Portland Parks Held Hostage by Occupy

Portland Parks Held Hostage by Occupy
DAY 152

Thursday, January 26, 2012

UPDATED: bANned by OMSI: Standing Room Only

I'm pretty sure this would have been a class I would have been tempted to cut in college but science doesn't seem so boring anymore, does it? Not since the scandal ridden bunch at the CRA, Penn State and the IPCC were outed by their own emails showing collusion, hiding declines and conspiracy. Intrigue, global conspiracies, international collusion. Sounds like a spy novel.

The Banned by OMSI global warming skeptic presentation at the Shilo Inn was slammed full. I saw lots of listeners there who made themselves known to me and all were educated and, I'll say it, entertained by Astrophysicist Gordon Fulks, PhD; Meteorologist Chuck Wiese; and former Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor.

The Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society was to have had this presentation at OMSI  in November but it was cancelled at the last moment. OMSI said it wouldn't allow non peer reviewed science to be presented in their building.

The three scientists presented a two hour long lecture and Q &A on problems with the man made global warming theory and what they think might be the drivers of changes in the climate.
The material was peer reviewed. Chuck Wiese's technical presentation is to be peer reviewed (see some of it below--and check the links for more videos from the event). 

A show of hands before the lectures started revealed --not surprisingly--that the 90% of the attendees believed man has little to do with warming. A few hands went up from folks who were in support of the Al Gore theory of AGW.
 
update:

Posted by Victoria Taft, 11am - 3pm KPAM 860 at 06:59

73 comments:

  2. "believed"

    "I'm choosing..."

    And at 29:00, after a quick blip that seems to cut out the citation, claims there is no research showing attribution....

    "believed"

    ReplyDelete

  3. Don't worry, Giles/Vern/DJ, you'll find all of the tapes there or several other sites. Did you go? I didn't think so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Some of us work for a living Victoria, and can't attend every event we'd like to.

      Delete

    2. George Taylor video:
      blip.tv/jim-karlock/climate-change-in-the-pacific-northwest-and-elsewhere-5927117

      Gordon Fulks video:
      blip.tv/file/5907249

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

  4. Good thing you said, "I didn't think so.", rather than use 'assume'.... He vaguely cites BEST, then jumps to a study, then jumps to a 'I did' without citing where he had that published.

    I'm sure AMS will put a full transcript with PDFs or the PPt files online.....


    Really like his " He had the wrong..." at 13:xx which he hangs the rest of the presentation.
    Until then:

    "Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns. "

    http://www2.ucar.edu/news/846/arctic-warming-overtakes-2000-years-natural-cooling

    &

    "Warming of the climate system is now evident from observations. Most of the increase is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in heat-trapping gas concentrations due to human
    activities [including burning fossil fuels].

    Climatic change is being brought about by human induced increases in the concentration of
    atmospheric carbon dioxide, primarily through the
    processes of combustion [burning] of fossil fuels.

    Warming of the climate system is now evident from observations. Most of the increase is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in heat-trapping gas concentrations due to human
    activities [including burning fossil fuels].
    Climatic change is being brought about by humaninduced increases in the concentration of
    atmospheric carbon dioxide, primarily through the
    processes of combustion [burning] of fossil fuels.
    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change, 2007
    “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and
    Its Influence on Temperature”
    Guy Callendar, 1938


    W H A T I S
    H A P P E N I N G T O
    O U R W O R L D …
    A N D W H A T C A N
    W E D O A B O U T I T ?!
    K A T H A R I N E H AY H O E

    http://www.rep.org/Hayhoe_Climate.pdf

    ReplyDelete

  5. Giles/Basil, if you weren't there, you have nothing of relevance to say, as usual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "if you weren't there,you have nothing of relevance to say,"

      So, the vids are there for what reason? They are arguing about generally available science and using many of the denier traits and claims available to the public.


      Walk us through how your attendance would or could have made a significance difference in following their argument?




      " as usual."

      Perhaps you can make a salient point about the threesome's attempts; perhaps discuss why you and I should believe his " He had the wrong..." statement; walk through the math on his claims about the findings of BEST; show us why you feel any one of the three, or all three combined, exhibit a greater amount of expertise than the 98% of climate scientists with demonstrated expertise who agree with the IPCC findings.

      Delete

    2. As I said, you weren't there, couldn't be bothered. But now you think you can counter just part of what was said and shown last evening.

      98%? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Delete

    3. "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

      " Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

      Also, note the difference in expertise and prominence of the denier coterie.

      Delete

    4. "As I said, you weren't there..."



      So, the vids are there for what reason? They are arguing about generally available science and using many of the denier traits and claims available to the public.


      Walk us through how your attendance would or could have made a significance difference in following their argument?

      Delete

    5. Tell us again, wait, sorry; tell us for the first time - Why being there is so important to being able to discuss WHAT IS ON TAPE.

      I can cite the minute and transcribe the quote more accurately by replaying.

      Do you have in your possession documents that aren't available online?


      IF you were there, please tell us how your attendance made a significance difference in following their argument?

      Delete

    6. Giles----97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC
      JK------ You don’t really believe that crap do you?
      This was thoroughly debunked at several skeptic sites.

      You can’t get 97% of respondents to agree that the sun comes up every day!

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

  6. Glad you covered this. I couldn't believe that OMSI played the "peer-reviewed" card. As a doctorate student, I actually know what peer review means. I can tell that the current exhibition of dead people (a.k.a., Body World) is not peer reviewed. It is a freak show that makes OMSI money. It is no better than a Barnum and Bailey show with the bearded lady and the two-headed baby in a jar. Is climate change real? As a denizen of the Pacific Northwest, we all know the climate does change. It changes both seasonally and cyclically. For example, we have El Niño and La Niña. We also know it changes over time. Weather forecasting is an old science. Around 340 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote Meteorologica and did a fairly good job of predicting the weather. So the fact that the climate changes is a given. But did humans create the Ice Age? I don’t think so. It is like the scientific method of blood-letting that existing into the 19th century. If your doctor told you it is needed and was peer-reviewed, then who would question it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "But did humans create the Ice Age? "
      Are you trying to make some logical connection between humans not creating the Ice Age and Anthropogenic Climate Change from our spewing 35 gigatons of CO2 annually?

      This vid should help you with discerning your logical fallacy www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

      Delete

    2. Giles-----spewing 35 gigatons of CO2 annually?
      JK--------Again you lie. This time by using big impressive numbers without telling us that that great big number is ONLY 3-4% of the total. The rest is natural.

      But scarring people is the main specialty of Al Gore’s zombies.

      PS: we are not interested in wasting even more time watching some video which probably (as usual) does not support your claim.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

  7. Richard Carson, if you studied a little geology and astronomy you would know that the ice ages are caused by orbital precession, happening every 25 thousand years or so in a gradual fashion.

    There is absolutely NO doubt whatsoever about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing because of fossil fuel burning. That is established scientific fact. The interpretation of what this increasing amount of CO2 does is the point of argument and it has become economic and political. That's why you see hypocritical maggots like Al Gore sell books and the Dems try to radically change energy policy in favor of the "green" campaign donors. It's also why you see GOP politicians thwart those activities on behalf of their big oil, big coal and big car benefactors. Meanwhile the truth becomes irrelevant in this upside down political gamesmanship of both maggot parties. Picking one side of the other is as stupid as could be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. djsteinb----"NO doubt whatsoever about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing because of fossil fuel burning. That is established scientific fact."
      JK-----I keep reading this. Since you seem to know, please explain how (in view of the fact that 96% of CO2 emission is natural) nature sops up 100% of nature’s CO2 and only 50% of man’s CO2? I am asking about he physics/chemistry involved.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    2. "sops up 100%"
      Are you attempting to suggest there is some, heretofore unknown, CO2 source to ascribe the rise to?

      Or are you just unaware that the 35 gigatons of CO2 we humans are spewing annually dwarfs the .26 from volcanoes?
      http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
      A very rough analogy would be a human stepping into an already full bathtub.

      Start here:

      http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

      For a bit more, read the two docs @ http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/literacy.html

      This might help:
      https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-2.1.html

      Delete

    3. Giles----- "sops up 100%"
      Are you attempting to suggest there is some, heretofore unknown, CO2 source to ascribe the rise to?
      JK-----No, but there probably is.

      Giles----- Or are you just unaware that the 35 gigatons of CO2 we humans are spewing annually dwarfs the .26 from volcanoes?
      JK----- No I am SAYING (not suggestion) that of ALL annual CO2 emissions, man only emits around 4% and that includes land use changes and cement manufacturing.
      BTW, NASA DOES NOT agree with you claimed man CO2. NASA says man’s CO2 is 9 gigatons and nature is 210 gigatons.
      See the NASA chart here: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources-2.html

      As you can see, man’s 4% is probably within the error bands of the other sources.

      Giles----- A very rough analogy would be a human stepping into an already full bathtub.
      JK----- More like peeing in the ocean.

      Giles----- Start here:
      JK----- Sorry, I have wasted too much time following will o-whisps from warmers that suggest I read a few thousand pages to get the truth. The truth is VERY SIMPLE: man emits a small percentage of the total annual CO2. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a link to a SINGLE page that proves your point. If that page contains more than ONE paragraph, include a key quote.

      So again, I ask:
      How is it that nature soops up 100% of the natural CO2 and leaves 50% of man’s tiny amount of CO2 to build up?

