends' Climate Science, lies, damned lies, and faked statistics.
Thus their Conclusion â 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 reaching back 400 yearsâ is pure fiction, worthy like all of Climate Change science of Bernardâs namesake and spiritual brother, Bernie Madoff.
Truly Deâath et al 2009 is nothing but a tissue of lies from beginning to end, but do any of you really think that Science any more than Nature would ever admit to error in publishing it?
"actually NIPCC and Fred Singer both provide links to a wide range of resources, not all are one-sided, as clearly Tans is not."
Huh? A collection of resources where "not all are one-sided" will still have several sources that are by your own admission one-sided.
Even leaving out whether Tans is "clearly" one-sided, never mind one-sided at all...
"Oh dear, Jeff. Most of the trouble with you is that you are (a) longwinded, and (b) repetitive."
Heh.
Another case of projection.
Classic.
*Deâath et al 2009 is nothing but a tissue of lies from beginning to end*
Tim, have you written to the authors and told them what you think of their paper in these exact words? No, I thought not. Where did you publish your critique? And you still have not told any of us here where your next two papers are to be published. Why not? Is this such a secret? I had a paper accepted in the ecology journal Oikos today. See? Big deal. I said it. So why are you so evasive on this point?
Ok, let me be civil. I may be long winded, but your replies to my queries are always curt and dismissive. My arguments are important because ecology is the study of scales - mechanisms at small scales can definitely influence emergent processes occurring at larger scales. You focus on large scale effects of C02 on plant biomass, which ignores important small scale effects of plant physiology (hence quality) and interactions with consumers at small scales. Bigger plants are not necessarily fitter plants, nor are they necessarily better as food for herbivores and predators up the food chain. If this is so, we need to extrapolate the results of small scale studies at larger scales of organization. This is what many ecologists - myself included - are trying to do, in collaboration with other scientists. Most of us just do not agree that measuring quantitative parameters, such as overall plant biomass, whilst ignoring the ecophysiology units that make up the biomass, wil tell ujs much of anything about the outcome of increasing atmospheric levels of C02.
A good example pertains to tropical vegetation. In l;ower latitudes tropical forests are enormous, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say that tropical ecosystems do not contain immense biomass at the basal end of the food chain. But one thing we know is certain: tropical plants are much more toxic then temperate plants. This explains why there are probably a much higher proportion of specialist herbivores found in tropical biomes, and also why, in contrast with predictions, many clades of natural enemies in the tropics are much more species-poor than in temperate biomes. This is because many insect predators and parasitoids herbivores have never been able to adapt to herbivorous arthropods which sequester plant toxins contained in their diet into their own body tissues.
Given the nature of changes in plant chemistry will also lead to changes in plant chemistry, there is no reason to believe that increases in carbon-based toxins, decreases in nitrogen-based toxins, or decreases in primary metabolites such as amino acids and proteins will not affect both vertewbrate and invertebrate herbivores. At the same time, since plant toxins are often antagonistic to other plants, then we might also expect changes in foliage chemistry to affect the structure of plant communities.
These are not trivial arguments. Again, changes in small-scale processes can exert large effects on ecological communities and systems at large scales. A similar analogy is when the human body is invaded by the egg of some parasitic organism. At the beginning, the impact of the egg, and even the young larva on the host may be negligible or non-existant. But, as time passes by, and the organism grows, and or reproduces, then its impact on the host becomes quite apparent. The planet's ecological life-support systems function on the basis of a stupendous number of interactions involving individual organisms (see Simon Levin, 1999, Fragile Dominion). When humans disrupt the ontogeny and behavior of individuals, then this can ripple through food chains and end up having quite some effect on emergent properties such as on the productivity and resilience of ecological systems. This is why a better understanding of mechanistic effects of atmospheric increases in C02 concentrations is necessary before we can confidently say that it will be beneficial or detrimental. In other words extreme caution should be the order of the day.
Those advocating an increase in C02 have not thought this through. That is because they have generally paid little attention to mechanisms.
Curtin, reputable science journals decide to publish (or not) papers based on the quality of the work that they display, not whether the conclusions tow a party line.
You're probably thinking of Energy & Environment which does operate as you alledge. Where else would someone like M&M get their minor nitpickings published? Meanwhile, like them, you accuse many others who actually do real research of fictions, frauds and errors presumably based on the findings of your epic works as shown on this blog. Or is this the only audience who you can drivel on to lately?
I sincerely hope you're not waiting by the phone awaiting a stellar second career in science to come a'callin' Mr. C.,
because you're in for a long wait.
> Note also how he is an expert at 'moving on' when subjects...
Indeed, it's his primary avoidance mechanism. That's why I challenged Paddy to read the whole thread and keep a tally of unresolved issues.
> Slothful;...
...says TC, who hardly ever substantiates claims when challenged, and hardly ever answers questions - especially those seeking clarification of his position and his working. The same TC who suggests that [it would take 5 new Ph.Ds of research to actually support some of the key claims in his seminar](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), but then turns around and calls me slothful for not undertaking the research that he himself has not undertaken to support his own claims. That sort of projection and name-calling plays well in primary school but doesn't buy scientific credibility.
Speaking of which:
> ...actually NIPCC and Fred Singer both provide links to a wide range of resources...
And yet despite doing so they manage to spin an entire web of fallacy. Amazing, ain't it?
> What you cannot accept is that Tans supports me against the Canadell et al view that the 'sinks' are saturating and will soon be saturated (as they already are in Meinshausens et al Nature 2009).
You are jumping to conclusions again - very bad habit.
I could certainly accept it if it held up to scrutiny, but I have not had time or motivation to look at it. It probably still surprises you that I don't take you at your word, even though I (not in so many words) keep pointing out this a very successful personal time-optimisation strategy. To elaborate: unlike you, I'm not convinced I have any special powers in assessing scientific claims. Given my training, skills, intellect and limited available time I can spot some errors and issues - and many bullshitting tactics - but I am sure there are many more errors and issues in scientific papers and claims that I cannot spot. For this reason I hesitate to pronounce any particular paper "robust" on my own recognizance, but I'm happier to point out what seems like bullshit and see if someone can show me to be wrong.
And given your piss-poor track record on this thread at arguing and defending most of the scientific claims you make, I am quite happy to wait a while for the likely demolition of your claim about Canadell from someone who is far more qualified than I am to assess it - or for you to attempt a more robust argument than the holey insinuations and conclusion-leaps you frequently rely on - before I spend precious time investigating on my own.
The De'ath article that Tim disparages has been cited 28 times in its first year. Not bad at all. It has clearly generated a lot of interest in this serious global phenomenon.
Some of the studies which have cited it report similar phenomena caused by warming and/or acidifying oceans; and bear in mind these are only articles from 2010 and late in 2009! All are published in excellent journals, as well.
Cantin et al. (2010) Ocean Warming Slows Coral Growth in the Central Red Sea. Science 329: 322-325.
Marba and Duarte (2010) Mediterranean warming triggers seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) shoot mortality. Global Change Biology 16: 2366-2375.
Pelejero et al. (2010) Paleo-perspectives on ocean acidification. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25: 332-344.
Carilli et al. (2010) Century-scale records of coral growth rates indicate that local stressors reduce coral thermal tolerance threshold. Global Change Biology 16: 1247-1257.
Kleypas and Yates (2009) Coral Reefs and Ocean Acidification. Oceanography 22: 108-117.
"not whether the conclusions tow a party line."
It's "toe" "toe a party line".
When you stand at the designated spot in a lineup (especially a military one), your toes are ON the line marked (and NOT over!!!). You are precisely where you are told to be.
To tow a party line, you'd need to be pulling on the line. But that would be WITH the party line, not towing the line itself.
Of course, you could tow a bandwagon with the party line.
Which may be what TC's trying to do.
Wow, I had thought it related to 'tow' as in to assist in dragging or helping move the said line.
I now (ahem) stand corrected.
Jeff, you asked after quoting me as saying "Deâath et al 2009 is nothing but a tissue of lies from beginning to end,"
adding "Tim, have you written to the authors and told them what you think of their paper in these exact words? No, I thought not."
