tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post5937170616424272694..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate changeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-44679427120686496072014-12-16T01:50:35.682-08:002014-12-16T01:50:35.682-08:00Interesting battle going on... One question. How c...Interesting battle going on... One question. How can CO2 molecule heat anything that is warmer than the CO2 molecule itself? If it can, greenhouse effect is true. If not, greenhouse effect is false. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-76436777759082828182014-10-14T10:19:45.094-07:002014-10-14T10:19:45.094-07:00U. Langer 14th October 2014 09:28
Dear Mr. Kruger,...U. Langer 14th October 2014 09:28<br />Dear Mr. Kruger,<br /><br />So you want to prove that "the current CO2 increase is due to anthropogenic in our atmosphere." <br />So just went through your points: <br />. 1) The delta 13C value is not an argument for your thesis, as Mr Limburg has shown <br />2) delta 14C value is also not an argument for your thesis, as Mr Wedekind has shown in # 6, what you have Mr. Kruger, in your answers but simply ignored. Here's a link for those who can not google: http://tinyurl.com/o94czup . <br />(PS: I guess Mr. Kruger that your statement about the trustworthiness of Prof. E. Takle well (unfortunately) is meant sarcastically. But someone who holds such lectures: http://tinyurl.com/njl3gdr , I would not single files as reputable scientists So you should rather not believe everything unchecked, so what is this Lord himself - as image acquired by you. C-14 problem - classic cherry picking)! <br />3) The O2 value drops parallel to rising CO2 levels. This is a correlation and not causality - so basically only suitable for the establishment, if any other cause can be ruled out for falling O2 values. But this is not the case. For natural CO2 emissions are bacteria (rotting organic material) an essential role. In this process, O2 is consumed at the same ratio as in the case of combustion. The annual variations of CO2 concentration show that this temperature-dependent natural process of determining process (and not the growing season, as you suppose). Thus, one can declining O2 content at least partially explained naturally. <br />4) That lags behind the increase of CO2 concentration in the southern hemisphere the northern hemisphere, you can of course also explain, as the majority of the land is located on the northern hemisphere and local natural CO2 emissions (s. section 3)) cause such a delay. <br />5) The allegedly remaining 55% of the anthropogenic CO2 amount is insufficient due cause your thesis. If you look closer namely, it is found that these 55% are only an average. The annual values vary between zero and 100%. <br />6) That is also expected to increase greenhouse gases other than analogy of course no real argument of their thesis. <br />One can only conclude from your whole argument that human-induced CO2 emissions certainly contribute to but CO2 increase does not indicate that this post (almost) makes up 100% of the increase, but this is an existential acceptance of the AGW hypothesis. <br />Their thesis is refuted.<br /><br />MfG<br /><br />Google translation of<br /><br />http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/co2-anstieg-anthropogen-oder-natuerlich/0012800/#comment-724636 MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19734628749907124302014-10-07T08:13:39.657-07:002014-10-07T08:13:39.657-07:00New paper finding temperature, drought, and fires ...New paper finding temperature, drought, and fires are the most important drivers of CO2 levels on inter-annual basis. <br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GB004890/abstractMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-9039181098723100672014-06-12T20:37:06.652-07:002014-06-12T20:37:06.652-07:001. see stomata data & Beck's work: http://...1. see stomata data & Beck's work: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-paper-finds-co2-levels-were-higher.html<br /><br />2. There are many things in the climate debate which should have been "paradigm-shifting", such as the "pause" in global temperatures, but haven't been due to the extremely well funded and entrenched climate aristocracy. <br /><br />3. CO2 is not the climate control knob and thus even if levels continue to increase it will have little effect on climate. <br /><br />4. CO2 follows temperature on short, intermediate, and long-term timescales. The cause does not follow the effect. <br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/single-graph-demonstrates-man-made-co2.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-6608780788413890242014-06-12T19:29:40.251-07:002014-06-12T19:29:40.251-07:00Some questions...