      PS: Please don’t quote grey literature like the IPCC report. Not only are 1/3 of the allegedly peer-reviewed papers really greenie propaganda, many of the lead authors have admitted misconduct in the CRU emails.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    4. " NASA says man’s CO2 is 9 gigatons and nature is 210 gigatons. "


      You are confusing C with CO2.....
      http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010
      http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html

      Perhaps you can source your NASA source.


      And referring to IPCC as 'grey literature' is pretty far off the mark; the couple of issues weren't / aren't substantive, and the following claims are mostly rw talking through one's hat points.

      One point you are partly correct on; our emissions are a small sum additional annually. However, we've been doing it for a couple of centuries and at a faster rate making a rate of change that surpasses natural capacity to absorb. That is why the stepping into the bathtub is a more accurate analogy than peeing into the ocean. Now, if you were peeing into a to the brim full bathtub.....

      I suggested the 'thousands' of pages because it seems you have less than a full grasp of the basics and need to start somewhere.


      "but there probably is"
      Oh.....

      Delete

    5. Giles----- "sops up 100%"
      Are you attempting to suggest there is some, heretofore unknown, CO2 source to ascribe the rise to?
      JK-----No, but there probably is.

      Ohhhhh......

      Delete

    6. Giles-----You are confusing C with CO2.....
      JK---------Sorry, I keep forgetting the alarmists like to scare people with big numbers and so choose to measure CO2 instead of C. Note that the NASA charts (below) use C.

      Giles-----Perhaps you can source your NASA source.
      JK--------see: sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources-2.html
      and http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html

      Giles----- And referring to IPCC as 'grey literature' is pretty far off the mark;
      JK--------Not when 1/3 of their references are not peer reviewed and mostly greenie propaganda.


      Giles----- One point you are partly correct on; our emissions are a small sum additional annually. However, we've been doing it for a couple of centuries and at a faster rate making a rate of change that surpasses natural capacity to absorb.
      JK--------Of course the hidden assumption here is that you know all sources of CO2. And that you know them to an accuracy such that the sum of their errors is less than man’s CO2. We don’t.

      Giles----- I suggested the 'thousands' of pages because it seems you have less than a full grasp of the basics and need to start somewhere.
      JK-------- Bull Excrement - you chose 1000s of pages because you CANNOT point to actual real evidence that man’s CO2 is caus9ing dangerous climate change.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    7. Giles----- Giles----- "sops up 100%"
      Are you attempting to suggest there is some, heretofore unknown, CO2 source to ascribe the rise to?
      JK-----No, but there probably is.

      Giles-----Ohhhhh......
      JK--------Are you claiming that you know that there are no unknowns? Laughable, David, just plain laughable.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

  8. And you may consider Body World a freak show, however, it presents valuable information about the body and doesn't profess any controversial scientific issues, unless you consider voluntarily donated cadavers controversial. And if you do, don't go see it.
    If you do go, you can see what smoking does to the lungs or what happens to the heart because of poor life style choices. That I consider educational to the public. And yes, the exhibit makes money for OMSI.

    ReplyDelete

  9. Still waiting for someone to show us why we should rank their individual or collective expertise higher than the scientists' work used in the IPCC reports.

    Please, tell us, why we should value their thinking more highly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Giles------ Still waiting for someone to show us why we should rank their individual or collective expertise higher than the scientists' work used in the IPCC reports.
      JK-----1. Unlike the IPCC crowd, they have not been caught tampering with the peer review process.
      2. Unlike the IPCC crowd, they have not been caught committing the crime of deleting material subject to FOI.
      3. Unlike the IPCC crowd, they have not been caught taking oil company money.
      4. Unlike the IPCC crowd, their incomes DO NOT depend on continued alarmism.
      5. Unlike the IPCC crowd, they have not been caught fudging data.
      6. Unlike the IPCC crowd, they have not been caught fabricating the hockey stick.
      7. Unlike the IPCC crowd, they have not been caught pawning off greenie propaganda as peer-reviewed scince.
      8. Unlike the IPCC crowd, they have not been caught refusing to divulege the data and calculations behind their papetrs.
      9. Unlike the IPCC crowd, they have not been caught peer-reviewing each others papers.

      I could go on, but you get the idea –the IPCC & its “scientists” are thoroughly corrupt.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    2. Not sure about your 'they', but you might want to look at the fudged and altered data being discussed here:
      http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/01/chip-clips.html

      Waiting for the threesome to "divulege the data and calculations behind their papetrs".....

      And glad to see you really didn't address the discrepancy in expertise between those scientists who regularly publish in agreement with IPCC findings and the 2% who attempt to disprove those findings:


      " Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

      Delete

    3. Surely you are joking.

      A paper by Stephen H. Schneider???

      Here is his kind of of science:

      “... we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47, Bold Added

      His very presence totally discredits the paper.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    4. "fabricating the hockey stick."

      Walk us through that one......

      Delete

    5. Since it seems you are quoting yourself, let's add the full para to put that in context:

      (I'll assume your transcription is accurate)
      "“On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. " http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/a-somewhat-late-response-to-schneider/

      Delete

    6. " the IPCC & its “scientists” are thoroughly corrupt."

      Yet every scientific organization agrees with its findings.

      As does virtually every world government.

      Delete

    7. Giles----- "fabricating the hockey stick."; Walk us through that one......
      JK-------Be happy to:

      Mann either fabricated it or that he is totally unfit to be a researcher. These are some of his mistakes:
      1. Used proxies known to be unsuitable for temperature reconstruction.
      2. Mis applied his statistics. (Didn’t even get the name correct.)
      3. Failed to consult with statistics experts at his own University.
      4. Statements that 1998 was the warmest year in a millennium are not supported by Mann’s evidence
      5. The widely recognized little ice age is missing.
      6. The key paper, MBH98 is obscure and incomplete.
      7. Mann used an inappropriate calibration period.
      8. authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus “independent studies” may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface

      BTW, when you correct for these errors, you get a graph that shows Medieval temperatures warmer than now. see: sustainableoregon.com/hockeystick.html

      This is also the paper where Mann used the “hide the decline trick” which was to hide the fact that his primary evidence, tree rings, quit matching temperature in the 1960s and thus may have never actually reflected temperature.

      Add it all up - incompetence? Not likely, especially since he intentionally hid the fact that his key proxies quit working in the 1960s. (Of course that raises the question: did they ever work?)

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    8. "Mann either fabricated it or that he is totally unfit to be a researcher"

      "he intentionally hid the fact that his key proxies "

      Wow,.... Walk us through that one.... With actual attribution. Pretend you are at a real scientific meeting or writing a real paper that he'd read.

      Delete

    9. Giles----- Wow,.... Walk us through that one.... With actual attribution.
      JK--------I did - above. I’ll repeat it for you:
      This is also the paper where Mann used the “hide the decline trick” which was to hide the fact that his primary evidence, tree rings, quit matching temperature in the 1960s and thus may have never actually reflected temperature.

      Here is the horses mouth (email 942777075.txt) from Phil Jones - head of the Climate Research Unit, Draft Contributing Author to the Summary for Policy Makers, and Coordinating Lead
      Author of Ch3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4):
      “I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. “

      As I note at sustainableoregon.com/selectedemails.html:
      this is an extremely important admission: the “decline” he is hiding is the temperature decline since 1961, in the tree ring data, while the actual temperature rose. The existence of this decline suggests that tree ring data can’t be trusted for any period, since it deviates from measured temperatures in one period (after 1961.) This is crucial as much of the IPCC case rests on tree rings.

      You can find much more detail here:
      climateaudit.org/2005/04/08/mckitrick-what-the-hockey-stick-debate-is-about/
      climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
      http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

      Giles----- Pretend you are at a real scientific meeting or writing a real paper that he'd read.
      JK--------Sorry I have better things to do than to spend time writing more peer reviewed papers.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

  10. " discredits the paper"

    Really? Show us how the data was misused, fraudulent, cherry-picked. Show us papers that show it to be inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete

  11. One of the authors advocates lying to the public to get support for their position. That discredits the whole paper.

    The fact that other “scientists” decided to work which such a person, tells a lot about their standards.

    Thanks
    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "advocates lying to the public" Read the whole para... Though even your selection doesn't say that.

      Delete

    2. Giles--------- "advocates lying to the public" Read the whole para... Though even your selection doesn't say that.
      JK----------- Of course, can’t you tell my comments from his statement? Hint: his statement was is quotes, my comments aren’t in quotes.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    3. Since it seems you are quoting yourself, let's add the full para to put that in context:

      (I'll assume your transcription is accurate)
      "“On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. " http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/a-somewhat-late-response-to-schneider/

      Delete

    4. What part of "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." are you having trouble with?

      Not mentioning doubts is not honest science.

      Offering up scary scenarios is not honest science.

      Making dramatic statements is not honest science.

      Or do you disagree? Perhaps you think the above behavior is OK?

      BTW, we are still waiting for you to explain how is it that nature soops up 100% of the natural CO2 and leaves 50% of man’s tiny amount of CO2 to build up?

      And why don’t you also tell us what is the actual evidence that man’s CO2 causes dangerous warming.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

  12. Hey Giles - we seem to have drifted off topic:,
    How is it that nature soops up 100% of the natural CO2 and leaves 50% of man’s tiny amount of CO2 to build up?

    Thanks
    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Jan 26, 2012 06:10 PM About when you decided to start personal attacks rather than addressing the science.

      Delete

    2. It is not a personal attack to remind people that Schneider was quoted in a national magazine as saying that it is OK to lie. It is a simple statement of fact. He said it is OK to lie to advance his beliefs. Reminds one of a local science writer that claimed that Katrina was caused by global warming!

      Therefore, how can anyone trust any of his research?

      Now, how is it that nature soops up 100% of the natural CO2 and leaves 50% of man’s tiny amount of CO2 to build up?

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    3. "Now, how is it that nature soops..."


      Jan 26, 2012 06:10 PM About when you decided to start personal attacks rather than addressing the science.

      Delete

    4. That statement is blatantly false. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has already been deonstrated to have increased substanitally in the past 50-60 years since accurate measurements started being taken. And, oh, my goodness, what has man been doing during that time frame? Burning more and more fossil fuel. Sorry JK, the scientific proof of manmade CO2 emissions over that period is indisputable. Unless you are in agreement with such GOP scientists like Andrew Snelling, who "proved" that nuclear decay can be accelerated by pressure and heat to support the stupidity of the "science" of UN-Intelligent Design.

      Delete

    5. djsteinb-------That statement is blatantly false.
      JK-------------Which statement

      djsteinb-------The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has already been deonstrated to have increased substanitally in the past 50-60 years since accurate measurements started being taken.
      JK-------------No one disputes that. No one (except the ignorant) disputes that about 96% of the total emissions are natural.

      I am asking how is it that nature soops up 100% of the natural emissions and 50% of man’s emissions? How does nature tell the difference? Or is nature so delicately balanced that an extra 4% upsets this balance. Especially since man’s 4% is well within the error bands of the other sources.

      djsteinb------- And, oh, my goodness, what has man been doing during that time frame? Burning more and more fossil fuel.
      JK-------------Plese show how this is relevant. Do you have evidence that it is man’s CO2 buiulding up instead of a tiny increase in nature’s 96% of the total emissions.

      Or are you ignorant of the fact that 96% of CO2 emissions are natural?

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    6. Since we're seeming to be dealing with basics; "JK-------------No one disputes that. No one (except the ignorant) disputes that about 96% of the total emissions are natural."

      Are you slightly confused as to the co2 cycle in the atmosphere? Seems you are trying to say that there is an annual complete cycle.

      Which kinda makes me wonder if you aren't misunderstanding that the 35 gigatons of co2 is annually added by humans. On top of the recycled co2. Then we have that pesky methane coming from thawing lake bottoms and permafrost.

      And STILL waiting for information about:
      Are you attempting to suggest there is some, heretofore unknown, CO2 source to ascribe the rise to?
      JK-----No, but there probably is.

      Delete

    7. Giles-----Since we're seeming to be dealing with basics; "JK-------------No one disputes that. No one (except the ignorant) disputes that about 96% of the total emissions are natural."
      Giles-----Are you slightly confused as to the co2 cycle in the atmosphere? Seems you are trying to say that there is an annual complete cycle.
      JK-------Of course your error here to consider natural CO2 in some kind of a cycle. It is not - all CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere and various elements of nature take CO2 out of the atmosphere. You are probably being confused by a NASA chart that shows little loops at each CO2 emission. Like the one at sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources-2.html

      I am saying that there exist natural sources of CO2. Over the course of a year, these natural sources, according to NASA, emit 210 Gt. And man emits 9 Gt in a year, according to NASA (I have no idea where your 35 Gt figure comes from).

      And over the course of a year nature sops up most, but not all. of the emitted CO2. This results in an annual increase in CO2 which is less than the roundoff errors in the known sources of CO2. For some unknown reason many people assume that if man did not emit CO2, then there would be no annual increase.

      For this to be true it also must be true that nature is very delicately balances such that it can only handle an extra 2%. Or nature has some way of knowing natural CO2 and absorbs all of that, plus some part of man’s CO2.

      A more likely explanation is that there are unknown sources of CO2, the known sources emit more than thought, or it is simply a measurement error problem.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    8. "JK-------Of course your error here to consider natural CO2 in some kind of a cycle. It is not - all CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere and various elements of nature take CO2 out of the atmosphere"

      Oh..... So there isn't a cycle, it just hangs out in the atmosphere?

      No, wait, later you say " Over the course of a year, these natural sources, according to NASA, emit 210 Gt. And man emits 9 Gt in a year, according to NASA (I have no idea where your 35 Gt figure comes from).

      And over the course of a year nature sops up most, but not all. of the emitted CO2."

      Then ascribe it to some unknown source of co2/

      And all this is because you don't like the idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

      Since this isn't a science site, and it seems you really need to get the basic science down before you try to work backwards from an opinion, I can do little more than suggest either some night classes at the local community college or a source such as http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

      And, yes. To use your language, the additional human released CO2 does upset the 'balance', does force a reaction.

      No need to rely on a magic source of 'new' co2 from unknown sources.

      Delete

    9. Giles------ "JK-------Of course your error here to consider natural CO2 in some kind of a cycle. It is not - all CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere and various elements of nature take CO2 out of the atmosphere"

      Oh..... So there isn't a cycle, it just hangs out in the atmosphere?
      JK-------Yep. The atmosphere is just like a big ocean. CO2 goes in from some sources and goes out to some sinks. It is not a cycle such that CO2 emitted by dying plants will be only taken up by growing plants.

      As to the speculation that man’s CO2 is causing the build up – that is simply assumption based on that age old logic of “we can’t figure out anything else, so it must be man’s fault”. If there were any real evidence you would have presented it up thread.

      In the past you have claimed that atmospheric CO2 building up has an increasing component of old CO2, as shown by C14, was evidence of man’s CO2. But you never were able to prove that man is the only source of old CO2. And you cannot prove this until you can fully account for the ocean CO2 vents, decaying ancient vegetation uncovered by melting ice and show that we know all possible sources. The state of our knowledge is not even close to this.

      Giles------ And all this is because you don't like the idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
      JK--------- You have yet to show evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming. I have been asking you to show us the evidence for several years and the best you can do is refer me to the IPCC claim that amounts to “it must be man’s fault because we can’t figure out anything else.” Pretty thin.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

  13. " discredits the paper"

    Really? Show us how the data was misused, fraudulent, cherry-picked. Show us papers that show it to be inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete

  14. JK, when accurate measurement of CO2 began in 1958, the concentration was a little over 300ppm, now over 50 years later it is almost 400ppm. The natural balance of the carbon cycle IS easily upset by the small fraction added by man otherwise this accelerated rise would not be happening now would it? A change in the natural cycle of 100ppm takes anywhere from 5000 to 20000 years not 50.

    ReplyDelete

  15. djsteinb--------The natural balance of the carbon cycle IS easily upset by the small fraction added by man otherwise this accelerated rise would not be happening now would it?
    JK--------------Either that or there are other CO2 sources that are not in our calculations. Like those recently discovered vents in the ocean floor.

    Or, our measurements of sources and sinks are wrong.

    Or, or the ocean is net outgassing due to warming.

    Or something else is going on. You do recall that Al Gore’s ice cores show CO2 increasing naturally during warm periods, don’t you? We are now in a warm period after the little ice age. Why would it be unusual for CO2 to increase naturally at this time?

    Do you really think this natural process is so delicately balanced that adding 4% upsets it?

    djsteinb------A change in the natural cycle of 100ppm takes anywhere from 5000 to 20000 years not 50.
    JK------------Assuming the ice cores completely trap the CO2 and it does NOT migrate and they were not affected by the release of pressure caused by bringing them to the surface and a myriad of other factors. Also assuming that there were NOT CO2 spikes that diffused into the neighboring ice.

    Thanks
    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "You do recall that Al Gore’s ice cores show CO2 increasing naturally during warm periods, don’t you? We are now in a warm period after the little ice age. Why would it be unusual for CO2 to increase naturally at this time?"

      I'm pretty sure Al Gore didn't do any ice core sampling.... If you are talking about Inconvenient Truth_, he relied on the same science that 98% of the field uses to form their informed position.

      So, let's review your claim:

      Wait, we really don't have to. It is such a basic denier talking point, it has already been covered many times.

      www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

      Delete

    2. Once again you post links to dozens or hundreds of pages.

      If you have some point, please make it in a short concise manner, otherwise we assume you have no defensible position.

      PS: I'm glad to hear you realize Al Gore probably didn't do any ice sampling.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    3. Giles----------So, let's review your claim:

      Wait, we really don't have to. It is such a basic denier talking point, it has already been covered many times.
      ...
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
      JK-------- Ok, you suckered me into checking one of your links. This is what I found:
      “The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials.”

      JK-------- That is pretty clear CO2 DID NOT initiate the temperature rise. Next they add the following:
      “ To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change.”
      JK-------- Giles, are you serious!!
      You source says only that “CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely”
      MOST LIKELY! No citation. No chain of logic!
      But we have seen same old tired line before. CRU head, IPCC author, Phil Jones expressed it well in his BBC interview:
      “The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing ...“
      (See the whole interview here: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm)

      Of course in order for this statement to be true, he would have to know ALL potential influences on climate. No one knows that.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    4. "No citation. No chain of logic!"

      Doesn't need a cite since it is considered basic knowledge. But if you want a fuller discussion on how we know, read (there is a long and a short version)Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming
      - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm -

      Delete

    5. " Phil Jones expressed... "

      So a selective quoting of one person.....

      From the PJ interview; a part you don't mention:

      "This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."

      Also, we are talking about a rise that has run for a longer time, and a period of an accelerating rate of our emitting CO2. As normal for deniers, you are trying to focus on one small part of the the record.



      Are we ever to see a citation to your 'science'? Failing that, how about showing us what you've read to inform your thinking.

      Delete

    6. Giles------- Doesn't need a cite since it is considered basic knowledge. But if you want a fuller discussion on how we know, read (there is a long and a short version)Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming
      - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm -
      JK_---------Again you use a favorite trick of those who are unable to substantiate their claims. That link points to a page containing dozens of links. Please cite a specific paragraph of a specific document that proves that CO2, not a merely the continuation of the natural events that started the warming, caused the warming to continue.

      Giles------- So a selective quoting of one person.....
      From the PJ interview; a part you don't mention:

      "This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."
      JK_---------How does that, in nay way effect his bottom line which is: he knows warming was caused by humans because of “The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing ...“ In effect he can’t figure out anything else (hint: the sun), so it mus be man..

      Giles-------Also, we are talking about a rise that has run for a longer time, and a period of an accelerating rate of our emitting CO2.
      JK_---------Agreed. The warming has been going on since the end of the little ice age. And, I might add, well before CO2 increases (if you believe the IPCC’s rejection of earlier chemical measurements by Nobel grade scientists.)

      Giles-------As normal for deniers, you are trying to focus on one small part of the the record.
      JK_---------Look at any length of record you want, you almost always find CO2 lagging temperature and solar LEADING temperature.

      Giles-------Are we ever to see a citation to your 'science'?
      JK_---------I gave you the ORIGINAL SOURCE for the Phil Jones interview. Are now wanting me to finds some secondary write up of it to cite instead?

      Actually that is probably what you want, because the secondary source will tell us that what he really said is not what we read in the original source (that’s climate “science”.)

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    7. "JK_---------Look at any length of record you want, you almost always find CO2 lagging temperature and solar LEADING temperature."

      Wow, really? You expect us to just believe that on your say so? A say so that also refuses to admit that there is a Carbon Cycle. A say so that also selectively quotes material to change the meaning. A say so that is waiting for a 'magic' new source of carbon emissions.

      Try saying that again; this time with something like; see these sources....

      Delete

  16. Jim KarlockJan 28, 2012 02:35 PM
    "Once again you post links to dozens or hundreds of pages."


    And, once again, you haven't linked to a single piece of science that proves you 'not in a cycle' & ' only 4%' claims.


    You find the reading of a few pages so arduous that you have to go into hyperbole in describing it as "hundreds", indicates that you likely haven't done the reading necessary to understand the basics of the science you are attempting to poo-poo.

    If you need a shorter version, I'd suggest going to your local school district and asking to review a middle school science text.
    "
    "If you have some point, please make it in a short concise manner, otherwise we assume you have no defensible position."

    Your claims haven't been support; you make extraordinary claims that don't match reality. You have decided that a couple of denier talking points suffice without bothering to do any critical analysis of either the information or the presentation.

    "PS: I'm glad to hear you realize Al Gore probably didn't do any ice sampling. "

    I wasn't the one who attempted to make a claim based on "Al Gore's ice cores".......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Giles-----And, once again, you haven't linked to a single piece of science that proves you 'not in a cycle' & ' only 4%' claims.
      JK--------4% claim:
      Add up the numbers on this NASA chart:
      sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html

      or this DOE chart on pg 26:
      tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf

      or this DOE chart:
      eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/images/FlowFig2.png

      If your grade school math is a rusty from all that Phd work, I did the math for you at:
      sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html

      Not a cycle should be obvious to anyone that knows basic science.
      Giles-----You have decided that a couple of denier talking points suffice without bothering to do any critical analysis of either the information or the presentation.
      JK--------Prove this.

      Giles----- "PS: I'm glad to hear you realize Al Gore probably didn't do any ice sampling. "
      I wasn't the one who attempted to make a claim based on "Al Gore's ice cores".......
      JK--------Neither was I. Stop lying.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    2. Jim KarlockJan 29, 2012 06:35 PM
      "Neither was I. Stop lying. "


      "Jim KarlockJan 27, 2012 10:10 PM

      You do recall that Al Gore’s ice cores show CO2 increasing naturally during warm periods, don’t you? "

      Delete

    3. "or this DOE chart on pg 26:
      tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf"

      No chart

      "or this DOE chart:
      eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/images/FlowFig2.png"

      Broken link

      "If your grade school math is a rusty from all that Phd work..."

      Somebody else was claiming to be a
      "doctorate student" who, oddly is a denier and hasn't come back to support his anti-science position.

      ", I did the math for you at:
      sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html"

      You do realize that even that source shows natural CO2 CYCLING THROUGH the atmosphere, right?

      Here's a couple of sources discussing the atmospheric CO2 cycling through oceans, ice, ...

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7302/full/nature09149.html

      http://cgcs.mit.edu/research/focus-areas/oceans-ocean-atmospheric-coupling-and-carbon-cycling/

      http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/ocean-uptake-climate-change.html

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/carbon.stm

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5682/367.abstract also lists several other papers discussing parts of the carbon cycle, including soil to plant to atmosphere.

      See also http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm for a basic or intermediate level explanation of the carbon cycle and how Anthropogenic CO2 levels are increasing.

      And, since it really isn't clear what you think you know, and what the real science says; you do understand that we can tell the difference between natural CO2 and that emitted by our burning fossil fuel sources, right?

      Delete

    4. Your 'page 26' doesn't say what you say it says.

      Other links are broken.

      Your sustainableoregon link shows the carbon cycle, maybe you linked to by accident.

      Delete

    5. Giles---- No chart
      JK--------You have to put a http etc. Before it. Then go to pdf page 26 - it is table 3.

      Giles----Broken link
      JK----- You can still see the chart at: sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html

      Giles----You do realize that even that source shows natural CO2 CYCLING THROUGH the atmosphere, right?
      JK------ I argue that it is not a cycle. When many random sources are emitting CO2 at random times and from random locations and many other sinks are taking up CO2 at random times and in random places, that is not my definition of a cycle. It is merely a big sink.

      Giles----... you do understand that we can tell the difference between natural CO2 and that emitted by our burning fossil fuel sources, right?
      JK------No.
      Tell us how we can tell the difference between burning natural gas and naturally escaping natural gas bing oxidized by natural processes.
      Same for crude oil.
      Tell us how we can tell the difference between 1 GT of Co2 from decaying 2000 yr old peat bogs and .1Gt of man’s emission?
      Same for other old vegetation.

      Giles----Your 'page 26' doesn't say what you say it says.
      JK-------Table 3 says man’s CO2 is 23,100 of 793,100 total. That puts man’s Co2 at 2.9% of the total. Do you claim something else? You will not that the only claim I made is that man’s CO2 is in the 3-4% range of the total.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

  17. Giles, whatever did you expect from a denier like JK, who, with an already biased view, reads a few lines from the GOP agenda, then attempts to argue with someone with a much larger knowledge base. That became quite apparent when JK started with the BS about CO2 sources we don't know about. As if these unknown sources just magically appeared in the past 50 years and had a major impact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. djsteinb----Giles, whatever did you expect from a denier like JK, who, with an already biased view, reads a few lines from the GOP agenda,
      JK----------Actually I read those peskey denier sites. You know the ones that showed us:
      --the IPCC report that gets bout 1/3 of their claimed peer reviewed papers from greenie propaganda.
      –climategate emails of top climate scientist admitting they couldn’t account for heat.
      –climategate emails of top climate scientist advocating for criminal destruction of evidence.
      –climategate emails of top climate scientist asking for funding from oil companies.
      –climategate emails of top climate scientist trying to block publication of competing papers.
      –climategate emails of top climate scientist saying one thing inprivate and the opposite in public
      –climategate emails of top climate scientist figuring out how to adjust data to make their point.
      –climategate emails of top climate scientist admitting wrming stopped years ago.
      -that Mann’s hockeystick is worthless and probably a fraud.
      -that a British court found many errors on Al’s movie. Lies really.
      -that the ice core data shows CO2 rising AFTER, not before temperature
      -that man only emits about 3-4% of total CO2.
      -that, without “adjustments” the USA temperature record shows cooling since the 1930s.

      In other words, it appears that global warming is the fraud of the century, if not of all time.

      djsteinb----...JK started with the BS about CO2 sources we don't know about. As if these unknown sources just magically appeared in the past 50 years and had a major impact.
      JK----------Are you claiming that we know all CO2 sources that exist?
      Are you further claiming that we know their exact magnitude to an accuracy so that their error bands total much less than man’s CO2?
      Laughable.

      But nice sockpuppet act, though.

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    2. Let's just start here:

      "the IPCC report that gets bout 1/3 of their claimed peer reviewed papers from greenie propaganda"

      Your evidence?


      And IF you respond, we'll go through the rest of your assertions.

      Delete

  18. Uh Oh. "NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans" Study 1/31/12.

    Come on gang, it's time for some serious denyin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. It looks like the Germans have finally seen the truth! Here is what a major German daily headlined:

      “THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”
      This is to be the first in a series.

      And, a leading German environmentalist found hundreds of errors in the IPCC report. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. He looked further and was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. So he wrote a book!

      This could be the beginning chapter II of the end of the greatest science fraud of all times! (Climategate was chapt. I)

      see: notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/

      Thanks
      JK

      Delete

    2. Not really amazed that JK attempts to equate a couple of newspaper articles with actual research.....


      Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
      researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
      97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
      field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
      Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and
      scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
      substantially below that of the convinced researchers

      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)