Wrong again Jeff, I did contact Janice Lough a couple of times in those exact words or close to, and then never heard from her again. What else would you expect from a scion of CRU at UEA, a repository of lies and deceit on all issues (including one of the inquiries into Climategate headed by inter alia Geoffrey Boulton, a former boss of CRU).
And Jeff, I know from bitter experience that if I were to disclose where I submit my next papers, most of you, led by Bernard, would lose no time in rubbishing me to the editors, not excluding threats of grievous bodily harm were they to publish me.
All the same some of your comments are worth discussing over a Heinekin when we meet, especially where you say "This is why a better understanding of mechanistic effects of atmospheric increases in C02 concentrations is necessary before we can confidently say that it will be beneficial or detrimental". So far you have always plumped for the latter, but it's too late now to pursue that(close to midnight here).
Chek: what is wrong with my short Note on Nature's New Thoery of Climate Change, in E&E October 2009? Nature's editor Michael White who rejected it is a serial liar, as the whole of Nature's issue of 30 April 009 was devoted to the assumption that there are ZERO biospheric uptakes of CO2 emissions. Do copy this post to him, I await his legal summons with total confidence it never materialises, as he knows he is a congenital liar.
Sloth: you stand pleading guilty for your ingrained sloth when you say "but I have not had time or motivation to look at it"!
Jeff yet again: the failure of ALL those 21 who cite De'ath et al merely proves the endemic and systematic failure of ALL climate scientists including yourself to undertake the due diligence that is required at least some of the time in the business world that you hate. Can you name any of your colleagues who has ever heard of the term AND practises it?
Names please, I need to check them. Kleypas & Yates do not qualify as they accept everything in De'ath et al without question ,and without looking at the rest of my citations I bet you $100 to $1 than not one of them has checked the De'ath et al SI to see if it matches their Madoffian claims.
Alas, you and your cited mates believe any old rubbish that has been peer reviewed by you and yur friends without any checking whatsoever.
When did YOU last check a paper by one of your mates for its veracity? Citation, please.
"I now (ahem) stand corrected.
Posted by: chek"
So you recommend the veal?
When have you done so, Timmykins?
And what is shown when doing so (if it can)?
And what does that do to your assertion that Tans is obviously one-sided? Do you mean "one sided" in the same way as a geography book only promotes one side on the flat earth/spherical earth debate? Or a book on how babies are born do not show the baby with a baby inside (and inside that baby another one, and so on to infinity. Or beyond), but merely show one side of the debate, the one that doesn't agree with the christian bible?
They're both one-sided.
The side they're on is the truth.
Not many people are PROUD of being on the side of lying your arse off.
'cept you.
Hmmm... Brent... you mean the same Ross McKitrick who is a fellow or something else in the far right Fraser Institute? Might it be that he might just be a tad biased?
The most imporant point: WUWT is IMHO an anti-environmental blog site. If this is where McKitrick's 'ground-breaking' study ends up, then it ain't worth beans. It will disappear into the black hole from which it emerged. I would have expected it to be published in a strong journal.
Brent, back to your brainless thread.
Tim: If you indeed did contact contact one of the authors with that kind of remark then I do not blame her for instantly deleting your post.
And please stop with the 'Madoffian' stuff, puh-lease?!?!
It gets worse... the McKitrick article Brent mentioned is apparently coming out through Nigel Lawson's comedy think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which says it all.
BTW, Watts has a ridiculous thread on WUWT referring to a cold July in San Francisco of all places... the coldest since 1971, as if this were proof refuting the hypothesis of AGW. He appears to forget that much of Eurasia, on a vastly greater scale, has had the hottest July by far, some 5-10 C above normal. That failed to catch the atrtention of WUWT. Hardly surprising....
Torn Curtain @917: Your arrogance is exceeded only by your stupidity.
@Jess harvey:
"Watts has a ridiculous thread on WUWT referring to a cold July in San Francisco of all places"
San Francisco?!?!?!?
Watts is allegedly a meteorologist - or at least a TV facsimile of one. He should be aware that SF summer temps are largely controlled by the duration and strength of the sea breeze. The sea breeze happens because the ocean hereabouts is freaking cold - and the Great Valley just 30 miles inland is really, really hot.
Increased valley heating means increased sea breeze means a colder San Francisco.
Watts lives in Chico, for gods sake - right smack in that hot valley. If he doesn't understand the sea breeze cycle and how it impacts SF... gah!!!
Ummm - that should of course have been written "Jeff Harvey." Apologies.
So let's get this straight: Brent, a known foot soldier for non-scientist Bishop von Daniken turns up on a thread featuring non-scientist Curtin who recently toured with non-scientist Watts, pushing a Watts publicised paper exercise hypothesis by non-scientist McKitrick, which is being "published" by the right wing non-scientific think tank GWPF, featuring leading right wing thatcherite non-scientist Nigel 'four chins' Lawson and Benny 'sport science' Peiser (who is also a member of the shadowy right wing anti-environmental 'Scientific Alliance' founded by non-scientist businessman Robert Durwood and that also includes in an advisory capacity Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen editor of Energy&Environment), which is also sponsoring its own ...um... "independent" witch hunt into the failed so-called 'Climategate' smear campaign against actual scientists, to be run by the previously mentioned Bishop von Daniken which is aimed yet again - like his recent pulp fiction piece rehashing non-scientist McIntyre's ongoing failed hit pieces - at discrediting the famously unbreakable and now multiple hockey stick graphs which the aforementioned McIntyre and McKitrick have previously had a failed crack at discrediting with a shoddy paper published five years ago in the aforementioned Boehmer-Christiansen's Energy&Environment in an effort to discredit the scientific consensus on man made global warming.
And then Brent accuses Jeff of spouting 'claptrap' about ["agents of some right wing conspiracy".](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
Does that sound about right Brent?
[Brent said]() "So I expect you'll hate him, and dismiss him as a denizen of dark business interests".
You mean the book published by HSI publisher Stacey International (again) featuring Dr. John Etherington, a retired academic regarded as the intellectual guru of ['Country Guardian'](http://bsscworld.blogspot.com/2005/05/hot-air.html), the lobby group with known ties to [British Nuclear Fuels](http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=Bernard_Ingham),
who desperately seek to discredit non-nuclear options in carbon-free energy supply?
That the one of 'Jeff's lot' you mean, innocent ol' brick-thick Brent?
I've a better idea Brent.
You stick with what your [ageing, washed up politicians](http://www.thegwpf.org/) and [accountant,](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/) are feeding you, and I'll stick with [what the best brains on the planet are currently saying.](http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html)
Numbers
Pure denial
Hang on a minute. You accuse people of threatening physical violence against editors then offer to chat with these same people over a *beer*?
Tim,
Again I seem to be having to ask you whether you have read the original paper, when [you call De'ath et al (2009)](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
You start off with a piece of utter bull$hit:
Now [what does the paper actually say?](http://www.barrierreef.org/Portals/0/GBRF%20Files/Articles/Death%20et%2…) Figure 1a gives a map of the sampled locations, broken down by dot colour between their 2005 sampling and archival, 1993 samples. The samples cover the entire extent of the GBR, and the coverage is remarkably homogenous and representative. Not surprising as this is the stated aim of the paper. Approximately half of the samples used, and quite a few of the new samples are from north of 18 degrees S, and there are samples collected from as far north as ~11 degrees... Please [look this up yourself](http://www.barrierreef.org/Portals/0/GBRF%20Files/Articles/Death%20et%2…) and explain how you can justify [your outright lies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Your next claim is another howler:
Now, having a look at the materials and methods in the [supplementary online material](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/323/5910/116/DC1/1) (may be behind a paywall) we read:
So you seem to have neglected to mention that at least 10 colonies covered most of this period...
Next [piece of bull$hit](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Now the [paper actually says](http://www.barrierreef.org/Portals/0/GBRF%20Files/Articles/Death%20et%2…) that most of the archived coral was collected between 1983 and 1992. It says that 189 colonies in 13 reefs covered the period of 1900-2005. Where do you pull your ridiculous statements from?
Your statements on post 2001 coverage are made up (Figs. 1, 2 and 3 do cover the period till 2005). Your diatribe on Kelso reef seems more bull$it, as [neither the paper](http://www.barrierreef.org/Portals/0/GBRF%20Files/Articles/Death%20et%2…) nor the [supplementary online material](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/323/5910/116/DC1/1) make a single mention of this reef nor provide the numbers that you apparently made up for our benefit.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Every single paper you have 'demolished' says apparently the opposite of what you say it did, or you clearly did not understand it for starters. Several you have clearly not even read. Care to explain?
Could others please read the originals and make sure I didn't just dream this?
> What else would you expect from a scion of CRU at UEA, a repository of lies and deceit on all issues...
...more ad hom.
> ...not excluding threats of grievous bodily harm were they to publish me.
Now unless you can back **that** up with evidence, it looks rather closer to actual libel than your previous fantasies about that offence.
Are you *that* desperate to find out Bernard's full name? Or is it just more of your pattern of being nasty to people who explain in detail why they find your arguments unconvincing?
> Hang on a minute. You accuse people of threatening physical violence against editors then offer to chat with these same people over a beer?
Seems to fit with his obsession over certain poster's pseudonymity, although there may be other reasons.
> Sloth: you stand pleading guilty for your ingrained sloth when you say "but I have not had time or motivation to look at it"!
LOL :-)
Epic logic fail, TC - and projection, projection, projection.
You are absolutely *full* of lazy simplistic arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny and you refuse to do the hard yards to substantiate them. And then you have the hide to turn around and call your readers lazy for not filling in the holes in your argument for you? You do realise that by accusing me of sloth in this fashion, you are instead firmly **indicting yourself** for putting up shoddy poorly-researched arguments that [on your own admission are not backed by the science](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) and which you have not done any work to substantiate?
(Never mind that you're also jumping to fallacious conclusions yet again - you'd have to know a lot more about *what else I'm doing in my life* to assess whether I'm demonstrating sloth, or (as I rather explicitly pointed out) demonstrating well-chosen priorities.)
And as I said earlier, "you're lazy because you won't investigate my dodgy argument for me" is basically a primary school debating tactic - and also the core of the infamous Gish Gallop, which TC can't seem to stop.
Try grown-up debating tactics instead if you actually want to be taken seriously.
Here is the text of my first email to Janice Lough
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2009 15:51 PM
To: Janice Lough
Subject: your paper in MEPS
Hi
I would be grateful if you could explain more fully your Fig.4 which presents data from the Pandora Rib and Myrmidon reefs as if they all covered the period from 1961 to 2001, when only 4 of the five from Rib actually do reach 2000. How do you explain why the one cited set of reef samples that does reach 2000 shows flat i.e.non-declining calcification, while the others that do not even reach 1990 are cited as evidence for decreasing decalcification since 1990. To me it seems NOT valid to use those two reef series to claim slowing calcification since 1990. But I confess I may have missed something.
Regards
Tim
I had a nice reply, but in the end JL did not agree that the Abstract to De'ath Lough and the well-named Fabricius in Science 2009 is misleading when set against their archived GBR data and should be corrected in Science itself:
"...We investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Their [sic, as only data from 12 reefs extending beyond 1990 are archived] skeletal records show that throughout the GBR [not true, as the only 12 reefs with post-1990 data are all between 18 and 22oS.], calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990 [not true for the 69 reefs, because only 12 reefs extend beyond 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 years [not true, as only one of the 12 archived reefs with post-1990 data has a life extending for 400 years]".
So yes, your joint paper does state in its Abstract that its results come from 400-year data for 328 colonies in 69 reefs, and it repeats this claim in the text, p.119, final para: "..our 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 reaching back 400 years". When only one of the archived data sets with data post-1990 does reach back 400 years this is a gross exaggeration.
I really do wonder if scientists now have any basis for being considered to have greater integrity than one finds amongst investment bankers, but I do know from experience that your paper would not pass muster with the ASX as a prospectus for a share issue. That is why I hope you and you co-authors will write to Science correcting these misleading statements, as I would prefer not to.
...Best wishes, Tim
[My previous post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) was delayed a bit.
[Curtin says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
You need to properly read (or at least, report the methodology of) the bloody paper Curtin.
From page 116 of their paper:
You deliberately omitted the locality description from your quote, and in doing so completely misrepresented their methodology. Further, look carefully at [figure 1A](http://i35.tinypic.com/2rc0ufn.jpg). You will see that most of their samples, obtained from the Coral Core Archive of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, are in fact collected from north of latitude 18º south. I'm not sure to which "archived sampling records" you are referring, but they don't appear to include the ones that were used in the paper.
You are a liar Tim Curtin.
And whilst we're discussing geography, let's consider your statement that:
If one considers the location of Tully, in Queensland, which occurs at latitude 17.93337º S (17º 56' 0.13" S), one will see that it is only slightly below the middle of [the Great Barrier Reef](http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/41055/SDC_041206_A…), and that there is in fact a preponderance of reef extent occurring south of this point.
Once again you're misrepresenting the truth, Curtin.
Then there was your claim that:
Check [figure 1B](http://i35.tinypic.com/2rc0ufn.jpg) - it contradicts all of your lies here.
Moving on:
Once again, refer to [figure 1B](http://i35.tinypic.com/2rc0ufn.jpg) - it contradicts this untruth also, as does the text of the paper.
Oh, really? Let's see what the authors themselves say about their samples:
I'm not sure what upon material you are basing your claims, but it isn't any that reflects the authors' methodology. Seriously, Curtin, do you understand how to properly deconstruct a scientific paper?
How do you know it is the most northerly of their samples? Are you referring to the long coral core data lodged with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Paleoclimatology Data Cente? If so, are you referring to [this dataset](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-coral-6183.html), or to [this one](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/death2009/death2009.html)? The second is a much more complete one than the first, and even it may not represent all of the data used in the study â as I have said elsewhere, collating all of one's data for easy access by uninformed members of the lay public can be a pain in the neck, and not worth the time required.
Just because some data is archived in a third-party repository, doesn't mean that all of the data is, and there are many legitimate reasons why it might not be, aside from the reason I gave above. To assume that the data have been lodged thus, and further, that you understand it well, it completely ridiculous... as you yourself so thoroughly demonstrate.
I say again â you have not seen all of their data. You are making outrageous, libellous and completely unsubstantiated statements based on your own inability to find the available data, and on your own perception that what data you find is the only data used. SO not only are you a liar, you are an incompetent data-tracker.
I could delve further into your nonsense Curtin, but I know already that in the end it'd fall apart just like your wet tissue of claims against [avian taxonomists]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) - once the cover is lifted on your blather, it all just disintegrates. Right now I have more important things to do than to keep reminding you that you are not only hopelessly unable to engage in the first steps in science, but that you are deluded in thinking that you can.
Apologise to all the professionals whom you have libelled, Curtin, and then go and book yourself into a retirement home where they'll let you soak yourself in gins and tonic, and in whiskey, as seems to be your wont. If your performance on Deltoid is any example, aside from providing libellous propaganda for the anti-science brigade you seem to be good for little else.
MFS you may be right in which case I will make yet another grovelling apology. But please first check the archived data set De'ath et al claim to have lodged, in their refs: "The long coral core growth data are lodged with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Paleoclimatology Data Center (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/)". And that's where I found it in February 2009 but it may well have been changed since then.
Here is the Readme info. on the first worksheet in their very nicely arranged Excel file:
Great Barrier Reef Coral Growth Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
and
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: PLEASE CITE ORIGINAL REFERENCE WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!
NAME OF DATA SET: Great Barrier Reef Coral Growth Data
LAST UPDATE: 1/2009 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)
CONTRIBUTOR: Janice M. Lough, Australian Institute of Marine Science
IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2009-001
WDC PALEO CONTRIBUTION SERIES CITATION:
De'ath, G., et al. 2009.
Great Barrier Reef Coral Growth Data.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series # 2009-001.
NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
I used their archived data in good faith. NONE of the archived reefs show data after 2001. If the archived sets do not match their text is that my fault?
Good science is about transparency and replicability. It is certainly not possible to replicate their results from the archive. What was so difficult about putting up their full data to 2005?
And their Supporting Online Materials are useless without the full data.
