1. Originally Posted by Geo
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
This one, out of Wiki, shows 210 GtC of natural annual release and 7.1 GtC of anthropogenic release
My interpretation of the carbon cycle diagram is, that there is 3.3Gt of natural release, and 5.5Gt of anthropogenic release. How did you come up with the other figures?

This is my first post on this thread, so excuse me if I've missed something.
The sorcing ar the upward lines. The sinking, the downward.

I counted land use as anthropogenic, therefore, it is 1.6 + 6.4 GtC for the IPCC diagram. The NASA diagram you can find in Wikipedia has 1.6 + 5.5. The vegetation area where the tractor is shown counts as land use.

2. Originally Posted by Geo
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Scientific temperatures are based on the Kevin scale. 0 Celsius is 273.15 Kelvin. Out global average is about 15 C or about 288 K. Let's call it an even 15 C. 3% more from the 288.15 K would be 296.79 C, or about 23.64 C. An 8.6 C rise in temperature.
Using the Kelvin scale is misrepresenting. Temperatures on Earth only vary by some 140 degrees celsius, and that's obviously at the extremes . You've used the Kelvin scale to double the effect.
Have you ever taken a chemistry class? Please know what you are talking about before accusing me of deceit.

0 Kelvin is absolute zero. It is a natural scale. Celsius is arbitrary to nature except that water freezes at 0 C and boils at 100C. Any mathematics that are not simple addition or subtraction need to be made using the Kelvin scale.

wiki: Thermodynamic temperature:
Thermodynamic temperature is the absolute measure of temperature and is one of the principal parameters of thermodynamics. Thermodynamic temperature is an "absolute" scale because it is the measure of the fundamental property underlying temperature: its null or zero point, absolute zero, is the temperature at which the particle constituents of matter have minimal motion and can be no colder.

3. An interesting discussion here about why use of Henry's Law alone is an oversimplification which will lead to invalid conclusions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-sink-sinking/

4. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Originally Posted by Geo
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Scientific temperatures are based on the Kevin scale. 0 Celsius is 273.15 Kelvin. Out global average is about 15 C or about 288 K. Let's call it an even 15 C. 3% more from the 288.15 K would be 296.79 C, or about 23.64 C. An 8.6 C rise in temperature.
Using the Kelvin scale is misrepresenting. Temperatures on Earth only vary by some 140 degrees celsius, and that's obviously at the extremes . You've used the Kelvin scale to double the effect.
Have you ever taken a chemistry class? Please know what you are talking about before accusing me of deceit.

0 Kelvin is absolute zero. It is a natural scale. Celsius is arbitrary to nature except that water freezes at 0 C and boils at 100C. Any mathematics that are not simple addition or subtraction need to be made using the Kelvin scale
The lowest air temperature recorded on Earth is ~ 190K. Celsius is not arbitrary to nature, 1K equals 1C, so what you've done here is added 190 to your calculations from the scale, which is meaningless to conditions on Earth.

You didn't answer my earlier question. Where did you get the 210Gt from the carbon cycle diagram?, it shows 3.3Gt.

5. Here is the situation broken down by someone who teaches this stuff and is rather capable of presenting ideas in ways that even laymen can understand.

http://www.morrissuntribune.com/event/article/id/20026/
Local Commentary: Thoughts on 'Climate-gate': Mitigate our impact

By Pete Wyckoff

Is the planet cooling? "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick…to hide the decline," writes climate scientist Phil Jones in a stolen 1999 e-mail which has caused a frenzy. FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a 'smoking gun'--proof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can… they can…(I've never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).

The planet is warming. The data are unequivocal and based on measured temperatures (corrected for things like the "heat island" effect, so please don't write an angry response claiming that the thermometers are wrong). What Phil Jones was referring to is something else: past temperatures estimated via tree rings. Since 1960, the rings in trees seem to have lost some of their power to record temperature.

Why should tree rings indicate temperature at all? As most of us learned in childhood, the trunks of trees at our latitude tend to put on a distinct growth ring every year. All other things being equal, when the trees are happy, they put on a large ring. When the going gets tough, the rings get thin. What makes a tree happy? Light, nutrients, lack of disease, and warmth (to a point). What do trees despise? Drought. By careful interpretation of past tree growth patterns, we can learn a lot about past climates.

Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become "decoupled" in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.

Decreased drought sensitivity is an expected response for plants exposed to high levels of carbon dioxide. All along the underside of a plant's leaves are little holes called "stomata." These holes can open and close. A tree must open its stomata to take in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Unfortunately, plants lose water out of their open stomata. Plants growing in air that has lots of carbon dioxide can reduce the amount of time their stomata are open, thus making them lose less water and become less susceptible to drought.

Biologists call the concept here "water-use efficiency," and it is of crucial interest to farmers and foresters alike. Carbon dioxide causes warming that will likely make west central Minnesota a drier place in the future. At the same time, increased carbon dioxide in the air makes plants growing in our region less susceptible to drought. The balance between these two forces will be crucial.

The changing relationship between climate and tree growth is a hot topic of research at your local university. Last Friday, Dr. Chris Cole and Dr. Jon Anderson, of the University of Minnesota, Morris, published a paper in the journal "Global Change Biology" showing that aspen trees in Wisconsin are growing faster than they used to, and much of the increase is attributed to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Two weeks ago, a former student and I published a paper in the "Journal of Ecology" showing that oak trees in west central Minnesota became less sensitive to drought during the 20th century. If "dust bowl"-severity droughts come again soon, we project that the local oaks will suffer 50 percent less mortality than they likely did in the 1930s.

So what does this all mean? The relationship between tree rings and climate is becoming muddied by the rapid recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. For most of the past 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained reasonably stable. Now they are skyrocketing. Modern tree rings are no longer the reliable recorders of temperature they once were. It is a good thing that we now have thermometers.

What does Phil Jones' stolen e-mail not mean? It does not mean that global warming is a hoax. It does not mean that there are really any cracks in the scientific consensus that humans are causing dangerous alterations to the global climate.

We humans are changing the climate, largely by emitting vast quantities of carbon dioxide via the way we heat our houses, fuel our cars, and generate our electricity. This is unwise. Yes, the future climate, along with the increased carbon dioxide, may be good for some. For most people, however, the downsides of climate change are likely to far outweigh the benefits. Don't let Fox News mislead you. As a prudent, conservative people, we should take serious steps to mitigate our impact.

