And we are grateful to you for giving us a prime example of the problem.
However you might have looked at little less ridiculous if you'd accompanied your comment with a URL pointing to evidence of a pro- anthropogenic-global-warming propaganda machine.
The world's climatologists don't count - they are paid to publish their research results, which counts as informing - rather than misleading - the public.
You may differ - having received a conflicting revelation form what ever "divine" agency informs your thought - but that just makes you a religious propaganda machine.
An individual CO2 molecule goes around the CO2 cycle on average every
4-5 years, but the point is that for every one leaving the atmosphere another is rejoining. This isn't quite true since at least for the moment the oceans are still behaving as a net carbon sink so that the true net flux is more like 200 into the sinks and 199 coming back.
Multiply these together and you get a ball park answer for the time constant required for the Earth to eliminate a large impulse of CO2.
Here is a reasonably well argued basic scientific case :
formatting link
Which German CO2 records do you refer to? Most of the US CO2 monitoring stations are included on the following graph which shows clearly how the trend is very similar globally, but the sinks (forests) and sources (industry) are predominantly in the northern hemisphere and give corresponding larger seasonal variations with latitude.
formatting link
The south pole lags behind the northern hemisphere somewhat. And by the time CO2 has reached the south pole most of the seasonal variation has already been averaged out. I have to say I am surprised how sharply long days of summer sunshine drives CO2 photosynthetic fixing at 71N. No wonder birds migrate up there for the summer breeding season!
Yes. But it doesn't stop deniers for hire pretending that there isn't.
Scripps also monitors the O2 content of the air which is the counterbalance to the CO2 in photosynthesis. Technically a much more difficult proposition requiring 5 sig fig measurements of major atmospheric components but it has been possible now for a couple of decades. See for example:
He's too busy having to correctly predict what's going to happen (which he has been doing) rather than attempt to churn out papers to climb the greasy pole of academia.
Semantics.
He knows enough about predicting short or long term weather/climate to know that the current models aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
Chemistry Today printed the following?
"Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind of white paint."
(This is an outright lie).
"Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue but never graduated"
That's not a lot to base the following on....
"Anthony Watt s is a depressing example of the sort of pseudo-authority used by the denialist propaganda machine to sow fear, doubt and uncertainy about the remarkably solid scientific envidence for anthropogenic global warming."
"Anthony Watts clearly can't imagine that it is possible, since his imagination is fully committed to supporting the denialist propaganda machine,"
(Even though he publishes parmist articles on his site).
You sound like you know him well, or are you taking prompts from some undeclared warmist source?
Bill, can you explain why Sourcewatch has articles about Judith Curry amd Roger Pielke but not about Gavin Schmidt or William Connolly (banned from editing Wikipedia articles about global warming)?
There's also nothing about any 'on message' blogs, only realists.
How would I know? I just quote Sourcewatch when they have something relevant - I do check the stuff I point to for obvious errors or omissions, but I don't go any further than that.
Gavin Schmidt seems to be a serious climate scientist, if Google is anything to go by
formatting link
formatting link
Why do you claim that he has been banned from editing Wikipedia articles about global warming? I can imagine that this might have happened, but I'm curious as to know the fact of his being banned became public knowledge.
Sourcewatch wouldn't be all that interested in him - it doesn't look as if he is being bribed by anybody.
William Connolly is a rather more shadowy figure. Google finds him referred to a variety of denialist web-sites, but he looks something like God - if he didn't exist the denialists would have had to invent him.
Again, where is your evidence that he a) exists and b) was actually banned from editing Wikipedia articles. Stuff on wattsupwiththat.com doesn't count.
First find the predictions, then we can discuss how they got it wrong
- if they got it wrong. John Larkin gets his global warming predictions second hand, from the denialist media that he reads (not all that carefully). I'm not minded to get wound up about one of his - frequent - misinterpretations,
There have always been a range of anthropogenic global warming scenarios. The people who run the models are well aware that they are only rough simulations of reality - all the models agree that there will be more warming, but the predictions for 2100 range from 1.1 to
6.4 =B0C warmer than now. Most of the models come closer to 3.75 =B0C of warming, but that doesn't mean that any one of those models is more or less right.
isn't it?
Everybody is very confident about that. But then again if the Greenland ice sheet slides off into the ocean, melts and stops the Gulf Stream the area around the North Atlantic will get a lot colder very quickly. The world would keep on warming up but the east coast of the USA and most of northern Europe would not.
Anthropogenic gloabal warming is a complicated issue. Once you have said tha we should be burning less fossil carbon, or at least not releasing the CO2 produced into the atmosphere you've pretty much exhausted the issues about which there isn't any legitimate doubt.
If you don't like my "obvious answer", produce your own. The group does need to be reminded how little you actually know about anthropogenic global warming.
Not at all. Weather models can't predict the weather more than ten days in advance - check out the "butterfly effect" - because then become hyper-sensitive it the intial conditons after this sort of period.
Climate models don't predict day-to-day weaterh at all, and don't have this particular problem.
Somebdy who is an expert on weather models doesn't have to know anything about climate modles, and vice versa.
know that the current models aren't worth the paper they are printed
But he doesn't know enough to know about the Argo buoy project or the current work on building short term (sun-spot number related) solar variability into current climate models, so his opinion on the utility of today's climate models isn't exactly decisive.
his
That is what I wrote. It was mentioned in the Chemistry Today article. It is one of his obsessions
formatting link
achine,"
"parmist"?
It depends what you mean by visited. I only went there to look at it once. I inadvertently end up there from time to time, but I don't count them as intentional visits. Grabbing the Stevenson screen quote above is not something I would normally describe as "visiting" the site - Google dropped me directing into the web-site at a place that served my purposes and I stayed just long enough to confirm that I'd got what I wanted before cutting and pasting the URL.
OK: Reducing particulates is relatively cheap and easy, and will reduce snow melts essentially instantly. But reducing CO2 is enormously expensive and involves world-wide control over almost every aspect of life and commerce... and that's where the power really lies.
It's really about power.
You, for instance, have admitted that you won't make an effort to reduce your personal carbon footprint, but you spend untold hours ranting and insulting people about AGW. You don't really care about the planet, you just use AGW as a substrate for your ego.
I've been replacing incandescents lately with LED lamps. Suddenly all the hardware stores have 120 volt replacement lamps with about 32 white LEDs in a plastic globe, around $9 each. Payback is something absurd, like one month. I wonder what's in the base. The 1.5 watt units are fine for outdoor lighting, like garage doors and stairs and such. May as well just leave them on all the time... a timer would use more power.
Or how we generate it. I don't see it involving "world-wide control over almost evey aspect of life and commerce" - this is the sort of "free-market fundamentalism" mentioned in the book "Merchants of Doubt".
What we do have to do is to stop generating energy by burning fossil carbon, which ia a huge understaking, but closely defined. Nobody is going to care if you go for windmills, solar cells, thermal solar, nuclear power or hydro-electric plants so long as you don't burn oil or coal. At today's generation costs, this is going to roughly double the price of energy. As oil gets scarcer and the economies of scale kick in for windmills, solar panels and thermal solar this price difference is going to erode. Wind energy is expected to break even with coal-fired power station around 2030, and solar power around
2045.
This isn't going to double the cost of living - or anything like it. Energy costs seem to represent about 10% of the cost of living.
And one direct resul of higher energy proces is greater investment in using energy more efficiently. Heat pumps for house heating and cooling becoem more attractive than burning natural gas, and comsummers will be furhter motivated to improve the insulation of their homes, to give one specific example.
If you can remember back to the 1973 oil crisis, where the price of oil quadrupled in a few months, one of the responses was to invest in more efficient equipment.
Your ideological inclination is to see the scaling down of fossil- carbon burning as something decreed by the state and implement by detailed regulation. In reality, it has to work much more like the
1973 oil crisis, where oil and coal are going to be taxed progressively more heavily (not - in this case - by the Arabs) to encourage the free market to move to sustainable energy sources.
As I've said before, I don't see much point in reducing my personal carbon foot-print if nobody else is either - that would be quixotic.
I don't - peresonally - think that what I post constitutes ranting. It consists of specific responses to specific posts. Some time ago I promised you that I wouldn't initiate any more off-topic anthropogenic global warming threads, and I think I've managed to keep to that. You
- on the other hand - keep posting half-baked denialist propaganda links from the right-wing media.
As for insults go, the one in the sentence above is about as far as I go. You regularly make false and malicious claims about my home life, my desire to get work and my capacity to design electronics, none of which have any obvious relationship to the subject under discussion.
I don't care all that much about the planet - it can look after itself. I do care about my nieces and nephews, and their children, and I'd prefer that they didn't have to adapt to a markedly different environment. If I cared about my ego - or at least my public image - I wouldn't have espoused such an unpopular cause on this user-group. Before denialism became popular amongst our right-wingers I was seen as one of the group's gurus. Now you are busy claiming that I can't design electronics.
I've been replacing incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent units for years, where the fitting are big enough to accomodate them, and the light is on often enough to justify putting in a more expensive light source. Our supermarkets are starting to stock LED-based replacement lamps, but anything that emits a respectable amount of light - comparable with a 100W incandescent globe - is very expensive.
The Dutch are notoriously economical, and you could buy 25W incandescent bulbs in the supermarkets, stocked and displayed with similar prominence and in similar number to 60W bulbs. LED-based replacement lamps aimed at that part of the market are a lot cheaper.
Your support for the denialist case would have to be a lot more persuasive - at the very least rational - before one could believe that anybody would pay you for what you do.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.