1. If Salby is right and the ic...Some questions...<br /><br />1. If Salby is right and the ice core record vastly underestimates the CO2 ppm levels prior to the Mauna Loa era, can we find out what the *real* CO2 ppm numbers were, say, during the Holocene Thermal Maximum? One would think that if we can determine that the ppm levels were severely underestimated---especially the ones from thousands of years ago---then it would make sense that we could actually determine what these numbers should be relative to today. <br /><br />2. If CO2 tracks temperature as closely as Salby indicates, and if temperatures go down (as they are expected to in the coming decades), can we also expect CO2 levels to go down too? If/when that happens, wouldn't *that* be the paradigm-shifting moment?<br /><br />3. How does Salby's conclusions about the relative imminence of CO2 tracking to temperature fluctuations correspond with the ice core's well-established 800-year lag?<br /><br />Kenneth Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00198431792165032103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-17694808462065867192014-05-24T09:44:54.419-07:002014-05-24T09:44:54.419-07:00Man made global warming is demonstrably false:
Ke...Man made global warming is demonstrably false:<br /><br />Key points:<br /><br />1. The Mediaeval Warm Period was hotter than today with much less CO2<br />2. It hasn't warmed for 17 years.<br />3. No mid tropospheric hotspot disproves the warmists' positive feedback hypothesis and proves the models wrong.<br />4. No sea level rise increase.<br />5. No sea temperature increase (ARGO buoy data).<br />6. Outgoing Longwave radiation increases with surface warming cooling the planet (ERBE satellite)<br />7. Low level cloud from water evaporation creates and albedo effect reflecting short wave radiation cooling the planet.<br />8. Arctic ice was at a lesser extent thousands of years ago with far less CO2.<br />9. Antarctic ice is at record levels.<br />10. CO2 lags 800 years behind temperature rise in the climate record showing temperature drives CO2 not the other way round. (Vostok ice cores)<br />11. GCMs (Global Circulation Models) are consistently producing results at least 3 times that of the observed temperatures, showing the models have their climate sensitivity parameter drastically wrong. In other words there are zero to negative feedbacks in the climate system, not positive as the models assume.<br /><br />BP and other fossil fuels do not fund skeptics. In fact they invest in renewables and emission schemes and merely pass the cost down to the taxpayer. They have a vested interest in the AGW scam, also they're largely owned by the bankers behind the scam.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-35980971762120747922014-05-24T09:41:45.260-07:002014-05-24T09:41:45.260-07:00Wrong, are you blind? CO2 lags behind temperature ...Wrong, are you blind? CO2 lags behind temperature by 800 years.<br /><br />Buy some glasses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-15222987829407773572014-05-03T16:11:02.776-07:002014-05-03T16:11:02.776-07:00As I read average ocean temperature increase from ...As I read average ocean temperature increase from the publications from Argo buoys, the avg ocean temp has increased only 0.09 C. over 55 years. What does henry's law say about the quantity of C)2 this would outgas from the thermal layer of the ocean.?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-63352501544139887282014-05-03T14:23:35.690-07:002014-05-03T14:23:35.690-07:00Harry, just an observer. The graph is for C02 rat...Harry, just an observer. The graph is for C02 rate. The additional C02 is the integral of the rate and thus lags in the short term as the theory suggests. The rest of the comments re. long term C02 accumulation seem to be reasonable ie. The increased ppm is mostly from man made. The question for another discussion is whether there is significant increase in greenhouse to account for rising temperature. Measurements say no.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-37438374512840435102014-02-03T15:04:54.967-08:002014-02-03T15:04:54.967-08:00The faulty statement that Venus is an example of t...The faulty statement that Venus is an example of the Greenhouse gas effect is shown by the fact that the planet has many active volcanoes, the surface temperature is above 500 degree C thus the IR radiated is at much shorter wavelengths than are absorbed by CO2. The radiated IR goes right through the 95% CO2 atmosphere and escapes into space or is absorbed by the sulfuric acid cloud surrounding the planet. <br />This cloud of sulfuric acid filters out most of the EMR from the Sun such that the intensity of light reaching the surface is about 10% of the light intensity on Earth. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898284891048795593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-81092408219088044162014-02-03T14:52:52.387-08:002014-02-03T14:52:52.387-08:00Where is there a credible experiment that proves t...Where is there a credible experiment that proves that the hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect exists?<br />Until someone comes up with such an experiment,everything else is either fantasy or circumstantial evidence.<br />Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples. <br /> <br /><br />There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph. D physicists . Ph. D. Chemical engineers and others Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site http:// www.slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12. . It is titled "The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist” replaced by the following web-site: http://principia-scientific.org/ This web-site is being up-dated regularly with pertinent articles about the real science of the atmosphere. <br /><br /> <br />The Greenhouse Effect ExploredWritten by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012 <br />Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?