Dr. Pete Wyckoff is Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris.

6. Originally Posted by inow
An interesting discussion here about why use of Henry's Law alone is an oversimplification which will lead to invalid conclusions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-sink-sinking/
Can you explain this article for me. Are they suggesting Henry's Law does not apply? that is Henry's law is not a law after all? If that is their claim how is that good science? Can you provide the physical chemistry that is the basis for suggesting wind alters partial pressure equilibrium as they seem to claim.

edit: As for hiding the data, Phil Jones and Mike Mann merged one temperature proxy with what they claim is direct temperature data. They did this because they did not feel the tree ring proxies provided an accurate picture of what was going on and therefore would lead to wrong conclusions. They made the substitutions and did not properly disclose what or why they didi it whenever the summary information was provided. The conclusion from the summarry presentations was that tree ring proxy is consistent with actual temperature trends when in reality it was not.

No matter how you slice it this is poor scientific practice but great politics. Too bad they got coaught. They also discussed and did tamper with the peer-review process to exclude research in opposition to theirs. They excluded other surface temperature data that diminished the trends they favored, and tey have for some time been witholding information they are legally required t provide.

7. Originally Posted by cypress
Use of Henry's Law alone is an oversimplification which leads to wrong conclusions, as there are other factors to consider which have a significant impact on climate.

8. Originally Posted by inow
Originally Posted by cypress
Use of Henry's Law alone is an oversimplification which leads to wrong conclusions, as there are other factors to consider which have a significant impact on climate.

More for readers who like reality can be found here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...house-gas.html

10. Originally Posted by inow

More for readers who like reality can be found here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...house-gas.html
I am asking you as the poster and provider of the link for an explanation. I must assume you understand it since you found the article both relevant and persuasive. I read the article and was unable to determine how the author reached the conclusions he reached. Surly you can help me better understand the writer. If you can't then you should withdraw the post.

i also don't understand the relevance of this latest post with respect to CO2 partial pressures. It seems completely off topic.

11. Originally Posted by cypress
I am asking you as the poster and provider of the link for an explanation.
I know, and I am ignoring you.

12. it hurts your credibility and damages your argument to ignore relevant questions.

13. Originally Posted by cobra
Why are you believes locked into that idea?
We understand the argument behind it. It makes sense.

Originally Posted by cobra
First off, it doesn't matter how much is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
We think it does.
Originally Posted by cobra
If temperature didn't play a roll in CO2 levels, then the equilibrium would balance itself so that most of the 7.1 GtC man made CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean.
Not really - a new balance of exchange would be created eventually, time depending on how fast the ocean water actually absorbed the new carbon, in which the greater air concentration input balanced out the faster ocean output from its greater concentration. Unfortunately, temperature plays a role - including, critically, the greenhouse heating of the ocean by the CO2 humans have pumped into the air.
Originally Posted by cobra
The oceans are like a soda going flat as it warms, losing their CO2.
The oceans have been absorbing anthro CO2 for a while now, leading to greater acidity and stress on organisms that form carbonate shells and the like. Whether the oceans will continue damping the rise in air concentration by absorption, as they are doing now, is an open question.

14. Originally Posted by iceaura
Whether the oceans will continue damping the rise in air concentration by absorption, as they are doing now, is an open question.
In fact, recent studies have shown their ability to absorb CO2 has been decreasing due to saturation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136188
Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change

Based on observed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 petagrams of carbon per year per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. We attribute this weakening to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities, which is projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction of the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (about 25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale.

More here for those without a subscription:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0517142558.htm
Scientists have observed the first evidence that the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has weakened by about 15 per cent per decade since 1981.

In research published in Science, an international research team – including CSIRO’s Dr Ray Langenfelds – concludes that the Southern Ocean carbon dioxide sink has weakened over the past 25 years and will be less efficient in the future. Such weakening of one of the Earth’s major carbon dioxide sinks will lead to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long-term.

<...>

“Combined, the Earth’s land and ocean sinks absorb about half of all carbon dioxide emissions from human activities,” Dr Fraser says. “The Southern Ocean takes up 15 per cent of these emissions, hence a reduction in its efficiency will have serious implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over coming decades.”

15. Originally Posted by inow
Originally Posted by iceaura
Whether the oceans will continue damping the rise in air concentration by absorption, as they are doing now, is an open question.
In fact, recent studies have shown their ability to absorb CO2 has been decreasing due to saturation.
I don't understand this comment. At equilibrium CO2 is saturated in sea water at any given atmospheric concentration, surface sea and air temperature. Are you suggesting that some other mechanism or do you not understand solubility and vapor pressure?

Didn't you mean to say saturation concentrations are decreasing due to rising surface sea temperatures? (or if you accept the research article wind)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136188
Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change

Based on observed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 petagrams of carbon per year per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. We attribute this weakening to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities, which is projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction of the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (about 25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale.
Isn't it more likely that there is a simple inverse correlation between CO2 solubility and sea temperture as WC has indictated? I don't understand how convection decreases solubility of trace components. Can you explain that to me?

More here for those without a subscription:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0517142558.htm
Scientists have observed the first evidence that the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has weakened by about 15 per cent per decade since 1981.

In research published in Science, an international research team – including CSIRO’s Dr Ray Langenfelds – concludes that the Southern Ocean carbon dioxide sink has weakened over the past 25 years and will be less efficient in the future. Such weakening of one of the Earth’s major carbon dioxide sinks will lead to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long-term.

<...>

“Combined, the Earth’s land and ocean sinks absorb about half of all carbon dioxide emissions from human activities,” Dr Fraser says. “The Southern Ocean takes up 15 per cent of these emissions, hence a reduction in its efficiency will have serious implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over coming decades.”
Mixing at the liquid gas surface increases transfer efficiency and requires less concentration gradient to obtain equilibrium. I don't understand this conclusion at all it is counterintuitive and is a diviation from mass transfer principles. Please explain this. I think these researchers blew it. I think they are incompetent. WC seems to have describe the effect they are seeing much better. Inow this is your link, please explain this.

16. Originally Posted by cypress
I don't understand this conclusion at all it is counterintuitive
Not my problem.

17. Originally Posted by inow
An interesting discussion here about why use of Henry's Law alone is an oversimplification which will lead to invalid conclusions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-sink-sinking/
So maybe now you understand Henry's Law just a little?

OK, you like to claim everything is immediate. I agree the surface ocean is a faster exchange. However, the is ample mixing with the deeper layers and it takes time. In other words.... LAG TIME!

We are very likely finally seeing the increased CO2 from earlier warming periods. It is expected, because of lag, that CO2 will continue to rise in atmospheric concentration for decades to come, even if we suddenly stopped producing anymore anthropogenic gasses. Even if temperatures decline for a decade or more.

Lag time is real!

18. Originally Posted by Geo
You didn't answer my earlier question. Where did you get the 210Gt from the carbon cycle diagram?, it shows 3.3Gt.
There is 210 sourced, just look at the upward arrows. 60 from plants, 60 from the ground, and 90 from the oceans.

There are similar sinking levels, the downward arrows. Without doing the math, do you mean 3.3 GtC net when the larges amounts cancel out?

Most the sinking in the ocean is done in the polar regions and most the sourcing is done in the tropical regions. I don't know how it varies for the plant and soil sinking and sourcing, but is is probably more evenly spread out.

Now the fact that the earth naturally sources 200 or more by any model you find puts into perspective that the up to 8 Gtc we produce in very minor to the exchange system. That the exchange can easily be expected to compensate for those minor changes if all other factors didn't change.

19. Originally Posted by inow
Originally Posted by cypress
Use of Henry's Law alone is an oversimplification which leads to wrong conclusions, as there are other factors to consider which have a significant impact on climate.
Then explain it to us in your own words.

20. Originally Posted by cypress
it hurts your credibility and damages your argument to ignore relevant questions.
It's simple.

He's not capable of answering your question unless he can find a link to do so with.

21. Originally Posted by iceaura
Originally Posted by cobra
Why are you believes locked into that idea?
We understand the argument behind it. It makes sense.
Originally Posted by iceaura
Originally Posted by cobra
First off, it doesn't matter how much is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
We think it does.
OK, why does it matter?
Originally Posted by iceaura
Originally Posted by cobra
If temperature didn't play a roll in CO2 levels, then the equilibrium would balance itself so that most of the 7.1 GtC man made CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean.
Not really - a new balance of exchange would be created eventually, time depending on how fast the ocean water actually absorbed the new carbon, in which the greater air concentration input balanced out the faster ocean output from its greater concentration.
Would you please explain to Inow that there is lag then. You seem to agree with that point.
Originally Posted by iceaura
Unfortunately, temperature plays a role - including, critically, the greenhouse heating of the ocean by the CO2 humans have pumped into the air.
Please explain to me how the meager exchange of temperature makes enough impact of the water, when changes in solar irradiance are immediate as deep as the rays go, absorbing about 92% of the sunlight that makes it to the surface.
Originally Posted by iceaura
Originally Posted by cobra
The oceans are like a soda going flat as it warms, losing their CO2.
The oceans have been absorbing anthro CO2 for a while now, leading to greater acidity and stress on organisms that form carbonate shells and the like.
Yep, been down this path before. Funny think is that acidity also affects solubility of CO2 more than the CO2 affects acidity.

Have you ever looked at the math to see if what people say makes sense? Since it takes a factor of 10 difference to change by 1 PH, how much more carbonic acid is needed to change the PH by 0.1 PH? If I recall, the cries that anthropogenic CO2 are causing acid problems are at a claimed 0.6 PH change. How can the oceans be absorbing enough CO2 to make a 4 times difference in the ionic balances?
Originally Posted by iceaura
Whether the oceans will continue damping the rise in air concentration by absorption, as they are doing now, is an open question.
I agree, except for you choice of words. Levels can rise or lower, but I think CO2 levels will continue to rise, even if we completely stopped producing anthropogenic CO2.

22. Originally Posted by cypress
Didn't you mean to say saturation concentrations are decreasing due to rising surface sea temperatures? (or if you accept the research article wind)
He just made my argument that CO2 levels are rising because of ocean warming, and doesn't even realize it!

23. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Originally Posted by cypress
Didn't you mean to say saturation concentrations are decreasing due to rising surface sea temperatures? (or if you accept the research article wind)
He just made my argument that CO2 levels are rising because of ocean warming, and doesn't even realize it!
True, though your argument is more of a foregone conclusion having been derived directly from physical chemistry and thermodynamic laws. Who are these researchers trying to fool, and what idiots peer-reviewed their work? They blame it on the wind when it can be directly derived from any decent thermo manual and then confirmed by repeatable tests. Wind only serves to make mass transfer more efficient by introducing convective transfer. Inow really spent a lot of credibility points by offering such crappy research and then not explaining it.

24. Originally Posted by cypress
Inow really spent a lot of credibility points by offering such crappy research and then not explaining it.
Good thing I've earned a solid credibility here and elsewhere by accurately conveying reality and supporting my points with evidence. You guys are like Laurel and Hardy over here talking out of your asses and dismissing actual science. I'm unconcerned with your suggestions against my character or strengths, but thanks for the thought.

25. Originally Posted by cypress
Inow really spent a lot of credibility points by offering such crappy research and then not explaining it.
Absolutely.

I don't think he understands any of this.

26. Originally Posted by cobra
Would you please explain to Inow that there is lag then. You seem to agree with that point.
I don't agree with anything you've said about any "lags".
Originally Posted by cobra
Please explain to me how the meager exchange of temperature makes enough impact of the water,
You mean how a greenhouse effect keeps water warmer? It reduces the cooling of the water by upward radiation of infrared into space. People familiar with winter can tell you about cloud cover at night over lakes delaying ice formation, for example.
Originally Posted by cobra
Yep, been down this path before. Funny think is that acidity also affects solubility of CO2 more than the CO2 affects acidity.

Have you ever looked at the math to see if what people say makes sense?
Math is fascinating of course. A proof tells us where to concentrate our doubts, and that is a valuable service.

The absorption of major amounts of the human CO2 boost by the ocean, so far, resulting in an increase in the acidity of the shallow ocean waters worldwide, has been measured. If your theoretical math calculations require that the ocean be outgassing CO2 and therefore depleting itself of dissolved CO2 as it warms in the sun, compared with ocean water earlier in the century less warmed by the sun, then your calculations disagree with measured physical fact. In such a situation, the assumptions behind the calculations are the next thing to check, after the mechanics have been validated carefully.

27. Originally Posted by iceaura
Originally Posted by cobra
Would you please explain to Inow that there is lag then. You seem to agree with that point.
I don't agree with anything you've said about any "lags".
So what did you mean by:
a new balance of exchange would be created eventually, time depending on how fast the ocean water actually absorbed the new carbon
Isn't that a lag?
Originally Posted by iceaura
Originally Posted by cobra
Please explain to me how the meager exchange of temperature makes enough impact of the water,
You mean how a greenhouse effect keeps water warmer? It reduces the cooling of the water by upward radiation of infrared into space. People familiar with winter can tell you about cloud cover at night over lakes delaying ice formation, for example.
That's right, change the context. What about the immediate sea warming by the deep penetration of sunlight? We are talking about over 500 watts per sq meter in the equatorial region and at least 100 watts in the arctic summertime. How does the greenhouse effect compare?

The sun, with no atmosphere, would heat the earth to about 255 kelvin. The greenhouse effect adds about 33 degrees. Wouldn't you say the sun has an immediate impact that is 7.7 times grater than the greenhouse effect? Why shouldn't it have a greater impact on the sea temperature? It travels deeper for absorption. IR is mostly absorbed just at the surface, and re-radiated to keep the greenhouse effect going. If the water absorbed much of it, the air would cool fast.
Originally Posted by iceaura
Originally Posted by cobra
Yep, been down this path before. Funny thing is that acidity also affects solubility of CO2 more than the CO2 affects acidity.

Have you ever looked at the math to see if what people say makes sense?
Math is fascinating of course. A proof tells us where to concentrate our doubts, and that is a valuable service.

PH os a log10 scale. It takes a factor of 10 change to make a change of 1 on the scale. People who are claiming increased carbonic acid via CO2 absorption are claiming a 0.6 PH change by CO2. This is ridiculous.
Originally Posted by iceaura
The absorption of major amounts of the human CO2 boost by the ocean, so far, resulting in an increase in the acidity of the shallow ocean waters worldwide, has been measured.
Exaggerated and misleading. First of all, measurements cannot distinguish between various causes. Yes, carbonic acid specifically can be measured, but even that form of CO2 in the water varies by salinity, temperature, and other factor. Then on top of that, the vary by 0.3 PH naturally, on I believe a daily basis.
Originally Posted by iceaura
If your theoretical math calculations require that the ocean be outgassing CO2 and therefore depleting itself of dissolved CO2 as it warms in the sun, compared with ocean water earlier in the century less warmed by the sun, then your calculations disagree with measured physical fact. In such a situation, the assumptions behind the calculations are the next thing to check, after the mechanics have been validated carefully.
Explain. I don't know what you are trying to say. I never said it depletes, but that the equilibrium is largely determined by temperature. If you can only argue my points by twisting what I say, then I will accept that you have no proper counter argument.

The oceans are always sinking and sourcing. Minor differences in temperature play a major role in their ability to sink and source. My point is that because temperatures are warmer, they cannot sink (absorb) as much in the colder regions, and out gas (source) more in the warmer regions. As for a lag time, it takes as long as 1600 years, for a complete circulation of the largest path.

Thermohaline Circulation

28. Originally Posted by cobra
That's right, change the context. What about the immediate sea warming by the deep penetration of sunlight? We are talking about over 500 watts per sq meter in the equatorial region and at least 100 watts in the arctic summertime. How does the greenhouse effect compare?
No lag, we notice, from direct solar heating.

But the greenhouse effect does not "compare" with that - it isn't even separate from it. Almost all the heat trapped by the CO2 greenhouse is from the sun originally - some of the fraction that before used to radiate back into space is now trapped in the lower atmosphere and reradiated to the ground etc. That's how it works.
Originally Posted by cobra
PH os a log10 scale. It takes a factor of 10 change to make a change of 1 on the scale. People who are claiming increased carbonic acid via CO2 absorption are claiming a 0.6 PH change by CO2. This is ridiculous.
- - - -

Explain. I don't know what you are trying to say. I never said it depletes, but that the equilibrium is largely determined by temperature.
Whatever they are actually claiming is from measurement of physical reality. You calling it "ridiculous" does not make it go away. The point is: there is more CO2 dissolved in the shallow ocean water now than there used to be just a couple hundred years ago. Your little fantasy of outgassing from a warming ocean accounting for the atmospheric boost predicts the opposite.

Which is at least the third or fourth little item of physical reality - the polar winter and day/night warming differential, the isotope balance in the atmospheric CO2, the fact that water vapor condenses and rains/snows out, etc - that you have tripped over just in your replies to me.

29. Too bad RealClimate just talks about theory without quantifying any of it.

30. Originally Posted by cobra
Too bad RealClimate just talks about theory without quantifying any of it.
More, rather than less, is a quantitative assertion.

but hey:

Or any of a dozen places: http://climatelab.org/Ocean_Acidification

31. Originally Posted by iceaura
but hey:

Or any of a dozen places: http://climatelab.org/Ocean_Acidification
OK, what did it look like in 1700? 1900? I need a baseline reference please. Otherwise, how is change accurately determined?

Better yet, ever see a graph that shows how the ratio of CaCO3, Ca2(+), andCO3(2-) vary with temperature and pressure? They do. There are other factors at work than just CO2.

Funny how that's an inconvenient truth to those who want to blame CO2. Besides, there was more CO2 in the oceans when it was colder than now. Heat is the enemy, not CO2.

32. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The oceans are always sinking and sourcing. Minor differences in temperature play a major role in their ability to sink and source. My point is that because temperatures are warmer, they cannot sink (absorb) as much in the colder regions, and out gas (source) more in the warmer regions.
Moreover, I think salinity plays a more important role than temperature. A difference in 1900ppm keeps the gulf stream moving.

Does the solute effect CO2?

What is the relationship between CO2 and salinity, compared to temperature?

33. Geo

The relationship is through temperature. CO2 rises and temperature rises. This melts ice and lowers salinity. There was a theory that this would affect the Gulf Stream, which would chill Europe considerably, though the empirical evidence for this is pretty small, and it probably will not happen.

However, ice melt certainly has an effect on salinity.

