@Mags

I tried to use it Sunday, but it won’t go as deep as I want because It’s the individual sentences I want to read through. Yes, I am being that anal about it.. (Although this is handy to have)

The big grin is for knowing you’re still diggin in da dirt.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

OK, guys.

I’ve gotten a little back-logged on keeping up with the comments updates in my email so if this link is a repeat of one previously dropped in here a 1000 pardons. It was just kicked to me over at my site. It helps filter through the emails by using word search:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

So, have at it and git `er dun!

Maggie

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Larry

*pant,pant,pant* Runnin my butt off here…

First of all, within the document section of the “hack-release”, they discuss the very thing you posted from realclimate to Mata in #48 (their admitted media-wing), yet within their own internal discussions, they are not so positive about it, and even discuss whether or not to be so “forceful” about it. (You’ll see this soon.) That “feedback” is hotly discussed, because of the unclear amount of the (small-heat-absorbing) IR bandwidth of the CO2 that makes it up high enough to make the hypothesized forcing that isn’t already covered up by the water-vapour absorption. (I hope that made sense.)

Second of all, regarding the volcanic CO2 volumes, I hereby masticate and digest Corvus corone cornix.

In thinking about it, I let it take hold without question since Pinatubo blew it’s stack, and some talking head on the local news that week said it. I should know better, and now I do.

In looking into it further, not even the super-volcanoes led to much of a “blip”. Extinctions and decadial winters, yes, but no substantial increases in CO2. In some ways it says something about how freakin big the organism we call earth actually is. Some papers hint that because of the cold-weather after-effects, the subsequent drop in temps helped mask the increases by absorbing it, and our present instrumentation has yet to detect that small drop within the signal.

But I consider that a stretch, as do most reviewers.

Others talk about the amount of methane and such, but again, the evidence is inferred, not observed.

Ug. I’m tired. I haven’t done this much reading and brainwork in 20 years, and tomorrow morning I can look forward to pooping black feathers.
BACK TO THE DOCS!!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Mata (#38):

I read your linked Watts/Lansner article and I am very unimpressed. Firstly, to be fair to both sides, here’s how they addressed the Watts/Lansner article at realclimate.org:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/irreversible-does-not-mean-unstoppable/

Comment 50: Jonas says:

2 February 2009 at 3:06 AM

Interesting Article…

But, I’m a bit confused about reading this article on CO2 and it’s
warming effect noted in Antartic ice core samples.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

Can someone please explain …?

[Response: What's to explain? The climate affects the carbon cycle - over ice age timescales it seems to be mainly through ocean processes (solubility, production, stratification) which takes time to work through. CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, and so the combination is an amplification of the cycles which are driven by orbital wobbles. None of this is controversial. - gavin]

Comment # 104 Jim Eager says:

2 February 2009 at 6:45 PM

Re Jonas @50, who is confused about CO2 and it’s warming effect noted in Antartic ice core samples.

Jonas, to dispel the confusion that Lansner & Watts deliberately seek to sow in that link, all you need to do is understand that CO2 can be either an amplifying feedback or a direct forcing, depending on the circumstances.

What the ice cores show is that at the end of a glaciation CO2 does not drive the initial warming. That would be the increase in solar insolation due to changes in the wobble of Earth’s axis and the shape of its orbit. (Look up Milankovic Cycles) As a result of that initial forcing, the warming ocean and thawing permafrost emit CO2 into the atmosphere, where, as a greenhouse gas it then amplifies the initial warming. This not news.

If, however, you change the circumstance by skipping the initial increase in solar insolation and just add more CO2 directly to the atmosphere, the greenhouse warming that it will induce will be a direct forcing, as opposed to a follow-on feedback.

Which is exactly what we are presently doing by burning fossil-carbon fuels and injecting huge amounts of CO2 directly into the atmosphere.

Fortunately, CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not often act as a direct climate forcing naturally, but it has happened in Earth’s history. Look up the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), or the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event, and you will see that it has not been a good thing when it has.

Now I have a question for you, Jonas:
Why would anyone trust someone who deliberately tries to sow confusion about this relatively simple concept?

Now, you (Mata) put a lot of emphasis on the following statement from Watts/Lansner:

When examining the graph fig 1, I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, it should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise?! (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify)

Well, I went to the (magnified) version of the graph fig 1, and I can’t find anything at all in those ice core records to compare with what is currently happening (and which is, indeed, unprecedented). Previously, there are only tiny little blips of spontaneous CO2 increases, no doubt whatever effect these had were overshadowed by other factors (sunspots, orbital eccentricities, whatever). But look at the HUGE, GIGANTIC, ENORMOUS CO2 spike which is happening right now (extreme right end of the graph). It’s truly unprecedented, and the explantations from realclimate.org make complete sense, and there is nothing at all in the Watts/Lansner article to contradict these explanations.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Like or Dislike: 0  0

reply to #42 (concerning human vs volcanic CO2) went to spam.

- LW/HB

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Patvann (#42):

I have been looking, but I have been unable to find a credible reference which supports the contention that the Mt. Pinatubo’s CO2 emissions dwarfed the CO2 emissions of humans for even one year, much less 100 years, much less 10,000 years. I am not angling for a gotcha or anything like that; I’d simply like to know. If your statement was correct, then I would immediately change my stand on the carbon emissions issue. However, I find it not only implausible, but wildly implausible. If you look at my links in #41, you’ll see that there isn’t the slightest hint of a CO2 anomaly in 1991, which I would think would be the case with such a massive emission, given that there is no credible explanation for the relentless rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution — accelerating after WW2 — than human activity. I can find apocryphal references to Mt. Pinatubo emitting more CO2 than humans on political blogs, but no hard data from any scientific source. Perhaps I need to go into the deeper pages of my Google retrievals, but I just can’t find anything credible to support your statement concerning Mt. Pinatubo and CO2.

I did find the following, which suggests that volcanic CO2 is negligible compared to human CO2:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Patvann: PPS. My editor is on my butt to get a Reader Post going, so I better, or she’ll run me over with her Hog. (Hi Mata!)

No sweat there, Patvann…. the good stuff always takes some time and research and isn’t fodder for instantaneous posting. I’m patient.

tapping toes, tapping toes…

OK, I’m frothing at the bit and you’ve got me hanging on with tidbits and orts in interim. But my hawg and I say, “no swine before it’s time”. We’ll wait, and behave until you’re ready.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yes Larry….like the the cigarette/cancer issue in the 70s. But, you’ve got it backwards. The emails here..are very much like the ones that busted out the cigarette companies then..where it became undeniable that they knew of the cancer risk, etc…and fudged their data to hide it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Great work Patvann!
My intution is that the Russian server has not changed the data. Today the media(propaganda machine) has come out with a statement that seals it for me. That climate change is even worse than the “scientists” originally expected! Ha!…the liberals…denied, denied and attack, attack…

Warming’s impacts sped up, worsened since Kyoto

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer – Sun Nov 22, 2:54 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.

As the world has talked for a dozen years about what to do next, new ship passages opened through the once frozen summer sea ice of the Arctic. In Greenland and Antarctica, ice sheets have lost trillions of tons of ice. Mountain glaciers in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa are shrinking faster than before.

And it’s not just the frozen parts of the world that have felt the heat in the dozen years leading up to next month’s climate summit in Copenhagen:

_The world’s oceans have risen by about an inch and a half.

_Droughts and wildfires have turned more severe worldwide, from the U.S. West to Australia to the Sahel desert of North Africa.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Larry.

I changed it to 100 years less than a minute after I initially posted it. I should have noted the change within the body of the post immediately after I did it, but I wrongly assumed that because I made the change within 30 seconds, that it wouldn’t matter to anyone.

-That was not the right thing for me to do, as all changes should be noted. (Unlike the changes I am unearthing in my research into this debacle.)

When an agency or entity recieves a FOIA request, how would you (or anyone with a moral-sense) respond internally? If one feels secure in the methodology, one would not need to hesitate.

-Too bad our friends (Mr. Jones) have no moral sense, nor do they feel secure in thier methodology. To wit:

RE: FOIA consideration

Options appear to be:

1.Send them the data

2.Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

3.Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Doin’t worry Larry. When my Post is written, I will have no fear whatsoever is supplying links, data, and whatever else is needed to keep my integrity, and the integrity of my helpers intact….Unlike Mr. Jones.

Like or Dislike: 0  0