<br />Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.<br />Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.” The experiment shows that when there is more evaporation the atmosphere is colder.( This experiment proves that GHGE by the AGW is wrong) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898284891048795593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68058152292044692682013-12-02T07:45:01.458-08:002013-12-02T07:45:01.458-08:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/22/excerpts-fro...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/22/excerpts-from-salbys-slide-show/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-35579378540152473932013-09-26T10:43:45.985-07:002013-09-26T10:43:45.985-07:00Incorrect. Don't eyeball it, capture the graph...Incorrect. Don't eyeball it, capture the graph and do first and second derivatives numericallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50640519891989697382013-09-17T12:39:39.902-07:002013-09-17T12:39:39.902-07:00http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/17/schellnhuber-en...http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/17/schellnhuber-entire-complexity-of-climate-system-can-be-reduced-to-a-simple-linear-relationship/<br /><br />confirms Salby's graph above that the climate models are little more than linear assumptions of CO2 forcingMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-15416090477587501632013-09-04T10:54:33.258-07:002013-09-04T10:54:33.258-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/co2-calculat...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/co2-calculation-in-the-glovbal-carbon-cycle-may-be-off-due-to-a-depth-error/#comment-1405178<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/co2-calculation-in-the-glovbal-carbon-cycle-may-be-off-due-to-a-depth-error/#comment-1405743<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/co2-calculation-in-the-glovbal-carbon-cycle-may-be-off-due-to-a-depth-error/#comment-1406048<br /><br />and read further exchange that follows between Cogar & CourtneyMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-53314715493107386782013-09-03T18:04:55.443-07:002013-09-03T18:04:55.443-07:00http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8695/2013/acp-13...http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8695/2013/acp-13-8695-2013.pdf<br /><br />raw satellite data showing global land acts as net source of CO2MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-77478073528774320152013-08-29T22:36:05.987-07:002013-08-29T22:36:05.987-07:00http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/08/30/revell...http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/08/30/revellefaktorn-lika-viktig-klimatkansligheten/#.UiAnYtLkuE8MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-31795006329350238022013-08-29T22:36:02.452-07:002013-08-29T22:36:02.452-07:00http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/08/30/revell...http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/08/30/revellefaktorn-lika-viktig-klimatkansligheten/#.UiAnYtLkuE8MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-26325810770807107722013-08-26T11:49:54.559-07:002013-08-26T11:49:54.559-07:00http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/26/destruction-of-...http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/26/destruction-of-tropical-forests-making-massive-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2-increase/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-77983705759740361182013-08-14T10:33:23.627-07:002013-08-14T10:33:23.627-07:00satellite data agrees with Salby
Net CO2 sources ...satellite data agrees with Salby<br /><br />Net CO2 sources are from non-industrialized countries vs CO2 sinks in industrialized countries<br /><br />http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-36161712637036871212013-07-21T15:38:52.370-07:002013-07-21T15:38:52.370-07:00Thanks for your comment Stephen! I like an open an...Thanks for your comment Stephen! I like an open and honest discussion :)<br /><br />However, I don’t fully understand what you mean. I am not claiming that density is an independent variable. I am saying that temperature can be independent of the pressure if we can allow the density to change too. This can occur if the system under study can dissipate heat to the surrounding. So I do say that pressure and density is related here. This is what you are saying too with “The reduction in pressure with height is therefore inevitably accompanied by a reduction of density with height…”<br /><br />You can make an experiment to illustrate my point about the temperature. If you put a thermometer in a sealable plastic bottle (PET for instance) and allow it to thermally equilibrate with the surrounding the temperature inside the flask will be the same as the surrounding of course. Now, put a small piece of dry ice into the flask and seal it (use a very small piece if you do this for real since otherwise there is a risk of explosion). When the CO2 of the dry ice turns into gas the pressure and density will increase inside the flask. If you then, after all dry ice has sublimed, leave the flask to thermally equilibrate completely with the surrounding the temperature will still be the same inside the flask as in the surrounding but the pressure and density will now be larger inside the flask. So, the temperature does not depend on the pressure if the system can dissipate its energy to the surrounding. Planets can do this by emitting infrared radiation. If our planet would not be in thermal equilibrium by this kind of emission the temperature would increase until it reaches this equilibrium as I have explained in a previous comment on this site.<br /><br />My main point is that one should not compare the temperatures of venus and earth at equal pressures as Harry does. If you do, you are ignoring a lot of energy trapped as heat close to the surface of Venus. We know for a fact that the temperature at Venus surface is much higher than what can be explained by the distance to the sun when comparing to earth. <br /><br />As I see it, the only reason to do the comparison at equal pressures is that you then get a numerical correlation that seems too good to be a coincidence. However, coincidences do happen even in physical sciences and the correlation actually only exists for a limited set of data points. Furthermore, Harry has not been able to reproduce it for other planets or moons. So even if his observation is curious I would not make decisions influencing millions of people based on it.<br /><br />Best wishes<br />/Martin<br />Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375993223467646316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-29745773937492348642013-07-12T07:33:50.534-07:002013-07-12T07:33:50.534-07:00John Costella, the author of the Climategate email...John Costella, the author of the Climategate email analysis. Here is a link to the PDF:<br /><br />http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf<br /><br />We still don't know the identity of the leaker, and that's probably best for that individual.<br /><br />I was remiss in not mentioning Ross McKitrick, Steve's co-author, and Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, among many others.Vincent Nuneshttp://www.r8ny.com/blog/vincent_nunesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-24285930749859901492013-07-11T14:02:47.691-07:002013-07-11T14:02:47.691-07:00Costella?Costella?MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-53770629649542395002013-07-11T12:18:20.576-07:002013-07-11T12:18:20.576-07:00It's not up to those who don't believe tha...It's not up to those who don't believe that the "science is settled" to prove their argument; it is up to those who wish to impose an utterly unnecessary fee upon us all to explain exactly how AGW is a true threat to mankind as we know it.<br /><br />Is it even remotely possible that by 2100, there will be "no more humans" on the planet?<br /><br />The shenanigans of Mann, Jones, et.al., along with the research of McIntyre, Watts, Costella and now Salby, are serving to stick a fork in the idea of AGW.Vincent Nuneshttp://www.r8ny.com/blog/vincent_nunesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-64749153965376637632013-07-09T15:24:44.378-07:002013-07-09T15:24:44.378-07:00Pertinent comment at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat...Pertinent comment at WUWT:<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1359646<br /><br />Magic Turtle says:<br />July 9, 2013 at 3:13 pm<br /><br />When criticising Salby’s statements about CO2 Jan P Perlwitz (July 9, 2013 at 6:02 am) accuses Salby of ignoring the consequences of the mass-conservation law of basic physics. He writes:<br /><br />These “findings” could only be valid, if basic physical principles like mass conservation did not apply to carbon dioxide. Currently, about 32 Gt carbon dioxide are emitted by human activities every year. This would cause an increase in the atmospheric mixing ratio of carbon dioxide of about 4 ppm every year, if none of this carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere. However, the actual increase is about 2 ppm per year, currently. Since there are no substantial anthropogenic sinks of carbon dioxide, it follows from mass conservation and basic mathematical logic that Nature can’t be a net source in the carbon dioxide cycle of the planet under the present day conditions.<br /><br />and he concludes with the questions:<br /><br />Otherwise, if Nature was a net source for the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, where did all the human carbon dioxide go then? Does carbon dioxide mass from human activities just mysteriously vanish?<br /><br />No, Mr Perlwitz, it is not Murry Salby who is ignoring the mass-conservation law; it is you (and the multitude of your fellow warmists) who are ignoring Henry’s law that governs the dissolution of gases in liquids. This well-established law of physical chemistry determines a fixed partitioning ratio between the amount of CO2 gas that the earth’s oceans will absorb and the amount that will remain behind in the atmosphere at equilibrium.<br /><br />The value of the partitioning ratio varies inversely with the water-temperature, ie. the warmer the water, the less it will absorb. At the current global mean ocean temperature of under 15°C the partitioning ratio is greater than 50:1. In other words, over 98% of all CO2 released into the atmosphere from whatever sources will ultimately be dissolved permanently in the oceans and less than 2% will be left behind in the atmosphere as a permanent addition to the resident CO2 greenhouse. Hence, Henry’s law deems that less than 2% of the approx. 4ppmv of CO2 that Perlwitz says is emitted annually by global industrial civilization will stay permanently in the atmosphere and the rest will go permanently into the oceans. Now 2% of 4ppmv is just 0.08ppmv. I do not see how any claim of a looming man-made global warming crisis can be justified rationally with that trivial annual greenhouse-increment of human-sourced CO2.<br /><br />So to Perlwitz’s simple question ‘…if Nature was a net source for the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, where did all the human carbon dioxide go then?’, we can answer with a high degree of confidence that effectively at least 98% of it has gone into the oceans, leaving less than 2% behind in the atmosphere. It follows too that the remaining 1.92ppmv of atmospheric CO2 required to make up the total annual increase of 2ppmv (assuming that this estimate is correct) must have come from natural sources, Perlwitz’s views notwithstanding.<br /><br />The bottom line is that Henry’s law blows a massive hole in the alarmist AGW theory below the water-line. No wonder AGW-enthusiasts studiously avoid acknowledging it and are effectively in denial about it.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.com