BTW, an editor Elizabtheh Pennisi at Science was not wholly satisfied with their paper:
"However, the role of acidification in this
decline [in calcification etc as claimed by De'ath] is far from settled. In the laboratory,
Alina Szmant, a coral physiological ecologist
at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington,
and her colleagues found that neither low
pH nor a lowered calcium carbonate concentration
(which results from increased acidity
and is considered key to calcification) slowed
coral growth. Instead, calcium bicarbonate
proved key, her team reported at ICRS. She
faults previous lab studies because they used
hydrochloric acid [!!!!], not carbon dioxide, to
lower the pH of the water in the calcification
studies. Hydrochloric acid and carbon dioxide
have different effects on seawater chemistry
and bicarbonate concentration, she says.
Her conclusion: âItâs not clear that carbon
dioxide enrichment will have negative effects
on calcification rates.â
Cohen also has some reservations. Commenting
on Deâathâs work, she says âthe timing
is later, and the magnitude and rate of the
calcification decline is greater than one
might expect if seawater saturation state
[acidification] were the primary driver.â
> Could others please read the originals and make sure I didn't just dream this?
The supplementary PDF you linked to is not behind a paywall. I don't know if data sets are available and if so whether they are paywalled.
But the PDF clearly states "The second set focused only on longer-term change and contained only the 10 colonies that covered all or most of the period 1572 â 2001..." which is quite different from the picture painted by TC's claims.
I suspect TC is quibbling about the wording of the abstract - e.g. that "the last 400 years" should perhaps be replaced with "the period 1572-2001", which would be fine by me but likely doesn't change the essential meaning of the paper, despite TC's overblown prose.
He also seems to take great exception to comparing one recent data set with another longer data set that doesn't quite fully enclose the timespan of the recent one, labeling the comparison a "gross exaggeration". To me this is completely bogus concern - unless he can demonstrate that "the data *do not* suggest" a comparison over the last 400 years (noting that "suggest" is not a particularly strong assertion, and that fully overlapping data sets are not a prerequisite for a comparison to be made). Would he be happier if it were the "last 390 years" or something instead?
TC also says:
> ...not true, as the only 12 reefs with post-1990 data are all between 18 and 22oS.
And yet the blue circles on Fig 1 indicate **13** (not 12) reefs that were sampled **in 2005** (which by my reckoning is post-1990) that range from **about 13.5 to 22.5 degrees S** (not 18-22 degrees S). Hmmm, some clarification of TC's basis for his claim may be needed, as it seems to be completely at odds with Figure 1 of the paper.
It's a real shame TC doesn't apply such a quest for precision and integrity to his own vaguely worded arguments which seem to be routinely far more misleading and unsupported.
Thanks Tim,
[This is the direct link to the supplementary archived data.](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/coral/greatbarrier.html). Not only are the sampled reefs representative of the entire GBR, starting at lat. S9.58, but the data ranges are presented for all of them, and the emerging picture seems to be just about the opposite of what you have claimed.
Would you now retract your claim that:
Since you have failed to provide the slightest evidence for lies or deception, and your arguments about the paper appear to have been fabrications, now exposed, it seems the right thing to do.
> NONE of the archived reefs show data after 2001.
TC, as you quoted [my emphasis] "The **long** coral core growth data are lodged...". This is presumably not the same as "all of the cores including the shorter ones".
The paper says:
> ...the 1572â2001 data set focused only on long-term change and contained 10 long cores from colonies that covered all or most of that period.
and the annotation for Fig. 2 [my emphasis]:
> ...data for **the** 10 long cores.
Those were the only two instances of "long core" and neither implied any data beyond 2001.
Nor does it seem necessary that they do so in order to do a comparison with recent trends derived from different samples, as long as suitable caveats are employed.
(I can't see any NOAA data - maybe that is paywalled, or I'm looking in the wrong place.)
Fifty bucks says he won't.
> I can't see any NOAA data...
...but I can see via the direct link.
Chek @ 927,
Many thanks! Brilliant! This is priceless!!!!!
Science redux! De'ath et al: "Annual data for three growth parameters [skeletal density (grams per cubic centimeter),
annual extension (linear growth) rate (centimeters
per year), and calcification rate (the product of skeletal density and annual extension; grams per square centimeter per year)]".
Ever heard of apples and oranges being multiplied together to get avocado pears?
Further proof that everything emenating from AIMS Townsville and De'ath et al plus Guldberg is Hoegh-Garbage:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L22309, 4 PP., 2004
doi:10.1029/2004GL021541
Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming
Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming
Ben I. McNeil
Centre for Environmental Modelling and Prediction, School of Mathematics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Richard J. Matear
CSIRO Marine Research and Antarctic, Climate and Ecosystem CRC, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
David J. Barnes
Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Coral reefs are constructed of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Deposition of CaCO3 (calcification) by corals and other reef organisms is controlled by the saturation state of CaCO3 in seawater (Ω) and sea surface temperature (SST). Previous studies have neglected the effects of ocean warming in predicting future coral reef calcification rates. In this study we take into account both these effects by combining empirical relationships between coral calcification rate and Ω and SST with output from a climate model to predict changes in coral reef calcification rates. Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and do not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.
Correction, my last should read "nearly everything emanating from AIMS..." or "...everything from De'ath et al at AIMS.."
Interesting question, are the lovely Janice and Barnes still on speaks?
Tim,
You are cherry picking again. Why are the one or two studies that you site proof that your views are correct? Lomborg is a task master at this kind of thing. Site a couple of studies and ignore many more with differing conclusions. His chapter on biodiversity is littered with examples. For instance, this is what you sound likë:
"I am correct because 'A' and 'B' said this...".
"But 'C' through 'Z' said something very different!"
"Ah, well, their studies are garbage"
End of discussion.
All your posts prove is how little you know about the ways in which science works. Your behavior may be seen to be OK is the social sciences but in the Earth Sciences it is not. This is why you and others like you are not - and never will be - taken very seriously by the broader scientific community.
So here we go.. Tim, naturally, leaves out a rebuttal to the McNeil et al. (2004) article in GRL. In the rebuttal, Kleypas et al. write,
*McNeil et al. [2004] attempt to address an important
question about the interactions of temperature and carbonate
chemistry on calcification, but their projected values of reef calcification are based on assumptions that ignore critical observational and experimental literature. Certainly, more research is needed to better understand how changing temperatures and carbonate chemistry will affect not only coral reef calcification, but coral survival. As discussed above, the McNeil et al. [2004] analysis is based on assumptions that exclude potentially important factors and therefore needs to be viewed with caution*.
Then McNeil writes a response to the Leypas et al. rebuttal. Most importantly, here is their summarazing statement:
*There can be no doubt that the response of corals,
coral reefs and other significant reef organisms to climate
variability will be complex. MMB04 took into account
factors not previously included in equivalent analyses and
obtained a result different from those previously reported.
We are aware of uncertainties in our findings. Even so, we
feel they provide a useful addition to our understanding of
the issue. In our view, they would be useful even if they
served only to highlight those uncertainties. To us, the
fundamental research question that remains to be answered
is, ââCan organisms and ecosystems accommodate, acclimatise
to or adapt to rising temperatures faster than ocean
temperatures may rise?ââ*
Hence there is a some backing down here, but, more importantly, both studies point to the uncertainties. This is how science works. Through polite discussion, and not by saying that one study proves another is 'garbage'.
Some advice Tim: leave science to scientists.
Tim,
Are you going to retract your smear of De'ath and specificaly the statement that his 2009 Science paper is "nothing but a tissue of lies from beginning to end".
After all your criticism of it [was composed purely of outright lies](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
You do not need to provide us with lengthy discussions of a related but clearly-intended-to-distract topic, as you usually do. A simple "yes, I retract my statements" or "no, I do not" will suffice.
MFS: Will do when you have itemised my "outright lies" on the basis of the archived data you now have.
TC, try clicking on the link you nimrod.
MFS, you're barking up the wrong tree, because TC is out of his tree.
"All your posts prove is how little you know about the ways in which science works.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey "
No, it all shows how little he CARES about how science works. He isn't hear to learn, teach or discuss. He's here to be right, whether he's right or not, dogdammit!
The man is as potty as monckton.
