Solar and GHG effect in vertical temperature of the atmos.

[Josh Cryer]

taniwha, MSimon, you guys are arguing that if we released no CO2 all the CO2 would sink. That goes against our understanding of the carbon cycle and the fact that life (which depends on the carbon cycle) has persisted for millions of years.

[MSimon]

taniwha, MSimon, you guys are arguing that if we released no CO2 all the CO2 would sink. That goes against our understanding of the carbon cycle and the fact that life (which depends on the carbon cycle) has persisted for millions of years.

I have never argued that position. Perhaps faulty communication on my part gave you that impression.

[Josh Cryer]

Fair enough, perhaps I got it from this:

Ignoring the timing and the exact levels the CO2 will drop to, it's still a scary prospect: by selfishly holding onto our coastal cities, we could be killing the planet.

[taniwha]

Josh: I ran some very basic numbers on supplied (or well known) numbers, with a basic assumption or two (mostly for the calculation of the mass of the atmosphere). I presented my results and my conclusions for peer review. So far, I have not received anything that I would call quality review.

BTW, I ran the numbers fully expecting human output to be much less than 1ppm. I was rather surprised to find that it was closer to 6ppm (about 5.7).

[Josh Cryer]

Also, Le Quéré explains where Korr doesn't really conclude anything in: Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide ( http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n ... eo689.html )

(She doesn't actually outright say he's wrong, just shows how he can't make that particular conclusion based on the evidence. They were both published around the same time, iirc.)

[Josh Cryer]

taniwha, but as MSimon showed, the natural carbon cycle releases magnitudes more than we do. Which is precisely why scientists say that carbon has a very long lifetime, because while the natural cycles act over eons and sink (and release) CO2, our contribution is outside of that cycle.

Unless, of course, we plant a lot of trees (Hansen's suggestion!).

[taniwha]

I actually always had the carbon cycle in mind, thus my "assuming" comments. The carbon cycle affects the lower asymptote of the decay curve. This means that instead of zero, the minimum will be somewhere between 0 and 380 (WAG: 120 (based on that 20:1 ratio)).

[MSimon]

Let me amend that. I thought you meant carbon would sink.

What you meant was that carbon would go into a sink.

Depends. If CO2 increases plant growth it will go into a sink. With the appropriate e-folding time. And depending on how rainfall, temperature, vegetation, and animal populations change over time. And the frequency of lightning storms and how it affects nitrogen fixing bacteria. And ocean buffering.

It gets a little complicated.

But I know how to fix it in the models.

Parameters.

[Josh Cryer]

But I know how to fix it in the models.

You don't appear to know anything about the models. You leave research to others.

[MSimon]

But I know how to fix it in the models.

You don't appear to know anything about the models. You leave research to others.

Josh. How do you determine the proper parameter for all the required interactions in a grid box that contains ocean, river, forest, desert, and savanna?

If I was doing a heat transfer study of an object the first thing to do is to define the interfaces (assuming homogeneity of the included area) make the edges of my grids conform to the interfaces. And then subdivide the boxes.

We don't have a computer fast enough for that in climate.

So how do you figure the parameter in the instance I have given?

Well you can assume and approximate. But you know very well that in a chaotic system assumptions and approximations can drive your results out of bounds quicker than if you had a properly gridded and measured system.

And then you add in heat pipes that appear and disappear (there is a name for such vertical cells in climate/weather but I forget the name) and clouds coming and going. And UV variations of unknown frequencies that can vary by +/- 50% and if Svensmark is right (not disproved so far) GCRs (which may vary according to solar magnetism which we can measure but not predict too far ahead) and pretty soon you have a system in which long term predictions have very little meaning.

It will all get sorted in time. But it is going to take a while. Maybe 50 or 100 years of making predictions 10 and 20 years ahead and finding a model that follows those and then predicting 50 years out and seeing if the models properly predict.

In any case North America is a CO2 sink. The world should be paying us for cleaning up their mess. Or else not complaining about how we make our energy. At the very least.

[Josh Cryer]

I don't write the models. Read the papers, read the source code.

[MSimon]

I don't write the models. Read the papers, read the source code.

Well OK. I am not too smart so I can't even figure out how to do it conceptually.

Care to start off with an approach?

[Josh Cryer]

Well OK. I am not too smart so I can't even figure out how to do it conceptually.

Care to start off with an approach?

In due time, at least for the temperature record (homogenization). I don't think I can build a model that is better, but we can do a code analysis.

In the meantime contemplate why the satellite curve matches the surface record (and the much maligned proxies): http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pi ... ure-42.jpg

Is Spencer in on the conspiracy?

[MSimon]

Well OK. I am not too smart so I can't even figure out how to do it conceptually.

Care to start off with an approach?

In due time, at least for the temperature record (homogenization). I don't think I can build a model that is better, but we can do a code analysis.

In the meantime contemplate why the satellite curve matches the surface record (and the much maligned proxies): http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pi ... ure-42.jpg

Is Spencer in on the conspiracy?

Suppose I tell you 2 + 2 = 3. And then I add a homogenization step 3 + 1 = 4 and it matches what every one else gets.

And then I tell you my method MUST be correct because I get the same number every one else does.

In science it is not enough to get the right answer. And even in engineering fudge factors are frowned upon.

Like Cesar's wife science must be beyond reproach. Pure as the driven snow. (well of course snow doesn't form without a seed of somewhat dubious provenance - but you get my point)

The mess needs to get cleaned up. And shown to be clean. It will then bring in some sceptics. It will be a long hard slog. But that is what you get for doing sloppy science.

As I said. The answer will be what ever it is. Doing things right has its own intrinsic value and what ever the answer is I will accept it if gotten cleanly. My integrity is worth more than my bias. Now if only the boys who had been doing the science thought that way we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. Don't suppress contrary opinions. Properly refute them.

Simon

[Josh Cryer]

Well OK. I am not too smart so I can't even figure out how to do it conceptually.

Care to start off with an approach?

In due time, at least for the temperature record (homogenization). I don't think I can build a model that is better, but we can do a code analysis.

In the meantime contemplate why the satellite curve matches the surface record (and the much maligned proxies): http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pi ... ure-42.jpg

Is Spencer in on the conspiracy?

Suppose I tell you 2 + 2 = 3. And then I add a homogenization step 3 + 1 = 4 and it matches what every one else gets.

And then I tell you my method MUST be correct because I get the same number every one else does.

In science it is not enough to get the right answer. And even in engineering fudge factors are frowned upon.

Like Cesar's wife science must be beyond reproach. Pure as the driven snow. (well of course snow doesn't form without a seed of somewhat dubious provenance - but you get my point)

The mess needs to get cleaned up. And shown to be clean. It will then bring in some sceptics. It will be a long hard slog. But that is what you get for doing sloppy science.

As I said. The answer will be what ever it is. Doing things right has its own intrinsic value and what ever the answer is I will accept it if gotten cleanly. My integrity is worth more than my bias. Now if only the boys who had been doing the science thought that way we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. Don't suppress contrary opinions. Properly refute them.

Simon

That's not what's happening.

If it was what was happening guys like MacIntyre would have surely found it (since they actually can spend all of their time looking at the data).

When Spencer's data wasn't fitting the error was found (he added in a -1 in his code), without looking at the code itself.

It's simple, read the papers, reproduce the homogenization steps, if they diverge, demand the code be released (make a big hub hub about it, get on TV, etc). And that is precisely what I will do.