34. Originally Posted by cobra
Besides, there was more CO2 in the oceans when it was colder than now. Heat is the enemy, not CO2.
According to you so far, that entire picture and caption is impossible -nothing but lies. It shows people determining the fossil fuel origin of dissolved CO2, which you claimed to be impossible, absorbed from increasing concentrations in the air, which you claim to be the backwards. It claims rising acidity from more dissolved CO2, which you declare to be impossible in a warming ocean. It pictures an ocean absorbing atmospheric CO2, coming into a partial pressure balance involving higher levels of CO2 in air and water both, which you declare to not exist.

35. iceaura

You cannot trust the opinions of extremists.
On this issue, there are two kinds of extremist, at opposite ends of the opinion spectrum.

1. Extremists like Cobra, who deny the whole thing, and twist the evidence to support their irrational nihilist views.

2. Like some others, who believe implicitly anything and everything bad said about global warming. These people lack the basic sceptical bent to require solid empirical evidence. Their defining characteristic is a total blind faith in computer models.

A rational human will ply the middle ground. No denial of the solid facts about global climate change. And also a good level of scepticism about extreme claims about disasters.

36. Originally Posted by Geo
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The oceans are always sinking and sourcing. Minor differences in temperature play a major role in their ability to sink and source. My point is that because temperatures are warmer, they cannot sink (absorb) as much in the colder regions, and out gas (source) more in the warmer regions.
Moreover, I think salinity plays a more important role than temperature. A difference in 1900ppm keeps the gulf stream moving.

Does the solute effect CO2?

What is the relationship between CO2 and salinity, compared to temperature?
Here is a chart I copied:

Wish I remembered the source. I have it linked some where, but my organization isn't very good. Anyway, you can see that if you linearized the 34 psu salinity from 5 C to 10 C, you get about a 0.37% chnage on CO2 absorption for a 0.1 C change. If you assume the surface alone with a fast turn around contains 1020 GtC of carbon, than reducing it by 0.37% is 3.84 GtC of a release into the atmosphere. Thing is, it can take decades, maybe centuries for the full temperature changes to be seen from the deep ocean. 0.37% of 38,100 GtC is 143 GtC!

Now have the average ocean temperatures only risen by 0.1 degrees, or you think more?

37. Originally Posted by iceaura
Originally Posted by cobra
Besides, there was more CO2 in the oceans when it was colder than now. Heat is the enemy, not CO2.
According to you so far, that entire picture and caption is impossible -nothing but lies.
No, you just misunderstand my point.
Originally Posted by iceaura
It shows people determining the fossil fuel origin of dissolved CO2, which you claimed to be impossible,
Only that the natural variations are strong enough that such quantification is impossible. I see no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 doesn't dissolve any differently than natural CO2. I say it isn't an argument that holds any merit, weather the ocean sinks one type of CO2 over another.
Originally Posted by iceaura
absorbed from increasing concentrations in the air, which you claim to be the backwards.
My point is that the oceans should absorb more than 50 times what is added out of the normal CO2 budget. If we emit 50 GtC in 7 years, then the ocean should absorb 49 GtC of it. Not just half of it. My claim is that because the oceans are warming, the equilibrium is changing, and the ocean would be a net source for CO2 rather than a net sink even if we didn't add any CO2.
Originally Posted by iceaura
It claims rising acidity from more dissolved CO2, which you declare to be impossible in a warming ocean.
My claim is that PH, salinity, and temperature affect the ratios that the three major carbon forms are in the water. When the alarmists fail to mention other reasons for change, they effectively lie. Sure, CO2 plays a roll, but not exclusively. When the natural variation of the oceans are in excess of 0.6 pH anyway, how can the small degree CO2 may change it even be quantified?
Originally Posted by iceaura
It pictures an ocean absorbing atmospheric CO2, coming into a partial pressure balance involving higher levels of CO2 in air and water both, which you declare to not exist.
Yes, but like I said earlier. What would it have looked like before we could measure it? What is it really didn't change hardly at all? What evidence beyond unproven speculation shows an increase from the natural process?

38. Originally Posted by skeptic
1. Extremists like Cobra, who deny the whole thing, and twist the evidence to support their irrational nihilist views.
Are you intentionally slandering me, or do you not understand science?
Originally Posted by skeptic
2. Like some others, who believe implicitly anything and everything bad said about global warming. These people lack the basic sceptical bent to require solid empirical evidence. Their defining characteristic is a total blind faith in computer models.
I was skeptical about this years ago. As time goes by, the alarmist community has not adequately answered certain important questions. Solar irradiance changes since 1700 however can account for most the global warming since 1750.
Originally Posted by skeptic
A rational human will ply the middle ground. No denial of the solid facts about global climate change. And also a good level of scepticism about extreme claims about disasters.
An uninformed or someone lacking the facts may play the middle ground. Yes, I have taken a position. Not out of ignorance, but because of factual data.

Your response reads as if anyone denying the level of anthropogenic warming cited is contrary to fact. It isn't, because there are no facts for the alarmist community to use, that haven't already been hyped.

You believe I am wrong, then show me solid facts using known science. Not correlation and causation.

39. Cobra

If I had a dollar for every time someone on these forums said "correlation is not causation." ...........

Strictly speaking the statement is correct. However, correlation is still one of the most important indicators of causation. It just takes a bit of good rational thinking to sort it out, and a little extra data.

If two things are correlated, there are four possible explanations. Let us say, factors A and B correlate.
1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. Both A and B are caused by factor C.
4. The correlation is not correct.

In this case, we have increasing greenhouse gases (A) and increasing temperature (B). A very clear correlation if we are looking at the last 30 odd years. Which of the 4 factors above is correct?

1. A causes B. The best explanation.

2. B causes A. This seems to be your explanation. Sadly for your theory, the amount of greenhouse gas (in this case CO2) dissolved in the ocean is increasing, as shown by direct measurements. In other words, the extra CO2 is not coming from the ocean. Quite the reverse. Much of the extra CO2 is actually leaving the atmosphere to enter the ocean. This is shown by the increase in ocean pH - 0.1 of a pH point so far.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...docean_prt.htm

3. Both A and B come from a third factor. Perhaps, but what? For the last 30 years, no such factor is apparent.

4. The correlation is phony. Hardly likely, considering the immense amount of data on both greenhouse gases and global temperature.

40. skeptic, perhaps you are misinterpreting Cobra's point. Previously he has acknowledged the contribution of human caused CO2 but he has shown that had global temperatures remained constant over 90% of the CO2 would have been absorbed by the ocean. However, because global temperature also rose during this timeframe most of it was not absorbed. The physical chemistry of his statement is spot on. It is well supported by thermodynamic laws. There is little doubt that he is correct on this particular point.

41. Thanks cypress that was really clear and to the point. I would love to see constructive responses to that.

42. It's not accurate since it over-simplifies the system being described. WC is working from idealized and non-representative premises, leaving out critical factors in his calculations, and on top of that is not even performing the calculations themselves accurately.

You want a constructive response, Pong? Try to avoid agreeing with people who are clearly wrong on major issues like this. How's that for that for constructive?

43. Originally Posted by inow
It's not accurate since it over-simplifies the system being described.
I am quite sure that WC considered all relevant factors? What over-simplifications were made and what effect did that "over-simplification" have?

WC is working from idealized and non-representative premises, leaving out critical factors in his calculations,
What thermodynamic and physical parameters make his premise incorect? What factors did he leave out of his calculations?

and on top of that is not even performing the calculations themselves accurately.
Really? Show me the error and how you estimate the inacuracy.

You want a constructive response, Pong? Try to avoid agreeing with people who are clearly wrong on major issues like this. How's that for that for constructive?
So you have a prior commitement that Wild Cobra is wrong to point out issues with your belief, and therefore, anyone who supports him is wrong by association. Nice.

44. Whatever, cypress.

45. Originally Posted by inow
It's not accurate since it over-simplifies the system being described. WC is working from idealized and non-representative premises, leaving out critical factors in his calculations, and on top of that is not even performing the calculations themselves accurately.
Then show me how I am wrong without links.

Explain to me why my premise is wrong. Explain to me what is correct.

Since you repeatedly refuse to do this, what am I to think of your remarks other than to think of you as a Kool-Aid Drinking Lemming?

46. Originally Posted by skeptic
Cobra

If I had a dollar for every time someone on these forums said "correlation is not causation." ...........
Maybe you should consider it with an open mind.

Many of us who disagree with anthropogenic warming as the primary warming cause have shown very viable alternate. Since more than one theory could be true with what we easily see, then you simply cannot go by consensus or statistics.

Energy causes heat. The zero crossing point is 0 Kelvin. The sun has increased in solar intensity by 0.24% according to NASA GISS over a 300 year period.

Now what about the simple fact that this increased energy can account for the majority of the warming. There is no way to scientifically ignore this truth.

47. Originally Posted by skeptic
Much of the extra CO2 is actually leaving the atmosphere to enter the ocean. This is shown by the increase in ocean pH - 0.1 of a pH point so far.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...docean_prt.htm
First of all, please explain to me how this statement can be known:
Since the beginning of the industrial era, the pH of surface waters has decreased slightly but significantly from 8.2 to 8.1
Now I could buy the probability of that statement if two things were true. First, that ocean temperature has not risen, causing the ratio of ocean CO2 to decline vs. it's prior ratio to atmospheric CO2, and second, if the carbonic acid concentration was linear to CO2 and with the buffering carbonates disobeyed the laws of equilibrium.

Do you expect me to buy that the laws of equilibrium can be broken? Without an explaination of how they derived this 0.1 pH increase, I don't see it happening. Besides, if a 38% increase in CO2 can account for that much of a PH change, then it takes another 38% to increase it another 0.1 pH. From 280 ppm to 387 ppm to 534 ppm. I don't see that happening either.

Now let's assume I am wrong about my belief here. There is still the fact that the natural cycle is 0.6 pH. I wonder how much of the scary reporting is picking choice time frames.

I love how you alarmists ignore other facts:

The Science of ocean Ecorestoration:
Plankton populations have been observed to be collapsing worldwide in the past 30 years, according to pivotal work sponsored by NASA and NOAA. This decline closely correlates with a decline in iron-rich dust reaching the oceans, the critical ingredient in ocean photosynthesis. A greening of dry grasslands, especially in Asia, has reduced the availability of iron-rich dust normally picked up from arid lands and deposited by wind events onto the ocean surface thousands of kilometers away. This has coincided with rapidly declining plankton populations. And of course as the ocean plants disappear less CO2 is removed from the atmosphere/ocean and less food is made available to marine food webs.
Plankton is real important to the carbon cycle. Plankton absorbs 55% the CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere exchange of CO2. I am worried that man attempting to control Algae Blooms might be also killing other plankton:

Killing of marine phytoplankton by a gliding bacterium Cytophaga sp.

If I remember, I'll try to find the math between carbonic acid and pH. Thing is, with the equilibrium of the other two forms of carbon causing buffering, rather than a 10 times increase of CO2 for a 1 pH change, it is closer to 20 times.

That means a 0.1 pH change takes a 58% increase in CO2. That would be from 280 ppm to 444 ppm.

48. The sun has increased in solar intensity by 0.24% according to NASA GISS over a 300 year period.

Now what about the simple fact that this increased energy can account for the majority of the warming. There is no way to scientifically ignore this truth.

See the break up of the correlation of irradiance away from temperature over the last +- 30 years? Why would that be do you think?

49. He thinks there's a 30 year lag between changes in the irradiance of the sun and the impact of those changes on earth's temperature (in essence, if the irradiance of the sun goes down today, we won't see a resulting change in temperature here on earth for at least 3 decades). Iceaura demolished this particular point already (not to mention that the graphic you shared does as well), but WC continues to repeat it anyway.

50. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Now what about the simple fact that this increased energy can account for the majority of the warming. There is no way to scientifically ignore this truth.
You can easily ignore it if you cherry pick data as KALSTER has done. He made it too easy. Nice touch using Hanson's "value add" data that is quickly and increasingly deviating from other sources by about 0.3 degrees now.

51. 0.3 degrees? Where are these sources?

52. Originally Posted by pong
Thanks cypress that was really clear and to the point. I would love to see constructive responses to that.
Reread WC's response tagged 6:42 Monday, to my post, and you will see that cypress's description of WC's "point" is incorrect. WC has made several points, and all of them demand that the picture I posted from the link is of nothing but lies and errors.