"All your posts prove is how little you know about the ways in which science works.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey "
No, it all shows how little he CARES about how science works. He isn't hear to learn, teach or discuss. He's here to be right, whether he's right or not, dogdammit!
The man is as potty as monckton.
(dang it, keep forgetting the S)
[Like MFS's](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), my [previous post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) was delayed a bit. It basically said what other posters have subsequently pointed out to Curtin, although it does mention his mendacious bit of editing in his quoting of Glenn De'ath's paper...
And one small correction that I should make... When I said:
I meant:
I had in the front of my mind this portion from De'ath et al that Curtin had sliced out:
and it carried over into my commenting.
It doesn't change the fact of Cutitn's lying, however.
Nasty, nasty, nasty man.
And [the nasty, nasty, nasty man said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Pray tell us, Einstein, exactly what is wrong with the units of the product used to derive the calcification rate?
And answer [the other chemistry questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), whilst you're at it.
[Jeff @944](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
Not at all, Jeff.
It's what you and the others like you do that really is beyond placing a price on.
>Pray tell us, Einstein, exactly what is wrong with the units of the product used to derive the calcification rate?
Bizarre isn't it Bernard. It's not even like those units are counterintuitive.
> Bizarre isn't it Bernard. It's not even like those units are counterintuitive.
I also admit to scratching my head at that "criticism", wondering whether TC actually had a point but completely failed to express it - or was flat-out wrong (again).
Oh, Curtin squeezes as much wrong into anything he says as he possible can.
"Avocado pears" are as much a misnomer as "koala bears".
Neither of them are...
Tim,
[Itemise your lies?]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
Are you for real? Would a retraction of your claims not be easier? Why do you want your dishonesties aired out? Well, here we go then. [From your comment No 908](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).I have [exposed a few already]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), but repetition won't hurt:
a) Their archived sampling records are from south of Lat 18 oS, which is a small portion of the whole GBR. This is an outright lie, easily corrected by [opening the original paper](http://www.barrierreef.org/Portals/0/GBRF%20Files/Articles/Death%20et%2…) and looking at Fig. 1a for a map clearly showing the coverage of almost the entire latitudinal range of the GBR.
b) That only one single sample out of 328 in their study covered the period in question: The paper itself does not explicitly go into this, but the [supplementary online material](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/323/5910/116/DC1/1) makes it pretty clear there were 10 colonies that covered all or most of the period to 1572. Since this long core collection is used to draw the baseline (there were many more cores that cover the period 1990-2005), 10 is certainly not the same as one, and in this case an entirely adequate number.
c) Only 12 of the 328 samples have data beyond 1991. Take a quick look at the [paper](http://www.barrierreef.org/Portals/0/GBRF%20Files/Articles/Death%20et%2…). Page 117 clearly states: "Preliminary exploratory analysis of the data showed strong declines in calcification for the period 1990â2005, based on growth records of 189 colonies from 13 reefs". That means 189 colonies covered this period. Did you even read the bit where they explain the two separate datasets used in the analysis? Or are you talking about the data going back in time past 1991? It's not entirely clear. In any case 60 out of 60 long cores [in the archive](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/coral/greatbarrier.html) all go back in time further than that, and they are only being used to establish a baseline.
d) None of their sites has data beyond 2001. Again, Fig. 1B,C, 2A-D, and 3A-F all contradict this statement. It would do you well to remember something, Tim, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because you were not up to finding that data, or because the authors did not make it public if they are still working on it, does not mean the data do not exist.
e) "They claimed to have sampled all 69 in 2005 and that ALL had 400 years of data across the length and breadth of the GBR, when in fact only one did". Another two lies here, directly contradicted in [the methods](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/323/5910/116/DC1/1), which say: "The age of the colonies varied between 10 and 436 years, and they were collected predominantly in two periods; 1983 â 1992 and 2003 â 2005."
f) "Letâs consider a concrete example, their Kelso 02A reef, at 18.42 Lat South, their most northerly â and therefore warmest - post-1990 sample" Again Tim, you're directly contradicting Fig. 1, which shows us sampled reefs north of Kelso. Would you care to tell us how this is not another lie?
g) "the most northerly of their samples, supposedly the one most subject to global warming". No, Tim, global warming has a stronger effect in the middle and high latitudes, and the weakest effect in the tropics and the equator. I mean, this is BASIC stuff...
h) "Truly Deâath et al 2009 is nothing but a tissue of lies from beginning to end" Now, this is more of an illogical statement than an outright lie, since the paper is neither printed on tissue, and contains verifiable facts... [end sarcasm]
That done, will you now retract the above untrue statements, as [you stated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) that you would?
MFS: My critique of De'ath is based as I have made clear repeatedly on the mismatch between their paper and their archived data at NOAA. I asked Deâath and Lough in February last year for their complete data and still await that.
You correctly quote me as saying â Their ARCHIVED sampling records are from south of Lat 18 oS, which is a small portion of the whole GBR.â (caps added).
But then you say âThis is an outright lie, easily corrected by opening the original paper and looking at Fig. 1a for a map clearly showing the coverage of almost the entire latitudinal range of the GBRâ.
Well, you now have their archived Excel, name any of their âNew Series December 2008â which has post 1989 data for anywhere north of Lat 18.4 oS. Their map is misleading in the absence of archived post-1989 data for anywhere North of Kelso at 18.42 South.
Remember, their paper is about decline of the GBR since 1990, as stated in their Abstract: âWe investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Their skeletal records show that throughout [NB âthroughoutâ] the GBR, calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990, predominantly because extension (linear growth) has declined by 13.3%.
But their archived data does NOT show anything of the sort, as they report data from only 12 (NOT 69) reefs with post-1989 data, all south of Kelso. Maybe they did sample the whole reef in 2005, but they have yet to publish those results, and until they do, my bet is their 2005 data do not confirm the 1990-2001 trends.
MFS, I am sorry but until you retract your opening statement on this critical first point, I shall not address the rest of your allegations.
Tim,
>My critique of De'ath is based as I have made clear repeatedly on the mismatch between their paper and their archived data at NOAA. I asked Deâath and Lough in February last year for their complete data and still await that.
So out of the 328 cores examined for the paper they have made public 65, at least in the [excel file](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/coral/west_pacific/great_barrier…). Keep in mind the new 65 replace the old 30 on the left. You can count, at least being an economist I presume so. 65 is not equal to 328. So De'ath et al examined 263 cores you don't have data for. That you asked them for that info makes it clear you knew this, though what makes you think they'd give you their data is a mystery.
And yet you still call their paper 'nothing but a tissue of lies from beginning to end'?
You're running out of logical arguments, and your claims have no basis in reality.
>>[TC]:Science redux! De'ath et al: "Annual data for three growth parameters [skeletal density (grams per cubic centimeter), annual extension (linear growth) rate (centimeters per year), and calcification rate (the product of skeletal density and annual extension; grams per square centimeter per year)]".
>>Ever heard of apples and oranges being multiplied together to get avocado pears?
>[BJ]Pray tell us, Einstein, exactly what is wrong with the units of the product used to derive the calcification rate?
While you're here Tim, can you answer Bernard's question above? I would also like to know what the heck you meant.
MFS: you have not retracted your false opening statement which claimed there is post 1990 data in De'ath above 18.4 oS.
Again, De'ath et al said "We investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Their [sic] skeletal records show that throughout [NB âthroughoutâ] the GBR, calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990, predominantly because extension (linear growth) has declined by 13.3%."
I see only 12 reefs with post-1989 data, all south of 18.3 oS. They implied they had data for the whole GBR from 328 colonies on 69 reefs since 1989. Who misled whom?
I will not reply to you again until you retract your (a) at #961.
You're jumping to conclusions, Tim,
>I see only 12 reefs with post-1989 data, all south of 18.3 oS
You're assuming that, because in the 65 cores you can see in the excel file, none are from north of S18.3, by extension none of the 263 remaining cores (that you have no data for) come from further north than this. This is an illogical and baseless assumption.
MFS: you have failed to do what is required. No more!
If De'ath had had presentable data for the post-1989 period up to their claimed sampling in 2005, they had ample time to present it at NOAA just as much as what they did put up in December 2008. Janice Lough admitted to me their data was not up to scratch:
"Dear Tim
As you will appreciate this is a large and complicated data set with all the inherent difficulties of proxy environmental records (see attached [paper by the ineffable Phil Jones of CRU et al including Lough which had no bearing on De'ath et al) â the power of the analyses lies with the large number of samples available & I will leave you to perform your own analyses [on what? - Janice NEVER sent me any data]. In all my preliminary (& simplistic [!!!!]) analyses of the data set, it was clear that, which ever way one looked at the data, there was a recent decline in growth across many [how many? when only 12 were archived with post-1989 data, and then only to 2001? - hardly a valid period for ANY statistically valid analysis of growth rates] of the reefs.
"As indicated in Deâath et al, the whole data set consists of samples from 328 corals from 69 reefs and that there were 10 samples from 7 reefs that covered all or part of the period 1572-2001 â we make no reference to 69, 400-year data sets [as MFS would say, a blatant LIE*]. Deâath et al also note the linear correlation (as reported originally by Lough & Barnes, 2000) between calcification and SSTs (see 1st para p.118 and 2nd para. p. 119)."
Best wishes
Janice"
* "Our 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
reaching back 400 years", De'ath et al., p.119.
For Madoffian persiflage, that is right up there as actually only ONE of their 69 reefs's 328 cores had data notionally going back 400 years, and as Janice has admitted, dating proxies back 400 years is highly problematic.
MFS, until you retract as required this really is my last reply to you, but I am now quite advanced in writing a paper critiqueing De'ath et al. Rest assured it will never see the light of day thanks to Hoegh-Garbage's brilliant networking (he was of course the "anonymous" peer reviewer of De'ath et al), so you can sleep easy.
> I see only 12 reefs with post-1989 data, all south of 18.3 oS.
TC, you're being incredibly obtuse - even by your standards.
As [I pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) much earlier:
> And yet the blue circles on Fig 1 indicate 13 (not 12) reefs that were sampled in 2005 (which by my reckoning is post-1990) that range from about 13.5 to 22.5 degrees S (not 18-22 degrees S).
Now it's true that **you** don't have all of that data, but if you're going to paddle in least the shallow end of science pool, then you've got to be a little bit more precise. So if you were to state that "the associated archives available to me have only 12 reefs with post-1989 data, all south of 18.3 oS" then I doubt anyone would have any serious objections.
But instead (as you are wont to do) you jump to conclusions that because you don't have other data that it doesn't exist, a proposition for which you have no evidence and is likely to be false.
Sloth: as even the hugely biassed and dishonest CRU "Climategate" Inquiries conceded, scientists need to be transparent and open with their data. In a paper published in January 2009 they have as yet to archive any of their alleged 2005 sampling data. Until they do, everything I have said about De'ath et al (2009) stands.
And with this [piece of comedy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), Tim, you've covered yourself in glory! I'll be chucking all night, at this rate!
MFS: to my regret, having once thought you were honest, it is now clear you are not. Redeem yourself, or for ever hold your peace, as I shall re you.
*I am now quite advanced in writing a paper critiqueing De'ath et al*
Oh no, another one of Tim's 'seminal' articles no doubt, to go along with the other 0 he's published so far in Journals listed on the Web of Science.
Forever hold my silence? That's a bit rich... I guess I'll be the judge of that, or at a pinch, TL.
No, Tim, you still seem to labour under your delusion that you really do know better than the authors of the paper.
You made a statement that:
>"their archived sampling records are from south of Lat 18 oS, which is a small portion of the whole GBR, most of which is north of 18 oS"
And in your comment you used this to imply that they had not sampled north of that line. This is patently false, as you have no access to all their record archives (you only have information for 65 of 328 samples) and therefore cannot possibly know this. I have covered this repeatedly [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). If you had had the care or precision to qualify your comment in a manner such as this:
>"the small proportion of their records that are publicly available do not include those north of 18 oS..."
Then I could not disagree with you.
Can you explain to us how your statement that
>"They claimed to have sampled all 69 in 2005 and that ALL had 400 years of data across the length and breadth of the GBR, when in fact only one did"
When the [Materials and Methods clarly state](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/323/5910/116/DC1/1) that:
>"The age of the colonies varied between 10 and 436 years, and they were collected predominantly in two periods; 1983 â 1992 and 2003 â 2005"
Is not also clearly false?
MFS: 'When the Materials and Methods clearly state that:
"The age of the colonies varied between 10 and 436 years, and they were collected predominantly in two periods; 1983 â 1992 and 2003 â 2005"'
Unlike the paper and its archive, in which not one data set extends beyond 2001. Get lost, you are like an insurance salesman.
Its worth reliving this just [FTW!](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)
> ...as even the ... CRU "Climategate" Inquiries conceded, scientists need to be transparent and open with their data.
I agree. But it may take some considerable time, and it probably should be lower in priority to getting research that has current impact and suggests future research directions published in a timely fashion.
> Until they do, everything I have said about De'ath et al (2009) stands.
Bollocks. You're a delusional on this, and you are standing by false allegations. You know, the kind of thing that lawyers might even call libelous, given that you could not possibly back them up in court.
Are you *literally* not smart enough to see the difference between the unsupported assertions you made, and the modified version I suggested that is accurate, or are you dishonestly pretending there's no difference?
Meanwhile you're telling people you won't respond to them because you say they are *dishonest*. At least it has *some* redeeming value - it's one of the funniest Pot. Kettle. Black. expositions I've seen for a long time :-)
Lotharsson, not only that, but when Tim is caught out cherry-picking studies, excluding important processes and mechanisms, or misinterpreting relevant concepts, he responds either by belittling the messenger, calling other studies 'garbage' or 'rubbish', or by ignoring the posts altogether.
See my posts yesterday as an example. Tim cites one article in GRL in an effort to suggest that others are, in his own words, 'rubbish', but then he ignores a rejoinder in the same journal and even a response to that by the original authors, in which they admit that there are profound uncertainties in their own study and go on to say that their aim was to generate discussion in better understanding the effects of warming and ocean acidification on coral reefs. Tim appears to be a master at mud-slinging, but what strikes me is his clear bias towards studies that support his own views whilst bitterly dismissing many others that do not.
You'd think that, as a greenhorn with absolutely no expertise in marine biology, and not having apparently done any empirical research himself in the field, Tim would accept the limitations of his own abilities and cover the topic with an open mind. This, Tim, is what makes you a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. How the hell do you know, given your lack of pedigree in the field, which side in this debate is correct? Have you done sampling yourself? Have you conducted experiments in which you have tested the different hypotheses?
Working in another field of ecology entirely, I defer to the expertise of those doing the actual research, and not to laypeople, whether they are bus drivers, garage mechanics, right wing economists or amateur 'auditers' who wade into the field (no pun intended) for whatever reason. I have my opinions as to why some of these people do this, but that will remain for another thread.
It appears that the majority of marine biologists working in the field are, in my opinion, rightfully concerned with the potentially serious consequences of climate warming and ocean acidification on the health of marine ecosystems. I think enough data are in to suggest that there may be serious consequences to 'business-as-usual'.
Respected economics researcher publishes:
and notes at the end of the paper:
Garbage collector:
Respected economics researcher's colleagues:
Garbage collector responds:
Respected economics researcher:
Garbage collector responds:
Respected economics researcher's colleagues:
Garbage collector responds:
Respected economics researcher's colleagues:
Garbage collector responds:
"Are you literally not smart enough to see the difference between the unsupported assertions you made, and the modified version I suggested that is accurate, or are you dishonestly pretending there's no difference?"
Don't be so hard on him.
It could be both.
Deliberate dishonesty pretending there's no difference and literally not smart enough to know it's obvious.
Exactly so, BJ.
Now if this was a movie, another climate disinformation agent fuelled only by a sulphate-like chutzpah would have just self-eviscerated himself. Though it may yet take a while for that message to reach the brainstem.
Wow,
I used to think it was lack of expertise leading to confusion. I've lately been tending more to it being a blend of laziness (not actually having read the articles he rubbishes or uses in his arguments) and wilful equivocation.
Bernard,
You forgot:
> Economists: "We cannot release data we are still currently working on"
> GC: "BERNIE MADOFF!!!"
On a side note, Tim Curtin:
> "Unlike the paper and its archive, in which not one data set extends beyond 2001. Get lost, you are like an insurance salesman."
Yet, Tim, [one quick look at the paper](http://www.barrierreef.org/Portals/0/GBRF%20Files/Articles/Death%20et%2…) shows that the data sets do indeed extend beyond 2005. Just because these datasets do not appear among the 65 publicly archived samples does not mean the paper used none. The leap to this conclusion is a figment of your imagination, and unsupported by fact or logic.
I'll take your insurance salesman and call you a snake oil merchant.
When a paper published on 2 January 2009 makes strong statements about trends in calcification on the GBR since 1990, and archives data from only 12 samples of the cited 328 that extend beyond 1990, of which none contain data after 2001, although the paper refers glibly to sampling in 2005, none of which is reported, then we are entitled to suspect Madoffian tendencies.
Such a suspicion has support from careful examination of the 12 samples with data for 1990 to 2001, as it is evident that the main determinant of calcification is the extension variable, and that shows enormous variability from year to year consistent with ENSO, which means that the linear trend from 1990 tends to have derisory R2, whereas the polynomial #4 usually has the best fit.
For example, the best R2 for linear trends at the 4 RIB samples from 1990 to 2001 is 0.09, while the polynomial reaches 0.5994 at Rib 02B. That is why to support their case De'ath at al need to show that their unarchived 2005 samples confirm, or strengthen, their thesis.
Given the role of ENSO, which shifted from El Nino in 1998 and 2001 and 2005 to La Ninas in between and after 2005, how odd that they only do their sampling in El Nino years! Alas, the 2005 El Nino was not as strong as those in 1998 and 2001, hence their unwillingness to release the 2005 samples.
De'ath et al dismiss any potential effects from the IPO, but then they are marine scientists with a mission to extract funding from gullible politicians like Wong, while I as an amateur statistician merely observe the enormous power of ENSO or IPO to explain the huge variability of coral extensions in samples from the GBR from observation and plots of the actual trends.
Judging from MFS and De'ath, marine scientists as a breed are right up there with Madoff.
> ...we are entitled to suspect...
You certainly are. But you went blazing right past "I suspect" to flat-out assertions of "nothing but a tissue of lies" - which is yet another example of why people think you're full of it.
Care to withdraw the (fallacious) latter and replace with the (defensible) former?
Oh, wait, I bet not - you are *still* making unsupported claims:
> Alas, the 2005 El Nino was not as strong as those in 1998 and 2001, hence their unwillingness to release the 2005 samples.
Since you show no sign of ceasing the practice, I guess you'll forever be known as a bullshit artist.
> ...whereas the polynomial #4 usually has the best fit.
Really? Back around the goldfish bowl to that piece of rank (and irrelevant) stupidity? You must be desperate.
> ...observe the enormous power of ENSO or IPO to explain the huge variability...
McLean is calling. He wants to write a paper with you.
> ...marine scientists as a breed are right up there with Madoff.
Ah, the fine art of the "I haven't got a real scientific argument so let me do a group smear".
Every time you use Pol Pot, Madoff or whomever to attempt to denigrate someone you lose another tiny bit of credibility - which should concern you, because your remaining stock is vanishingly small already.
Tim Curtin,
Are you trying to cover your own incompetence with a sulk about ENSO??? Changing the subject does not make your lies any less patent, you know? They shall remain in the intertubes for all to read. You really ought to be more careful to research what you write.
How on earth is your statement that:
>"They claimed to have sampled all 69 in 2005 and that ALL had 400 years of data across the length and breadth of the GBR, when in fact only one did" (My emphasis)
Not shown as a lie by reading the [Material and Methods](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/323/5910/116/DC1/1) of the paper, which say approximately the opposite of what you claim:
>"The age of the colonies varied between 10 and 436 years, and they were collected predominantly in two periods; 1983 â 1992 and 2003 â 2005" (My emphasis also)
I've noticed that ACTUALLY reading the papers you rubbish or use as justification for your rubbish is quite a productive field as you don't appear to have read or understood so many of them...
Tim Curtin:
The expected rubbish from the usual suspects.
There is clearly a total mismatch between the text of De'ath et al,Science 2009 (lawd help us), and both its SI Materials and its archived data. That is itself evidence of gross misconduct both at AIMS and Science (sic).
Not only that, any half decent scientist when confronted with several possible alternative causal factors will do regression analysis to, so to speak, sift the wheat from the chaf. That is beyonnd the capabilities of De'ath et al., especially when for SST they use Phil Jones (old friend of Janice at CRU) for his notoriously unreliable SST.
It is indeed absolutely beyond the capabilities of ALL marine scientists at AIMS including quite possibly MFS, as I have yet to see any evidence any of them have ever done such basic analysis.
There is actually zilch stat sig correlation between SST and extension or calcification on the GBR when you regress annual data on the latter against BOTH SST AND ENSO or SOI.
Prove me wrong!
I came across a new acronym this morning (viz. OFFSTCFO), but can't work out what it means. It doesn't seem to be listed in Wiktionary/Urban Dictionary and Google returns "Your search - OFFSTCFO - did not match any documents."
Can anyone suggest what OFFSTCFO actually means?
As usual, Tim plays the artful dodger. Well... not so artful but you get my drift.
Tim, please explain to me why you suggested that the McNeil et al study in GRL (2004) was the 'bottom-line' whilst ignoring the riposte from Kleypas et al. (2005) and even the counter-response from McNeil et al. (2005) in which the authors you cited admitted there were uncertainties in their work and that their aim was only to 'stimulate debate'.
First of all, did you write to McNeil et el. demanding access to their data so that you could audit it for possible inaccuracies? Why focus only on those scientists arguing that climate change and acidification are serious threats to coral reefs including the GBR? Or was your mind made up beforehand as to the conclusions as you see them?
As I said yesterday, what gives you the ability to separate 'good science' from 'tissues of lies'? I asked if you'd ever done any research yourself on coral reefs (I admit the answer will be NO, but I wanted to hear it from you). If so, what motivates your search for the 'truth' as elusive as that is in science? You do realize that you look like a complete idiot when you write, "Judging from MFS and De'ath, marine scientists as a breed are right up there with Madoff". But then again, you have been so comprehensively hammered in just about every topic on this thread, it is no small wonder that you are resigned to making such asinine comments as this.
Tim,
When you're done answering [Jeff's questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), maybe you'd care to actually answer [mine](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). [De'ath et al 2009](http://www.barrierreef.org/Portals/0/GBRF%20Files/Articles/Death%20et%2…) make it perfectly clear that "The causes of the decline remain unknown", so your attempted deployment of a deflector shied about SSTs and Phil Jones is pretty nonsensical / pathetic.
You're presuming a lot to think I work at AIMS, and your presumptions in general are not casting you in a good light. I'll give you a hint, I'm not even in the same continent as AIMS.
[From the dung heap of irony](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…):
Let's pause here for a moment and consider what De'ath et al say in their paper:
Any half-intelligent reader would see that they have samples from 328 colonies, from 69 reefs and, seeing that there are less than these numbers in the NOAA data archives, come (hopefully) to the conclusion that not all of the samples are in this archive.
And why should there be? There is no stipulation anywhere that coral core data need be archived with the NOAA, is there? If so, please indicate to me where this is so stipulated.
Further, the paper explicitely indicates that the examined cores themselves are lodged with the Coral Core Archive of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, so all of the data can certainly be accessed and/or replicated by any sufficiently competent researcher in the field. If a self-confessed amateur "statistician" is unable to analyse these cores, or at least form a workable collaboration with the researchers so as to obtain the raw data, then this is simply a reflection of the incompetence of said amateur to participate in any work remotely related to the subject.
If the material underpinning every paper in the scientific domain were to be prepared for the ham-fisted ignorance pissing-over of every amateur self-styled 'auditor', untrained and non-experienced in the disciplines they presume to investigate, then the actual practice of science would grind to a halt.
To so prepare such material would require providing the lay numpties, who think that they can analyse it, with an education in the discipline - and hell will freeze over if I for one have to give a free education to any nimrod who most likely thinks that I did not pay enough for my own education in the first place, and who derides my experience even in the face of his own complete absence of such.
