JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Oops. Indian carbon accounting adds lakes, rivers, and changes tally by 42%. Who’s bet billions of dollars on fudgy numbers?

Indian researchers have realized that the carbon modelers there had vastly underestimated the CO2 and CH4 given off by the parts of India covered in water, and when they put them in, they discovered they were churning out methane and carbon dioxide and the output was equal to 42% of what the Indian forests, farms and gardens were absorbing. (Lucky that only one sixth of humanity lives in India, eh?)

Humans are putting out less than 4% of total natural emissions of CO2  (as far as we can tell) – but obviously, we don’t even know what those natural emissions are  — it’s like plus or minus forty percent. (Say hello to the Pacific Ocean and make that plus or minus 100%). Carbon accounting is a fog of best guesses.

And people trade global markets on this?

Below the authors explain why their estimates are so much better than past ones, but why they still don’t know the real answer. They also explain why the numbers change from place to place, river to river, and even from morning tea to dinner time.

The bottom line is that even suggesting a carbon market globally is an invitation to global rorting. In come the sharks, the smoochers, the white collar crims, and the bun fight ensues over who can wheel and deal their way to rules about an invisible ubiquitous gas which changes from spot to spot and minute to minute and is produced by everything, all of the time, but at ever changing rates. It’s a global game where the players  pretend they care about the planet while channeling the river of money their way.

h/t to The Hockey Schtick

In the national GHG inventory of India, wetlands (inland and coastal waters) were considered in the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector (INCCA, 2010). Because the data on inland and coastal water emissions were scarce, they were not included in the budgets, and the LULUCF sector was estimated to be acting as a sink of 177.0 Tg CO2 yr-1  in 2007 (INCCA, 2010). However, the here presented data show that India’s water bodies are emitting large amounts of CH4 and CO2 to the atmosphere. If our CH4 flux is expressed as CO2 equivalents and combined with the CO2 flux, and assuming a representative extrapolation, about 75 Tg CO2 equivalents yr -1 is being emitted from India’s inland waters (Table 4). This is equal to about 42% of the estimated land sink of India.

It’s not and was never about the real number of carbon molecules. It’s about what gets counted and what doesn’t, and may the best player win. It’s about networking, machinations, negotiations and estimates; a billion here, a billion there, and soon we’re talking real money.

Let me just say, look at the range on the mean partial pressure mentioned in the abstract. What if we run a global market based on agreements where $3000 was paid which meant you received a range of $400 – $11,467? Happy?

Abstract
Inland waters were recently recognized to be important sources of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, and including inland water emissions in large scale greenhouse gas (GHG) budgets may potentially offset the estimated carbon sink in many areas. However, the lack of GHG flux measurements and well-defined inland water areas for extrapolation, make the  magnitude of the potential offset unclear. This study presents coordinated flux measurements of CH4 and CO2 in multiple lakes, ponds, rivers, open wells, reservoirs, springs, and canals in India. All these inland water types, representative of common aquatic ecosystems in India, emitted substantial amounts of CH4 and a major fraction also emitted CO2. The total CH4 flux (including  ebullition and diffusion) from all the 45 systems ranged from 0.01 to 52.1 mmol m -2 d-1, with a mean of 7.8  12.7 (mean  1 SD) mmolm -2 d-1. The mean surface water CH4 concentration was 3.8 ± 14.5 lM (range 0.03–92.1 lM). The CO2 fluxes ranged from 28.2 to 262.4 mmol m -2 d-1 and the mean flux was 51.9 ± 71.1 mmol m -2 d-1. The mean partial pressure of CO2 was 2927  ± 3269 µatm  (range: 400–11,467 µatm). Conservative extrapolation to whole India, considering the specific area of the different water types  studied, yielded average emissions of 2.1 Tg CH4 yr-1 and 22.0 Tg CO2 yr 1 from India’s inland waters. When expressed as CO2 equivalents, this amounts to 75 Tg CO2 equivalents yr -1 (53–98 Tg CO2 equivalents yr -1;  ± 1 SD), with CH4 contributing 71%. Hence, average inland water GHG emissions, which were not previously considered, correspond to 42% (30–55%) of the estimated land carbon sink of India. Thereby this study illustrates the importance of considering inland water GHG exchange in large scale assessments.

Look at the big numbers here.  The authors are telling us there are lots of reasons why their estimate is a better stab in the dark than past studies, and may still underestimate the effect of all the bodies of water in India. India is 2.8% of the world’s land area (not that that means anything much in the grand fog of unknowns).

 Possible inaccuracies in inland water area.

The first Indian inventory of ecologically and socio-economically important inland and coastal waters for conservation purposes was made by Scott (1989). This estimated the total area to be 582 000 km2, including area under rice cultivation, but excluding rivers. The first national inventory of all the inland and coastal waters using satellite images taken during the years 1992– 1993 at 1 : 250 000 scale was prepared by Garg et al. (1998). The total area was estimated to be 82 600 km2 excluding rice fields, rivers, irrigation channels, and canals. The recent update to this inventory (total area of about 152 600 km2; excluding rice fields) was provided  using satellite images from the years 2006–2007 at 1 : 50 000 scale by SAC (2011). Here, the minimum size of water body mapped was 0.022 km2, whereas in the 1998 estimate it was 0.56 km2. The latest inventory estimates the area of rivers/streams to be around 52 600 km2, which partly explains the big difference in the area by both inventories. The rest could be attributed to the higher resolution images used by the 2011 inventory. Yet, the most recent river/stream area does not include streams with areas smaller than the threshold. Thereby, our study underestimates the river/stream fluxes.

Obviously lakes, rivers and wetlands are kinda important, but  I happen to know that the world’s best carbon accounting model (FullCAM*) in Australia doesn’t include rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and so on and so forth. The only thing I can say is lucky Australia is so dry. A similar study here would probably not make as much difference. Just a few billion dollars worth here or there.

With admirably honesty the authors tell us that their study doesn’t tell us much about other places, because in West Africa CO2 declines at peak river flow, while in the Amazon it does the opposite. In other words, every water body is different; it’s different in summer and winter, at peak flow, or slow flow, and in the morning, versus the afternoon. (Look at the range on the morning readings compared to other times  (range = - 52% to 880%). Who are we kidding?

A study in the Godavari estuary, Cochin estuary and Chilka lake (brackish lagoon) in India has found substantially higher levels of pCO2 during monsoon fed peak discharges when compared with the dry periods (Gupta et al., 2008, 2009; Sarma et al., 2011). Carbon dioxide concentration measurements in Amazon rivers and floodplain lakes have shown that the concentrations were higher in high water season due to increase in carbon inputs and respiration (Richey et al., 2002; al., 2011; Rasera et al., 2013). Studies in West African rivers and in a subtropical monsoon river have shown a decrease in pCO2 during high flow  because of dilution by flood waters (Yao et al., 2007; Kone et al., 2009). In summary, these tropical studies are not showing any conclusive general patterns, indicating increased CH4 and CO2 emissions during high water (wet season) in some cases and decreased or no change in emissions in some other cases.

Carbon dioxide emissions in the morning were on an average 157% (range = - 52% to 880%, median = 46%,n = 14) higher than afternoon or evening measurements and pCO2 were 150% higher (range = 63 to 458%, median = 115%, n = 5). Hence, there is a possibility that our CO2 fluxes were underestimated because it was not possible to perform nighttime flux measurements in all systems for safety reasons.

REFERENCE:

Balathandayuthabani Panneer Selvam1,†, Sivakiruthika Natchimuthu1,  Lakshmanan Arunachalam2 and David Bastviken1, Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters in India – implications for large scale greenhouse gas balances, Global Change Biology,  DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12575 [Abstract]

*Yes well obviously I’m biased about FullCAM. Dr David Evans built it, and I’m married to him. (Yes, I interviewed him for this story.)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (49 votes cast)
Oops. Indian carbon accounting adds lakes, rivers, and changes tally by 42%. Who's bet billions of dollars on fudgy numbers?, 9.3 out of 10 based on 49 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/obxgzvu

184 comments to Oops. Indian carbon accounting adds lakes, rivers, and changes tally by 42%. Who’s bet billions of dollars on fudgy numbers?

  • #

    The crazy aspect of this type of analysis of CO2 and CH4 emissions from inland fresh water ways and lakes is that the ultimate source of the carbon in the carbon dioxide and methane is the atmosphere itself.

    In a fresh water situation where plant, bacteria, insect, bird, aquatic and terrestrial animal life abound, it is the organic life processes that release the carbon in each of the gases. The source of this carbon is not to be found in the soil or water itself. It comes from the activity of plants drawing down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by means of photosynthesis. The carbon in a plant comes from the air, not from the ground.

    The plants – and the ‘sequestered’ carbon in them in CH chains – become the basis of the food chain. This includes algae and other plants found in water. Other life forms – bacteria, birds, insects, bugs, animals and humans – eat the plants and, in doing so, convert the CH chains in the plants to carbon in the form of carbon dioxide or methane.

    When this carbon dioxide or methane is released to the atmosphere again, it represents no additional carbon load to the atmosphere whatsoever. The whole cycle starts with carbon in the atmosphere and ends with carbon in the atmosphere. It is balanced and self-repeating for infinity – or, if not infinity, for as long as the sun shines and kicks off the water cycle and atmospheric carbon cycle on earth.

    I wish people could stop worrying about the natural, organic and life giving movement of carbon in the atmospheric carbon cycle. It is solar powered and entirely natural.

    361

    • #

      Agree, David there are natural cycles but in honesty there has been some increase in atmospheric concentration of both CO2 and CH4 in the last 50 years although there is significant uncertainty about the human contribution.
      Never the less neither CO2 or CH4 in the atmosphere has any significant effect on weather or climate. This particularly applies to CH4 which in the article is assumed to have a bigger affect than emission of CO2. This is false. THE ABSORPTION OF RADIATION BY CO2 IS LESS THAN CO2. The emissivity of CO2 and H2O can be found in Table 5-8 of Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook and the emissivity of CH4 (with some other gases) in Table 5-9. The post Methane Good or Bad http://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/ gives a wider explanation of why Methane IS NOT a significant greenhouse gas (if there is such a thing)
      In a comment elsewhere I suggested that so-called scientists who lie are not true scientists and they are likely to lie about other matters.
      Anyone that says methane in the atmosphere has a greater “greenhouse gas” effect than CO2 is either a lier or is repeating a lie and is incompetent.

      140

      • #

        Hi cementafriend. Thanks for your comment. In your first paragraph you have mentioned the idea of ‘human contribution’. The point I would like to stress about the carbon dioxide and methane emissions from inland waterways and lakes (and swamps, marshes, floodplains, springs, billabongs and wetlands) is that it is from a natural, organic and solar cause. It is not from a ‘human contribution’. It is not anthropogenic. So there is no point in pointing to these emissions and concluding how terrible is humankind and what vandals we all are.

        We may be terrible and vandals for other reasons but not one of these is because inland waterways and lakes give off CO2 and Ch4.

        To point out that there are natural and organic emissions from the natural environment may have some value in putting a context to the calculated anthropogenic emissions from other sources such as fossil fuel burning. It will help give this context by making people realise the truly massive scale upon which nature itself emits the ‘carbon gases’ of carbon dioxide and methane.

        90

      • #
        Howie from Indiana

        cementafriend- 2nd paragraph, line 2 in your post. Don’t you mean CH4 absorbs less radiation than CO2?

        30

        • #

          Yes, I often think ahead and write something wrong or leave out words. I was in a hurray and did not edit enough. Sometimes when editing you read what you think it should read and miss mistakes.
          David, above you are right but there are time lags which can confuse. There are cycles, eg growth of algae and Protozoa etc in the oceans which will absorb CO2, temperature of waters affect CO2 absorption and emission etc On land there are different seasons for growth and regrowth of vegetation. Bush and forest fires can emit lots of CO2 and volatiles and can lock some carbon into the soil. Regrowth will take many years. Human actions can be significant over a short time in a local area but there is no evidence that human contribution in the long term over the planet is significant.
          Population has grown but it is slowing down. If one considers that nature will have a direction and we can do nothing to change that then the best thing to do is adapt. Adaption is without doubt the cheapest and best solution =why fight nature if the end result will still be the same.

          40

      • #
        cohenite

        Thanks cementafriend; your CH4 analysis is bookmarked, armed and ready for action!

        40

    • #
      Gasbo

      It just goes to show that the entire planet is in a state of flux and some think that they can control it,LoL,good luck to you but please do it on your own time and with your own money!

      70

  • #

    Gotta love that carbon. It’s everywhere … and so useful. Not only does it make plants grow for consumer products, but stores power in the form of coal and gas underground. I will keep planting trees in celebration.

    181

    • #

      Tom Let me get this straight. You intend to take advantage of a life giving gas to profit from the wood or fruit. You plan to help people to build stuff or eat instead of creating panic, sucking up handouts and trading worthlessness. You see that a free abundant resource is floating in the air and you are one of the few who intend to use it for the common good instead of joining the movement for parasitic decay.
      It is like your eyes are open while others have their eyes wired shut. Not hard to see who will be the last man standing if the catastrophy believers do not re-educate, tax or red tape you out of this plan and back into the downward spiral of doom economy.

      190

    • #
      Andrew Griffiths

      Diamonds are a girls best friend..

      40

  • #
    King Geo

    The Indians and Chinese are very wise and know full well that “CAGW Alarmism” is crap – and these countries make up ~ 27% (~ 2 billion) of the World’s 7.16 billion Homo Sapiens. This lunatic Theory of AGW started in the West (mainly in the USA & EU) via GIGO “pseudoscientific computer modelling” during the tail-end of the 1975-2005 “Multi-decadel Warming Cycle”, a cycle that repeats itself, wait for it, naturally with close to zero input from Homo Sapiens. There has been no GW since 1998, ie no warming during the last 7 years of the last “Warming Cycle”, mainly because of the pronounced 1998 El Nino event. We are now in a ‘Cooling Cycle” which should extend to ~ 2035, but this doesn’t factor in the imminent GM and next LIA which means we are in all likelihood won’t be experiencing the next “Warming Cycle” until late in the 2nd half of this century – despite this the “CAGW Alarmists” are still preaching gloom and doom “Warmist Crap” – an incredible disjunct with reality. How long will it take for these delusional “AGW religious zealots” to see the errors of their ways and simply disappear into oblivion. Have they no pride? It seems not.

    240

  • #
    Paul Woland

    It’s no news that carbon accounting for ecosystems is hard, but to conclude that it would make environmental policy impossible is absurd. Remember that emissions through fossil fuel use can be measured with much greater accuracy. The European Trading System carbon market has not exactly been a success, because it has not been able to reduce harmful carbon emissions to a sufficient level and there has been corruption in putting it in place, but it does show that your cynicism about carbon accounting is just an ideological bias.

    It’s also irresponsible to imply that human emissions don’t matter because we don’t know the natural cycle in detail. Surely you don’t believe that the massive increase in CO2 concentration is unconnected to the burning of fossil fuels? That would be irrational.

    126

    • #
      James Bradley

      Paul, what are harmful carbon emissions – is this soot from smoke stacks or are you referring to Carbon Dioxide?

      The European Trading System has not been a success because it is based on worthless trades of an intangible product to reduce production of an inert substance.

      Its only success in reducing ‘harmful carbon emissions’would be the carbon captured in the bits of paper swapped between traders and in this case, whether sold from Europe or Nigeria, would still have the same intrinsic value, and not even worth the ink that’s printed on it.

      ‘… a massive increase in CO2 concentration’ – fair dinkum (an Australian colloquialism used in this context for ‘give me a break’), you really must wake each morning so fearful of getting out of bed to avoid one carbon footprint after the other as you tread warily to the bathroom to even attend to the natural processes of elimination.

      Why discriminate against human emissions – all life on this planet emits carbon dioxide – hence the term ‘all life’.

      So the way to stop Global Warming is by publishing baseless prophecies of doom in order to scare western, capitalist governments (let’s face it – this is the only target market where all the IPCC AGW propaganda is directed)into parting with hard earned tax payer money – for profit either directly or as generous tax payer subsidies to renewable schemes that never seem to quite get off the ground or just never make money let alone cover the establishment costs.

      So Paul, just where has the billions upon billions of different denominations cleaned out of our pockets in the name of climate change actually gone and who has it benefited?

      Talk about your ‘cynicism and ideological bias’.

      231

    • #
      James Bradley

      Paul, that was a little unfair of me – it’s a trick question – the billions upon billions is re-invested in global warming propaganda to stifle freedom of speech and to label sceptics in an unprecedented world-wide effort to close down debate.

      161

    • #
      the Griss

      “It’s no news that carbon accounting for ecosystems is hard”

      Its also singularly pointless.

      Its purely a boondoggle to employ some people and control many people.

      In the final scheme of things, it doesn’t matter where the extra CO2, life’s major building block, is coming from…

      … so long as it keeps coming so the world’s biosphere can flourish and prosper.

      141

    • #
      observa

      It’s no news that carbon accounting for ecosystems is hard, but to conclude that it would make environmental policy impossible is absurd.

      No more absurd than accounting for cow farts but apparently these people know no bounds when it comes to idiocy. The only question being what do these dangerous idiots want to do when they’ve added up all the CO2 exhaled by animals and homo sapiens when they’ve come up with a figure? That’s the really spooky bit but they never volunteer to be the first to stop exhaling to achieve their nirvana.

      80

    • #
      observa

      Furthermore Paul, as a firm believer in Popperian science and the scientific method, Charles Darwin can be completely forgiven for not comprehending in his wildest imaginings, the relatively recent cult of Devolution with all its Devolusionist adherents. As one sage succintly pointed out when people stop believing in God to explain the inexplicable, they’ll start believing in anything. He forgot to mention the obvious that leftists are most vulnerable in that regard.

      120

  • #
    tom0mason

    Have they accounted for all the open sewers in the rural areas of the country, and the farts of the cattle and buffalo, and the traditional burning pyres?
    But then again they may have had some assistance putting the report together…
    As UN’s climate change chief and tub-thumper general, Rajendra Pachauri, has spent a considerable time out in India recently,umm,I wonder.
    I wonder if he gave these authors the low down of the maximum they could claim? I suppose I should not be so skeptical about the UN’s top climate railway engineer and him not being honorable, or maybe I should.

    120

  • #

    star commentI was going to put my money into some carbon market thingy because everyone’s talking about it and I wanted to save the world from something or other, but then I got an amazing email offer from this Nigerian Field Marshal guy…

    510

  • #
    RoHa

    So to save us from Global Warming, do we get rid of India, or just dry it out?

    90

  • #
    Sunray

    So, perhaps the “Science” is not settled !?!

    140

    • #

      The science is settled—just not the magnitude of the problem (an accounting thing, really, not science at all) and the amount of money that will be liberated from the “rich” countries to help the “poor” countries combat global warming.

      110

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Are any of the regulars going to the IPA symposium in Melbourne on Friday?

    40

    • #

      I would go, but I’m thinking about the carbon. Must plant more trees first. We already have IPAs in the Kimberley anyway (Indigenous Protected Areas) that I am working on to plant more trees. Do you mean there are other IPAs?

      30

    • #
      scaper...

      Nah, Brisbane based.

      Did attend the Brisbane event last night featuring Patrick Michaels. What a guy! It seems the sceptical scientist are really down to earth whilst the warmist scientists are so far up themselves that their heads protrude through their navels.

      Good to catch up with Alan Moran, we discussed Jo and had a good laugh about her Heartland presentation in Sydney years ago. Especially the Viagra grab.

      Had a really good talk with Patrick, we must have been the last to leave.

      30

      • #
        el gordo

        I’m impressed, but will he get a chance to talk to Abbott?

        10

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Thanks Scaper
        I’m making the journey over from the Apple Isle and just wondered if it would be an opportunity to catch up with some of the folks on here. Some of you seem like family!

        20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    With the (forgotten) information put forward by true skeptics (real scientists) we are witnessing a Renaissance in science and one that seems to follow a pattern of human advancement then retardation, with the advancement stage slightly greater than the lapse to account for obvious technical achievements.
    This pattern correlates with the various cycles of the planet and in this instance the carbon cycle which will continue on unabated, the CAGW advocates will never see this past their own unscientific bias and are then a catalyst in stopping human achievement and then become the true human retardation.

    90

    • #

      I wouldn’t get so cocky. Its comment #10 and nobody has pointed out that its not “2927  ± 3269 µatm” it is “3000  ± 3000 µatm” if you want to pass first year science.

      10

      • #
        the Griss

        The former implies the value could go negative, the latter doesn’t.

        20

        • #
          the Griss

          nearest 100 might be more appropriate.

          but as you point out, 4 sig figs.. really? :-)

          21

          • #

            Error estimates are subjective even if you are using a calculator (how to calculate SD, 1.98 or 2 and 95% confidence range is a common but still an arbitrary choice). My rule of thumb is to use only one significant figure if the first is >1. Never more than two. I guess I might break that rule if it was important to point out that the value could be negative.

            10

  • #
    Charlie

    When measuring gas from landfills or contaminated land maximum discharge occurs during a decline in atmospheric pressure after a prolonged high.The concept that one can measure gas flows from the earth’s surface accurately and precisely is absurd- there will be diurnal changes, temp changes, atmospheric pressure changes, seasonal changes, yearly changes decadal changes. Unless there is device measuring the gas flow rate and concentration on 15 minute intervals from an area where aerobic or anaerobic decompositions is occurring , how accurate will the data be?

    130

  • #
    thingadonta

    One is reminded of the origin of the term ‘hot air’.

    60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      …‘hot air’.

      That term has been around so long and used to describe, among other things, boring, pointless or incorrect speech that I heard it as a kid. Blather and other terms are also applied.

      It’s also used as a way of dismissing something as being of no use, whether spoken, written or something else. Boring, pointless, incorrect — hmm, seems to apply nicely to nearly everything said and done concerning global warming.

      I wish dismissing all the nonsense was as easy as calling it hot air.

      70

    • #
      Steve

      I took a warmist to task over the 97% of scientists myth the other day.

      Its like dealing with pre-programmed robots….

      100

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I know the feeling.

        To rephrase an old saying to fit the circumstances, “A fool and his pet theory are hard to part.”

        40

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        There is one over at Anthony’s blog that is trying to claim the 97% is conservative. His only evidence is “some scientist friends”.

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Gosh! I am a scientist with degrees to prove it. Do I count?

          Probably not.

          Do you ever get the feeling that they try to change the very ground under your feet to make their case stick? What a world — there’s never a dull moment.

          10

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Sometimes it seems that the CAGW movement got its ideas from V-Ger.

    80

  • #

    If human CO2 emissions are only about 4% of gross figure, and given that they are only a rough estimate, I am puzzled by a relationship. The quantity of CO2 emissions to increase atmospheric CO2 by 1ppm has remained at around 15-16 billion tonnes from 1960 to 2010.

    Global CO2 emissions data from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT
    Mauna Loa CO2 levels from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full

    There are large variations from year to year, but a 5 year moving average shows a quite remarkable relationship. Have done a quick graph here to illustrate.

    70

    • #
      Richard

      By my understanding the amount of CO2 required to increase the atmospheric CO2 level 1ppmv is about 8 gigatonnes of CO2, not 15 gigatonnes. The atmospheric CO2 greenhouse in the IPCC’a AR4 was about 390ppmv and that corresponded to 3,050 gigatonnes of CO2 or 831 gigatonnes of carbon. Therefore 1ppmv is equivalent to about 7.8 gigatonnes. Personally speaking, I think the increase in atmospheric CO2 could be accounted for by the warming oceans. I often see articles on Skeptical Science claiming that the oceans being a source for the recent CO2 increase is not possible because they would have to be warmed tens of degrees, but from my own investigations this is not true. The following graph depicts CO2’s solubility in water and shows that an increase in temperature of 1C would decrease CO2’s aqueous concentration by about 3%. It wouldn’t just decrease CO2’s concentration by 3% though, it would decrease DIC by 3% since all DIC exists in state of chemical equilibrium with each other. The oceans contain about 37,000 gigatonnes of DIC and if they were warmed by 1% that therefore would be enough to increase the CO2 level by 176.8ppmv. Consider also that the ice-core data shows a time-lag of about 800 years between temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes, and coincidentally, 800 years ago we were in the Medieval Warm Period. Hence we should expect to see CO2 increasing now regardless of man’s small annual contributions.

      The idea that the increase is manmade is not only not likely in my view, but I would go as far as to say that it contradicts well-established physical laws of nature, namely Henry’s law. Once you understand how Henry’s law operates it becomes readily apparent that the IPCC’s claim that the entire increase in CO2 since 1850 is human-induced is pseudoscientific hogwash. Henry’s law governs the solubility of gases in water and states that the concentration of CO2 in water is directly proportional to the partial pressure of CO2 in the air above the liquid and sets a partitioning ratio of about 1:50 between the atmosphere and oceans respectively at the Earth’s average surface temperature of 15C. The 1:50 figures is conservative since the oceans become much colder with depth. This implies that when equilibrium between DIC and atmospheric CO2 is reached then at the very least 98% of human CO2 must be absorbed by the oceans. The IPCC’s data shows that natural CO2 emissions are abiding by Henry’s law. They show that 70.6 gigatonnes of natural carbon are outgassed annually and 70 gigatonnes of natural carbon are absorbed annually thereby making the re-absorption 99%. Anthropogenic CO2 behaves differently though and the Revelle Factor oddly only affects human CO2 molecules and says that the ocean can only absorb 10% of the total human CO2 contribution to the atmosphere.

      When you investigate everything, the isotopes, the ice core data, it turns out that that the so-called evidence has just been manufactured and is not real science.