All of the data coming in from the actual research in the field is phony, false, in WC's analysis. None of it is possible. The researchers pretend to measure increasing levels of CO2 in the upper ocean, while WC has declared the ocean to be a "net source" of CO2, outgassing more than it absorbs as it warms from the sunlight that shone on it years ago. The researchers record percentages of the shallow water dissolved Co2 that derived from fossil fuel combustion, and WC claims they cannot determine that. The researcher claim to have recorded increasing acidity in the ocean due to higher concentrations of dissolved CO2, and WC says they cannot determine the source of this increasing acidity. And so forth.

53. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I love how you alarmists ignore other facts:

Plankton populations have been observed to be collapsing worldwide in the past 30 years, according to pivotal work sponsored by NASA and NOAA. This decline closely correlates with a decline in iron-rich dust reaching the oceans, the critical ingredient in ocean photosynthesis. A greening of dry grasslands, especially in Asia, has reduced the availability of iron-rich dust normally picked up from arid lands and deposited by wind events onto the ocean surface thousands of kilometers away. This has coincided with rapidly declining plankton populations. And of course as the ocean plants disappear less CO2 is removed from the atmosphere/ocean and less food is made available to marine food webs.
This unfortunately aligns with my own thesis , which is beyond alarmist, since I believe we must continue to aggravate the problem.

Cobra I think by alarmist you mean the anthro CO2 rules community.

54. Originally Posted by KALSTER
0.3 degrees? Where are these sources?
KALSTER, I would have no problem providing this number again but it has been raised several times in other postings in the past months. There is a substantial argument back and forth about the differences out on the web. As time goes on and GISS continues to refuse to release its raw data, it seems to be clearer what the root cause might be.

I invite you to post the series again using 500 or more years of data and with temperature proxies that are not so skewed. If you have difficulty finding them Let me suggest theses.

Temperature, Sun and CO2

55. Classic moving of the posts and bait and switch tactics, cypress. You were asked about your assertion that Hanson's information deviated from other sources by 0.3 degrees. The link you shared is completely peripheral to that that claim, and does not address the question directed at you. I would say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

56. Right I explained why I was not returning to the hanson discussion, and instead stayed on the original point which is that the presentation offered by KALSTER was both limited and cherry picked.

I suspect even you know the issues regarding GISS temperature trends.

57. Ah... of course. So, you made a claim, and were asked for support, at which time you stated that you refuse to return to that discussion. Got it.

58. Originally Posted by inow
Ah... of course. So, you made a claim, and were asked for support, at which time you stated that you refuse to return to that discussion. Got it.
Tell you what, if you address the questions about CO2 solubility both WC and I have asked at least three times each or if KALSTER is unable to find the discussions I mentioned and askes again I'll address it.

59. No thanks. I've supported every claim I've made. There is no equivalence with you guys asking me to respond to irrelevant questions and your refusal here to support a statement YOU made which was challenged.

As should be obvious to most everyone by now, we can flatly reject your assertion of discrepancy of Hansen's work as a bald faced lie which you pulled out of your arse.

60. Originally Posted by KALSTER
The sun has increased in solar intensity by 0.24% according to NASA GISS over a 300 year period.

Now what about the simple fact that this increased energy can account for the majority of the warming. There is no way to scientifically ignore this truth.

See the break up of the correlation of irradiance away from temperature over the last +- 30 years? Why would that be do you think?
I think you are cherry picking charts.

There are several regular patterns that change temperature. I'm talking about long term changes.

Your chart does not show a correlation with solar energy at all. On that chart, if we take a low area like 1910, and compare it to a higher area like 1980, the solar intensity only by by 0.04%, but the temperature increased by 0.1%.

You need long term trends to take out the natural oscillations of 30 years and shorter.

Now I have argued this before. First of all, the data not agreeing with NASA/GISS values. The increase from Lean 2004 indicates a 0.095% increase in solar data for those two years. My argument is that pollution increased as solar radiation did in the early 20th century, making the effect about half. By the 70's we were fed up with pollution, created the EPA, and started cleaning up the air. That is why we see an increase starting about then that has no apparent cause. Even before 1970, industry was becoming more efficient making internal combustion engines and coal power plants, reducing the aerosols some.

Like it or not, you cannot ignore that this is possible. I say it's highly probable.

61. I am not cherry picking anything. I have posted similar charts to the ones Cypress linked to before (where he talks about lags that can’t be seen on the varying scales of the charts he provided as far as I can see), which show the same trend. The range of 300 years you are talking about might show average and/or cumulative increases in the ranges you are quoting, but the possible correlations on decadal scales is what interests me and where the effects of anthropogenic CO2 wil show up. Particularly on the last graph I provided the already strained correlation breaks apart. I am also looking into the effects ENSO events might have on the charts. I am simply asking Cypress to provide support for his claim that the last chart I posted was deliberately skewed instead of simply maybe having been adjusted according to sound principles, if at all.

My support for the AGW theory is based on my initial understanding of atmospheric physics, coupled with the knowledge of increased CO2 content of the atmosphere. I have no interest, vested or otherwise, in supporting a view that is factually wrong. My sole motivation for taking part in this forum is to aid in my understanding of the world around me and the blind support of authority is not compatible with this endeavour. So far the vast majority of dissenting views and hypothesis have come from amateurs and non-climatologists, while as far as I could tell, most of these criticisms were based on ignorance and/or agendas. Cypress has a poor track record by my estimation on this forum in terms of integrity, transparency and objectivity, so I am very wary of any information provided by him. My estimation of your character is higher, but I am not going to swallow everything you try to tell me, nor am I blindly rejecting your ideas.

Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of thread upon thread that is being dominated more by childish bickering than objective analysis of data, methods, hypothesis and theories (something I admittedly have also been party to on occasions).

I am currently reviewing various sources regarding comparative models of oceanic CO2 exchange, the dynamics of solar and CO2 forcing and comparisons of TSI, atmospheric CO2, temperature trends, etc. and I will post a few things in the coming day or two.

62. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I am not cherry picking anything. I have posted similar charts to the ones Cypress linked to before (where he talks about lags that can’t be seen on the varying scales of the charts he provided as far as I can see), which show the same trend. The range of 300 years you are talking about might show average and/or cumulative increases in the ranges you are quoting, but the possible correlations on decadal scales is what interests me and where the effects of anthropogenic CO2 wil show up. Particularly on the last graph I provided the already strained correlation breaks apart. I am also looking into the effects ENSO events might have on the charts. I am simply asking Cypress to provide support for his claim that the last chart I posted was deliberately skewed instead of simply maybe having been adjusted according to sound principles, if at all.
I doubt it was deliberatly skewed, or adjusted based on sound principles. I suspect it is simply invalid. It deviates from nearly all other compilations except the CRU compilation which also has issues due to now known selective exclusion of various trends most prominently the Rusian and Siberia data which has been reported to be overstated in the CRU data set by .5C. KALSTER you've seen the previous discussions have you not? If you have not, and you want to talk more about this perhaps you could start a new thread.