It would also take more time, than any hard-working research has at his disposal, to organise in a way that such a lay person could easily understand and process.
And contrary to what so many Denialati believe, much of the data is not funded by the taxpayer - my own PhD data was acquired using the donations of a non-governmental organisation. The major outcome that they sought was a report of the results: there was no expectation that they would gain the data themselves, as they are completely non-equipped to use them, and it is not their business to do so anyway. Their mission is simply to allow scientists to get on with the business of doing science, and our success is determined by the peer acceptance of our papers.
And we must have been doing something right, because they were happy to fund us year after year for more work than we could manage to do.
Curtin, I really do not understand what possesses you to think that you are somehow competent to critique marine biology, population biology, photosynthetic biochemistry, or climatology. And if you were, you would probably not start by sniping for a look at a team's data - if there is a problem with the results, it might have nothing to do with the data analysis. The way to properly replicate a result is to repeat it entirely, so that experimental design, execution, and analysis are all independently checked.
As many have indicated previously, peer-review usually picks the errors of analysis and/or interpretation, and independent replication (not auditing or analytical duplication) will confirm or refute the original paper's results.
There are avenues for proper professional collaboration to conduct secondary analyses of complex datasets, or to collate small datasets for meta-analyses, but again these processes are not the entitlement of any ignorant wally off the street. If they were, the work would rapidly grind to a halt the first time the wally said "hey, all of this is crap because it is obvious that pH decreases proportionally with salinity, and, hey again, any sea water solution less than pH 7.0 is drinkable".
There's reason why most professions require prior education in their fields before employing candidates. The same necessity for competent understanding applies to assessment of the results of a profession, and Curtin, you display no competence at all in even the first-year basics of any scientific discipline that you have ever cast your eyes over.
Let's look again at the quote from De'ath et al to which I referred in my [previous posting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).
Once again, I would ask the readers here to compare it with the version that Curtin quoted:
The thing is, one wonders if Curtin even read the paper, because the version he quotes comes from the abstract, and not the body of the paper itself. The complete text indicates both the location of the coral core archive, and the distribution of the sites from where the cores were sampled, and Curtin omitted these facts from his claims.
Now, I cannot begin to figure out how many times I've warned undergraduates about the dangers of drawing detailed inferences from just the abstract of a paper, and yet this appears to be how Curtin acts - if he did not actually deliberately truncate the quote. In so quoting De'ath et al Curtin has misrepresented their methodology to this thread â or to put it more bluntly, he has lied about their methodology â and in the process he has libelled the authors on the basis of this incomplete quote, immediately after misrepresenting their work.
I've commented on this distortion previously, but I feel that is deserves repeating. If Curtin has to doctor the actual commentary of De'ath et al, when they explicitly indicate that they have essentially sampled the entirety of the Great Barrier Reef, in order to make his claim that they only sampled south of -18° latitude because he only found a web site with data from south of -18° latitude, then he is lying.
Hear that, Curtin? You are a liar.
Either that, or you are so incompetent in reading a paper and deconstructing it that you should not be commenting on it in the first place.
Take your pick.
I've just realised that Curtin and/or his cronies might [take this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) the wrong way:
I should more precisely have said:
If I don't dot that 'i' and cross that 't' I am sure that one of the Denialati would soon enough accuse me and my colleagues of spending grant money on luxury yachts and caviar breakfasts...
Bernard,
You seem to be wondering the same thing as I was when I first asked tim to justify his ridiculous claims, [back in post 933](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). I think There's a pattern emerging. Look at [Tim's endorsement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) of Tams et al. By his own admission he never even read it, he only parroted [what the NIPCC had to say about it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). If you [read the paper](http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/22_4/22…), well... let's say it doesn't exactly say what Tim and the NIPCC are claiming. Moreover, it's one of many papers on a special issue on Ocean Acidification, a topic that does not exist because, in Tim Curtin's world, [acidified oceans would be drinkable](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…)...
If you look at the list Tim [asked me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…) to itemise [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), point (e) only makes sense if he was drawing his critique exclusively from the abstract, without having read the text. Funny, though, since he seems to have reserved some of his worst vitriol for this paper, you'd think he would have read it carefully...
Hi BJ and MFS, with love from a NASTY to 2 unspeakables!
You have access to the data archived at NOAA by Deâath et al (not just âaâ website but actual lodgements by Deâath et al in December 2008 â what prevented them from archiving ALL their data to 2005 and later?).
I know Bernard is just about up to plotting their time series to 2000/2001, even in Excel, but he has not done so.
Cursory inspection (and regressions) of the data from the 12 coral reefs sampled both before 1990 and after 1989 show that Calcification is above all determined by Extensions, and that given the obvious huge annual variability in E, it is most unlikely that the monotonic increases in [CO2] could have anything to do with such variability, which is self-evidently due to ENSO.
Even Bernardâs students, if any, self-selected or by him as no doubt they were for ingrained stupidity, might have spotted this, albeit without help from him.
By yet another amazing coincidence, the AIMS long term reef monitoring data sets have nothing on Sweetlip, which accounts for no fewer than 5 of the 12 archived sets with data to 2001 (at NOAA), nor on Rib (4 reefs to 2000 or 2001). Even the pride and joy of Deâath et al, Abraham 01H (1606 to 2001) does not appear in the AIMS catalogue. Kelso (2 to 2001 in the NOAA database lodged by Deâath et al in 2008) does appear but with no data on extension, density, or calcification, and that is true of the whole AIMS online database so far as I can see.
AIMS is a lemon!
Another oddity is the absence of any mention by Deâath Lough & Fabricius 2009 of Smith et al on coral reefs extension, density & calcification in American Samoa, in Coral Reefs 2007 (communicated by K Fabricius, yes that one). If Deâath et al are right the GBR has ALWAYS been in a bad way, since 1606 in fact, with much lower E, D and C rates than in Samoa. Why?
Did Fabricius even read Smith et al? She communicated their paper and evidently did not notice their statement on their very first page: âSkeletal extension rates of P.lobata and other porites species INCREASE with INCREASING seawater temperaturesâ¦â
Yet same Fabricius with Deâath (how apt!) and Lough opine (Science 2009) that âThe recent increase in heat stress episodes (25) is likely to have contributed to declining coral calcification in the period 1990â2005.â
The luvverlies hedged their bets in other statements in that para., but then proceeded to declaim: âLaboratory experiments [with hydrochloric acid?} and models [sic] have predicted negative impacts of rising atmospheric CO2
on the future of calcifying organisms (5, 6). Our 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 [one of which] reaching back 400 yearsâ.
OK, look at Deâathâs star performer, Abraham 1606-1989, Ext 0.0013; 1990-2001 Ext .0012. Wow, please note. That is a massive decline from 13/1000 to 12/1000, i.e. one ten-thousandth of a centimetre, well within the error of Deâathâs shaky VB wrist movements.
OFFSTCFO
Further to my last (994), if Bernard and MFS were capable of plotting the De'ath et al archived data for the 12 reefs out of 69 which extend to 2001, they would see that it is preposterous to attribute the marginal changes in Extension or Calcification to changes in temperature or [CO2],given the evident non-monotonic changes in Ext or Calc relative to the evident monotonic changes in [CO2], and, allegedly, SST.
It is abundantly clear that changes from year to year in Ext and Calc depend totally on changes in ENSO, and they have NEVER been traced to changes in [CO2], nor will they ever.
Curtin, why is a regression a better way to analyse the coral data than is a linear mixed effects model?
One or two paragraphs should do it, by way of reply.
And why do you continue to refuse to [answer my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and why to do continue to acknowledge that you do so?
Bernard: Why is a regression not the best way to analyse the coral data than is a linear mixed effects model?
Not the least of the buffoonery in De'ath et al is their failure to deploy regression analysis. They want to show that rising [CO2] and thence rising global mean temperature (itself a non-existent variable) causes whatever minuscule changes in extensions at the GBR in carefully selected locations they claim to have found (without archiving ANY data since 2001).
Any moderately numerate scientists would begin with a regression of ALL proximate determinants of dEx, including ENSO (or PDO).