Same insults. Same zero supporting evidence. Situation normal.

Mar 8, 2018 at 11:04 AM | Phil Clarke

All you are doing is confirming your own hypocrisy, and inability to read. Is that what attracted you to Climate Science, Mann and the UK's Green Party?

"I've no idea why Mann used a lawyer to manage his calendar, yes that puts all the science in doubt ...."

Mar 8, 2018 at 11:27 AM | Phil Clarke

He does have a problem with chronology, matching records, time series etc

Supertroll - in the whole hearing, the only reference to Mann's lawyer is in connection with a letter entered in the record talking about a date when Dr Mann could attend. I am not sure that constitutes 'relying'. By this time the HS had become politicised so maybe there was an element of a**e-covering by Dr Mann, but his testimony seems to me to stand on its own merits.

Mar 8, 2018 at 12:13 PM | Phil Clarke

Is it worth bothering to read anything you link to, if you cant be bothered to read anything that is not on your Hockey Team approved and peer reviewed reading list?

It is a handy reference list for Pruitt's EPA Lawyers.

What most are sceptical about is the claim that what change there has been is attributable to CO2, or, more specifically, human-produced CO2. As yet, there has not been any evidence to support either of those assertions

No evidence for what? That the 40% rise in CO2 is manmade? Coal and oil are valuable resources and careful inventories are kept, so we can calculate with good accuracy how much CO2 has been generated by burning fossils. Corinne LeQuere and her team publish an annual global carbon budget, the latest one is here. The amount of CO2 emitted is enough to raise the atmospheric concentration considerably higher than has been observed, as some has been absorbed by the oceans, biosphere and longer term sinks. Also, CO2 from fossil fuel burning has a different isotopic signature than that from natural sources so we can calculate the fraction that comes from that source and that calculation also confirms that the increase is manmade.

Increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas must increase the greenhouse effect, the key question is - how much of the observed global warming is attributable to this enhanced effect. To answer this we look at the pattern of the warming, its spatial and temporal distribution or fingerprint. To give one example if increased solar radiation were the cause then the stratosphere would warm alongside the other atmospheric layers, if it is enhanced greenhouse, then the stratosphere is expected to cool as more heat is retained nearer the surface, which is exactly what has been observed.These detection and attribution studies are reviewed in Chapter 10 of the most recent IPCC report, which runs to around 60 pages.

You may not like the evidence, but to say there isn't any is incorrect.

Ooops. Wrong URL. Try this

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

Phil Clarke,
The first line from Wikipedia:
"Corinne Le Quéré FRS (born July 1966) is a Franco-Canadian scientist. She is Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy at the University of East Anglia and Director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research."

I couldn't be bothered to read more, but I'm sure she is respected amongst other devotees of Mann.

"You may not like the evidence, but to say there isn't any is incorrect."

Mar 8, 2018 at 2:52 PM | Phil Clarke

Is the evidence correct? Most that you supply is not, and you then try to blame those outside of the Consensus

Perhaps you could address the queries of JayJay and rhoda more successfully?

"Every climate scientist who has performed a detailed reconstruction of the climate of the past 1,000 years
using different proxy data
and different statistical methods
has come up with the same basic hockey stick pattern, that is to say a reconstruction that agrees with our original reconstruction within its estimates uncertainties."

Wrong, so wrong. And I already gave you several examples, all from peer reviewed literature.

Note that proxy data comes in two classes: proxy data requiring statistical methods and proxy data that doesn't really need any.

Examples of those that do not require any statistical massaging are: ice-core data and sediments.
Ice-cores show both a MWP and a LIA, this is true for NH and SH ice-cores.
Sediments like those from the Saragossa Sea also show a MWP and a LIA, and MWP has higher temps than today.

Then the other group.
Some of the proxy data spanning 1000(+) years in literature, and most of the proxy data published by the AGW crowd, 'needs' statistical methods in order to select which of the time series (which subset of the data) to use, because those proxies 'have no clear signal' (or in weasel words: 'are not climate sensitive' (well not sensitive to the version that you like)...

Prime examples are tree ring proxies. Because the curves are often all over the place, and the combined average per site would not give 'a clear signal' (...), a selection (!) is made in two steps (prior to averaging the remainder):
1. we select the series where the end part confirms to the adjusted (global) temperature record (how we want it to look)
2. we further sub-select a set from these series that all end in the same way, to further ' improve' the signal (to what we think it should be)

When done by the AGW crowd, this results in two flavors: pure hockey-stick (flatlining prior to circa 1800) and the other is a slightly more realistic hockey-stick (which has a kind of LIA and a bit of MWP, but MWP lower than current).
When the data set is quite limited step two may be very simple: keep it (confirms your views or is considered harmless) or discard it (shows something else).

This can, of course, also be repeated using any set of pure random data (preferably brownian red noise)!

Radical rodent, golfcharlie, JayJay

Why is the proportion of the 13C isotope in atmospheric CO2 decreasing?

EM, a constructive response, but is there reliable evidence to support the purpose of your question?

Climate Science needs to justify its requirement for Taxpayer Funding, rather than indulge in philosophy. Could you try to address the queries raised by JayJay, rhoda and Radical Rodent?

Radical rodent, golfcharlie, JayJay

Why is the proportion of the 13C isotope in atmospheric CO2 decreasing?

I guess you mean versus 14C?
Then the answer is: burning of old fossil fuel and a few volcanos (for good measure).
Both are high on 14C.

LOL..

Yeah, ok caveat 1: assuming that it is indeed decreasing
And 2: if CO2 usage by say plants is higher than the ratio will change faster... so if CO2 was not increasing then the ratio would change even faster (assuming same or similar level of old fossil fuel use; plus higher uptake)
What also helps is a reduction in forest fires and less use of wood for heating.

I thought Entopic Man was about to offer us a world exclusive proof of the validity of Climate Science, except it was linked to the shifty nature of Magnetic North, not Michael Mann.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-13_nuclear_magnetic_resonance

Wrong, so wrong. And I already gave you several examples, all from peer reviewed literature.

Indulge me and refresh my memory. Which peer-reviewed proxy reconstruction falls outside the error bars of the hockey stick studies?

I couldn't be bothered to read more, but I'm sure she is respected amongst other devotees of Mann.

Dr Mann has published a book also. Chosen by Physics Today as one of their books of 2012 and described by Publishing Weekly as meticulous and engaging brief on climate change research and the political backlash to legitimate scientific work

I guess you haven't read that either ;-)

Mar 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM | JayJay

Irrespective of the burning of fossil fuels, I remember at school late 1970s(?) the concerns about the loss of the Amazonian rainforest the "lungs of the earth", exchanging CO2 for O2. Twenty years later, I thought about the way the UK was so deforested that the Forestry Commission was set up in 1919, because we (almost) ran out of wood during WW1.

As population has risen over the last 1000 years, deforestation has increased, timber burned, and replaced with crops that do not lock in CO2 for 100+ years at a time. Most of the UK and Europe was forested.

Deserts such as the Sahara, that did contain trees, are now greening-up, and this process MAY be being slowed by domestic goats, and other grazers displaced by arable farming.

Climate Science pretends temperature remained the same for at least two millenia, are they also wrong about CO2?

I guess you haven't read that either ;-)

Mar 8, 2018 at 8:52 PM | Phil Clarke

No. Not a reliable source for factual evidence. Is it funny?

JayJay

Numbers ,please.

I guess you haven't read that either ;-)

Mar 8, 2018 at 8:52 PM | Phil Clarke

As Climate Science has disparaged the views of anyone who did not agree with the fabricated science consensus, why should anyone accept anything said or written by climate scientists?

Golf Charlie

In your troubleshooting days I imagine that you carried a mental model of the system you were working on and how its parts interacted. Similarly you would have carried a mental model of the wind, currents and tides around you as you sailed. (I know I did when racing dinghies, and it was usually the crew which best understood the windflow around the islands which won the race.)

I am less interested nowadays in playing evidence tennis. I am more curious to understand what your mental model of the climate looks like and how you think it works.

The discussion showed signs of asking how you could link the increase in CO2 with industrial emissions. Hence the isotope question.

No. Not a reliable source for factual evidence. Is it funny?

Not so much. Wisely, he leaves the comedy science to Nigel Persaud,

Phil Clarke:

Indulge me and refresh my memory. Which peer-reviewed proxy reconstruction falls outside the error bars of the hockey stick studies?

Oh dear, references again?

Right for SH, I already gave a list Vostok references, a few posts back [on page 58].
So: Petit et all 1999, Fischer et al 1999, Monnin et al 2001, Mudelsee (2001), Caillon et al 2003

For Sargasso Sea sediments, see e.g.: Keigwin, 1996, "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea", http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/people/lkeigwin/PDFs/1996%20Keigwin.pdf

Entropic man:

Numbers ,please.

Sorry, no concrete numbers, that will be quite a challenge. But then you were asking why, not by how much :)

I can give some guesses, that is all.
I also forgot to mention oceans & seas as a source; but I had to cook and then went out for some night skiing, just got back.

Burning of old fossil fuel - high contribution (contains old C, more 14C)
Issue seems to be that the 14C contents may vary quite a bit, IDK exact causes.
Contribution should be high given the many gigatons that have been used (since 1850 or so).

Old carbon from volanic eruptions - unknown / varying contribution
This is always there, no direct reason to think more now than say 20 years ago.
Volcanoes cluster in space and time and eruptions are preceded by many years of volcanic activity with lots of out-gassing of lots of old carbon, for decades before a chain of eruptions start. And of course the eruptions themselves can be quite impressive, certainly for the big ones that show up in the temperature records.
Because pattern of activity clusters in space and time (long tail distribution) the contribution is not smooth (far from it), not constant.

Outgassing of old carbon from seas and oceans - high contribution (contains old C, more 14C)
Quite prominent due to large area, but varies by area. Unclear how much variation, but that of volcanic nature will again vary a lot.
Old carbon wells up from sediments, from undersea volcanic activity and other processes (excretions by sea life). Very well known issue because the old carbon rises all the way to top layer in sufficient quantities that it causes serious 14C dating issues for dating skeleton bones from people on a normal diet of sea food. Also known (or expected) to even contaminate down-wind land areas, as it makes it all the way to the air above the sea.

Reduction in number and seriousness of forest fires - low contribution (more fires is more young C, more 13C; some types of plants/trees are more 13C than 12C bound, so produce relatively more 13C)
Depends on modern & good forest management (cutting & clearing deadwood, burnout ditches where other measures will fail, such as woods on peat / former moras), avoiding using overland electricity cables (ahum California) and not having laws that allow building on places where there are forests, but only when they no longer have many live tall trees, like after they burn 'accidentally' (ahum France, Portugal).

Reduction in the use of wood for heating - medium contribution (more wood for heating is more young C, more 13C)
Very big change between 1850 - 1900 for US/EUR/JP (perhaps quite a bit later), also in countries which are/were not yet fully industrialized or are late comers, depends more on availability and cost of coal (i.e. also happened in European countries that were late in industrialization, cheap coal was close by). Developing nations followed with quite a lot of delay, China 1900-1950(?), especially late in Africa and some countries in ME/Asia not sure on timing for South America.
For example: New York State was almost entirely deforested, then people switched from burning wood to coal for heating of houses, now the state is more than half forest again (65%?). Similar in many more areas, especially near larger concentrations of people, just outside many major cities.

By the way why did you ask this:

Why is the proportion of the 13C isotope in atmospheric CO2 decreasing?