Register to Comment
Like Tree9010Likes
  1. #14611
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,514

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    flogger, as soon as I read someone talking about policy in a science discussion, I wonder if their policy interests bias their science. In the case of Segalstad, his reference to a paper clearly not about the issue of disequilibriated CO2 concentrations, while emphatically saying that that is what it is about, severely detracts from his credibility. That was the first PDF I came acros from his list.



    I am no expert, nor remotely qualified to say that the IPCC or Segalstad is 'right' or 'wrong.' But as a lay observer, my money would be on current consensus rather than the views of one or a small number of mavericks.

    You seem to be certain. Have you investigated Segalstad's claims? Are you a geoscientist? What makes you think this guy has it right and scores of studies have it wrong?

    He cites an assertion that "all studies except the IPCC more or less agree" that CO2 residence times are about 10 years, but in terms of disequilibriated CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (rather than oceanic turnover rates), this assertion is pure bunk from a little bit of google scholar action.

    For these and other reasons, and that he uses the word 'dogma' in most of his section titles, My hunch is the guy's a crank. But what do I know?

    This might help!

    Rabett Run: Eli can retire Part XIII - Tom Segalstad is an old buddy
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #14612
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,514

    Earthling!

    You have the manner of a pedant: the style of a pedant. You use the same stilted,unimaginative and inelegant phraseology a pedant a pedant would use. But, you lack the essential superficial knowledge of language, grammar and syntax to be a true pedant. Your own errors are sometimes glaring but no one here wants to indulge in the petty exchanges.

    So why not give it up and try to contribute to discussion?

    Or are you just a collector of coprolite?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #14613
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,292

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    ????????????????????

    It's right there on your graph, the concentration goes down
    April to October every year. Here's that graph from wikipedia
    that has a detailed inset:



    It's rather clear, photosynthesis in the northern hemisphere
    annually drags the CO2 concentration down. Relieve the
    pressure from anthropogenic emissions and the 280 ppm
    equilibrium point will be re-established. And it won't take
    a thousand years.
    Err... Have you already started planting? Who do you think is taking you serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    Not quite that much, but OK 1C in 100 years. And you know what? if the models
    your side puts so much faith in were correct, it should have gone up twice that
    amount in those 100 years. It didn't, the models are wrong.
    You have to explain why you think "the models are wrong". Can't wait to read your "expertise"...


    ()
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #14614
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,292

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnotologist View Post
    Thanks, Agno. From a comment on this page:

    When science clashes with beliefs? Make science impotent

    It's hardly a secret that large segments of the population choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs: economic, political, religious, or otherwise. But many studies have indicated that these same people aren't happy with viewing themselves as anti-science, which can create a state of cognitive dissonance. That has left psychologists pondering the methods that these people use to rationalize the conflict.

    A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology takes a look at one of these methods, which the authors term "scientific impotence"—the decision that science can't actually address the issue at hand properly. It finds evidence that not only supports the scientific impotence model, but suggests that it could be contagious. Once a subject has decided that a given topic is off limits to science, they tend to start applying the same logic to other issues.

    The paper is worth reading for the introduction alone, which sets up the problem of science acceptance within the context of persuasive arguments and belief systems. There's a significant amount of literature that considers how people resist persuasion, and at least seven different strategies have been identified. But the author, Towson University's Geoffrey Munro, attempts to carve out an exceptional place for scientific information. "Belief-contradicting scientific information may elicit different resistance processes than belief-contradicting information of a nonscientific nature," he argues. "Source derogation, for example, might be less effective in response to scientific than nonscientific information."

    It might be, but many of the arguments against mainstream science make it clear that it's not. Evolution doubters present science as an atheistic conspiracy; antivaccination advocates consider the biomedical research community to be hopelessly corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry; and climatologists have been accused of being in it to foster everything from their own funding to global governance. Clearly, source derogation is very much on the table.

    ...

    Hits the nail on the head...
    Last edited by SirCharles; 10th September 2012 at 06:25 AM. Reason: the nail
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #14615
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    What will we burn once such policies impoverish us back into the caves
    I would call that prediction distinctly alarmist.

    Any hard data to back it up?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #14616
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    That being so why did they feel the need to include over 5000 non peer reviewed articles from non scientific lobby groups like the WWF and Greenpeace in 2007 AR4
    Because WGII and III were concerned with the economic aspect of climate change, about which there is very little peer-reviewed material, even now. There just aren't many people researching impacts and cost benefit analyses, and Greenpeace and WWF were in the vanguard of that research (still, I think). As a result, WGII and III are weaker elements of the IPCC reports.

    There is hardly any 'grey literature' in WGI, which is exclusively about the science basis of climate change. This document has many decades of peer-reviewed literature supporting it - 6000+ peer-reviewed papers (which in turn rest on other studies - the full chain of peer-reviewed literature is in the tens of thousands).
    Last edited by barry schwarz; 10th September 2012 at 07:09 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #14617
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    If you take a look at the keeling curve, CO2 concentration goes down April to October because of photosynthesis in the northern hemisphere summer. So yes, were human emissions to stop green plants would take the level right back down to 280 ppm in rather short order.
    If emissions stopped, plant life would still take up and rot out the same amount of CO2 each year. The excess would remain.

    Think about it - if the biosphere was apt to reduce CO2, why didn't the atmospheric concentration go down significantly in the centuries before anthropogenic emissions? Something maintained the equilibrium amount. And in the ice ages, why is there such a rapid rise of CO2 during warm up, and a very long tail of decrease as the Earth cools? The Milankovitch forcing is roughly equal (symmetrical) in the warm-up and cool-down phase, so why doesn't CO2 follow that pattern and come out of the atmopshere as quickly as it is taken up?

    There is an excellent historical account of the growing understanding of the radiative properties of CO2 and its place in the carbon cycle. The author is a science historian.

    The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

    Roger Revelle's Discovery
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #14618
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,575

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    If you take a look at the keeling curve, CO2 concentration goes down April to October
    because of photosynthesis in the northern hemisphere summer. So yes, were human
    emissions to stop green plants would take the level right back down to 280 ppm in
    rather short order.
    Steven,

    I am disappointed in your lack of knowledge of the Carbon Cycle.

    Take-up of carbon dioxide by biological organisms in more or less carbon-neutral, as is dissolving CO2 in the ocean (which you seem to ignore completely). In fact both have been doing us a favour by taking extra CO2 out of the atmosphere.

    But as the sea changes composition it becomes less efficient, and (besides) the sea starts to acidify in a disastrous way. Over the long term, it will take hundreds of years for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere to reduce by 50%. Some of it will be around for 10,000 years.

    Also, deforestation (rampant in the Amazon basin) is destroying the earth's resources to process CO2. Replacement of forest by grassland or crops is a net contributor of greenhouse gas.

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #14619
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,575

    A 1959 Scientific American article by Dr Gilbert Plass on what were then new discoveries about atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Plass' work on IR radiation was funded by the US Air Force, who wanted to be sure their heat-seeking missiles would work. Yes, folks, global warming was confirmed in many ways by the US Military-Industrial Complex.

    We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun's energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth's temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth's temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth's reserves of fossil fuels.


    Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Scientific American

    PDF:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/me...959-carbon.pdf
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #14620
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,575

    A 1-minute gallop through the history of climate science.

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment