In yesterday’s The Australian science writer Leigh Dayton claims that the northern hemisphere is hotter now than at any time in the past 1500 years. The article qualified her comment with this is “according” to the most comprehensive reconstruction of the earth’s temperature over the last two millenniums.
Dayton is referring to new research soon to be published by Michael Mann – the climate scientist credited with the now infamous 1998 “hockey stick” graph that shows a sharp uptick beginning around 1900 and that featured prominently in the 2001 IPCCs Third Assessment Report.
The graph was contested from the beginning because it did not show the medieval warm period and then
Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick were unable to replicate Manns’ results and Mann initially refused to provide them with all the input data. The saga is detailed in various publications** and a chapter in Aynsley Kellow’s book ‘Science and public policy: The virtuous corruption of virtual environmental science’
I wonder how his new research by Mann has dealt with the medieval warm period ? Indeed I wonder how, after all the controversy surrounding Mann’s earlier work, Dayton can so uncritically report something so at odd with what is know about the history of Europe over the last 2,000 years.
Update: The paper is available on line
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS, September 9, 2008, vol. 105, no 36.
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf
hat tip to Nexus 6 for the update/link.
——————
** The following text including citations is from Ross McKitrick’s website:
Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32(3), Feb 12 2005, copyright 2005 American Geophysical Union (doi: 2004GL012750). Further reproduction or electronic distribution is not permitted. This is a preprint of the GRL paper that shows Mann’s program mines for hockey sticks and overstates the statistical significance of the final result. There have been 4 technical comments submitted to GRL in response. We submitted replies to all 4, and they were sent out for refereeing. Two of the comments have been rejected by GRL. The two that were published were accompanied by our replies. These exchanges are discussed below.
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate index: Update and Implications Energy and Environment 16(1)69-100. AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT by kind permission of the publisher. This paper shows how Mann’s results can be reconciled to our results based on handling of the PC algorithm and a Gaspe cedar ring series. We also discuss the bristlecone pines in detail and show why they should not have been included in the original data set.
“Corrigendum” by Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Nature 430, July 1, 2004 p. 105. This arose from our Materials Complaint to Nature in the winter of 2004. The story is detailed on the page about our dealings with Nature (see below–link to Archive).
“Verification of multi-proxy paleoclimate studies: A case study”. Accepted abstract for presentation at American Geophysical Union Meetings in San Francisco, December 2004. Steve travelled to the AGU in December 2004 and presented our research–this was the abstract.
“Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series” Energy and Environment 14(6) 751-772.
This is the paper that started the whole ball rolling!
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Except that the number is 1300 years not 1500.
Another Mannian Muck-up.
Funny how the first 2 Ipcc reports clearly show a graph with a large hump for the MWP with much higher temps than today.
Then this mann dickhead uses code that you could feed scribblings off a duny door into and always come up with a hockey stick.
What will be the result this time I wonder, surely even this enormous peabrain won’t try it on again?
Ross and Steve will be ready to pounce and kick the crap out of him once more I’m sure.
Well, we all know how Michael Mann gets his data, don’t we…….
http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/Mann_explains_treemometer.jpg
Instead of whining about the paper, why not just read it?
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf
Mann and colleagues have addressed the concerns of the National Academy of Sciences panel and have provided reconstructions with and without tree rings.
Supporting data is online.
An interesting and informative piece of work.
Your statement about Europe is also quite bizarre, as the paper concerns the Northern Hemisphere primarily, which, as far as I know, has more bits than Europe.
It’s extraordinary the lengths the Ministry of Truth will go to ‘get rid of the Medieaval Warm Period’, just like there must right now be a sunspot in August after the fact. We must condemn the tendency of ‘spreading doubt about global warming’. Mao, Joseph and Adolph would be proud.
Nexus; are you nuts? There is no correlation between the proxies and the instrument record during the 20thC; either the proxies are wrong or the instrument record is; since the instrument is HadCrut, I say both are rubbish.
Nexus6, thanks for the link … acknowledged in the update, see post. cheers,
Let them keep their hockey stick.
When the temperatures plummet in years to come, they’d otherwise be able to say that natural forces and cycles are masking the effects of AGW.
But their hockey stick shows that temperatures remained stable over the past 2000 years, unpeterbed by the same natural forces and cycles which are powerful enough to mask AGW.
Hoist by their own petard, I’d say
If you take 1,200 data series and then assign weights to them ranging from +100 to -100, you can get any graph you want. And that is what Mann’s method(s) are.
This is not an historical climate reconstruction, it is a mathematical exercise designed to derive a desired/any-old/random chart.
Or let’s say a desired/random chart with a temperature chart from 1850 (which goes up by 0.7C) appended to it (aka Crooked Hockey Stick this time).
Nexus 6:
Read the paper…and
I like it!
A message from the sleepy one; “if these flat Earthers just listened to Radio National a tiny bit, they would know what is going on.
Apparently Phillip Adams was into another topic yesterday, how dependent we are on specialized grain crops that can’t adapt to climate change.
Jen why don’t you or one of your local “sceptics” publish a reconstruction which shows the Medieval warm period? Are you above the scientific process?
Craig Leohe did:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
But the news media is not interested in covering stories that cast doubt on AGW catastrophism.
Go here for MWP data David:
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Far too much to publish here. I take it you are a MWP denier, then?
Cripes, an E&E “paper” which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious?
sure if you replace the PC1 hockeystick data by the luterbacher hockeystick data the result is still a hockeystick.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/errenvsluterbacher.htm
An E&E “paper” which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious?
“Cripes, an E&E “paper” which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious?”
Compared to the errors that appeared in MBH 98 they were trifles that were promptly corrected rather than passed over in silence or complicity by colleagues. The Hockey Stick affair from the orginal paper to Amman and Wahl 2006/7/8? has been a parody without an original and should shame the likes of you and friends if blood ran in your faces. Alas, it appears it does not.
BTW, the forensic examination of Mann et al 2008 is on point and cutting through past wounds that have only barely healed.
Addition: the forensic examination of Mann et al 2008 at Climate Audit…
CO2 science has all the studies for the MWP compared to the current warm period from all over the world.
The MWP was warmer than the the CWP nearly everywhere even in the SH.
All the studies are named, publications given and an exhaustive list of all the scientists is shown. Who would sensible people believe these reputable scientific teams or a hockey stick fraudster and fanatic?
“All the studies are named, publications given and an exhaustive list of all the scientists is shown. Why would sensible people believe these reputable scientific teams or a hockey stick fraudster and fanatic?”
Exactly. The body of good hard stiliterature on the MWP is enormous ll and growing monthly – especially for the SH.
I posted a list all the new SH references about a month back – but of course that won’t count to the AGW gold fish here – Jennifer probably didn’t copy the list either (to paraphrase the peripatetic Luke ‘sigh’;-) – but after all, isn’t the name of the game here really ‘la famille des agents provocateuse’?
proteus says:
“An E&E “paper” which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious?”
The errors were relatively minor and were corrected in the 2008 update.
As for the choice of jounrnal – if you beleive that jounrnal editors reject sceptical papers because of the “science” then I have a bridge to sell you. It is all about politics at this time.
In fact, it is looking like the “errors” in the Loehe paper are looking pretty inconsequential compare to this recent Mann paper where he appears to be making up data:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3526#comment-294240
Even if this criticism does not end up being correct, I suspect that Mann’s paper will be more flawed than Leohe’s despite the fact that it appeared in a “better” journal.
Whether you like it or not, this Mann et al “paper” is solid and inclusive. What bothers me at this point is the page date, Sept 9 2008. Are we reading an advance copy?
Regarding the so called hockey stick of old; if we set the bar for the past 1800 years in this new lot at -.2 then we can see a definite 1 C rise over the last few decades. Simple hey
Regarding my quick read above, Mrs cohenite et al would have to know that I first practiced speed reading all texts in the high school library and later on I set a target for the Saturday edition of the Melbourne Age cover to cover in under 20 min then hit the road in pursuit of something exciting with in on a regular basis.
When intercepting the Trading Post (Thursday pm) I normally carried a pocket full of 20c pieces and read that thing on the run with one hand on the wheel.
Interpreting scientific literature and technical manuals etc for industry and government I soon learned not to mull over the words or the math and could flip backwards and forwards with the most of the info at a glance. Graphical presentation and flow diagrams were the easy bit in such a visual analysis.
IMO this Mann et al paper is the best yet.
“What bothers me at this point is the page date, Sept 9 2008. Are we reading an advance copy?”
It’s published online at PNAS. It’ll be in the hard copy on the 9th.
Steve McIntyre is starting to do a little kicking already.
He has an interesting moving graphic showing all the sites comparing the MWP / CWP.
I think this will be a lot easier to pull apart than the ridiculous hockey stick nonsense.
Gee David,
I give you a link that will take you a long time to read and digest and you come back in 28 minutes.
I’ll add you to the list of posters I don’t bother to read anymore. Luke, SJT, Gavin etc.
Eyrie; that is a good site; the interactive map is excellent; however there are no sites in Australia; a phd in the offering for someone;
http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html
Hans says; “if you replace the PC1 hockeystick data by the luterbacher hockeystick data the result is still a hockeystick.” Just not an exceptional one.
The best expose of Mann and his cronies Ammann and Wahl and the fallacy and deceit behind the hockeystick is McIntyre’s Ohio State Uni address;
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
The hockeystick is the emblem of AGW; after the disgrace of A&W there was bound to be further attempts to recrudesce this thing; symbolic I suppose that the original witch-doctor should be the one.
A final point; Fig 6.10 of AR4; the IPCC is a strange beast; its right hand doesn’t know what its left hand is doing; and shame on the msm, once again, for not realising what a pup they are being sold;
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.png
Michael Mann is a known science fraud. Hence he ought to be considered to be lying until such time as he’s proven to have gotten something right by accident.
No doubt he is ignoring the evidence and simply assuming the computers have it right at some stage of his fraudulent “analysis”.
No Gavin you are just lying again. But what the hell are you talking about “solid and inclusive” for. Does he have evidence for his idiotic hypothesis or not? He’s a known science fraud. Hence he ought to be considered to be lying unless he proves his case. Simple as that. Fooled once you are an idiot. Fooled twice by the same guy you ought to be euthanised.
God Gavin, you speed read the thing and think its the best reconstruction yet?
You are a sheep. Baah!
Graeme; I don’t think gavin should be euthanised because no doubt Mann has a 3rd attempt in him; let’s wait and see if gavin can be fooled a 3rd time.
Gavin, Nexus if you seriously think it great, you need to remove your blinkers and do some thinking foryourselves. Bernard linked to this yday and on his link ALL the comments were critical, the flaws are obvious and Mann has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. It beggars belief that people doubt the MWP, yet believe in models and AGW. truly the world is going mad.
The worst thing is its getting to the point where it takes really brave people to speak out.
David, you backed out of the debate very quickly the other day…can you at least tell me where we have seen a 30cm sea rise “Now you might think 0.5 to 0.8C isn’t much, but it has led to 30cm of sea level rise,”. Seems to me that you believiing this sea level rise makes your opinion worth little……You obviously had no argument for the other points..fair enough you backed yourself into corner where you could really only agree with me. BUT where do you pluck your facts?
Eyrie: I could have easily said the same about all your posts and one or two others here but I still find an odd one interesting in that I also consider myself somewhat expert in drawing flak around big issues. Trouble shooting technology is not a game however so it’s good to isolate problems in reviews early.
Toby: I have always said the MWP / LIA thing in the greater scheme of things
was just B/S from the start but don’t you worry about that.
AGW is bigger than most of us on here.
Now in the normal scheme of things, if you disagree with the findings of a paper you should publish a response. I expect Steve McIntyre has started on his already, as is necessary if he has found errors. To say that any paper has been discredited by posting on a blog is… dumb.
Personally I don’t know if the MWP was global or just North Atlantic.
The most amusing thing is the claims of fraud and conspiracy. Keep em coming they are most entertaining!
Jennifer, don’t shut this blog down! What will I do fpr entertainment??
NT – “To say that any paper has been discredited by posting on a blog is… dumb.”
And yet RC, Deltoid, and Open Mind do it so regularly………
New game, find the hockey stick:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3547
I’m seeing hockey sticks perhaps 1 in 20. But then again I don’t have the assistance of invented statistical tools…
Joel, yes they do. And it’s dumb. The key way to determine the success of a paper is whether or not it gets used. How often was Mann et al 98 used compared to Loehle? Often scientists don’t have the time to write detailed rebuttals or corrections (often because it’s obviously wrong or there are too many corrections needed), so the best measure is usage. It’s Natural Selection for papers.
Joel, your second post is in the same vein. Would you know what you’re looking for? Why don’t you write a rebuttal and see how far you get.
Gavin, if the mwp and lia are rubbish, what does it say about AGW…at least they are based on facts that we know to have occurred. It truly is bewildering to hear you say they are b/s. Says much for your state of mind me thinks. You constantly post links to extremist rubbish that are clearly scaremongering….and you expect us to take you seriously. Stick to your cryptic comments, at least we can read into those we want.
Nexus and Gavin,
do you both happen to be illegals??
I ask because most cherry pickers here in the US are.
NT, Your natural selection analogy is BS. If something is cited dozens of times (as anything from the IPCC is), and turns out to be flawed, IT IS! Regardless of how many times it was cited.
This pretty much sums up the climate communities thoughts towards Mann et al 98 today:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3260
NT – “Joel, your second post is in the same vein. Would you know what you’re looking for?”
Well, I think its fair to say we all know what Mann is looking for. And his handle on statistics has never been his biggest strength.
No, I’m not going to write a rebuttal (as you always ask). Are you going to go live in a cave without electricity? Or euthanise yourself? Spare us the typical responses.
Why did Loehle not publish his work in a peer reviewed science journal?
As for Mann et al, if the work is full of errors why hasn’t a “sceptic” produced a corrected analysis?
David said “Cripes, an E&E “paper” which appeared with errors is the best you can do. Are you two serious”?
do you mean errors found by the mathematician Gavin Schmidt and the rest of his RC climate science wannabees?
Loelle’s paper re-established the MWP and the LIA without using tree rings and any errors in the paper were corrected and still show those periods. Why don’t you guys get off this rhetorical nonsense of finding minor errors and amplifying them to discredit a paper? You jumped all over meaningless errors in the satellite data that disproved your AGW theory.
Joel, Climate Audit isn’t the “climate community”
And of course you wouldn’t publish because you have no idea what you’re talking about 🙂
And neither does anyone else on this blog, it’s all cheerleading. That’s why we’re here right? That’s why we’re not actually doing research, yes?
David
Mann’s latest paper is being audited right now on the climate audit site.
And peer reviewed actually means a paper is politically acceptable. It used to be called refereeing before the politically correct mob took over the universities and turned into group think and censoring of inconvenient research.
So maybe Loehle’s paper was politically incorrect and thus refused publication in a peer reviewed science journal.
NT, you obviously didn’t read the link:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3260
The criticisms come from Briffa and Cook about the use of any tree-ring data.
David, this answers your question too. The tree-rings are too fraught with erroneous signals to bother doing a re-analysis of Mann’s work.
NT – “And of course you wouldn’t publish because you have no idea what you’re talking about :)”
This is your argument? Real productive. Since we don’t all have PHD’s in climate science we should all just stay dumb and blindly follow orders.
Do you and Gavin both live in NZ? I can’t here anything but “baah!”
Joel, just want honesty… You don’t know what you’re talking about do you? Otherwise you’d use your powers for good and publish what is wrong with the paper.
I’m not suggesting that we just follow like sheep, just be honest about our capabilities.
And what orders do you blindly follow? Or what orders are you expected to blindly follow?
We live in a Democracy, you don’t like the rules change the Government.
Just some first thoughts on reading Mann et al in PNAS 9 Sept 08.
1. There are it seems (but see below) no regression analyses of the various proxies depicted in say SI Fig 4 (or Fig 2 of main paper) against the instrumental records.
2. That set of Figs leaves out 1900-1950. Were there no proxies or instrumental temperatures then, or were the alignments even more obviously not close?
3. The so-called (by Mann et al in their SI)”data sets” are nothing of the kind, they do not show the raw data, only (in Sets #2-#4) the RE, CE and R2 of the absent data for e.g. the “Calib(1896-1995)/valid(1850-1895)–early-miss”. Those are not data, just calculations from data. Typical MannStats! The average R2s of all the individual series in each page in sets #2-#4 never reach 0.5; for the series cited, it is 0.3, for the “late miss” of that series it is even lower, 0.13. No wonder the main text never mentions R2. In short, Mann’s “data” show no “skill” against the instrumental record. Any measurement proxy that scores an R2 of less than 0.9 against a known overlapping instrumental record is an anti-proxy. But really the PNAS and its latest authors are hoaxers straight out of the Goon Show: in the “no tree rings” set of proxies for NH in “data set” #2 against CRU temps, the best R2 is for the proxies in the century of Jesus Christ, at 0.49, while those proxies’ R2 falls to 0.05 for the 19th century. Straight out of the Life of Brian, one would have to say. More seriously, it is clear the ediors of the NAS do not know what is data and what not, certainly Mann et have provided no data despite claiming to have done so. It is true that SD#1 has some information about the proxies (lat. long, alt. etc) but again no data from them other than years covered. The ‘pearls’ in Monty Python’s #SD1 (Mann really deserves an Oscar for his impersonation)include that of some 1200 proxies, only 17 begin before 1000 (one way of dealing with the MWP), and of these only 3 “pass screening over 1850 to 1995 (r)”. Yet those 3 are enough, we have to believe, to provide a continuous temperature series “over two millennia”, even though of the 3, one begins in 925, one in 1044, and one in 392. So we have even have a new definition of “two millennia”, i.e. 1600 years. But then if like NT one believes in fairies, this is all kosher science.
Louis: “So maybe Loehle’s paper was politically incorrect and thus refused publication in a peer reviewed science journal.”
Loehle’s paper was rather tightly reviewed and heavily criticised by some on CA he then made the necessary corrections and published an updated version. With any luck it’s a future pathway of science.
“With any luck it’s a future pathway of science.”
Perhaps I should have said of scientific discourse.
NT, your biggest gripe is that I posted raw proxy data for anyone to see and are afraid “us amateurs” may get the wrong idea because we don’t know what to look for.
I’ll agree that you can’t draw conclusions as to how well the proxies were calibrated or their statistical significance purely from visual inspection.
But we do know Mann has a knack for mining hockey sticks from datasets that seemingly have no clear pattern by coming up with untested statistical methods. This is clear to anyone who views the Mann et al 98 data. So this is a good place to start with the new paper.
NT just wants honesty; I’ll suppress my gag reflex at the underlying cant in that, although I make no aspersion against NT; he may genuinely believe what he is saying, but it is disingenuous none-the-less. AGW has been promulgated on the back of the ‘consensus’; Oreskes got the ball rolling but the issue has featured exclusivity and oppression from day one in 1988 when Hansen first starting making his reprehensible doomsday predictions and castigating the disbelievers; today he wants them jailed; here is a rebuttal of Oreskes and the consensus;
http://mclean.ch/climate/What_consensus_col.pdf
John McLean is a good case in point of NT’s refined consensus whereby anything that hasn’t been published in an acceptable journal has no worth; like McIntyre and lucia and Watts and Briggs, McLean has done enough to obtain any number of Masters’ and PhD’s. But can he get published? Miscolczi couldn’t get his seminal article published at NASA and had to leave, and as McLean notes the IPCC is a closed book;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf
So to with the traditional media; who can forget the BBC scandal involving green groups dictating what should be printed; as with Fairfax and the ABC; and who can forget Hamilton’s hissy fit at online when they had the temerity to publish something critical of AGW;
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=1
From personal experience it is impossible to get a letter published which is critical of the orthodoxy. To a large extent AGW has been promoted in the msm; the msm has elevated this issue from the test-tube to the common denominator but it has largely been a one-sided presentation; which is why blogs such as this and Bolt’s are so important; they allow the issue to be canvassed at a popular level, with enough scientific content, where otherwise it could not be done. It is specious and hypocritical to say to contributors that they should run off and publish academically when that is a closed book, and when this is an issue that has political, social and economic consequences. IMO these sorts of comments are merely manifestations of the censorious and patronising context that AGW supporters have relied on. Anyway, who in their right mind could claim that comments on this blog are not peer-reviewed; the opposition is such that any nonsense is quickly jumped on; as is any rubbish critique. NT, your comments fall into the 2nd category.
Cohenite! I am crying in my milk too… Waaa waaa waaa.
What a big sook!
“From personal experience it is impossible to get a letter published which is critical of the orthodoxy. ”
what you wrote some letters to the editor?
Come on, all this nonsense about not being able to be published because you oppose the mainstream is just… Comdey. Ohhh all you poor little Galileo’s.
It’s hilarious. I love this blog and I hope it doesn’t end.
“IMO these sorts of comments are merely manifestations of the censorious and patronising context that AGW supporters have relied on.”
Ha! Who’s trying to censor you? This is more conspiracy madness. Suddenly I am an AGW supporter, censoring the content of this blog. HA HA HA. Mental.
And you read Bolt? cool. He’s really on the ball that man. Know’s his stuff. Really investigates and gets to the heart of an issue. He’s a genius.
I am not trying to stop anyone from reading anything Joel. It’s published work how could I prevent it.
If any thread rattled the club it’s this one. Joel still somewhat unknown is a bit of a worry. Cohenite has Mrs C to fall back on, and in the end Toby can be wised up by his former students. About that I’m certain Toby as I have great faith in youngsters coming through.
NT: “It’s hilarious. I love this blog and I hope it doesn’t end”.
Sometimes it’s sad too considering stuff above. BTW I can enjoy time off too. Today pollies otherwise busy in the Capital copped a comment or three.
Getting a “hearing” where it counts takes practice though and I ‘m convinced much of the above won’t pass for genuinely interesting advice.
Jan,
I also see Loehle is a regular commentator on CA. Maybe this is indeed the way to go in publishing papers – though the real problem is how science got into this hash in the first place.
Philip Stott just had a blast at the very idea of applying the physics of a horticulatural greenhouse to the atmosphere – but he hasn’t desribed the history of this idea – Sagan’s misuse of it in countering Velikovsky’s deduction from historical evidence that Venus was hot because it was young. Sagan ended up carrying the day with this bulldust theory together with the help of the scientific mafia.
Gavin, “rattled the club”? Mann’s stuff is sceptic gold.
I think what you sense is anticipation of another “audit”, Macca style.
so David your evidence for 30cm sea rise from a change in temp of 0.3c is what? come on? i bet you cant find a scientist who supports you? 3 days youve had now to support your statement.
“Mann’s latest paper is being audited right now on the climate audit site.”
It won’t pass muster unless they are going soft over there. Once a Beagle-Boy, always a Beagle-Boy.
I never ask these guys for proof. Only for evidence. But in the case of known science frauds like Mann one ought simply assume he is lying until such time as he proves that he isn’t.
NT; it wasn’t about you; such an ego; are you sure you’re not luke? I thought the McLean piece about the incestuous relationships at IPCC was revealing, but in ignoring that I think you’ve gone beyond cherry-picking; another fruit is required; perhaps kumquat; yes, NT has been kumquat-picking.
For the record – on publication, try
J.M. Chambers and A.M. Herzberg (1968). A note on the game of refereeing. Applied Statistics pp 260-63.
Cohenite
Yes, I am Luke…
Are you my father?
Noooo it’s improbable!
NT,
No, quite on the cards – your presence and his absence here, clinches it.
There you are, you caught me.
Bet you someone posts as Luke and claims that I am an impostor. Just remember I am the one true Luke and he is the Anti-Luke.
Is true
Cohenite put your wife on if you’re now a McLean devotee.
Hey Cohenite… Some info about Venus from the Venus Explorer:
http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin135/bul135a_svedhem.pdf
Don’t think they like your theory.
“The greenhouse effect is strongly
dominated by the vast amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. The enhancement
due to carbon dioxide only, on the
surface temperature, has been estimated
to about 420K. However the water
vapour, even if at a low abundance,
enhances the surface temperature by
70K and the cloud cover as much as
140K if the albedo effect is not
accounted for.”
Cut snakes everywhere.
He who would be luke; what’s the atmospheric pressure on Venus, and is the atmospheric lapse rate consistent with that pressure, or consistent with IPC forcing figures for CO2 as applied to Venus?
I like your sense of humour NT
Another month, another month of no warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/august-rss-global-temperature-holding-steady-still-cooler-than-1-year-ago/
Yawn!
Tim Curtin.
Andrew Glikson has responded to you here
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/03/a-warning-from-the-ghost-of-climate-past/#comment-861
but your banning makes for difficult public discourse now, unfortunately.
However, I note that the Pittock reference that Andrew links to:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/4992.htm
is due to be updated next year. I suggest that you, Barry Moore, cohenite, Hissink, and the others who have composed refutations of the conventional scientific wisdom, organise your work into a series of coherent rebuttals and submit them to Pittock for consideration. You can duplicate them here, and if you believe that you have been unjustly ignored than you will have the recourse of proof.
In all seriousness, if you disagree with the science you need to put your cases to ‘them’, and now is the perfect time to put your money on the table.
Refute Pittock, and challenge him to deconstruct you in turn.
Come on, your hour is at hand! Surely you can’t let a second edition of his apparent travesty be published?!
Bernard; I followed the Tim Curtin/Prof Brooks debate; and I think Curtin was banned because he got the better of Brooks; I fail to see your point that commentators from this blog should post eleswhere for credibility; Glikson’s nonsense was posted here in another thread and he didn’t turm up to defend it; so why should anyone here go cap in hand to someone like Brooks, or Lambert, who have proven track records of intolerance?
Your other ‘issue’, which is also pushed by those entertaining henchmen and ratbags, NT ‘and’ luke, is that phony science is on display here; again, I deny that and point to the recent critiques of Glikson and of Mann’s efforts. Again, feel free to invite Glikson and Mann, or any of your mates from Deltoid over here to defend the indefensible. Or feel free to take over this summary as to why AGW doesn’t work and give it to the possums to hiss at; it’s all based on verifiable science:
1. CO2 absorbs IR in defined bands; under high pressure and temp these bands may broaden or smear but the absorbed IR energy remains the same.
2. The CO2 relevant bands exhaust close to the surface; 10’s or 100’s of meters; these extinction coefficients are based on Stefan-Bolzman and Wien frequency distribution.
3. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 required to mop up the relevant IR bands is about 100ppm; again this is all referable to SB and Wien; the other 280ppm of CO2 are, therefore, surplus to needs.
AGW tries to get around these scientific impediments in 3 rebuttable ways;
1. The difference between the rate of excitation and deexcitation of the CO2 molecule. If deexcitation is quicker than excitation then saturation will not occur. This is negated by the fact that an excited CO2 molecule will collisionally transfer its kinetic energy to either an N2 or O2 molecule. This transfer forces the two components to subsequently approach equilibrium with the same rate. This means the increasing CO2 is not only constrained by the amount of band relevant upward IR, but also the equilibrating collisional receptivity of N2 and O2.
2. AGW relies on the Weart semi-infinite opaque layer atmospheric model. This is predicated on a CO2 caused thermal balance between the surface and the immediate atmospheric layer. As mentioned, the CO2 photosphere is measured in tens and hundreds of metres. If this layer is thermalised it will then act as a second surface emitting to the layer above it so in this fashion, layer by layer, the CO2 photosphere is vertically extended, carrying the heating with it, in a Tyndall-like damming process. This is wrong for the following;
a. CO2 isotropic reemission means there is always a logarithmic decline of IR available to the next level.
b. Convective adiabatic exchange, as described in the Chilingar paper swamps this radiative heating process.
c. There is no tropospheric hotspot or AGW consistent ‘fingerprint’.
3 Do we really have to go through the nonsense of the enhanced greenhouse and the fallacy of +ve feedback from water again?
So there you have it Bernard; throw that to the weasels with my best wishes.
Bernard J: thanks, you are too kind!
Yes it is amazing that Brook cannot tolerate disagreement however well documented.
Here is the message Glikson posted at Brook’s, with my censored responses in CAPS.
“Tim Curtin,
I am in receipt of your message of 4-9-08.
1. I prefer to have discussions on the pages of bravenewclimate. I AM A PROHIBITED PERSON AT BROOK’S.
2. You write “But then if one believes in fairies, like Australia’s Brook and Glikson, this is all kosher.” DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE HOCKEY STICK? IF YES, MY COMMENT IS JUSTIFIED. IF NOT, I WILL WITHDRAW MY INSINUATION.
3. In this regard, I draw your attention it is a basic scientific procedure to focus on the technical issues, rather than reflect on the authors. BUT A BLOG IS HARDLY A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, BROOK’S IS CONSTANTLY SNIPING AT PEOPLE LIKE DAVID EVANS (“BORN AGAIN ALARMIST”) AND IAN “SPOT THE RECYCLED DENIAL” PLIMER The latter approach does not add anything weight on one’s arguments. AGREED, SO WHY DOES BARRY BROOK DO SO MUCH OF IT?
4. This is apart from the fact that the science points I make are in essential agreement with the results of research by major scientific organizations (CSIRO, BOM, Hadley, NASA, Potsdam) and thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals. THAT IS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. DAVID STOCKWELL HAS DOCUMENTED BAD DATA HANDLING BY CSIRO AS RECENTLY AS IN THEIR LAST (JULY) REPORT; HADLEY & NASA’S GISS ARE NOTORIOUS FOR REWRITING TEMPERATURE DATA TO FIT THEIR MODELS.Therefore your argument is not so much with me (or with Barry Brook) but with mainstream climate science. YOU PUT YOUR HEAD ABOVE THE PARAPET AT JEN’S AND BARRY’S, EXPECT THE ODD SHOT, AND YOU CAN ALWAYS REPLY, UNLIKE ME , BANNED BY BARRY. DID BARRY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR PIECE FIRST APPEARED AT JEN’S?
5. In so far as you have an issue with mainstream climate science, the correct way of presenting your observations and arguments is through the peer review system. I therefore encourage you to develope and formulate your ideas with this purpose in mind. HOW POMPOUS CAN YOU GET? BARRY’S MATE IS TRYING TO STOP MY PAPERS BEING PUBLISHED, AND WHAT CHANCE DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE ON ANY JOURNAL EDITED BY BARRY OR HIS CRONIES?
6. To this effect I recommend you consult Dr Barrie Pittock’s (probably Australia’s most experienced and authoritative climate scientist”) report and first chapter of the new book “Turning Up The Heat” – which you can now download from the internet. PATRONISING – AND POMPOUS AGAIN. DO YOU REALLY THINK I HAVE NEVER READ ANY OF THE IPCC AND RELATED TEXTS? PITTOCK’S COMPENDIUM IS ACTUALLY SECOND RATE, AND ALMOST WHOLLY DEVOID OF ANY USEFUL DATA. IT CERTAINLY ADDS NOTHING TO THE SCIENCE – IN FACT IT SUBTRACTS BY FAILING TO REPORT IN DETAIL BIOSPHERIC UPTAKES OF CO2 EMISSIONS, AND ITS PROJECTIONS ARE ALREADY LOOKING IMPROBABLE.
PS: PITTOCK’S RECYCLING OF IPCC WAS PUBLISHED BY THE AGO, NOW THE DEPT OF CLIMATE CHANGE, PROP: PENNY WONG. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF THAT BROOK & GLIKSON & BERNARD IMAGINE PENNY WOULD ALLOW ANY CONTRARY VIEWS TO APPEAR IN HER DCC’S CATECHISM. THEY WOULD BE HORRIFIED IF SHE DID! AS FOR BROOK’S COMMENTS ON GARNAUT AT HIS BLOG, HE IS MERELY SIGNALLING HIS AVAILABILITY TO WORK FOR GARNAUT MARKS V TO INFINITY, AND WONG’S DITTO.
Comment from Tim Curtin
Time September 6, 2008 at 11:09 pm you say >>PITTOCK’S COMPENDIUM IS ACTUALLY SECOND RATE, AND ALMOST WHOLLY DEVOID OF ANY USEFUL DATA. << I think that a more accurate description was that it was dated when published, and written for an non-scientific or scientific-limited audience.
John Pittman: fair comment, but also interetsing to note that Pittock was published by the Howard regime, whereas there is no way Rudd-Wong would allow a hint of scpticism to creep in, as Garnaut has just proved in spades. BTW, when will Rudd send Garnaut + Schwarzenegger to the sun manfully to reverse the sunspot cycle that is what actually determines the weather here and in CA? That is just as fanciful as the idea that Garnaut’s carbon tax will make any difference at all to our climate, fixed as it is by the ENSO, in turn determined by the sunspot cycle.
The problem with AGW theory is that it wasn’t the result of observation but as an imaginative construct for which evidence was sought.
It’s a belief system and once its adherents agree that it’s right, getting them to change their minds on the basis of empirical fact is nigh well impossible.
However the WA election result from yesterday may take some wind out of the jollyboat ALP sails.
Here is the unscientist Bernhard, lying up a storm elsewhere. Doesn’t matter whether he’s at Coby’s, the beloved Professor Brooks’ place or here….. the hatred of evidence or reasoned argument is always evident.
Somebody sez:
“CO2 release is good for people, the very reason for our existence and enhances the biosphere/environment.”
THE UNSCIENTIST BERNHARD SEZ:
“There is much expert evidence why this is not true.”
But in fact Bernhard is lying. There is no such evidence. And yet the unscientist then attempts to throw it back on the person making a perfectly valid claim.
Now we are on to your act Bernhard. The fact is you are not a scientist and you never could be.
Graeme
I am a member of the climate sceptics group and recently the debate was over the “measured” 300W/m^2 downwelling IR from pointing IR measuring instruments to the sky. A Philopona (??? spelling) paper was cited by Luke as evidence of this.
Now 300W/m^2 is easily detected as a feeling of warmth and a standard IR electric heater will generate this amount of energy density.
So stand in front of one of those IR heaters, get warm and toasty and then interpose a slab of styrofoam between your face and the heater. Your face will cool.
Same with the sun on a bright day.
Now according to AGW theory CO2 emits IR and its about 300W/m^2 as downwelling IR from the sky. At night time one should be able to feel this quantum of radiative energy.
So here is a test, stand underneath a sheet of styrofoam during the night and see if you notice it getting cooler. If the IR radiation is truly there you must experience coolness when in the shade.
That you don’t polints to the fact there is no downwelling IR.
Interestingly the Swedes invented a neat IR sensor, and while it can pick up IR emitted from solids and liquids, it can’t from a gas.
(Incidentally Bernard J. and Barry Brook are biologists).
Louis; yes luke, or whatever he is calling himself these days, put great store in Philipona’s study because it would prove the semi-infinite atmospheric model of AGW was up and running; but it was always a flawed study, at the very least because it only covered the period from 1995-2002; the statistical analysis was also flawed, and the assumption that insolation was decreasing during the period was incorrect; apart from those problems, and the issue noted by Barry Moore and Graeme that radiation frequency overlap makes it difficult to distinguish between water vapour and CO2 as the source of the DLW, the paper seems alright!
One really strange thing in Mann’s Northern Hemisphere chart is the temperature record from 1850 appended to the end of it.
That record increases by 1.3C when the HadCrut3 NH temps have increased by only 0.8C.
Of course, this distorts the shape of the graph and makes the year 2000, for example, look much higher than the MWP .
Putting the proper data in, current temps are about the same as MWP in Mann’s chart.
Its a hockey stick with a three foot blade on it now.
Graeme Bird.
If you had the barest clue about the ecological and photosynthetic literature of CO2 you would know that I am NOT lying.
I said that “There is much expert evidence why this is not true.”
in response to the original claim that
“CO2 release is good for people, the very reason for our existence and enhances the biosphere/environment.”
My comment focused in particular on the fact that increased CO2 is NOT always good for ecological processes, but by extension this means also that it will not always be good for people either.
Anyway, you said
“But in fact Bernhard is lying. There is no such evidence.”
Well, Graeme, it is you who is in error, either through complete ignorance of the literature, or by deliberately prevaricating with the truth.
Whist it is well recognised that increased CO2 can increase photosynthesis in many plants, it is also recognised that such increases may be transitory, or even negative in the long-run as photosynthetic enzymes are down-regulated, leaf size and stomatal numbers decrease, leaf shape changes, nutrient value in the plant tissue decreases, respiration increases, competitive ecological balances are shifted – the list just goes on and on…
Do yourself a favour and walk into a scientific library and drop a few keywords into the database search-engines. I did that from the comfort of my own home, and came up with thousands of articles that support my original proposal that there is much expert evidence why increased CO2 not universally good for the biosphere/environment, and thus by necessity for humans either.
Here are the first ten – I got bored after that, and figured that you needed the practise doing a basic literature search anyway…
Read these, and you will begin to see that whilst it can enhance certain growth parameters in certain species, elevated CO2 is not a photosynthetic, nor an ecological, panacea.
———–
The Response of Natural Ecosystems to the Rising Global CO2 Levels. F. A. Bazzaz. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 21, (1990), pp. 167-196
Plant Growth and Competition at Elevated CO2: On Winners, Losers and Functional Groups. Hendrik Poorter and Marie-Laure Navas. New Phytologist, Vol. 157, No. 2 (Feb., 2003), pp. 175-198
Additive Effects of Simulated Climate Changes, Elevated CO2, and Nitrogen Deposition on Grassland Diversity. Erika S. Zavaleta, M. Rebecca Shaw, Nona R. Chiariello, Harold A. Mooney and Christopher B. Field. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 100, No. 13 (Jun. 24, 2003), pp. 7650-7654
Photosynthetic Down-Regulation over Long-Term CO2 Enrichment in Leaves of Sour Orange (Citrus aurantium) Trees. Neal R. Adam, Gerard W. Wall, Bruce A. Kimball, Sherwood B. Idso and Andrew N. Webber. New Phytologist, Vol. 163, No. 2 (Aug., 2004), pp. 341-347
Biosphere Responses to CO2 Enrichment. Christian Korner. Ecological Applications, Vol. 10, No. 6 (Dec., 2000), pp. 1590-1619
Comparative Stem-Growth Rates of Mediterranean Trees under Background and Naturally Enhanced Ambient CO2 Concentrations. Roberto Tognetti, Paolo Cherubini and John L. Innes. New Phytologist, Vol. 146, No. 1 (Apr., 2000), pp. 59-74
Effects of Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) on Belowground Processes in a Pinus taeda Forest. A. S. Allen, J. A. Andrews, A. C. Finzi, R. Matamala, D. D. Richter and W. H. Schlesinger. Ecological Applications, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 437-448
Root Growth and Function of Three Mojave Desert Grasses in Response to Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. C. K. Yoder, P. Vivin, L. A. Defalco, J. R. Seemann and R. S. Nowak. New Phytologist, Vol. 145, No. 2 (Feb., 2000), pp. 245-256
Through Enhanced Tree Dynamics Carbon Dioxide Enrichment May Cause Tropical Forests to Lose Carbon. Christian Körner. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 359, No. 1443, Tropical Forests and Global Atmospheric Change (Mar. 29, 2004), pp. 493-498
The Response of Perennial Ryegrass/White Clover Swards to Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations. 1. Effects on Competition and Species Composition and Interaction with N Supply. U. Schenk, H.-J. Jager and H.-J. Weigel. New Phytologist, Vol. 135, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 67-79.
Bernard J. said My comment focused in particular on the fact that increased CO2 is NOT always good for ecological processes, but by extension this means also that it will not always be good for people either.
Bernard J. it is in fact neutral as defined as “good” is it not? The articles indicate mainly the effects on competition, such as species seeding, growth, and other factors that relate to the niche that the species fills. A change in almost any physical parameter should be expected to change an ecosystem’s response. I believe the use of “good” or “bad” is inappropriate. One could say an increase in CO2 can lead to stomatal numbers decrease, this is a response. It should not be vewied as either “good” or “bad”, rather as necessary or as a reaction. Examination and understanding will determine a term such as necessary or as a reaction, not perjorative “good” or “bad”.
In an ecological sense, with respect to evolutionary forces, an increase or decrease in species diversity in such limited expanse as the papers you quoted, should not be extrapolated to the whole ecosystem, as at least one of the press releases of one of the articles indicates, or even beyond the limits of the very small areas of earth or environment that were studied in the papers you listed.
From abstract >>Through Enhanced Tree Dynamics Carbon Dioxide Enrichment May Cause Tropical Forests to Lose Carbon. Christian Körner. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 359, No. 1443, Tropical Forests and Global Atmospheric Change (Mar. 29, 2004), pp. 493-498
In this contribution I argue that CO2 enrichment may cause forests to become more dynamic and that faster tree turnover may in fact convert a stimulatory effect of elevated CO2 on photosynthesis and growth into a long-term net biomass C loss by favouring shorter-lived trees of lower wood density. At the least, this is a scenario that deserves inclusion into long-term projections of the C relations of tropical forests. Species and plant functional type specific responses (‘biodiversity effects’) and forest dynamics need to be accounted for in projections of future C storage and cycling in tropical forests.<<
The argument is that a more dynamic turnover MAY convert into favoring a net loss of biomass, favoring shorter-lived trees of lowere wood density. Perhaps you could explain, if it is in the paper, where and how the potential for increased biomass sequestering occurred or did not occur. Otherwise, faster growing, whether short-lived or not, would mean an increase in sequestered CO2 in general. This assumes that it takes a finite amount of time to grow, or reduce such a mass as a tree.
I think youe extension to people needs a bit of fleshing. General what is good for people is food, as a first order approach. The plants in the main that humans use for food do show positive effects for increased CO2 and NOx. It seems counter intuitive that any who think man is doing damage, or those who wish to continue profiting from our present situation would oppose increased crops. It will allow us to grow more in the same area, thus potentially reducing the rate man is changin the ecosystem through land use changes. I don’t think the effect is that much, but if one wants to go into the type of detail that these articles you listed did, perhaps this detail of increased food benefit should be included into. One of may favorites since I garden, is the potential with a warmer world to get more than one crop in a summer.
Though these articles show the danger to diversity on a small scale, as noted extrapolating such concerns to the whole ecosystem is not only contrived in one sense, but is fraught with pitfalls for the unwary. Take one of the stated problems with forb species, they do not compete with the grass species in certain terms, regardless of changes in NOX, CO2, temperatuer, or moisture. MY favorite is grass versus what many consider weeds here in the US. Simple mowing changes the dynamics for grass over weeds, whether you water, and fertilize, or not. Temperature changes are a bit difficult for the home owner as is CO2 concentrations.
Bernard; this doesn’t have wings; as John Pittman rightly states, the proposition that too much CO2 is bad is a value judgement which has informed AGW; but as Lomborg has shown exta warmth is preferable to cold; even the Ruddiman thesis doesn’t resile fom the fact that CO2 caused warmth has had a positive effect; this is shared by Brian Fagan in his book “The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilisations” The most telling evidence of the advantages of extra CO2 is found in Sage’s paper;
http:/www.blackwell-syergy.co/doi/abs/10.1111/.1365-2486.1995.tb00009?journalCode=gcb
Sage argues that human civilisation could not have started without an increase in CO2 levels; with the largest proportional increase in photosynthesis occuring below the current levelsof CO2; as you would expect. Sage also notes that rising CO2 favours the ability of C3 plants to outperform the weedy C4 competitors. This dichotomy has also been observed in cynoabacterial growth with C4 plankton taking more C13 CO2, and in that way being responsible for the declining C13/C12 ratio which is touted as a signal of anthropogenic caused increase in CO2 levels.
That link to Sage;
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00009.x?journalCode=gcb
“Whist it is well recognised that increased CO2 can increase photosynthesis in many plants, it is also recognised that such increases may be transitory, or even negative in the long-run as photosynthetic enzymes are down-regulated, leaf size and stomatal numbers decrease, leaf shape changes, nutrient value in the plant tissue decreases, respiration increases, competitive ecological balances are shifted – the list just goes on and on…”
No thats all lies Bernhard you moron. The historical record is very clear. As is historical practice. As are the thousands of scientific studies. Plant robustness is always enhanced. So you are just talking ignorant rubbish again.
Graeme: would you please read Jen’s intro. to her new style Blog where she pleads for politeness. Most of your offerings consist only of filth and abuse. Bernhard is no moron, you are for language that rarely does more than give guttersnipes a bad name. In the issue raised, you are right, and Bernhard wrong, but your abuse belittles your case and enhances his. Why not cite some papers that support your case, and refute his? Cohenite’s superb link in the post before yours does advance the debate, but your garbage has already overtaken and obscured it.
Look. If Bernhard is going to talk mindless nonsense than he’s going to cop it.
There are three issues here. There is carbon in the soil. There is nitrogen in the soil. And there is the issue of other trace nutrients.
Bernhard is alleging that there is some sort of delayed anti-growth effect due to CO2. That the CO2 fertilisation is like some sort of Indian Summer.
This is lies and he has no study which can show it so he posted a wild-goose-chase explosion.
In Nature over a wide area the trace elements will tend to remain intact. Extra CO2 would lead to the enhancement of both carbon and nitrogen in the soil but will be pretty neutral as to the other trace elements.
Hence no shortage of these trace elements will develop subject to enhanced CO2 levels. The plants will rot. the trace elements will be replaced in the soil in a neutral if somewhat random way.
But consider if a researcher has a 5m square outdoor plot that he pipes CO2 at. If he can somehow maintain the high CO2 levels but leave open access to the animals to eat the plant matter and for the wind to blow it around then we will have the following occurrence.
1. The plants will grow more robustly in this area at first than in the surrounding areas.
2. But since the trace elements will be embodied in this plant material then that small patch of ground will obviously get depleted of said trace elements in a way that is no longer random.
3. Obviously no inference can be made from this spot-depletion that higher CO2 levels do not enhance the biosphere. When all extant evidence says that higher CO2 levels do just this.
4. Bernhard will not find any study that takes into account the above and backs up his claims.
5. Bernhard ought to think about getting his driving qualifications. Since the only way he is getting into scientists heaven is if they have their groceries delivered.
“So here is a test, stand underneath a sheet of styrofoam during the night and see if you notice it getting cooler. If the IR radiation is truly there you must experience coolness when in the shade.
That you don’t polints to the fact there is no downwelling IR.”
Well it certainly proves the standard model is fatally flawed. I grant you that. And in a stunning and undeniable way.
“That you don’t polints to the fact there is no downwelling IR.”
At this point I will have to consider that the above inference is too strong. But nonetheless thats a stunning disproof of the standard model.
I’m going to steal it and run like a thief in the night.
Cohenite.
The Sage paper speculates on the development of agriculture in an environment where atmospheric carbon dioxide was at a concentration almost one half of that today. The biochemical and ecological impacts of present-day increase cannot be directly compared to a milieu where CO2 occurs at 200ppmv – the physiological and ecological adaptation envelopes are at very different points on their respective scales, and most importantly there are many other contemporary physiological and environmental stressors present that were not in operation in the late Pleistocene.
For the umpteenth time, I have never denied the positive growth effects that increased CO2 can have on many plants. Rather, I have been trying to point out that modern increased CO2 absolutely and demonstrably has many negative consequences, whether at the individual organism or at the ecosystem level. Contrary to your imputation, and to Tim’s comment supporting your Sage reference, these negative biochemical and competitive consequences are well documented, and your misuse of the Sage paper does not change this.
I suggest that you and Keiran do some serious reading in this area. I would suggest the same for Graeme Bird, but his continued recalcitrant ignorance of real science has long ago demonstrated this for the futile exercise that this would be.
Tim Curtin, we have very different interpretations of many matters, but I very much appreciate your comment about maintaining a certain amount of civility. I disagree with you that Bird had a case, but any problem Bird had with the science I referred to should have been made with rather more finesse than he was able to muster. I hope that Bird is able to keep your advice in mind in his future responses to the various posters here.
“….. Rather, I have been trying to point out that modern increased CO2 absolutely and demonstrably has many negative consequences,….”
NO YOU ARE LYING YOU FILTH.
Now you have to stop lying, come up with the evidence, or retract.
I’ve spotted your act now on three blogs. You are just a liar. And anti-scientist. And you never come up with squat.
Back your lies up with evidence or retract.
The fact is that higher CO2 levels enhance the terrestrial biosphere. You denying that is a flat out lie. So justify or retract you stinking pig.
Bernard J: you said “Contrary to your imputation, and to Tim’s comment supporting your Sage reference, these negative biochemical and competitive consequences are well documented, and your misuse (sic) of the Sage paper does not change this”. I saw no misuse of Sage! What is your documentation? Most of what I see tends to say “yes CO2 IS a very powerful fertilizer, but it MAY become less so” with no evidence offered eg by Schimel 2006, who was so overjoyed to find Long et al (same issue of Science vol 31 June 2006) debunking the FACE results. Long et al concluded “This (sic) casts serious doubt on projections
that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.” Nobody ever made any such projections, what is evident from inspection of the data at CDIAC (Marland et al) is that over 55% of CO2 emissions has consistently since 1958 been taken up by the biosphere and the oceans. Long et al. offered no primery data of their own, their whole paper is a priori and designed to earn a slot in Science which as usual required not a hint of original research so long as the conclusions supported AGW. Science mag. is the EXACT counterpart of Galileo’s antagonists at the Vatican, but for inability so far to secure imprisonment (and Barry Brook along with Mike Rann is working on that).
