The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > CO2 may calm the climate, but it cannot cause wild weird weather > Comments

CO2 may calm the climate, but it cannot cause wild weird weather : Comments

By Viv Forbes, published 6/3/2014

Every day some place in the world has 'wild weather'. And in recent times, human industry gets the blame.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All
Re the graph on page 1, where does it come from? Does it have anything to do with the NOAA?

what exactly does 6th order fitted trend mean? If it means fitting a 6th order polynomial, then has anyone in NOAA (or any serious mathematical modeller anywhere else) ever actually done this to real world data? (What does the green curve look like if you extend it a few years into the future?)
Posted by jeremy, Thursday, 6 March 2014 11:01:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vic, firstly do you agree that the weather around the planet is getting wilder, with all sorts of extreme record-breaking events having happened in recent years?

You seem to accept this much.

Secondly, do you agree that man has made huge changes to the global atmospheric system, not only by very significantly increasing CO2 output, but by adding all sorts of other stuff to the atmosphere? And that we have greatly changed the reflectivity of the earth’s surface, the evapotranspiration regime and the cloud cover (think jet airline contrails as just one factor therein)?

Thirdly, do you agree that the weather system is inherently highly unpredictable…. and that logic would suggest that only relatively small changes in the energy input for the whole planetary system could increase the magnitude of all manner of weather phenomena and increase the unpredictability of where and how they might eventuate?

Fourthly, do think that there could be a connection between the now quite frequent extreme cold events that we are seeing in the high northern latitudes and an overall increase in energy in the planetary climate system? These events are simply arctic conditions brought further south than has happened before, are they not? And the only way that this can happen is via an increase in overall energy in the whole system.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 6 March 2014 11:05:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just don’t get; why would someone such as yourself, a man of the land, in a wonderful part of the world… which is has always been of fairly low rainfall and is now clearly suffering a decline in rainfall, be so adamant that AGW or the CO2 component therein is not significant?

I can understand this view coming from those with vested-interests in continuing with business as usual. But I would have thought that you would be a sceptic rather than denialist. And all sceptics should be erring on the side of caution, and basically looking at the whole AGW thing in just the same way as those who are convinced that it is real and of high significance.

Besides – there are other enormous reasons for reining in CO2 emissions. Not least the absolute imperative (or what SHOULD be the absolute imperative) to wean ourselves off of our addiction to oil in the first instance and coal and gas with slightly less urgency and to develop a renewable sustainable energy regime.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 6 March 2014 11:07:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luwig asks:

"Vic, firstly do you agree that the weather around the planet is getting wilder, with all sorts of extreme record-breaking events having happened in recent years?"

Actually extreme weather is not getting worse, even Warren Buffett thinks not:

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/warren-buffett-says-climate-change-made-no-difference-to-insurance-on-catastrophes/#comments

More scientifically there is strong evidence that IF AGW existed it would decrease extreme weather such as storms, cyclones and hurricanes:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/search?q=warming+storm+activity

Professor Muller explains:

"less difference in the temperatures between the poles and the equator caused by global warming "could ­reduce the kind of hot-cold weather fronts that generate severe storms''."

So, in fact LESS extreme weather is evidence for warming!

Even the IPCC grudgingly concedes less extreme weather in many forms:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/pielke-jr-agrees-extreme-weather-to-climate-connection-is-a-dead-issue/

This is strange; the narrative of AGW is such that anything beneficial from it is ignored because it would interfere with the catastrophic context.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 March 2014 11:47:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
when you worship the creation rather than the Creator you end up with a deluded mind. None more evident than those who have adopted the gw religion. Besides the theft from the public purse the indoctrination of the kids is appalling.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 March 2014 12:02:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have to agree with Ludwig on this one.
Co2 per se, does not cause climate change, and no rational person or scientist is claiming that it is!?
Co2 causes a greenhouse effect, and it is this effect that is thought to be ushering in climate change.
Our average ambient temperatures have risen by 0.9C over the course of the last century, and there are discernible changes that include wild weather, rainfall and drought, with no comparison in living memory.
Moreover, some ocean currents have risen as much as 2C.
We have unprecedented, ice melts, flood events and drought, and ample evidence for those with eyes to see that ocean acidification, is an ongoing event, with worrying implications!
I don't expect my house to burn down any time soon, but still, the precautionary principle, demands I insure against that and other even more unlikely possibilities.
If there were anything but economic upsides, that come with rational change, I might have some sympathy with the Author's views?
But with things like cheaper than coal thorium, algae sourced alternative fuels, and converting our waste to endlessly sustainable methane; and then using that methane to power and heat/cool all manner of things, [via ceramic fuel cells that produce mostly water vapor and free hot water,] including our homes and residential apartment blocks, for less than quarter of what we are forced to shell out now; available to us, I have none whatsoever!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 6 March 2014 12:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every time I see one of these rants from anti-global warming quarters, I am suspicious of their scientific qualifications and ethics. Occasionally, when I have time, I look more closely at them, and have to date always had my suspicions confirmed. This contribution is no exception.

This contribution should be ignored as it uses shonky sources and fraudently claims support from reputable ones. The website from which the graph is taken (3cheadlines.com) is clearly an extremist anti-global warming group (fanatics might be a less kind but more accurate term).

The graph is fraudulent in that it claims to be based on data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). However, the C3headlines website states that the graph is derived from NOAA data ‘and two sources of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels’. These other sources are not named. The website seems to make a habit of combining official statistics with unattributed and unrelated data to make its own argument.

The NOAA site which is cited as the source of the graph also has a number of documents and reports which endorse the problem of AGW, refute claims of recent cooling (with specific refutations of such claims by Lord Monckton), and call for action on global warming.

This is clearly summarized in their 2013 statement that ‘There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause’ (http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked-questions#hide7).

See also NOAA’s 2012 State of the Climate report (http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-earths-surface-temperature).

Vic needs be more careful of his sources or risk promoting fraudulent claims.
Posted by Godo, Thursday, 6 March 2014 12:09:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Viv Forbes is a geologist and farmer".

Perhaps, but he is also the director of a coal mining company.

http://stanmorecoal.com.au/corporate/

I give this article a failing mark, and note the obvious (and oddly unreported) conflict of interest.
Posted by JBSH, Thursday, 6 March 2014 12:32:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Godo goes the fraudulent route and ignores the greatest fraud of all: AGW!

Since both alarmists, Jeremy and Godo, have questioned the validity of the graph let's talk about it. The graph is unclear and 6th degree polys are unnecessary to depict the logarithmic decline in CO2 emissivity and therefore temperature effect which is what the graph is depicting: that decline is well established:

http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/Koch_fig1.gif

A prize to any alarmist who knows who and when this graph comes from.

Of course the log decline in CO2 effect is based on climate sensitivity; if you think climate is very sensitive to CO2 increases then you will also believe that the log decline effect of extra CO2 is also reduced. But even the IPCC is reducing its figures/guesses for sensitivity!

As well AGW says that equilibrium sensitivity will not occur for centuries so the effect will be filtering through the system for that time.

This is wrong as the bomb test analysis shows:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 March 2014 12:49:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am at a loss to understand how the CO2 emmitted before 1922 had a significant cooling effect on a per ton basis, and yet had a much greater warming effect after 1930?

Could someone please explain this for me?
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 6 March 2014 12:59:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So asking for the source of a graph, and realising that noone in NOAA would try to fit a 6th order polynomial, makes me an alarmist?

And posting a graph without any explanation of what it represents - what does that make you?
Posted by jeremy, Thursday, 6 March 2014 1:22:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just another denier of climate change with the usual rubbish along with a few others on OLO, keep your head buried in the sand think I would rather believe the scientists.
Rather than some one with a vested interest in a coal mine.
Posted by John Ryan, Thursday, 6 March 2014 2:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Ryan says:

"I would rather believe the scientists.
Rather than some one with a vested interest in a coal mine."

That's right, those 'pure' scientists with just a vested interest in an ARC grant, gigantic egos and ideological conviction.

So Jeremy, you're not an alarmist?

And what graph did I post without any explanation? The log graph? I gave not only an explanation but fed a prize for that one!

Are you denying there is a log effect with CO2 increase?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

Since Bugs is here you brainiacs might want to put your mighty intellects towards whether this measured effect is best described as a logarithmic curve or a decaying exponential.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 March 2014 3:43:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

you not only didn't give an explanation of the first graph you linked too, but you linked to another one which demonstrates part of what needs to be explained about a graph.

That is, the second one included labels, unabbreviated, in English, of what the horizontal and vertical scales represent. Unfortunately, it leaves the reader guessing (a) whether it represents theoretical calculations or measurement (b) whose calculations or measurements,
and therefore a reader still has no idea whether to take any notice of it or not.

I'm not sure what your point is, though. Both graphs are very different from the one in the article, and the second one shows a continuing effect - in terms of forcing - of further increases in CO2
Posted by jeremy, Thursday, 6 March 2014 4:04:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course there is a continuing effect from extra CO2, but the point I am making and what the graph in the article is also making is that effect diminishes with extra CO2.

I did not think that was controversial. Is it?

Depending on how you answer that we can progress to the logical conclusion that if extra CO2 does have a diminishing effect then predictions of the end of the world from extra CO2 would seem to be if not misplaced than exaggerated.

So, let's just concentrate on that issue: does extra CO2 have a diminishing effect on temperature?
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 March 2014 4:58:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Question: does extra CO2 have a diminishing effect on temperature?

Answer: yes. It's very well known, I think. So well known, in fact, that you can safely assume that the experts in the field are aware of it (!)

Question: has that been taken into account in the experts' predictions?

Answer: (1) Obviously it will have been, see above.
(2) Yes - they say that the present concentration of CO2 makes a difference of around 30 degrees (ie compared with no CO2 at all). And they say that the same amount of CO2 again would raise temperature (depending on which estimates you use) somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.

What makes you think, when you read something like this somewhere, that it's something that's escaped the notice of the scientists that study this stuff?
Posted by jeremy, Thursday, 6 March 2014 6:20:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"... those 'pure' scientists with just a vested interest in an ARC grant, gigantic egos and ideological conviction".

Another case of shooting the messenger.

Care to offer any specific examples of scientists using AGW to obtain these grants or name just one credible whistleblower prepared to support that claim?

Are you seriously suggesting there has been a conspiracy organised and coordinated on a global scale that has not only been under way for decades but involves thousands of people and virtually every government in the world?

That goes way way beyond the alleged moon landing hoax and twin towers inside-job claims.

Given the history of similar industrialist techniques of creating doubt for purposes of financial self-interest, my money is on the fossil fuel industry as the true scammers.
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 6 March 2014 10:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting to see that this article has attracted a swarm of neo-denialists - these are people who believe that CO2 is warming the earth but refuse to accept the IPCC predictions. You distinguish them from denialists, who are people who never accepted the IPCC predictions, despite believing that CO2 warms the earth.

The neo-denialists insist that the IPCC is right, but only when they agree with it. When they disagree with it, they ignore it. The denialists are consistent - they don't trust the IPCC period.

So, these comments are addressed to those like Clive Hamilton who think you have to accept what the IPCC says. And what the IPCC says is that weather has not got more severe, and probably won't. They also accept that CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature.

Viv disputes the modelled outputs - he is consistent in doing this, as he is a denialist. The neo-denialists don't dispute the modelled outputs, but do dispute the rest. They are being inconsistent, and denying the "settled science".

For my money Viv is more honest, and likely to be more correct, irrespective of what companies he is involved with.

(I note the critics never provide a real name, less a register of conflicts).
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 6 March 2014 10:03:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps then Graham, you could explain to us how emitted CO2 before 1922 can give an overall cooling effect per ton on temperature, as Viv's first graph seems to imply?

I know you love Cox, a lot of dudes love Cox on this site, but even he has avoided explaining this to us.

Please explain.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 7 March 2014 12:20:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty, you are consistently wrong in your on line assertions, but you have interrupted your record with this: “Co2 per se, does not cause climate change”.

You are at odds with the supporters of the AGW fraud , who assert that it does, particularly when topped up by human emissions. Possibly more by accident than design, you have said something sensible. In effect your statement means that you do not consider AGW backers to be rational people. Great insight.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 7 March 2014 12:51:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for replying Jeremy.

The 30C “greenhouse” temperature due to CO2 is incorrect. The global average temperature, GAT, is made up of 2 components.

One is the so-called effective temperature, determined by the available incoming energy (depending on the solar constant, planetary albedo [reflectivity] and internal heat sources as ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, industrial heat generation etc), now about 255 Kelvin or minus 18 C.


The other is the greenhouse temperature, coming from the presence of infrared-active gases (H2O, CO2, methane, ozone, etc.) and clouds in the atmosphere, generally accepted as about 33 C. These two make up the known 288 K (+15 C) GAT

Now the second has some controversy about it because of the failure of the AGW science to model clouds and consequently albedo; if clouds have a negative effect on temperature as suggested by Spencer and Braswell, rather than a positive effect as AGW shows than the proportions within the 33C will change.

As it is the amount of that 33C due to CO2 has been clearly shown by Ramanathan; this measure of OLR is from Ramanathan and Coakley:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png

It is discussed at the Science of Doom site:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/

What can be taken from this is that “water vapor has about 2.5 times the effect of CO2.” Applying that to the Greenhouse temperature of 33C would mean that CO2 is responsible for about 25% of the 33C and H2O about 60% with the other trace GHGs the rest.

I might add Lindzen thinks the contribution of CO2 is about 2% which puts him in Spencer and Braswell’s camp:

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf

This still leaves us with the log decline. What the author’s graph shows, and the ones I linked to earlier, is that the contribution of CO2 to the Greenhouse effect is maximised at low levels below 100 PPM. After that the effect is trivial.

Bugsy’s comment misses the point; the decline is not a cooling but a decline in the relative effect of further CO2 which still warms but at a declining rate.

So Bugsy, why don’t you stop whingeing and have a go?
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 7 March 2014 1:46:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually you are missing the point cohenite. I am not interested in teh 'decline' after the 1940s that you are discussing.

How can the relative contribution of warming before 1922 be negative?
Please explain.

The figure purports to show a decline from a maximum contribution in the 1940s, however it also appears to show a negative contribution per ton of emitted CO2 before the 1920s (i.e. a cooling effect). Now I would have thought that would be physically impossible, and if it is then the entire graph is BS.

Now if you can please explain why the there are negative values on that graph, then you will get a lollipop.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 7 March 2014 2:20:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The source explains Bugs:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/02/noaa-climate-impact-cumulative-co2-emissions-since-1880-nil-those-stubborn-facts.html

"More on the above 'C3' chart. Specifically, it plots a ratio of 30-year NOAA temperature changes to the cumulative amount of CO2 tonnes emitted up to that point. For example, the 1941 ratio has a numerator of +0.59°C (30-year annual temperature change) and a denominator of 165 billion CO2 tonnes (the cumulative amount emitted from 1880 through 1941)."

The ratio depends on the concentration of CO2 and the temperature at any one time.

I don't want a lollipop, I want a bottle of 1992 vintage Semillon from Peterson House thank you.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 7 March 2014 3:00:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure what you're on about Bugsy. CO2 always has a warming effect, or rather an insulating effect. It doesn't warm per se, it just makes the period it takes to cool longer.

If it didn't get warm over a period that is because other forcings were stronger.

While it acts to warm the earth its effect is trivial compared to other factors. For example, without solar energy the earth would be close to 0 degrees Kelvin, no matter how much CO2 we had in the atmosphere.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 7 March 2014 3:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That appears to be correct Graham (that CO2 always has a positive contribution), so would you think that negative values invalidate the interpretation of that graph?

That is, following the Cox-linked article at c3headlines, they interpret the graph as showing that the current contribution stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne. So if you follow that logic then prior to 1914 the contribution was less than -0.0000000000021/tonne, a tenfold cooling effect of CO2 in the 19th and early 20th century, WOW.

Or are you and the Cox saying that actually it was only after about 1930 that the graph shows the real relationship between CO2 and temperature? Interpreting it that way, the graph seems to show that it was strong for about 40 years, but hasn't had anything to do with climate since the 70s?

Or are the interpretations wrong?

I smell BS. Or maybe the semillon's corked.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 7 March 2014 3:36:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a ratio bugs with an accumulative denominator, which may be a point of contention given your superior trolling in the Knorr discussion which featured a constant, but a negative, or as you say a cooling result from the increase in CO2 in the early years simply points to the fact that the CO2 part of the ratio then wasn't sufficient to produce a warming effect on the graph. Obviously natural variation was dominant then, unlike now when the much greater amount of CO2 is producing a rapidly increasing GAT and swamping NV; oh wait, that's not happening.

Anyway, it's not my graph; it's purpose is to reflect the diminishing return of additional CO2; that is the issue. But as usual a major distraction is created out of nothing.

Do you dispute that extra CO2 does not have the same temperature effect as initial CO2 and that compared to H2O, CO2 is a lessor GHG?

Or are you, like the IPCC, going to make a last stand about climate sensitivity despite the refutation in Lewis and Crok's excellent article:

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Oversensitive-How-The-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf

As for the BS I'm afraid you've been around this scare campaign for too long; anything as dead as AGW will rot and stink eventually.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 7 March 2014 4:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess peer review in your world is considered 'trolling'.

Oh yes cohenite, I can certainly see how the ratio that it relies on can produce the result that it does. However, what you and Graham fail to acknowledge is that it produces a nonsense result. If an analysis in actual science produces a nonsense result then it is...

BZZZZT WRONG.

Which means that whatever you think the graph is telling you is not real. It's nonsense.

No lollipop for you, but I think we can probably find something else for you to suck on.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 7 March 2014 7:55:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wasn't talking about the graph Bugsy, but it doesn't appear that you're reading it correctly anyway. He's graphed temperature movements against carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The IPCC agrees that pre the 1940s there was no significant effect from CO2, which is what the graph shows. Temperature was going down while CO2 was going up. If you're going to get into these arguments and suggest other people have no idea what they're talking about you should be sure you do.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 7 March 2014 8:45:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"No lollipop for you, but I think we can probably find something else for you to suck on."

I've already indicated my preference and I'm starting to get concerned by your obsession with lollipops.

Trolling covers a wide spectrum of spoiling in this case deflection and distraction by focusing on alleged mistakes as though they detract from the salient point which is the decrease in CO2 effect with additional CO2.

Jeremy has already confirmed his faith in the AGW scientists who he believes will have factored the log decline of CO2 into climate sensitivity calculations. His faith is based on his quaint confidence in the really, really high intelligence of AGW scientists.

In AR4 the log effect is discussed:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1

They say:

"Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio."

That's right the IPCC calculates an INCREASE in the CO2 effect with CO2 addition NOT a decrease.

Bye bye Beers Law!

Obviously bugs, you too accept this claptrap?

Anyway back to the graph and the "nonsense result" The nonsense here is the RF assumption of CO2 by the IPCC and that CO2 increase is correlated to temperature increase. And here is the point; the graph not only shows the log decline it also shows a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature at these levels of CO2.

As I suggested earlier obviously NV has swamped the miniscule effect of further increases in CO2. The second half correlation showing the log effect is as much an artefact of the graphing as the first part 'cooling' is.

It really is a devastating graph.

I think I'm entitled to 2 bottles
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 7 March 2014 9:51:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I mentioned the lollipops because you're such a sucker Cox.

Actually, you're all suckers for graphs that purport to show what you want to believe, but are actually nonsense. It doesn't show the decrease in the CO2 effect with additional CO2 at all, it doesn't really show anything.

I would take a word of your own advice Graham. You have already noted that there are layers of complexity underlying that data which produces the ratios observed. What it doesn't show is the simple relationship between temperature and emitted CO2, which is how it's being interpreted by Cox and the all day suckers at c3headlines. It cannot be showing that relationship, as physical laws of how CO2 works on the atmosphere prevent that simple interpretation, which is highlighted by the fact that the graph shows negative values.

It really IS a devastating graph Cox, and is all artefact just as you say. You can't see the contradiction in your own words? It's valid but not valid? The correlation is artefact, but real?

[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 8 March 2014 12:23:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've found increasingly the believers in AGW are becoming irate, defensive and even more insulting. People who believe strongly in something which turns out to be false often become very angry and tend to transfer their bitter disappointment and shame into anger against those reasonable and sane people who tried to dissuade them from following what turned out to be a false prophet.

So it is with Bugs.

Angry and bitter that his pet apocalyptic vision has turned out to be just another street corner end of the world prognosis, albeit with a lot more money, prestige and carte blanche, Bugsy turns on those who told him so.

And like a lot of anonymous trolls he gets personal.

I read somewhere that AGW is like the Garden of Eden myth; and I think a lot of its followers have become child-like in their unquestioning belief in this theological treatise. It's like a religion where otherwise intelligent people revert to a child-like belief and accept declaratory pronouncements as gospel.

It must be shattering to have your belief threatened especially if you are also making a good living and have your sense of superiority wrapped up in the whole psychological mess as well.

So Bugs I want you to know that I feel your pain and disappointment that the world isn't going to blow up; at least not from human CO2.

Have you thought about retraining into another potential apocalypse field, say asteroid strikes? That would appear to have legs wouldn't it? We know the pesky rocks strike Earth regularly whereas the Earth has never blown up due to CO2.

Why don't you set up a new movement and call yourselves the Tunguskans? I reckon that would be a winner and then you can leave the weather to the real experts who can look at and understand an almanac.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 8 March 2014 3:46:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whereas you guys started out that way, eh cohenite.

I think you should leave the silly narratives to spindoc, he does it better.

Oh, and BTW I would suggest you look up what 'logarithmic' means. The IPCC actually says and has already taken into account what you are saying.

So you are saying that YOU believe exactly what you saying is the 'claptrap'! AHAHAHAHAHA

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.
Actually, it is funny.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 8 March 2014 4:39:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear GrahamY,

You wrote;

“Interesting to see that this article has attracted a swarm of neo-denialists - these are people who believe that CO2 is warming the earth but refuse to accept the IPCC predictions. You distinguish them from denialists, who are people who never accepted the IPCC predictions, despite believing that CO2 warms the earth.”

Sorry mate but I really struggled to nut my way through this. Are you taking the piss?

Further may I address your chastisement of Bugsy questioning Mr Forbe's graph. You claimed “He's graphed temperature movements against carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

No he had not. What Forbes did instead was take the oil company BP's figures for selected emission groups and which carried the following disclaimer;

“The carbon emissions above reflect only those through consumption of oil, gas and coal, and are based on standard global average conversion factors. This does not allow for any carbon that is sequestered, for other sources of carbon emissions, or for emissions of other greenhouse gases. Our data is therefore not comparable to official national emissions data.”

Perhaps reflecting on your own advice - “If you're going to get into these arguments and suggest other people have no idea what they're talking about you should be sure you do.” might be appropriate.

Dear Bugsy,

Perfectly reasonable question my friend and one others here do not seem to understand. This was a pretty sloppy article by someone trotting out some rehashed anti-AGW themes and the graph was a good indication of just that.

That being said I have yet to find a geologist who fully supports the notion of AWG. It just doesn't seem to be in their makeup. I think it must have something to do with the timescales they have been trained in. However Mr Forbes does also seem to have some direct financial associations with the mining industry and other associations with groups like the very much discredited Heartland Institute.
http://www.desmogblog.com/carbon-sense-coalition

To his credit though he does include a link to the dataset he used for his very 'interesting' graph.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/files/download-noaa-co2-emissions-020714.xlsx
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 8 March 2014 11:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is worth going back to the first graph in the article to point out its true value. Firstly, as more than one poster has pointed out the fact that in the early part of the curve CO2 emissions were actually predicted to be cooling the atmosphere. This should have been an immediate indication that the graph was bogus.

This immediately raises the issue of the ability of the author of this piece, and indeed anyone relying on this graph, to detect bogus information. If they are not able to do so, then how much of the rest of what they write is also bogus?

A second issue raised by one poster is the use of a 6th order polynomial to fit the 'data'. This is a less obvious major error, because many people (Mr Cox among them) are fairly ignorant of statistical procedures. Curve fitting is done with appropriate equations that describe the system and from which constants can be extracted that have real meaning. 6th order polynomials do not do this, as they have no relationship to anything in the real world. Anyone fitting a 6th order polynomial has no idea of what they are doing, and their conclusions will be useless.

On the basis of that first graph alone, I am confident in dismissing this article as a collection of bogus dribble. There might be something correct in at he article (after all a stopped clock is right twice a day), but I couldn't be bothered ploughing through to find it.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 9 March 2014 8:21:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abbott is out of step, the carbon price is the only advancement toward the reduction of co2, His tree planting gets no accolades what so ever.
We are already inundated with bush fires. When and if the carbon price is lifted, there will be no change, goods will not be any cheaper. Electricity will not reduce, Power is market driven and subject to change every five minutes. The cost of power is upward because of the service fees not power generation. Generation is in decline because of solar and wind, so Abbott is so far off the mark, caused by his mouth.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 9 March 2014 8:56:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Argonomist,

I agree that the graph is bogus but possibly not the way you do.

Mr Forbes is perfectly within his rights to produce a graph attempting to show the relationship between human produced fossil fuel emissions and temperature changes. Further, as this is a ratio he can really set the zero mark where ever he pleases and he did just that.

The bogus nature comes from the fact that it is erroneously labelled 'NOAA-Global temperature impact of CO2 emissions'. While it does include some data from that organisation this is not a graph from NOAA.

So the question becomes was this by design or oversight? If it was the former the claims regarding the author's honesty should be judged in that light. If it were the latter, which I am inclined to suspect, then it speaks to the author's familiarity, or lack thereof, of scientific convention, which is also quite damning.

It should be noted that in his original piece on the c3headlines site Mr Forbes does explain the make-up of his graph;

“Using a combination of the NOAA annual global temperature dataset and two sources of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, it can be determined how each new tonne of CO2 emissions is "accelerating" temperatures, or not.”
http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/02/noaa-climate-impact-cumulative-co2-emissions-since-1880-nil-those-stubborn-facts.html

The fact that this failed to make the article here was unfortunate, as was permitting the graph to remain thus titled when reproduced on OLO. If I were a representative of NOAA I don't think I would be at all comfortable with the graph as published, even given the very faint 'www.c3headlines.com' in the title block.

It is a given that OLO normally shows solid rigour in this regard. Mistakes do happen but I think this one needs to be rectified as soon as practicable.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 9 March 2014 10:49:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So good to see the arroganti out in force.

Agro is his usual dismissive self while Mr Redux has a bob each way on AGW.

The graph could be clearer.

The point it makes has not been addressed.

The point is does increased CO2 have a declining RATE of warming. To be perfectly clear: does every further CO2 added to the atmosphere have less warming effect than the preceding ones?

If that is the case and how could it be otherwise given Beers Law, then what effect would that have on official estimates of climate sensitivity which factor in estimates of future temperature rise which could only be based on further CO2 having the same or greater temperature effect then preceding CO2 increments?

That last question was primarily directed to Bugs, who is becoming more ignorable, who opined that the IPCC and whatever other wretched groups are still supporting the AGW scam, take the 'log decline' into effect when calculating climate sensitivity.

Obviously they do not, for reasons I present above and because they say the very opposite:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1

The IPCC says:

"Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio."

That is the radiative forcing, RF, INCREASES.

This is the basis of the scientifically ludicrous AGW idea of a runaway temperature from CO2 emissions, or the Venus effect.

I just love the supercilious tone and comments from the pro-AGW boys; all wrapped up in completely anti-scientific nonsense.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 9 March 2014 11:25:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...and cohenite is an expert on anti-scientific nonsense....

(Waves to cohers:)
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 9 March 2014 11:46:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
February 2014: 398.03 ppm
February 2013: 396.80 ppm
Posted by 579, Sunday, 9 March 2014 12:11:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.

By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 9 March 2014 12:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love C3 graphs:

Co2 and temperature:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a73d5ebffd970d-pi

I mean that's brilliant! Visible indisputable proof that CO2 cools!

Between 1914 -1963 CO2 went up 18 ppm and temperature 0.49C; from 1964 -2013 CO2 went up 76 ppm and temperature only went up 0.47C. CO2 COOLS!

And what about this one showing temperature and CO2 increase since 1997; CO2 is going through the roof and temperature no where and note all the temperature graphs are just 2nd degree polys which should please grumpy Agro who hates higher order polys:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a73d628052970d-pi

Every graph on this page is a delight which should astound and amaze every person who loves science:

http://www.c3headlines.com/modern-temperatures-chartsgraphs.html

Only grumps, groupies and AGW odds and sods would disagree.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 9 March 2014 12:35:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Climate Myth...

CO2 was higher in the past
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."
(The Lavoisier Group)

Over the Earth's history, there are times where atmospheric CO2 is higher than current levels. Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2? No, for one simple reason. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate. To do this, one study pieced together 490 proxy records to reconstruct CO2 levels over the last 540 million years (Royer 2006). This period is known as the Phanerozoic eon.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 9 March 2014 12:47:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux, Viv Forbes can produce any type of graph he wants, but if he claims for it to show something it doesn’t, it is bogus. This seems to be a common failing in several frequent writers about climate change on OLO. It is impossible for CO2 to have a cooling effect on atmospheric temperature, so a graph that purports to show ‘Global Temperature Impact of CO2 Emissions Declines’ that has negative numbers is clearly bogus. This is something Anthony Cox also falls for.

The graph shows something else, which is a comparison of 30 year temperature changes with cumulative emissions from two undescribed sources. Even this comparison is bogus, because it is cumulative emissions since 1880 for every point, but only 30 year temperature windows.

I don’t know whether this was deliberate on Forbes part. I am more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and just put it down to ignorance. In Cox’s case, I am confident it is plain ignorance.

The graph because it is bogus, makes no point at all. So there is nothing to address from it. Just like that other graphs cohenite links to with the same old cherry picking of starting with 1998
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 9 March 2014 3:11:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Radiative forcing increasing with CO2 mixing ratio is exactly what the graph you posted at
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png
shows. What declines with increasing CO2 ratio is the incremental effect of each additional ppm of CO2.

To put it another way the curve you posted (a logarithmic curve) has a positive first derivative, but a negative second derivative.

The distinction between the first and second derivatives of a curve is basic (senior) secondary school mathematics.

Why doesn't it occur to you, when scientists make a statement which you think is wrong, that you might not have understood it correctly?
Posted by jeremy, Sunday, 9 March 2014 3:51:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ignorance is bliss.

"Even this comparison is bogus, because it is cumulative emissions since 1880 for every point, but only 30 year temperature windows."

So temperature is cumulative too Agro?

I guess in AGW-land anything is possible.

I'm warming to this graph.

The trolls from AGW keep harping about 'da cooling' from 1910 to 1922 as if it meant something other than their tunnel vision. The graph is a plot of a ratio. Specifically:

"Specifically, it plots a ratio of 30-year NOAA temperature changes to the cumulative amount of CO2 tonnes emitted up to that point. For example, the 1941 ratio has a numerator of +0.59°C (30-year annual temperature change) and a denominator of 165 billion CO2 tonnes (the cumulative amount emitted from 1880 through 1941). This ratio calculation is made for each year, starting with 1910 (30 years after 1880)."

Firstly it is entirely fair to match cumulative CO2 to 30 year temperature periods since 30 years is a climatically significant period and the CO2 should have MORE effect as it accumulates.

Secondly, since the period begins from 1880 to 1910, the first 30 year period when temperature was cooling and CO2 rising it is entirely appropriate that the ratio be negative.

Thirdly, the graph also points to the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature.

And still no mention of the point of the graph from Trolls-ville; the log decline.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 9 March 2014 4:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough Jeremy; the mixing ratio is the proportion of the GHGs including CO2 with CO2 increasing exponentially over the 20thC so that its relative proportion of the mixing ratio increases.

The IPCC says from the link I keep providing that:

"Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio."

So far, so good. The IPCC understands that more CO2 will have less effect.

Why then does the IPCC predict a greater temperature response, as described by climate sensitivity, for the same increase in CO2 in the future compared with the achieved temperature response to the same post industrial increase amount of CO2?

Let me make that as clear as possible: CO2 increase from 1890 and 290PPM to 2014 and 400PPM; temperature increase of GAT 0.7C. Predicted temperature for next 100 PPM is from 1.5 - 4C.

How is that possible if the IPCC scientists take into account the log effect of more CO2?
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 9 March 2014 4:24:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Agronimist,

I fully accept that Forbe's graph does not endorse his pontifications.

To say that “This graph shows that the apparent effect of man's production of carbon dioxide has declined dramatically since 1941, and it is now insignificant.” is just simplistic and so off the mark that it is laughable. But even given its lightweight nature I'm usually happy to see what nuts and bolts the author threw together to make it.

You claim graph includes “two undescribed sources”. I know it is more than a couple of clicks to find it but here is the spreadsheet provided by Forbes. Something I have yet to find Cox being prepared to do.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/files/download-noaa-co2-emissions-020714.xlsx

I feel if you are hung up about the 'cooling effect' at the start of the graph you are not quite appreciative of his position. Granted the clumsy, unscientific, ill-labeled concoction does him no favours but you must understand the 'zero' is entirely arbitrary.

Once one moves past that it becomes clearer what he is attempting to show.

Dear Cohenite,

I too am having lots of fun with Forbe's graphs but the one you highlighted has me stumped.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a73d5ebffd970d-pi

I have manipulated the data even more than one has any right to do and I still can't reproduce it. Being a master at such artistry I'm wondering if you might put me out of my misery. It isn't the starting and finishing figures that derive his .49C amount. I even went to your favourite site and threw in the data to derive the Trendlines for the periods he describes.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1914/to:1963/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1964/to:2013/trend

But no luck. Given your self proclaimed appreciation of Viv's skills perhaps you could afford us your own deciphering skills and let us know how he derived the temperature figures.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 9 March 2014 4:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite, right on cue proves the point.

How simply can I put this? The 30 years is not cumulative, because it is the temperature in that year compared with the temperature 30 years previously. Temperature of +0.59C in 1941 is made up of the anomaly of 1941 (+ 0.16C) and 1911 (-0.44C).

Secondly there is nothing fair about comparing cumulative CO2 with 30 year temperature changes, because the same amount of CO2 does not go on warming the atmosphere by the same amount forever. Once it has warmed it has warmed.

Secondly, I know why the data comes out negative. It is because what has been done with the data is not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is about CO2 warming the atmosphere, as CO2 cannot cool the atmosphere any cooling that results is a clear signal that the graph is bogus.

Thirdly, the graph does not point to any lack of correlation between temperature and CO2, because it is not a correlation between these things. It is a plot of 30 year temperature differences divided by cumulative emissions of CO2.

Because the graph is bogus, it makes no point - other than the author of the graph is innumerate.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 9 March 2014 4:34:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Where does the IPCC say this ? Ie, CO2 increase from 1890 and 290PPM to 2014 and 400PPM; temperature increase of GAT 0.7C. Predicted temperature for next 100 PPM is from 1.5 - 4C.

What else does it say at that point? It may well answer your question. Or it may enable someone else to do so.

But here a few ideas:
(1) 1.5 to 4C seems more like the figure for doubling of CO2, eg

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

(2) Temperature rises so far have been affected by atmospheric aerosols (pollution) which hopefully will decrease in future
Posted by jeremy, Sunday, 9 March 2014 5:00:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Steele. I've put a link to the C3 discussion in the paragraph under the graph which previously linked to a larger version of the graph. Wrong link went in originally.

This discussion is amusing. First because it is not the main point of Viv's article, but those who can't find fault with the rest try and undermine his credibility with it. His main point is that increasing CO2 does not lead to more extreme weather - now more or less accepted by the IPCC.

Second, what the graph purports to show is that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Completely uncontroversial, but most people don't know this fact.

Third, the point about the alleged negative impact of CO2 at the beginning of the graph is as bad as any of the maths in the graph. All it shows is that while CO2 was increasing temperature was decreasing.

Fourth, the graph is no worse than many of the graphs I've seen that purport to show a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature increase. As most of the increase in temperature is caused by forcings, so temperature increase ought to be greater than CO2 increase, but no-one comments on that.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 9 March 2014 6:29:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY,

I suggest you re-read Viv's article. The graph, and what it is alleged to show, is certainly the main, if not the only, point on which any information of a scientific nature is given, on the first page of the article. It's perfectly good sense to observe that, given
(1) the false suggestion that the graph is from the NOAA, and
(2) the fact that no-one who tries to fit a sixth-order polynomial could possibly be taken seriously,
one should prefer sources of information which don't bear such obvious signs of unreliability.

It also indicates, more importantly, that OLO's editorial standards require nothing more than that the author of an article can in fact write.

And I'm certainly not one who "can't find fault with the rest" of the article, though the "fault" I find is that, with one exception, he gives no sources for any of the facts he states. So the reader is certainly justified in taking no notice of it (given the wealth of material available on the subject).

On GrahamY's second and third point, he can't have it both ways. Either the graph shows something about the effect of CO2, or it is so affected by other sources of variability in the temperature that it doesn't. As several posters have pointed out, obviously the latter is correct, which means that trying to fit a curve to the graph shown is crazy.

Further on GrahamY's second point - since the graph is of _changes_ in temperature versus CO2, one wouldn't expect it to look like the curve at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png (which is somewhat like a logarithmic curve), but like the derivative of that curve. That it vaguely resembles the graph linked above is pure coincidence.

And the sixth-order polynomial is in effect a seventh-order polynomial. Though it's hard to argue that that is sillier than fitting a sixth-order polynomial.

I've no idea what his fourth point means, but am curious.
Posted by jeremy, Sunday, 9 March 2014 10:02:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear GrahamY,

Look I get that Viv is probably a great bloke, you may well know him personally, but ultimately he is a 'climate enthusiast' as is Cox and also Flannery.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an enthusiast but the rest of us are a little more cautious with their offerings because we know that very enthusiasm can sometimes trip them up. It has done on this occasion.

The very first post expressed confusion about whether the graph was from NOAA. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is not made up of enthusiasts but rather actual climate scientists. Their research rightly holds significant weight in discussions around AGW.

Ultimately it is a question of probity. Should a graphic that through incorrect and inadequate labelling is construed as coming from NOAA be withdrawn and altered in a way that removed any questions about its origins before being reinstated? Surely the answer must be yes, not just for the credibility of OLO but because it would be the right thing to do.

I know it, others here know it and I am confident so do you.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 10 March 2014 12:15:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY I think you are wrong here.

1. The reason I have criticized the figure is because it occurs early in the article, is so utterly wrong and is the only bit of support that Viv references. All the other claims are just opinion with no reference to where the supporting data is. For the one claim where there is supporting data, Viv's claims fall at the first hurdle. Why should I accept any of the unreferenced claims as true?

2. The graph does not purport to show the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. There is nothing logarithmic about the graph, the plotted trend line or the underlying data used. Indeed the graph title states it is a graph of "Global Temperature Impact of CO2 Emissions Declines".

It is not even a graph of this. What it is is a graph of 30 year average global temperature differences divided by cumulative emissions since 1881. There is no rationale to plot such a comparison. Indeed, all you would get is that because the denominator keeps getting larger and larger, whereas the numerator gets larger less slowly, is a graph that will asymptote to 0. Do you think that is why that particular comparison was chosen?

3. I know why the data at the start of he graph is negative. However, this is supposed to be a graph of global temperature impact of CO2, go and read the title again. Under such circumstances, getting a negative value should have been a clear warning that the data was not showing what you thought it was showing. The fact that Viv, Cox and seemingly yourself have failed to recognize this provides no confidence that you would recognize another confidence trick if it was presented.

4. There are a lot if factors that impact on climate: not limited to what the sun is doing, aerosols, cloud cover, El Niño/La Nina.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 10 March 2014 9:55:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steele, I think you are far too generous. If the 'zero' is entirely arbitrary, then you cannot take quantitative values from it.

Anyways, love this little bit from cohenite:
"http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a73d5ebffd970d-pi

I mean that's brilliant! Visible indisputable proof that CO2 cools!"

You are taking the piss right? Be careful in righting down sarcastic comments, as it's often difficult to tell when they are being made in print.

If you aren't , and you honestly think that is what those graphs are telling you, then I don't think anything more needs to be said about your ability to interpret graphs. We'll just http://www.picturesnew.com/media/images/facepalm-photo.jpg and move on shall we?

Also, when will you realise that the IPCC is saying exactly what you are clumsily attempting to say about the log 'decline' in effect? The RF increases as CO2 increases, but the RF per ton, will decrease.

So, in effect you are arguing a point with yourself. I think this deserves a http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Double_399996_1614105.jpg

Oh, and don't mention the booze again (the man upstairs doesn't like it).
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 10 March 2014 10:56:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The' graph which has its interest as a novel way of showing the log effect is becoming the point and the log effect issue is being ignored.

I don’t really want to argue the appropriateness of polys but if the physics that produced the data match the polynomial you are using for the fit, then the fit will match the curve, provided that the number of data points is higher than the order of the poly and there is no noise which is a bugbear for the high order polys.

The further point about AGW is there is no closed form model for climate over time anyway, so any fit will be inadequate, except for the linear fit. And that only shows the trend over whatever time period you pick for the fit. If you pick a long time period for the fit, then you will miss smaller time-scale changes, especially at the end points, and if you pick short time scales, then you will fit the short term variations, and miss longer trends.

In this instance we are talking about the AGW period which supposedly began about 1900. In this respect the log curve I linked to is not “vaguely reminiscent” of the log effect, it is exactly the log effect of extra CO2:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

The issue is discussed here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

A couple of points; this log decline is the inverse of the exponential which is how AGW sees the effect of CO2; that is, a runaway effect or the Venus Syndrome after a tipping point:

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/james-hansens-agu-presentation-venus.html

Secondly, this graph also shows the log effect:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/01/per-noaa-20th-century-global-co2-warming-not-unprecedented-natural-warming-those-stubborn-facts.html

The graph is correct for CO2 but not apparently for temperature. Someone should ask the graph author.

The OLS linear trend from WFT shows the trend is greater in the second period and would therefore seem to contradict the point that temperature rose more from 1914-1963 with less CO2 than from 1964-2013 with more CO2.

Despite this the WFT graphs show the temp response to increased CO2 lessening; CO2 has increased 4 fold, temp 2 fold. Log decline proved.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 10 March 2014 11:29:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

you say: In this respect the log curve I linked to is not “vaguely reminiscent” of the log effect, it is exactly the log effect of extra CO2:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

This curve may be exactly the effect of extra CO2 (according to someone's calculations or experiments). It's certainly not exactly a log curve.
Posted by jeremy, Monday, 10 March 2014 3:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Cox, I can only conclude you would not recognize a log if you tripped over one.

There was nothing about that graph that was logarithmic, not the axes, nor the data, nor the trend line.

There are no 6th order polynomial processes in physics. Even if there were, have you thought about what that function would look like if it was extrapolated outside the data? Obviously not. I will help you out, you can see one here http://www.analyzemath.com/polynomials/graph_polynomial_1.html Just scroll down to the 6th order graph.

The prediction from a 6th order polynomial is that in some relatively short period, the warming effect of CO2 is going to go through the roof. The predicted outcome from the curve presented by Viv Forbes is so bad that I suggest we should ban all CO2 emissions tomorrow to stop the world from frying.

You are such a chump Anthony.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 10 March 2014 4:50:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's like extracting teeth. Jeremy says:

"This curve may be exactly the effect of extra CO2 (according to someone's calculations or experiments). It's certainly not exactly a log curve."

What it is, is a graphical representation of how the RF from increased CO2 decreases at a logarithmic rate with increased CO2.

If you don't think it is that present your own Modtran graph and tell us what your graph is. After all you're the one who insists the IPCC has factored in the log decline to its climate sensitivity predictions.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 10 March 2014 4:55:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is this supposed to be a graph showing the forcing attributable to CO2?

If so, why does it start at 235 W/m^2 for 0 ppm CO2?
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 10 March 2014 7:34:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cohenite,

I am going to assume your offering - Posted by cohenite, Monday, 10 March 2014 11:29:17 AM – was in answer to my request for you to look at the graph I mentioned. If it is then thank you.

We all know the temperature figures on the graph are wrong as you acknowledged but that is not actually what I asked. I wanted to know how you thought he derived them. Forensics, that is where the fun lies, but as you said I should ask the author.

I am actually getting closer in determining how he came up with the original graph in his article. It should have been simple given he has supplied his data sets but I'm not there yet.

Anyway in answer to Bugsy's query you were indeed taking the piss and I am about to make a rare concession – in a contest between you and Mr Forbes as our resident anti-AGW spruiker you get my vote. He seems be the Anthony Cox of about 5 years ago. But don't let it go to your head.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 10 March 2014 9:13:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agro, I've been tripping over you for a while so rest assured I know a log when I trip over it.

Here is the log graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Here is a generic log graph:

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/354852/function-design-a-logarithm-asymptotic-to-one

Note it is asymptotic to one. Note the similarities. Is the log graph of the diminishing RF of CO2 asymptotic to 1? If not what is it?

I do agree with this:

"The prediction from a 6th order polynomial is that in some relatively short period, the warming effect of CO2 is going to go through the roof."

Only that is AGW's prediction not Viv's.

Bugs, the other hollow log around here says:

"Is this supposed to be a graph showing the forcing attributable to CO2?

If so, why does it start at 235 W/m^2 for 0 ppm CO2?"

Did you read this Bugs:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

You tell me why it begins at 235 Bugs; maybe its the effective temperature forcing; or don't you agree the Greenhouse temperature is only 33C?
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 10 March 2014 10:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeremy and Steele, I have no intention of "withdrawing" the graph. It's not my essay, and this is an opinion site, not some refereed journal. There are some issues with the graph, principally the sixth order polynomial, but it has its good points too.

As I said before, there are a lot of bad graphs in this area, with the most notorious being Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick graph which substituted real temperature data for proxy data when the proxy data didn't follow his preconceived conclusion. If you're so concerned with graphsmanship, find out who published Mann's effort and ask them to withdraw it. It's done more damage in the debate than the errors in the one Viv refers to.

Something else which has done a lot of damage in this area is the assertion that CO2 emissions lead to extreme weather. It has been controversial for some time, and now the IPCC seems to have fallen on the scientific side of the debate. But that doesn't stop a whole lot of agitators repeating the lie.

That's one of the reasons that Viv's article got a run. He gets most of his facts right. To say they can be ignored because they are not referenced is simply spurious. I suppose you'll dispute the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow because I have given you a peer-reviewed citation.

I suspect the only reason that the graph is getting this attention is because some on this thread want to obscure the very real damage that is being done to science and the economy by people like Tim Flannery who time and time again have seriously misrepresented the science,and been handsomely rewarded when doing so.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 10 March 2014 10:43:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Leaving the juvenile humour aside, the earlier poster was suggesting that you have no idea what a log graph looks like.

If he's wrong, you could make that clear by pointing out how the graph labelled "Modtrans Results" at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

compares with a log graph.

What do you mean by "asymptotic to 1"? There are actually two graphs shown at http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/354852/function-design-a-logarithm-asymptotic-to-one
Which one of them are you saying is "asymptotic to 1"?

When you say "Is the log graph of the diminishing RF of CO2 asymptotic to 1?" are you referring to the graph labelled "Modtrans Results"? If so, don't you have the answer to that question in front of you?
Posted by jeremy, Monday, 10 March 2014 11:18:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY,

I've no idea what you're talking about re "withdrawing" the graph - you seem to suggest that I have asked you to "withdraw" the graph, whatever that means.

As for your suggestion that producing bogus material of a factual nature is OK because it is an opinion piece - well, that's your standards.

Your comment "He gets most of his facts right. To say they can be ignored because they are not referenced is simply spurious. I suppose you'll dispute the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow because I have given you a peer-reviewed citation." I don't believe you think that - I figure that in fact you can perfectly well tell the difference. If I'm wrong, I'll apologise - it's because with the article as it is, I'd be silly to accept the rest of his "facts" as true, given the evidence of the graph. A previous poster made effectively the same point.

The remainder of your post seems to be a rant about other people and their errors, as though that means we should overlook errors in the current article. A very weird idea, indeed.
Posted by jeremy, Monday, 10 March 2014 11:43:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear GrahamY,

I was not asking for the graph to be removed for correction because of the lack of veracity in its figures, nor the spurious conclusions that were magically derived from it by the author, indeed I have defended his right to do so on this thread.

What I find unconscionable is that to the casual reader it appears to come from the NOAA.

Fix the heading is all you have to do mate, then bung the bloody thing back up again and the rest of us poor plebs can argue its merits.

I wonder how you would feel if another media outlet combined one of your surveys from OLO with other outside figures to create a graphic that directly contradicted what you had found, but then posted their results with a heading 'Online Opinion: Only 30% of Liberal Party voters approve of Tony Abbott's performance as Prime Minister'? You rightly wouldn't stand for it, nor would you take the excuse that it 'was just an opinion piece' or that the very small, nearly greyed out, source notes make it okay.

Or do you now take the view that this sort of behaviour is now acceptable?

I of course concede this is your site, your rules and definitely your prerogative, but by the same token I think many are drawn to this site because certain standards are observed and they may even feel a degree of protectiveness about them. I'm not sure leaving the graph labelled as it is honours those standards.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 12:07:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Same egos more games.

Viv's graph is not from NOAA; it makes it plain that it uses NOAA data. The "casual reader" who Mr Redux has kindly taken under his wing can go and watch the ABC and be really misled.

Jeremy and Agro, or is it Bugs, seem concerned with my ignorance, which in their eyes knows no bounds [rather like AGW], about log graphs.

I've put up a couple and added the asymptote to 1 qualification as I don't want the log graph to do the same as Agro's 6th order poly careering to an infinitely hot future.

This is the point and the gang have once again successfully veered any sensible discussion away from Viv's article which simply says the effect of CO2 on temperature, if you accept it has any, is constrained.

So, I think the ball is in Mr Redux's, Jeremy's, Bug's and Agro's court.

Does this nonpareil group agree or not that:

1 CO2's RF and therefore capacity to affect temperature is constrained by Beers Law and shown by the log decline?

2 If not do they agree that the RF potential from increasing CO2 is unlimited so that the AGW's concepts of the Venus Syndrome [as enunciated by the kook, Hansen], tipping points from increased CO2 and runaway and catastrophic AGW are not only real but imminent prospects much like the melting of the ice?

3 As a parenthesis does the group dismiss saturation of CO2 or do they concur with the Rabbet's idea of line broadening:

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2007/07/temperature-anonymice-gave-eli-new.html

Or is it just absorption in the wings of the CO2 spectrum? Is wing expansion the same as line broadening? Can CO2's RF be saturated at all? Is AGW merely a longer episode of Eric Olthwaite's life?

These are the questions which the inhouse scientifically savvy should be addressing instead of picking on Viv's poor graph.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 7:39:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite, that is not really a log graph, it is graph with a plot of an equation with a function involving a log to the base 2. And no it doesn’t asymptote to 1. Actually it doesn’t asymptote at all. If you extend the graph out to 1 million ppm CO2 (i.e. 100%) it reaches 292.

If you look at equation carefully, it makes no sense at all. Why would a log to the base 2 be a useful way of describing a natural system? It wouldn’t. The natural log might be. So whoever put this figure together is an ignoramus.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 8:57:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

what sort of idiotic game is this? You ignore my questions and comments about what _you_ have said, no doubt because you can't answer them (notwithstanding that they are ordinary high-school mathematics), and are just pretending to understand what you are talking about.

Then you try to deflect discussion by asking other people to answer your questions. Get this - it's perfectly reasonable for people to comment on what you have said without being obligated to research and answer questions on all or any subjects that you choose.

As a matter of fact your first question at least does seem to be vaguely on topic, which is why I have already answered pretty much the same question. See page 3 of the comments.
Posted by jeremy, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 9:44:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry coehite, I looked at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

and I can't find where it was properly explained why it starts at 235 W/m^2.
The author of the piece says that Willis Eschenbach originally posted it at Climate Audit in 2006, and I can't find that post either (any links would be appreciated).

So, if you actually know why it starts at 235, then please explain it to me, preferably without the jargon. What is the 'effective temperature forcing", how is that calculated and why is it on that graph? So many questions, so few answers.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 10:13:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steele, that would be a real breach of standards if I altered someone else's material. One either generates one's own graph, or takes the existing one down.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 10:31:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,

This is an extremely simplistic article.

I believe I could have written something more detailed on AGW (and as JKJ and others will tell you, I'm as thick as two planks:)

I doubt if I could have wrangled that graph, however....but it's been fascinating watching others with statistical expertise unpick it.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 10:36:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear GrahamY,

You wrote;

“Steele, that would be a real breach of standards if I altered someone else's material. One either generates one's own graph, or takes the existing one down.”

Or the other obvious alternative is to exercise your editorial prerogative and request the author makes the appropriate changes themselves.

I personally don't want to see the graph itself removed as it has created plenty of discussion and I am enjoying dissecting it to the best of my admittedly limited abilities, however its title remains an affront.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 11:57:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ITS funny watchiNG THIS DE-BAIT..OF A GRAPH...WHEM the real topic is
n fact, here is a complete list of all the things blamed on global warming: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

what strIKES ME ABOUT THE WELL POISENING [THE GRAPH]..
IS WHY 30 YEAR CYCLES/BECAUSE THAT NUMBER DONT FALL ON THE 11 YEAR CYCLE NOR THE oTHER CYCLES..so if you pICK THE BEST PROJECTION..IT CAN PROject whatever the person who set it up to projects..

MUCH DEPENDS ON THE WHO/DID WHAT
if we deniers used their graph..the source of the poisen is clear

WHAT IS CLEAR..IS HERE WE ARE DISPUTING 'THE PROBLEM'
INSTEAD OF HOw a tax will fix it/[ITS CLASIc redirection]

here are the real issues/how many of them are proven
n fact, here is a complete list of all the things blamed on global warming: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

most of em i rekon..thats why ALL THESE PAGES RE A GRAPH
thats the ONLY POINT THEY CANWIN BY[thing is is it their grpah..or ours[who made the poisen/or rather set it up..ANYHOW THE TOPIC BEGINS WITH A POINT/THEN REFINES it[or rather topic used to]..before the delusional warmists cooled off into cli-mate changers/so the money changers get A NEW WORLD Value unit

its inevitaBLE..but by being built on the lie/will fail
hence i invented the wikiseedwikigeld..FOR WHEN WE DOnt trust no one and nuthin

i recall we had a topc lAST WEEK..where..the money from carbon credit will 'pay' for a huge pipE LINE[NO DOUDT A DECADES LONG PROJECT]..WHEN COAL ON SMALL SCALE COULD BE RUN OUT GLOBALLY..IN NO time/much more diverse work..that pipeline making

anyhow i swore off TRYING TO PREVENT THE INEVITABLE
MOVE THE DEBATE TO HOW DOES C02 TAX FIX IT...[simpless]
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 1:18:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

Pray tell....why do you spend half your posts shouting these days?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp

Item 3: Do not "shout" (use capital letters excessively).

Not necessary.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 1:38:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sorry its not shouting..its computer problem
IT JUST AT RANDOM STARTS SHIFTING Keys..and it it what it is
then if i try to edit it gets worse..the computer is dying/and im not bying another..[i hate this forced consumerism]

also most as much as i HATE THE TAX
BUT I FORGET..WE STAND ON OPPOSING SIDES Of the fence ...now

so how will the tax fix things?
how has the price doubling by enron affected you
[or were yOU ONE OF THE CLEVER ONES LIKE BELLY/FOXIE PAUL ETC

mate this issue has divided the forum..i stay away from this important topic..because all my mate now hate me..NOW I CHANGED SIDES

HOW CAN A TAX ON INVIABLE WEIGHTLESS gas by the toN/FIX ANYTHING
RECALL THAT OTHER DEBAITE..recently//the dude is going to build pipelines with the tax

EDIT ABANDONED..

ANYHOW LIKE I SAY REFUTE WHAT I SAY
NOT How a computer bug limits me saying..it.
im not yelling/in the old days you would have known this
now your quoting the rues at me..in lue of refuting what i say.
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 2:01:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OUG,

"im not yelling/in the old days you would have known this"

Which is why I inquired - and you've just explained the reason.

I'll leave this one now to the posters commenting on topic...fascinating.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 2:08:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The brains trust is annoyed at attempts to direct the discussion back to the point at hand.

Jeremy is very snarky and says its not his responsibility to do research. Well, sorry Jeremy, as a supporter of the doomsday cult of AGW it is YOUR responsibility. I'm just some poor punter doing his best who thinks your cult is crap.

More specifically, Bugs is worried about this graph beginning at 235 W/m^2:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

The effective temperature was defined earlier and is 255K; in forcing terms radiated energy increases as the 4th power of temperature, T^4, so 255K is 235W/m2. Below 235W/m2 CO2 has no effect. Which Bugs knew and is just making a nuisance of himself.

Likewise Agro with his asymptote concerns about the same graph. An asymptote is, essentially, a line that a graph approaches, but does not intersect. Agro wants to use the natural log and says:

"Actually it doesn’t asymptote at all. If you extend the graph out to 1 million ppm CO2 (i.e. 100%) it reaches 292."

Apart from once again showing the 'log decline' which constrains further CO2 effect this raises a point I mentioned earlier about decaying exponentials and also in my reference to a logarithm asymptotic to 1. Which is as the effect of CO2 diminishes does it become tangential or asymptotic
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 2:24:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey witless

asking for what you claim is misleading to be fixed and claiming you know olo has high standards

when you won't withdraw you own misleading statement that denigrates others by comparing then to your mate the socialist mass murderer Hitler is just a tad hypocritical.

Don't you think witless?
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 2:53:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

'I believe I could have written something more detailed on AGW ...'

I believe you could too. So please go ahead it would be a welcome change from your usual one or two line posts... and would reveal the real depth of your intellect.

cheers
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 2:58:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok cohenite, so 235 W/m^2 is the 'effective temperature' or the forcing that is not due to greenhouse gasses, as you have described it in an earlier post. And I can see on the formula that the start point is 233.6. Although I don't understand the statement "Below 235W/m2 CO2 has no effect". Huh? Now you're just spouting gibberish in the vain hope that you will seem smart to the drooling masses. Surely that just translates to "below 0ppm CO2 has no effect"? Der.

Anyway, I don't think you can prove that CO2 has a log relationship using a graph that uses a Log2 function to plot, that's just circular.

So where does the formula Forcing=2.94Log2(CO2)+233.6 (R^2=.997) that is used to generate the graph come from? Who determined the wonderfully perfect Log2 relationship? References please. I am having fun exploring this, so please don't spout gibberish at me again and provide some actual paper references or links to websites that have references to papers.

I need to find out, is this log2 relationship computed from the radiation absorbing properties of CO2 or does it take other considerations into account, such as water vapour? If the graph takes the "effective temperature"
into account, does it take other factors into account also?

As an aside, if you play with the graph and plot just the section of the graph post pre-industrial CO2, then you get an increase in forcing that is almost linear, it's not quite linear, but it's pretty damn close. And the increase in RF does not approach zero, but does get ever so slightly less with each ppm increase, using that formula.

I think you should not get hung up on the effect of very low concentrations of CO2 and focus more on the current forcings of CO2 and what that actually means.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 4:12:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Listen Bugs, what did your last slave die of? If you think I'm going to run around the blogsphere doing your errands guess again.

Why don't you have a think about the effective temperature which is what Earth would have without GHGs, ie 255K and what the Earth's temperature really is presumably due to the presence of GHGs, ie 288K, the difference being 33K, being the Greenhouse temperature so that GAT is ~ 15C.

Logic would tell you that CO2 has no input into the effective temperature because it is the temperature of the Earth WITHOUT GHGs; CO2's contribution to the GAT is in the 33K extra supplied by the GHGs.

Now if you read the rest of that link you will see that CO2's contribution to the 33K is at the beginning of that 33K; CO2 does most of its work in its lower levels; as the concentration increases CO2's capacity decreases either logarithmically or exponentially; never completely ceasing but becoming increasingly proportionally insignificant.

As for your demands for sources of the graph drawer at WUWT; I don't know. But they're alternatives; long answer:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/radical-new-hypothesis-on-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/?cp=11#comment-87599

Its by Michael Hammer an expert in spectroscopy.

Short answer; The general Beer-Lambert law which is usually written as:

A = a x b x c

Where A is the measured absorbance, a is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.

So as c decreases b increases.

The result of this is that CO2 emissivity, the measure of how much radiation the concentration of CO2 absorbs, DECLINES as the concentration increases.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 5:34:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gosh cohenite, you are funnier than a barrel full of monkeys.

What about some basics. You do know that the size of 1 Kelvin is the same as 1 degree C? So 33K difference is actually 33C, not 15C.

If you have a curve that asymptote so to 1, that means it reaches the number 1 on your scale, not 292.

Now as to this new graph you have introduced, you know the one that doesn't asymptote, but which in cohenite universe asymptotes to 1. You introduced that graph as something important to the discussion. If you cannot answer questions about it, then we should probably assume it is just more rubbish you have parroted from one of hose denier blogs.

I am interested in why, if you make the CO2 concentration really really small, the net downward forcing goes negative. Now how does that work?

Please do tell.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 6:25:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite, all you had to say was that it was the bbaseline radiative forcing that has been calculated without the effect of greenhouse gasses, which is why 0ppm CO2 starts there. Then by definition it is without CO2. I'm prepared to accept that at face value. But to go on and on spouting nonsensical phrases about that and calling it the "effective temperature" is bizarre (*temp is measured in degrees). It just confuses people. BBB I guess.

Your restatement of Beers law in that way tells me all anyone needs to know about your understanding of formulae.

As the analyte concentration decreases, the path length increases? Yes, if A is constant, but A is a measurement and won't be constant, it will increase as the analyte concentration increases.

That is, if you have stated it correctly. Have you stated it correctly Cohenite?

Your last sentence is definitely not stated correctly. Absorbance does not decline as an analyte concentration increases.

It's ok, I know science communication is not your strong suit. It's much easier communicating with people who think they know what you are talking about because you both assume the same starting position.

As far as I can tell going through all these blogsites, is that they all seem to agree on their conclusions, but none of them seem to be able to calculate numbers that agree with each other. It's weird, unless of course you assume the conclusion and work backwards.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 7:51:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW cohenite, thanks for the admission that you don't know who drew the graphs or what they based their formula on (I still can't find the formula anywhere else).

Yeah, that PROVES it!
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 7:55:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agro, that last post was by your idiot twin, right?

255K = -18.15

288K = + 14.85

Minus and plus. Plus 14.85, rounded to PLUS 15C.

The asymptote to 1 was an example I thought I’d put up to clarify a point. Waste of time eh with you carrying on like a pork chop. No room for decaying exponentials here; more like decaying intelligence.

Speaking of Agro’s twin Bugsy says:

“As the analyte concentration decreases, the path length increases? Yes, if A is constant, but A is a measurement and won't be constant, it will increase as the analyte concentration increases.”

Actually ‘a’ is not a function of the density and distribution of the absorber, only on the number of absorber molecules present. And as Miskolzi’s work shows ‘a’ and the optical depth of the atmosphere haven’t changed. Therefore despite the increase in CO2 A also has effectively not changed as the temperature pause reflects.

What I can’t understand is if the IPCC is correct about the effect of CO2 on temperature then according to T^4 if increasing CO2 is radically increasing the available RF then the temperature response should be going through the roof. It isn’t.

The IPCC’s position and yours appears to be a classic case of Ipse dixit.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 11 March 2014 10:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Cox, I think I will just leave your little calculation there for all to see.

Next time you make a claim about something involving numbers, we will all recognize that you cannot add up.
Posted by Agronomist, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 6:41:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Agro is up early; just finishing his paper run I guess. Don't forget the Tele has just gone up in price Agro; minuses and pluses, adding and subtracting. Remember get your cents right and the dollars will follow. Unless you're an AGW scientist with no sense and the dollars still come.

What a world; so many smart people acting stupid.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 8:03:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ITS TOO 'graph'ic/sic*..for ME..I IKE THINGS WITH LINKS
BUT LIKE THE PREVIOUSLY POSTED LINK..or rather the dead links they lined into..reveal far more than a graph..that tops off at the same level times two

anyhow warmist..concepts fLOATED WITH TRUMPETS..then quietly allowed to die

The dead link/only collection

Acne, Africa hit hardest, African summer frost, agricultural land increase, Alaska reshaped, anxiety, Arctic tundra to burn, atmospheric defiance, bananas destroyed, beer shortage, bird distributions change, blizzards, boredom, brain eating amoebae, business opportunities, business risks, British gardens change, budget increases, cardiac arrest, cataracts, challenges and opportunities, cloud stripping, cremation to end, damages equivalent to $200 billion, dermatitis, desert life threatened, diarrhoea, disappearance of coastal cities, Dolomites collapse, drought in distant regions, drowning people, early marriages, early spring, Earth spinning out of control, Earth wobbling, evolution accelerating, extinctions (bats, pigmy possums, koalas, turtles, orang-utan, elephants, tigers, gorillas, whales, frogs,) fainting, fish catches rise, flames stoked, footpath erosion, glacial growth, global dimming, god melts, Gore omnipresence, Great Lakes drop, harmful algae, hazardous waste sites breached, high court debates, HIV epidemic, human health improvement, ice shelf collapse, jet stream drifts north, lake and stream productivity decline, lightning related insurance claims, little response in the atmosphere, lost $350 billion, Lyme disease, marine dead zone, Maple production advanced, mental illness (Alberta), migration difficult (birds), mountains melting, mudslides, oceans noisier, oyster diseases, ozone loss, Pacific dead zone, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, polar bears starve, psychosocial disturbances, popcorn rise, rainfall reduction, riches, rivers dry up, rockfalls, ruins ruined, skin cancer, smelt down, snowfall reduction, stick insects, stormwater drains stressed, teenage drinking, terrorism, tree beetle attacks, trees could return to Antarctic, tree growth increased, tsunamis, tundra plant life boost, uprooted - 6 million, Vampire moths, violin decline, walrus displaced, war, war between US and Canada, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, water supply unreliability, weeds, white Christmas dream ends, wine - harm to Australian industry, World bankruptcy, World-famous places threatened, World in crisis, World in flames,

Suggestions for replacement links are welcome.

Total (dead and alive) 883
Last updated 05/03/12
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 8:45:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite, you are getting self-contradictory here.

You state:
“A=a x b x c
Where A is the measured absorbance, a is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.”

Then go on to say:
“Actually ‘a’ is not a function of the density and distribution of the absorber, only on the number of absorber molecules present.”
Huh?, isn’t it the wavelength absorbitivity coefficient? c is in the analyte concentration , so it is a function of the of the density and distribution of the absorber.

Anyway, you go on to say:
“And as Miskolzi’s work shows ‘a’ and the optical depth of the atmosphere haven’t changed.” So ‘a’ and ‘b’ haven’t changed according to Miskolzi. OK, but c certainly has, CO2 is increasing that is indisputable.

Then you say:
“Therefore despite the increase in CO2 A also has effectively not changed as the temperature pause reflects.”
Well, Miskolzi’s work purports to show that A has hasn’t changed (his work isn't widely accepted, but we will run with it).
Therefore, unless ‘a’ or ‘b’ HAVE changed your statements are self-contradictory.

It’s turning into a thought salad, I would suggest you don’t add any more vinegar.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 10:24:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Bugsy,

Sorry mate, was just rereading the thread and saw you had put a proposition to me which I had not picked up.

You wrote;

“Steele, I think you are far too generous. If the 'zero' is entirely arbitrary, then you cannot take quantitative values from it.”

The reason why there are negative values on Viv's graph is because the anomaly figures are based around a zero point which is indeed arbitrary, in this case it is the average of the 20th century temperatures as used by NOAA.

I did manage to reproduce his graph although it took some rather implausible manipulation to do so. It can be found here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AihqN3dTawKwdEk0TWxGcmZrdElSaUdQaGJBSlFoLUE&usp=sharing

Please note THIS IS NOT A NOAA GRAPH!

The first graph takes the two sets of figures and illustrates a straightforward, on the ground, relationship between human emissions and temperature rise. Note: you do get a hint of Viv's figures in that the greatest difference between the two lines is at 1943.

The second is the relationship after Viv had finished with it, only really made remarkable by the arbitrary zero.

So yes the graph can have negative figures but you are entirely correct when you say you can not take quantitative values from it thus when Viv asserts “the impact of each tonne has decreased, significantly - currently it stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne” he is of course talking through his hat!
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 12:40:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AND THE GRAph gaff goes on

REDux/quote..<<..So yes the graph can have negative figures but you are entirely correct when you say you can not take quantitative values from it>>

sorry but rubbish out indicates rubbish in
if the input iS FRUIT..THE ANSWER MUST BE IN fruit

but as you lost me on this topic from the first post redirection
that gave us the graphic sic..i must dispute THE CONCLUSION..<<..thus when Viv asserts “the impact of each tonne has decreased, significantly>>..

I RECALL THE DAYS WHEN I MYSELF INSTALLED THE ANTIPOLLUTION STUFF INTO THE generator stacks AND SEE HOW WE CEANED UP THE AIR..ETC IN SHORT Reduced the impact

wether that measures gaff ic lie i couldnt aver
but whatever it STANDS UP AS MUST BE LESS..JUST LIKE A FURNACE RUNNING AT pea efficiency or choked into smoke[un burnT FUEL]

<<..- currently it stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne” he is of course talking through his hat!>>ITS TOO NEAT A redux of complicated matters/in this case confounded by/rather than simplified by redirecting the topic onto a graph..

WE ARNT TALKING ABOUT CUREs nor causes only numbers put onto a gaff
A HOOK..TO MAKE THE REDIRECTION ..that refuses redirection..cause that's all they got

but for the drowning polar bears and high tide COMING UP..10 METERS..I WOULD THINK IT FUNNY..FUNNY WE DONT GOT THAT FALLING TIDE THAT Reveals who been swimming nakid
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 1:12:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen: "Just thought this should be brought to the attention of those previously taken in by the unprecedented global warming fraud."

What he's talking about is weather. The following, regarding the "unprecedented" rate of temperature increase, is about climate over 11000 years:

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

There's this on Marcott's analysis:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/for-the-record/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Perhaps something preceding the last ice age can be found to match the current situation, Hasbeen?
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 13 March 2014 1:54:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted on the wrong thread sorry
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 13 March 2014 2:00:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY wrote in an earlier post;

“For my money Viv is more honest, and likely to be more correct, irrespective of what companies he is involved with.”

And I conceded in a latter reply referencing the graphic that was posted in the body of the article;

“So the question becomes was this by design or oversight? If it was the former the claims regarding the author's honesty should be judged in that light. If it were the latter, which I am inclined to suspect, then it speaks to the author's familiarity, or lack thereof, of scientific convention, which is also quite damning.”

But my attention has been drawn to another of the graphs on Viv Forbes' site http://c3headlines.typepad.com/

The particular article can be found here;
http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/02/climate-science-consensus-60-years-hadcrut-global-warming-those-stubborn-facts.html

To create this piece of nonsense Mr Forbes went to the climate record picked 1893 which happened to be the coldest year in the decade surrounding it and 1953 figure was the warmest in the decade surrounding it. He did not take aggregates of temperature anomalies but just picked 3 years 50 years apart. This was not oversight, this was absolutely by design and to top it off he claimed that “Climate Science Consensus: Last 60 Years of Global Warming Below Earlier Periods, Experts Say”.

There were no experts saying this, just the author himself. That is the second time the author has claimed authority for his graphs which is demonstrably not there.

I withdraw my caveat that these unfortunate graphs might have been the result of oversight and therefore my statement “the author's honesty should be judged in that light” is now my only position.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 13 March 2014 10:46:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Redux is on a role and obviously has a lot of time on his hands. He'll love this one:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg

Any statistical analysis of climate stands and falls on its correlation with real, physical events. The above graph is well correlated with physical climate factors.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 13 March 2014 7:38:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some mothers do 'ave 'em Mr Cox.

You have been telling us at length that there has been no warming for the last 16 years, so that graph you linked to must be wrong.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 13 March 2014 8:25:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what's the statistical significance of trend lines fitted like this to carefully selected subsets of the data? Quite likely, none, but if it is significant, a competent scientist would have worked it out and stated it.
Posted by jeremy, Thursday, 13 March 2014 8:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cohenite/Anthony Cox,

I think you meant 'roll'. Role would be more apt for your performance.

It has been fascinating watching you over the course of this thread.

You adopted quite a derisive and sarcastic tone when you referred to Viv's graphs and now you float this Dorothy Dixer pointing me at Nova's graph knowing full well that I had panned it on another thread.

I think you are jealous of these other 'pretenders', you are the 'anti-AGW dude' and the others don't come within a bull's roar of your 'breadth of knowledge' or 'debating skills'. You are the one slaving away at the coal face tirelessly taking on the 'warmists' while people like Nova and Forbes won't even 'get their hands dirty'.

Well even though I seem to part of whatever power trip you are on I will play.

In the other thread I said the link you posted was of “JoNova's graph of some areas of the temperature record Jones was asked to comment on in an interview.”

This is that interview;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Phil Jones is asked to comment on the trend lines of three different time periods supplied by the interviewer which he did. In Jo Nova's graphic these suddenly become Phil Jones' Trend Lines. All of course designed to deflect from the obvious, the steadily hiking temperature. It is a smoke and mirrors graph and typical of the anti-AGW propagandists who will do just about anything to give their graphs some semblance of credibility, mostly it seems by ascribing them to the same people they so ferociously attack. Strange that!
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 13 March 2014 10:49:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Redux, the Mr Smith of the equally Matrix world of AGW; Jones interview is [in]famous. He says:

"So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."

As the graph shows.

But why would you believe anything someone such as Dr Jones says given his feature role in the email scandal:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/more-emails-phil-jones-paid-13-7-million-in-grants-but-not-a-public-servant/

He's the sort of guy I'd want on my team; not.

Anyway Mr Redux, like all alarmists you live in the past so you may be interested in what the papers, the main scientific source for AGW, had to say about it in the past; this was compiled by Chris Gilham:

http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html

You have to love Fairfax: colder in 54, hotter in 51, and don't ask about 23.

AGW is a fairytale with lots of leeches, fools, ogres, trolls and all the rest of the usual imaginary things; pity it costs so much.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 14 March 2014 7:35:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cohenite,

You say; “As the graph shows.”

Look at the bloody thing mate! The apex of each trend line is higher than the previous one which shows – wait for it... An overall significant warming trend!

Why do you clowns keep putting up a graph which is stark evidence of a climatically significant warming period as some crowning glory of anti-AGW?

It beggars belief.

What internal machinations must have to occur in your cauterised minds to enable you to ignore the bleeding obvious.

“It can't be an elephant because the big toe on each foot is not significantly different in size to the other!”

It is worse than childish. Snap out of it son.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 14 March 2014 8:30:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I really have to be getting back to the real world so I'll make this it; yes, true Mr Redux, each increase begins at a higher point than before meaning there has been an overall warming trend during the latter part of the 19thC and through the 20thC; but the rate of each warming trend is similar meaning it cannot be due to AGW, since each warming period is punctuated by slight cooling periods which would mean AGW cools as well as warms.

Anyway the idea that in the current period natural variation, which even the AGW loons concede was responsible for the early warming periods, is temporarily suppressing AGW warming in the current period, makes no sense and could only be generated with creative manipulation of a computer model which in fact is how it was produced.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 14 March 2014 8:49:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
of course, cohenite, you would be perfectly happy to receive repeated requests for your past scientific work, and for instructions on how to run the software involved, etc, etc, and you wouldn't be concerned that the time involved in doing this would take you away from your future scientific work. But Phil Jones isn't in the same situation as you, is he?

You give an interesting lot of web links. For example,

http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/Koch_fig1.gif

(you don't know what that represents but I take it you liked the shape),

and now,
http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html
a wealth of articles describing warming weather in times past, and its supposed causes (_not_ including CO2) together with the comment "Yet our grandparents cared so little for us they didn’t introduce a CO2 tax"

There's an abundance of websites where you can actually learn about the science of climate change - cohenite has yet to link to any of them. Interesting.
Posted by jeremy, Friday, 14 March 2014 10:12:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Germain point from jerry-mander/quote..<<>.There's an abundance of websites where you can actually learn about the science of climate change..<<

LOL

jeremy,has yet to link to any of them.
REVEALINGLY..Interesting.

allow me/knowing you cant read any.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/climate-experts-say-that-greenland-and-antarctica-are-both-cooling/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/canadian-government-warns-of-the-most-atlantic-ice-in-decades/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-age-of-imagination.html
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/09/florida-makes-off-grid-living-illegal-mandates-all-homes-must-be-connected-to-an-electricity-grid/
https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_wtc_implosion.html
http://www.naturalblaze.com/2014/03/have-hpv-vaccines-caused-global.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMzExNDMyWj
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/12/5500246/gonorrhea-is-about-to-become-impossible-to-treat
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-having-its-coldest-six-month-period-since-1912.html
Posted by one under god, Friday, 14 March 2014 10:47:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
abc's fact checK..site..has a funny c02 tax linkage
alcpa..is closing down a plant/tony riGHTFULY SAYS THATS WHAT THE TEX IS DESIGNED TO DO..[but was he correct in this ]..or wrong?

fact check reveals..that alcoa sold off 53 million
[in free govt carbon credits]..nice money if big poluters got it

its typical..ITS FACICule..the lie tax gave away our cash to huge poluters/because THEY WERE DYING ANYHOW..our money polonged the p[olution

ditto aLL THIS NEW energy wasted..building solar wind etc
the worlds got greedy..thats all it is really/they bought off the lobby with free industry/light bulbs..subsidies for rebuilding your busines on govt tick

like the latest is govt giving moneY PER KILLOWATT YOU SAVE BY DOWN-ZISING..YOUR MACHINES WITH BRANDNEW MACHINES.SUBSIDY..100 DOLLARS PER KILowaTt 'saved'..SALES/INDUSTRY/COMMerce/looting pilaging

SO MANY OF YOU SOLD OUT TOO CHEAPLY
The smartest enron energy greenies are behind thIS NEO BUSINES AS USUAL MODEL

BAH
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 15 March 2014 1:16:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite wrote;

“but the rate of each warming trend is similar meaning it cannot be due to AGW, since each warming period is punctuated by slight cooling periods which would mean AGW cools as well as warms.”

My goodness.

Or is this a poor attempt at satire?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 15 March 2014 1:56:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is called "clutching at straws".

It is once again evidence that cohenite understands little about numbers or how the climate works.

We have already established he can't subtract a negative number from a positive one to get the difference between the two.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 15 March 2014 4:46:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy