|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 11, 2009 21:34:53 GMT
Icefisher, The ad hominem comments are a bit silly really. I've stated quite clearly why I don't believe what Segalstad says, so attack the substantive points I've made and don't moan about a few rude remarks. The relevant publication was the first one - the one described as a "memoir". To be honest, it wouldn't matter if it was published in Nature, the relevant part of the paper is easy to dismiss. Nautonnier, CO2 levels go up 1-2ppm per year don't they? So if there is a 5% decrease in oil gas and coal usage they might go up 0.95-1.9% per year instead. Possibly you wouldn't notice the difference unless the decrease was sustained? Steve, The decrease in the references/URLs I gave you, all state that there is a continued reduction in the major emitting nations that is considerable putting them back to 1990 levels over the last 2 - 3 years. If you cannot see that in the figures/graphs from the CO2 sensing stations then something is remiss. As you can play with the axes of your graphs to show a .5C increase as a hockey stick, then I am sure you can play with the graphs to show there is correlation with actual measured reductions in emissions. If those actual measured reductions do NOT show in the graphs then - as I said - there is reason to smell a rat. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 11, 2009 21:41:52 GMT
That is assuming that co2 emissions have sharply dropped in the past 2 years and I don't believe they have. They may have even increased, with the rate of increase slowing down rather than reversing. Well your belief may already be a falsified hypothesis... There is some info about global emissions in 2007 and 2008, 2009 doesn't seem to be around yet: www.equalc.com/index.php/ja/news/94-global-co2-emissions-annual-increase-halved-in-2008 |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 11, 2009 22:37:15 GMT
Icefisher, The ad hominem comments are a bit silly really. I've stated quite clearly why I don't believe what Segalstad says, so attack the substantive points I've made and don't moan about a few rude remarks. The relevant publication was the first one - the one described as a "memoir". To be honest, it wouldn't matter if it was published in Nature, the relevant part of the paper is easy to dismiss. So your response is more handwaving huh? Decided the additional ad hominems didn't help. I think you got that latter part right anyway. It may not be Nature magazine but the NPI Memoirs being published since 1928 hardly makes it a "private" publication of Segalstat. So as to that easy refutation. . . .I think you have a lot of invitations to proceed. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 11, 2009 23:44:18 GMT
Amazing !!! A CO 2 sensor that can tell where the CO 2 comes from!!! Errrm _actually_ SoCold what I was expecting was a graph showing Mauna Loa (or similar) and the correlation of CO 2 atmospheric concentration recordings with the recorded drops up to the current day. Although it is interesting that your model URL does not show the actual huge drop in the USA CO 2 output since 2007 - perhaps I misread it.  |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 12, 2009 18:26:05 GMT
Errrm _actually_ SoCold what I was expecting was a graph showing Mauna Loa (or similar) and the correlation of CO 2 atmospheric concentration recordings with the recorded drops up to the current day. Although it is interesting that your model URL does not show the actual huge drop in the USA CO 2 output since 2007 - perhaps I misread it. It's not a model, it's based on the fossil fuel inventories burnt in those years. The US drop is on the graph, the reason you can't really see it is that the drop is very small (a couple of %) and easily cancelled out by increases in the developing world. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 12, 2009 18:44:10 GMT
Errrm _actually_ SoCold what I was expecting was a graph showing Mauna Loa (or similar) and the correlation of CO 2 atmospheric concentration recordings with the recorded drops up to the current day. Although it is interesting that your model URL does not show the actual huge drop in the USA CO 2 output since 2007 - perhaps I misread it. It's not a model, it's based on the fossil fuel inventories burnt in those years. The US drop is on the graph, the reason you can't really see it is that the drop is very small (a couple of %) and easily cancelled out by increases in the developing world. Socold: So in effect what you are saying is that the US could drop co2 emissions by lets say 5%, ruin the economy, and total co2 emissions would continue to rise worldwide. Wow......now that reallllllly makes a lot of sense as policy.. And what scientist is trying to sell this idea? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 12, 2009 18:49:43 GMT
The graph only shows the past not the future
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 12, 2009 19:00:13 GMT
The graph only shows the past not the future Yep they ai'nt done yet. By the time its updated to 2009 they should be able to strongly corrolate lower carbon use with shrinking economies worldwide. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 12, 2009 19:01:38 GMT
The graph only shows the past not the future So no scientist is advocating that idea? And I do think that history is great predictor of the future. JMHO |
|
|
|
Post by enough on Sept 25, 2009 3:27:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 25, 2009 16:26:45 GMT
Here so socold, glc and steve can't say they didn't see it....  |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 25, 2009 17:21:06 GMT
Well, technically the maximum residence time probably isn't the issue. The residence time of CO2 only describes one half of the equation. The other half is CO2 coming right back out of the oceans. Since the majority of the CO2 in the world is locked up in the oceans, it makes sense that our CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans without being let back out in significant volumes.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2009 17:57:15 GMT
Here so socold, glc and steve can't say they didn't see it.... A little handwaving will clear it from their minds momentarily, just like they do with:  |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 25, 2009 20:59:26 GMT
little handwaving will clear it from their minds momentarily, just like they do with:
Re: the graphic
What are the assumptions underpinning the 1800 temperature readings. It certainly doesn't appear to be based on data - and I know how much you value data observations.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2009 21:45:32 GMT
little handwaving will clear it from their minds momentarily, just like they do with: Re: the graphic What are the assumptions underpinning the 1800 temperature readings. It certainly doesn't appear to be based on data - and I know how much you value data observations. There isn't much of an argument whether there was a LIA or not. Certainly nothing that can be considered scientific. It was an uncontroversial consensus it existed up until certain folks decided it was inconvenient for their purposes. Thats when all the questioning began and discounting of numerous studies and proxies. . . .all without the aid of any kind of rigorous analysis. Show me the analysis that brought about that change. Nope there is none. . . .it was just handwaved away. While you are at it show me the data that supports the consensus on the residence time of CO2, which also became inconvenient as well. Like I said its nothing but handwaving to make it go away because you are going to come up with nothing, zip, nada like you always do. |
|