Barry Brook and his merry men have so far failed to contest my regressions (apart from trying to suppress them) showing the extraordinary correlation between rising atmos. CO2 and primary food producion (R2 .98 with very strong t stats for the period 1980-2003) as compared with fertilizer consumption, temperature, and population on which the coeff. are insignificant even when of the right sign. Rising atmos CO2 has enabled farmers worldwide to economise on commercial fertilizers and increase production stupendously from the same area under cultivation or less in 2003 vis a vis 1980. Try getting that into Science mag!
Graeme Bird.
If it wasn’t for the evidence of your potty-mouthed ad hom-ing posts I would swear that you are unable to read.
That at least would be the conclusion one would make from the fact that you obviously have been unable to follow up the references I listed. Either that, or you are unable to determine how to locate such references in the first place.
Stop showing yourself to be an ignoramus. Surely you, as a person who aspires to garner the votes of your local electorate so that you might “suck off the public tit” as a politician, would want a better profile than the one that you are presenting?
Tim, please read the papers above, or any part of the vastly greater body of work that has been published on this topic. Or speak to a few plant eco-physiologists. There are many non-controversial negative consequences of increased CO2, especially at an ecological level, and without simultaneously refuting every such study that indicates that this is so your presentation of one or two papers is largely an irrelevance.
Also, as I have tried to explain to you previously, technically CO2 is NOT a ‘fertiliser’. It is a conflation to refer to it as such, and shows a confusion of understanding of the different biochemical processes inherent in photosynthesis.
Bernard: “The driving potential for growth of green plants is photosynthesis. That process is used to convert CO2 and water into the foods plants use for growth. Plant growth is a proxy first for sunlight and then for CO2 and water”. Use of the word “fertilzer” in this context is far more applicable than the term “blanket” used to describe the warming effect of atmospheric CO2, I find I need real blankets at night in Canberra, as the CO2 does not do the job. Whereas real greenhouse managers find that their yields rise when they boost CO2, so in Netherlands they gratefully accept the CO2 offered by Shell. If yields rise due to an added input, that can legitimately described as a fertilizer effect. There are no observable negative adverse ecological effects from enhanced atmospheric CO2 per se, nor as yet from alleged but minimal warming (0.7oC over 100 years is minimal). Most species are adaptable within wide tolerances. Singapore, Darwin, and Dubai are enormously hotter than Finland or SE Australia, and support a much wider array of plant and animal life saving only marsupials. The atmos. CO2 concentration is virtually the same worldwide, why is biodiversity higher in the hot tropics than in the cold high latitudes?
Lets just have that evidence Bernhard. Come up with the evidence and I won’t be shouting at you.
But how about not ever lying to the laity on this subject ever again?
I don’t think thats too much to ask.
I’ve seen your act and you are a one-trick jackass. All you do is throw it back to the other party like some sort of mega-bigot. Like you raise the evidence-bar so high and make it like your own dishonest position is the high-citadel that must be pole-vaulted over.
Its the same tiresome act again and again and again over four blogs and counting.
Now the fact is that more CO2 makes the biosphere more robust. Thats just a fact. And you haven’t come up with jack against this well-known and actually bloody-obvious proposition. The downside would be to do with too much growth of problematic plants!!!!!
Thats a small price to pay for what is effectively manna from heaven.
Graeme Bird.
Read the science. The evidence is there for anyone to see.
And stop being rude.
Can you do that?
You are a lying filthy pig. I’m not wrong about this. But if I’m wrong lets have that evidence and lets have it now.
You are not a scientist.
You never could be.
Look at how this fraud Bernhard operates on other blogs. This guy is deranged. Here is his one-trick-jack-ass act in full flight. Just an incredible act of delusional projection:
“John McLean.
I have reread your piece and your posts with continued incredulity, and yet again I would ask you to address the scientific issues that have been asked of you, whether it be on your capacity to comment, or on the scientific matters themselves.
All I have seen is a lot of sniping from behind the security of the Aus’s diminishing reputation, but not a skerrick of true ability to engage with the people who generate the science that you criticise. Rather than running away when you’re put on the spot, you should defend yourself and your claims…..”
Just incredible from this absolutely evidence-free stinking filth is it not?
BERNHARD. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. LETS HAVE THE EVIDENCE NOW YOU STINKING FRAUD!!!
Stop the filibuster and endless defamation and lets have the evidence.
Graeme Bird.
If I am a fraud, then so is the vast majority of scientific endeavour in both climate science and in biology, because I simply reflect the consensus in both disciplines.
But the trouble for you is that the issue of negative CO2 impacts on ecosystems is not ‘evidence-free’. I have given you ten random papers to start with and a suggestion that with a basic application of the simple technique of literature searching, there are thousands more papers of ‘evidence’ investigating the negative effects of CO2.
Learn to do your own homework.
Read the evidence, and stop being rude.
Oh, and ‘defamation’? Although your technique is inelegant, I think that you might have finally figured out how to do the ‘irony’ thing…
Graeme Bird: Once again you have let Bernard off the hook by your crazed incoherent and useless posts. The hook I set up above was”The driving potential for growth of green plants is photosynthesis. That process is used to convert CO2 and water into the foods plants use for growth. Plant growth is a proxy first for sunlight and then for CO2 and water”. Use of the word “fertilizer” in this context is far more applicable than the term “blanket” used to describe the warming effect of atmospheric CO2, I find I need real blankets at night in Canberra, as the CO2 does not do the job. Whereas real greenhouse managers find that their yields rise when they boost CO2, so in Netherlands they gratefully accept the CO2 offered by Shell. If yields rise due to an added input, that can legitimately described as a fertilizer effect. There are no observable negative adverse ecological effects from enhanced atmospheric CO2 per se, nor as yet from alleged but minimal warming (0.7oC over 100 years is minimal). Most species are adaptable within wide tolerances (more than 23oC today in Canberra; the frog mouth owls on our Mt Rogers have never been more skittish, returning year after year to the same branch of the same tree despite rising CO2). Singapore, Darwin, and Dubai are enormously hotter than Finland or SE Australia, and support a much wider array of plant and animal life saving only marsupials. The atmos. CO2 concentration is virtually the same worldwide, why is biodiversity higher in the hot tropics than in the cold high latitudes?”
Graeme, Your posts enabled Bernard to avoid answering. Please do all of us a service by restricting yourself to point by point debunking of each AGW paper as it appears, and eschew all ad homs, swearing, and other foul language. Thanks!
Tim Curtin.
Of course it is well recognised that species diversity increases toward the tropics. This is basic junior high school biology.
However you are conflating tropical biodiversity with necessary adaptation to cooler climates. There are many many species that are not adapted to the tropics, and in spite of your comment that some species have wide tolerance of extremes, this ignores that facts that many more do not; and of those that do, many still do not tolerate, over a complete life-cycle, much shift from their overall mean temperature exposure. If they did the ranges of many species would be much greater than they are now.
Think carefully about the different shapes of bell-curves that are possible, all with similar maxima and minima, and you might figure out the physiology behind this.
Further, if warming occurs at the rate that it is predicted to occur, the geographical shifts in bioclimatic envelopes wil be faster than the capacity of many plant and animal species to keep up with, and more significantly for many ecosystems to keep up with.
Combine this with the decoupling of such ‘running’ ecosystems with their light regimens, their geological/altitudinal/hydrological requirements, and a myriad of other biological and non-biological parameters that would not move synchronously with shifting temperature envelopes, and changes in temperature as well as CO2 level can cause all sorts of headaches for plants and animal species.
The other thing that you have ignored is the fact that the ‘adaptable’ species are generalists, and often represent weed or feral problems to humans. Some generalists are fine for us, many are not, and many only thrive in a changing or disturbed environment. More importantly they can thrive at the expense of specialist species that we might have an economic or biological imperative to retain, so again shifting bioclimatic envelopes can have serious negative and unintended consequences.
As to the CO2 greenhouse issue, I touched on this months ago at Deltoid. They are not equivalent examples to open-air systems that might be exposed to increased CO2, because the greenhouses are essentially monocultures of species that have all of their nutrient and temperature requirements optimised – this is completely incomparable to a global variety of complex open-air ecosystems.
Once again though, although we vigorously disagree on the relative significances of temperature and CO2 levels, I appreciate your civil tone in this Tim. No debate can usefully occur without such.
“Combine this with the…”
should read
“Combine the…”
Blasted lack of a preview.
Bernard..do you sleep?!
Bernard, Thanks, just a couple of comments:
1. You said: “Further, if warming occurs at the rate that it is predicted to occur, …”We have had 0.7 over the last century, supposes that repeats in this, it ‘s hardly noticeable, and needs to be put in context of the much larger ongoing diurnal and seasonal changes that all species currently thrive under.
I have one recent study of bird migration patterns in Mass., which found little or no evidence that temps had anything much to do with observed changes, especially not for mid-range migrants, whose arrival times correlate with SOI, not temps. The IPCC can barely bring itself to mention the SOI, and presents no observational data, preferring as usual model results. When I was a post-grad I was told to read Popper, and well remember his example of falsifying the sort of syllogisms in which the IPCC specialises. Until cap’n Cook reached Oz, the “science” was that “all swans are white”, but even here in Canberra we still have black swans. Theory falsified. Can you name a significant species extinction unequivocally due only to the rise in ambient temps of 0.7oC over the last century?
2. You als said: “They are not equivalent examples to open-air systems that might be exposed to increased CO2, because the greenhouses are essentially monocultures of species that have all of their nutrient and temperature requirements optimised – this is completely incomparable to a global variety of complex open-air ecosystems.”
True, but hundreds of FACE (open air field experiments where CO2 is blows across fields with all other variable controlled including measuring yieklds on adjacent
fields where all cet. are par. except for no extra CO2.” The rise in yields is large and very significant.
Re the s, see:
Global Change Biology (2008) 14, 1959–1972, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01619.x, Miller-Rushing et al.
Agreed re absence of Previews!
Best
Tim
Toby.
Regarding sleep, one word:
‘thesis’.
“Graeme Bird: Once again you have let Bernard off the hook by your crazed incoherent and useless posts.”
Bullshit Curtain he’s not off the hook. He didn’t come up with anything. He’s putting forward the idea of CO2 helping growth for awhile and then this suddenly cranking into reverse. Yet he has no evidence for this.
So how can he be off the hook?
I explained exactly how these dumb-leftists can easily set up a study which will quickly deplete their area of ground of trace elements. That is to say the necessary nutrients not including CO2, water, nitrogen and carbon in the soils.
So just explaining how that this would work completely bolloxed any study he would want to present to justify his Indian-Summer-of-CO2-fertilization nonsense so how can that be a useless post?
Third parties simply have to understand 3 things:
1. That the geological record is clear: high CO2 levels lead to a more robust terrestrial environment.
2. That literally thousands of enhanced-CO2-growing studies prove this.
3. Yet that a tendentious researcher can easily mount a study that will deplete the CO2-enhanced area of essential trace elements thus leading to perverse and unrealistic results.
In the above context Bernhards bullshitartistry cannot work. Since he will not be able to find any evidence at all that backs up his case.
It is the above points that the laity had to understand to see through Bernhards nonsense. Your stuff was good as usual. But you ought not be such a poopy-pants. Its like you are trying to get on the good side of the lunatics. This is impossible unless you capitulate totally. So it ought not be attempted.
Graeme Bird.
You still haven’t read the material I referred to above, or done any literature searching yourself, have you?
I have always agreed with the fact that that there are postive growth effects from increased CO2. However there is also plenty of evidence provided to you that supports my original statement that negative consequences have also been demonstrated for increased CO2 – you just refuse to acknowledge it. More bizarrely, you refute the very existence of such evidence without having attempted to actually read any of it.
Unfortunately for you, collecting ear-wax under your fingernails is not going to magic it away.
And there’s no point being rude to Tim Curtin either – he at least is conducting himself with a civilised level of decorum. As long as he does so I will listen to what he has to say.
Your continued rudeness on the other hand inspires nothing but a disparaging contempt for the quality of your ‘case’.
But heck, don’t rely on me. Find yourself a plant physiology discussion group, or talk to your local university’s plant physiologists and plant ecologists, and see what they have to say.
After all, if you feel so strongly about the matter that you resort to vituperous ad hominem rantings to make your point, you should be sufficiently motivated to speak with the people who would know better than anyone else.
You don’t HAVE any material that backs up your lies. Which is why you posted so many of them. Its a wild goose chase.
The fact is that higher CO2 levels are good for the biosphere. And you don’t have anything to contradict that. If so lets see it. You are an evidence-free zone and a complete idiot.
Don’t be telling people you are a scientist. You never could be a scientist.
Now what is your hypothesis.
Its that CO2 fertilises at first…. then the fertilization goes backwards. Doesn’t work any more.
Well this is just you lying. And I’ve already explained how a researcher could easily deplete his area of ground of trace elements.
So what have you got?
You are an idiot. You have nothing. If you want tell me the one best study that you think supports your hypothesis and lets see why you think so!!!!
You won’t do it because you are a fraud. You are an impediment to science supposing you aren’t lying about drawing your salary from the business.
There are no negative consequences of extra-CO2. You are lying. If not lets hear what those negative consequences are and lets have your evidence.
Just one study will do it. One that isn’t rigged to deplete some piece of ground of trace elements or Nitrogen. Just one.
You see Bernhard. You are a liar.
The summary from Bernhards first study just talks about global warming theory. No hint of the evidence that Bernhard implies is there.
The summary from the second confirms CO2-fertilisation. No hint of Bernhards evidence in that summary.
The third study shows a subunit of a single species of Oranges apparently running out of steam. The researchers say they are making sure the nitrogen levels are maintained. In the summary they do not show how they have allowed for trace element depletion. Fruit trees are often of the sort that they give fruit for awhile and then they stop. You hack them up and replant. So no support of Bernhards bullshit thesis apparent there also.
The fourth study summary seems to allege climate change and nitrogen depletion in order to support Bernhards thesis. So it has to be considered bullshit. Bernhard might like to post a link to the full study. But its bound to be bullshit.
The summary of the fifth study……
HAD ENOUGH YET?
This is enough to show that Bernhard was bullshitting. He was merely attempting to send people on a wild goose chase. Notice he didn’t post a clear link to any full study.
I’ve seen this fellow on a number of blogs. He refuses ever to come up with anything. He’s just lying.
Once again, extra-CO2 is good for the biosphere. Thats just a fact.
Damn.
Sent to the wrong thread.
See post submitted at September 15, 2008 3:19am on:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/bill-kininmonth-requests-explanation-of-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-62365
Yeah well before you change the subject again you dope…. how about retracting your slurs against CO2 or coming up with some evidence.
No science-heaven for you old man.
Look at Bernhards weak-ass subterfuge. He’s giving us the classic Lambert-runaround.
Stick to the right subject on the right thread fella. The fact is you aren’t a scientist. You are just a bullshitartist. I mean you just played the most vapid “LOOK OVER THERE” trick I’ve ever yet seen.
Bird.
My posting to the other thread was purely unintentional, and simply a result of having many tabs open simultaneously, and being very tired.
The only slur being cast here is your accusation that I engaged in subterfuge by typing in one field when I’d intended to type in another. There was no ‘look over there trick’, and after the misplaced post I immediately corrected myself.
I think that you need to be a bit real about a few things.
By the way, how’s your plant ecophysiology education coming along?
Well another post, no evidence, and no retraction.
What a surprise……… (not).
Man you strike me as some dumbass affecting to be a pompous old science-worker. Because you are so unproductive. You never come up with anything.
Its like all your time must be spent reworking your posts for that pompous twit edge.
Do you smoke a pipe to get “in-character” champ?
No there is no downside to extra CO2. Its all good. Where is your evidence that says otherwise?
You read the alarmist Pravda sciencedaily and you just assumed what you were meant to right?
Bird.
I have been trying for days to post links here, to no avail. It seems that I am being blocked whenever I post a link.
I’m happy to continue to try to open your eyes to the evidence that you seem to be neither unable to read or to locate, but it will have to be done at one of the other blogs where I am not filtered out.