My support for the AGW theory is based on my initial understanding of atmospheric physics, coupled with the knowledge of increased CO2 content of the atmosphere.
No issue there.

I have no interest, vested or otherwise, in supporting a view that is factually wrong. My sole motivation for taking part in this forum is to aid in my understanding of the world around me and the blind support of authority is not compatible with this endeavour. So far the vast majority of dissenting views and hypothesis have come from amateurs and non-climatologists, while as far as I could tell, most of these criticisms were based on ignorance and/or agendas.
That's good.

Cypress has a poor track record by my estimation on this forum in terms of integrity, transparency and objectivity, so I am very wary of any information provided by him. My estimation of your character is higher, but I am not going to swallow everything you try to tell me, nor am I blindly rejecting your ideas.
I generally try to be brief and my explanations are sometimes poor. If you can point out were I have been non-objective I'd be happy to explain it better. I have no problem to admit when I am shown wrong.

Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of thread upon thread that is being dominated more by childish bickering than objective analysis of data, methods, hypothesis and theories (something I admittedly have also been party to on occasions).
I am too. It drives me to be short with almost everyone. I have on several occations asked you to better explain a critique you make but you disappear with no response. I'll do better in the future.

I am currently reviewing various sources regarding comparative models of oceanic CO2 exchange, the dynamics of solar and CO2 forcing and comparisons of TSI, atmospheric CO2, temperature trends, etc. and I will post a few things in the coming day or two.
great

63. I doubt it was deliberatly skewed, or adjusted based on sound principles. I suspect it is simply invalid. It deviates from nearly all other compilations except the CRU compilation which also has issues due to now known selective exclusion of various trends most prominently the Rusian and Siberia data which has been reported to be overstated in the CRU data set by .5C. KALSTER you've seen the previous discussions have you not? If you have not, and you want to talk more about this perhaps you could start a new thread.
Fine. I will check on all this before possibly starting a new thread. I think there are already way too many threads dedicated to this topic. I'll see what I decide. I do find it intriguing though that GISS data is being used to corroborate one assertion and then derided when it conflicts with another.

64. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I doubt it was deliberatly skewed, or adjusted based on sound principles. I suspect it is simply invalid. It deviates from nearly all other compilations except the CRU compilation which also has issues due to now known selective exclusion of various trends most prominently the Rusian and Siberia data which has been reported to be overstated in the CRU data set by .5C. KALSTER you've seen the previous discussions have you not? If you have not, and you want to talk more about this perhaps you could start a new thread.
Fine. I will check on all this before possibly starting a new thread. I think there are already way too many threads dedicated to this topic. I'll see what I decide. I do find it intriguing though that GISS data is being used to corroborate one assertion and then derided when it conflicts with another.
OK, good. I hope I have not used GISS temperature data, I certainly do not intend to.

65. I generally try to be brief and my explanations are sometimes poor. If you can point out were I have been non-objective I'd be happy to explain it better. I have no problem to admit when I am shown wrong.
One example was the thread you started where you took on the role of an AGW proponent, but did it with an added and exaggerated dishonesty and stupidity mixed into your depiction. It was a really disingenuous and frankly underhanded thing to do IMHO.

I doubt it was deliberatly skewed, or adjusted based on sound principles.
You used the descriptives "value add" and "As time goes on and GISS continues to refuse to release its raw data, it seems to be clearer what the root cause might be.".

I hope I have not used GISS temperature data, I certainly do not intend to.
Not that I can remember. WildCobra have used GISS data as corroboration of his own views, while deriding the use of it by others though.

I have on several occations asked you to better explain a critique you make but you disappear with no response.
I often find myself short on time and often the thread had progressed by a page or more before I could invest the necessary time to respond properly.

66. Speaking of the climate conspiracy, here's a nice post summarizing the key denialists:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/12/...-skeptics.html
What follows is a list of some of the organizations promoting skepticism about anthropogenic climate change and some of the individuals associated with them, with some information about their credentials and activities. It's my impression that those with the best reputations tend to agree that there is a global warming trend and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are a contributing factor to that warming, but the organizations tend to promote a more skeptical view (fairly characterized as "denial"), as exhibited by such evidence as expressions of apparent pleasure at the recent 2009 Pew survey result that showed a decrease in American acceptance of global warming.

<...>

The above doesn't demonstrate that climate skepticism is without merit, but it does demonstrate that there are reasons to be skeptical--and in many cases extremely skeptical--about some of the organizations and individuals promoting climate skepticism, independently of their arguments.
The rest is worth the read. Very interesting.

67. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I generally try to be brief and my explanations are sometimes poor. If you can point out were I have been non-objective I'd be happy to explain it better. I have no problem to admit when I am shown wrong.
One example was the thread you started where you took on the role of an AGW proponent, but did it with an added and exaggerated dishonesty and stupidity mixed into your depiction. It was a really disingenuous and frankly underhanded thing to do IMHO.
I was quite clear about what I was doing, and I asked some good questions.

I doubt it was deliberatly skewed, or adjusted based on sound principles.
You used the descriptives "value add" and "As time goes on and GISS continues to refuse to release its raw data, it seems to be clearer what the root cause might be.".
right, they manipulate the raw data to, in their opinion, make it more representative. That is "value add" data. I suspect in the process it has become invlaid due to errors and poor assumptions or poor methods. I suspect they fear the same and won't release the raw data for that reason.

I hope I have not used GISS temperature data, I certainly do not intend to.
Not that I can remember. WildCobra have used GISS data as corroboration of his own views, while deriding the use of it by others though.
Yes I see that he does that from time to time.

I have on several occations asked you to better explain a critique you make but you disappear with no response.
I often find myself short on time and often the thread had progressed by a page or more before I could invest the necessary time to respond properly.
OK, fair I should not have complained.

Page 2 of 2 First 12
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement