Discussion > Zombie blog - what's the point?
'And still it warms'. Meh, maybe. Certainly not like it was expected to. When are you true believers gonna use your heads?
==========
kim
'And still it warms'. [ … ] Certainly not like it was expected to.
You shouldn't believe everything Lord Monckton writes.
Phil Clarke
In all this hullaballoo about the source of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide one important thing is being neglected: The carbon sinks are increasing, even accelerating. That phenomenon alone takes a lot from the catastrophism.
==================
kim
Phil, you don't understand this stuff. You draw from a pool who think they understand this stuff but are so biased they can't understand this stuff. You are making a fool of yourself, perhaps an elegant one, but a fool nonetheless.
======================
kim
Phil Clarke if you think RR's comment "There is no definitive link between human consuption of fossil.fuels and rising CO2" can be countered by your argument that "burning hydrocarbons must liberate CO2" think again. As Spock woud say "it is not logical".
RR. I don't think your argument about an energy imbalance being the result of biological activities and storage of more carbon within the ecosystem or removed in the form of kerogen (forerunner of future fossil fuels) can be correct. We know from estimates of burial of organic matter that only a minute amount is lost to the biosphere, almost all is endlessly recycled. Only two periods in Earth history has there been significant storage of organic matter - the Late Carboniferous-Early Permian (when coal accumulated) and the Cretaceous (when coals and oil source rocks formed). The Earth is not accumulating significant amounts of organic matter today.
Nor do I believe the recent greening of the Earth is significant to your argument. The annual variation in atmospheric CO2 is the result of CO2 removal from the atmosphere by northern hemisphere plants and autumnal and winter additions of CO2 when those plants die and decompose. If additional plant growth were truly significant you would expect that the annual CO2 variation to increase. I don't think there is any evidence to support this. Even if the amount of organic material in the terrestrial biosphere has increased its still a seasonal effect. For your claim to work you would have to have evidence that more organic material was being lost to the biosphere and is being stored somewhere. [Please don't suggest the deep oceans!!]
ACK
Minty: meh…. you could be right. It was just an idea I thought I would throw into the mix to see what happened. Shot down again! (Pun fully intended.)
Radical Rodent
As an aside, here is an interesting clip to view: https://vimeo.com/14366077. Its dismissal by certain parties should be interesting.
Radical Rodent
It ain't all hydrocarbons, there are carbonates, still, and forever, accumulating.
===========
kim
Let's take for instance, Phil, your response to my 'not as expected'. Instead of addressing that, which you can't, you divert with a colorful and deceptive graph.
The expectations for the CO2 climate control knob have exceeded its ability to control climate. Now, instead of letting go of the knob, and investigating natural variability so that we can actually nail down attribution and sensitivity, the poobahs of climate cling bitterly to the hockey stick and deploy squads of eloquent ignoramuses in an attempt to persuade us of untruths.
Kid, you are not persuasive. It's not really the scant knowledge, it's the rhetoric. Tired, lame, dispirited, ignorant; I half suspect you don't believe it yourself.
================
kim
The graph indicates that the world is warming exactly in line with model projections, 'as expected' in other words.
Phil Clarke
Sadly, if this alarum about climate had been made in good faith, there would have been a pause in it by now. The continued drumbeat is itself evidence of bad faith.
================
kim
Phil is in a world in which he can believe that models have been right. I'll bet you still believe in the hockey stick too, eh, Phil.
=============
kim
Hee, hee, INM-CM4.
Check out why this Russian climate model outperforms all the rest of them, and then take your alarm and check it into the Hotel California.
===========
kim
For those keeping score at home there is only one GCM even close to the temperature record. It is Russian, and it has lower sensitivity, greater ocean buffering and better clouds.
So, no alarm.
==========
kim
kim. 3.04pm. And dissolving.
Current thought is that for calcifying organisms which also photosynthesize (or have symbiotic associations with photosynthesizers) for every mol of carbonate, a mol of organic matter is produced concurrently. So your beloved coccolithophores do the job twice.
ACK
Radical Rodent
The bottom line is that downwelling IR is a consequence and a signature of the greenhouse effect. If there were no greenhouse effect, there would be no downwelling IR
Entropic man
INM-CM4 is but one model in CMIP5 (out of 42 from memory). Yet the mean of the global temperature estimates from that ensemble currently lies below GISTEMP.
Your statement is arithmetically unlikely.
Phil Clarke
Heh, you would be well advised to discover why it is that my contention that all the models have failed to the high side except INM-CM4 is true. That's better advice than you are getting now.
=============
kim
Why is it that all of the GCM's but one are biased in estimation to the high side? Were they working as wished, their results would err both to the high side and the low side. Since all high, it is a near given that the sensitivity used is too high or some other parameter, such as aerosols is biased toward the hot side.
You deny it, Phil, but the models run hot. And there was and may well continue a pause not explained by the CO2 control knob obsession.
============
Most curiously,
kim
EM: apart from the fact that greenhouses work by restricting convection, it is obvious that anything that contains energy (i.e. is warm) will radiate some of that energy, each and every which way. “Downwelling” IR will be matched by upwelling and “sidewelling” (ooh, I’ve made a new word!) IR from the same source. Quite how that is “proof” (or even “evidence”) of greenhouse effect, you do need to explain. One of the benefits of an atmosphere is that it is warmed during times of daylight (by absorption of radiated energy, by conduction when in contact with heated surfaces and by convection within the atmosphere), in doing so, limiting the heat build-up on the surface, and restricting the loss of heat from the surface of the planet such that it does not cool too rapidly during times of darkness. Look no further than the surface of the Moon to see what happens to the surface of a body with no atmosphere. To call this “greenhouse effect” is as good as calling it “blanket effect”.
Radical Rodent
<I>Heh, you would be well advised to discover why it is that my contention that all the models have failed to the high side except INM-CM4 is true.</I>
Alternatively, you could share the evidence that led you to that conclusion. I'm sceptical, you see.
Phil Clarke
D'oh...!
Radical Rodent
Heh, Phil, were you skeptical you'd investigate it yourself.
==============
kim
Ah, stonewalling a request for data ((C) S McIntyre)
Phil Clarke
PC: you seem to have a rather tenuous grasp of the difference between what is being said and what you think is being said: human consumption of fossil fuels has risen exponentially; rise of CO2 concentrations has been more or less linear. What this means is that, while we have consumed about 30% of the total of fossil fuels in just this century, the rise in CO2 has not increased significantly on what it was when we had only consumed about 3% in the same period of time. What you do have to understand is that correlation is NOT necessarily causation.
You are also moving into serious cloud-cuckoo land with your ideas about funding of sceptics over that of the alarmists. Without a doubt, alarmists received considerably more funding than sceptics do; alarmists tend to be in comfortable sinecures, while sceptics are on their own, unfunded. As usual, you trot out the familiar meme of sceptics being in the pay of Big Oil; where is you evidence? Oh – you said it, therefore it must be true… riiiight…
That depends on which measurements you are using – NASA’s land-based surface temperatures, or their satellite-based surface temperatures. (There are several graphs showing this anomaly, but I do not have a team of researchers to help seek them out; find them yourself – meanwhile, content yourself with this one: https://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming-500x229.jpg.) Without humans burning fossil fuels, I wonder how the Holocene Optimum was reached?Thank you, EM, but, if you read the comments, not everyone is in full agreement with that, either.