      142

      • #
        ghl

        Hi Richard
        Add to your chain of reasoning the existence of lakes of liquid CO2 in deep ocean. This introduces a set point, that is the saturation concentration of CO2 at that temperature. Now also depending on the lake size and the amount of ocean circulation/transport, but in this process the atmospheric CO2 becomes the dependent variable, controlled by the deep temperature.
        I have not yet found any figures for saturation concentrations of CO2 at low temperatures and high pressures, any leads would be appreciated.

        40

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The puzzlement is possibly due to Jo conflating emissions with fluxes. A flux is a transfer in any direction between two repositories. An emission is a property of a repository during a time period which is the net result of the outgoing fluxes totalling greater than the incoming fluxes. If the incomings were greater than outgoings then no emission occurred, because it was an absorption.

      Fossil fuel repository emissions to the air (via industry) are numerically 4% of the flux from nature to the air, but FF emissions are 2% of the flux from the air into nature. Fossil emissions are -200% (negative two hundred percent) of the natural emissions because nature is overall absorbing about half of what we emit.

      Certainly ignore everything Richard says above and stick to the facts and arithmetic. If nature were operating as a source of CO2 then the atmospheric CO2 rise each year would be more than what we had contributed, but it’s not, it’s only half. The ex-fossil carbon missing from the air went somewhere and it wasn’t back into the hole we dug it out from. Nature is operating as a net sink of carbon so it is not the source of the current CO2 rise.

      Your figures match calculations based on the Mauna Loa measurements and the conversion factors listed by the CDIAC. Once again the numerate find the truth and the innumerate are left blathering wishful word salad.

      37

      • #
        Richard

        You still don’t understand Henry’s law, do you Andrew? It’s been, what? Two years? And you still haven’t grasped it. You still seem to think that the oceans could not absorb human CO2 while they are outgassing natural CO2. But this is not true. I went to great lengths in a post on this forum explaining to you why they can and apparently you have learned nothing from our previous exchanges. A post I might add that you didn’t reply to. I explain it in detail in an article called ‘Digging into the core: Why the increase in CO2 is probably natural’. Take a look at it, learn a thing or two, and then you might not be so quick to criticize Salby and Segalstad.

        101

        • #
          the Griss

          Either way, Richard, the CO2 level is thankfully still rising.

          I like to think that our releasing the buried carbon from coal etc means we have made at least some small contribution to the planets wellbeing.

          101

          • #
            the Griss

            planet’s well being.

            (missed the apostrophe.. time to go and hide in the corner)

            60

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I read it as “the plants wellbeing”, and thought that was a very cleaver play on words.

              10

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          (1925 words)

          Richard, aka “Nathan-D“,

          You say you have explained it all to me before “on this forum” (meaning JoNova), but when I search JoNova for your quoted blog post title I find only one prior occurrence which was in April this year and not “two years” ago. It did not contain a link to your post. If you have explained your version of events to me before it is possible I didn’t see it because I have never registered on this site and am in the habit of manually checking for replies instead of receiving emails. It is also possible I didn’t reply due to the inanity of your comment, but can’t say for sure until you provide a link to the comment here.

          I remember several exchanges I have had with various people about this topic, such as Bart and Stephen Wilde on WUWT, or KinkyKeith, Mark D., and cohenite here on JN, but if I ever saw your “great lengths” comment at all it must have been highly forgettable.
          Nonetheless I have now found your blog post on “Digging” from which I indeed hoped to “learn something”. Sadly this was not to be the case; I’d heard it all before.

          It is not me that you need to engage with, you need to engage with precise language comprehension, logic, and observational measurements to have any hope of understanding the question and the answer. All of these three skills are found to be lacking in your “digging” post.

          Your nonsense begins in the first paragraph. You initially state as the question under debate:
          >> “It is often asserted by CAGW-advocates that we can prove humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration from its assumed pre-industrial baseline of ~280ppmv to its present value of ~400ppmv by atmospheric carbon isotope measurements.”
          You then forget your definition of the problem and make a completely correct statement which has no logical connection to the question and is therefore not an answer to it:
          >> “the residence time of atmospheric CO2 is unequivocally very short which means that the vast majority of the CO2 currently residing in the atmosphere today (about 96%+) cannot be anthropogenic”.
          In doing so you exhibit the same conflation of emissions and fluxes mentioned above. It does not matter what path the carbon atoms take through the network of repositories because whatever space is occupied by an ex-fossil molecule is space that cannot be occupied by a molecule of oceanic origin. It does not matter that aCO2 (anthropogenic CO2) molecules are moving out of the atmosphere at the rate you describe, what is relevant to the question is which repositories are acting as net sources/emitters (versus net sinks/absorbers) and by how much. (At NTZ regular commentator Alfonso recognised his mistake when I corrected him on this point.)

          You say I don’t understand Henry’s Law, but your own ‘Digging’ post shows no signs of understanding it either. You get so close to the truth when you say this:
          >> “As a general rule, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere waiting to be absorbed by the oceans, the more partial pressure it will exert upon the ocean surface and the faster it will be absorbed. And the final proportion of it that gets absorbed ‘permanently’ will be determined by Henry’s law.”
          Yes indeed, but you dive into the details of the temperature change while ignoring Henry’s main point. Just by the definition of partial pressure, the partial pressure of CO2 will be increased by the extra aCO2 being put into the air. The form of Henry’s law you quote explicitly says theoretically that the greater the partial pressure of CO2 the more of it will dissolve into the ocean, and it is a linear relationship. Because the real temperature increased instead of being held constant, the Henry’s coefficient will decrease and leads to an increased outgassing flux from the liquid. An increased out flux from the liquid is also a net outgassing only if the amount of CO2 in the system is held constant, but that condition didn’t happen either. From 1960 to the present, the 5-year average sea temperature increased from 285.65K to 286.0K and the pCO2 increased from 318ppm to 395ppm. The temperature increased by 0.12% but the partial pressure of CO2 increased by 24.2%, a factor of 200 times greater.

          The effect of temperature is not linear and to figure the significance of this small temperature change relative to aCO2 we would have to differentiate the Van ‘t Hoff equation wrt to T, but conveniently some Friendly Neighbour added a reference to the Wikipedia entry 7 years ago to helpfully tell us “Partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase in equilibrium with seawater doubles with every 16 K increase in temperature.” We can now easily derive that P2/P1 = 2^(dT/16), and plugging in the 0.35 degree observed rise we find this should have created a 1.5% increase in pCO2 from temperature alone. The reality was 24.2%. Temperature is not even a contender, it’s not even close.
          Even by your own calculations with rough figures you could not explain more than 55% of the CO2 rise with temperature alone, and those figures must have been very rough.

          It is said repeatedly in the debate by climate skeptics that the divergence of temperature and CO2 over the last 12 years is proof that record-high CO2 emissions and record high CO2 levels are not leading to any warming. How on earth you can look at the evidence in front of you that shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature whilst insisting there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 is quite astounding. You either believe that correlation is directional (it’s not) or you believe a contradiction without noticing it.
          In particular you show graphs where CO2 uptake is clearly responding to annual temperatures variations with less than a year’s delay. According to your own sources it is impossible for temperature to flatline for 12 years whilst CO2 continues to rise in some sort of lagged response. The CO2 should have stopped rising in 2003 at the latest. It didn’t.

          Your Temperature Dunnit hypothesis would also require a net reduction in the amount of CO2 in the ocean due to it outgassing to the atmosphere, whereas two different sets of measurements show exactly the opposite occurring.
          • Wanninkhofa, et al, 2013, Changes in deep-water CO2 concentrations over the last several decades determined from discrete pCO2measurements :
          “These changes are measured on decadal time scales using observations from the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE)/World Hydrographic Program (WHP) of the 1980s and 1990s and the CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat Hydrography Program of the past decade. The pCO2(20) values show a consistent increase in deep water over the time period.”
          • N. R. Bates et al, 2012, “Detecting anthropogenic carbon dioxide” : Figure 5 panel D shows an increase in measured oceanic pCO2 in the vicinity of Bermuda between 1983 and 2012. Because CO2 is well mixed over the ocean it is not possible for the long term trend at Bermuda, or MLO, or anywhere else near the ocean, to diverge significantly from the true global average, which is why measurements at a suitable individual location are an accurate proxy for the globe.

          Both of those independent measurements show the ocean has a net gain of CO2, not a net loss.

          The evidence for your view being non-existent, it does not take long for you to begin dabbling in outright lies and deception to bolster your case, using chartsmanship so brazen that even Michael Mann would blush. You show a detrended woodfortrees plot of temperature and CO2, then comment: “Notice that atmospheric CO2 correlates with temperature, but does not correlate with human CO2-emissions”
          Yes, “Richard”, of course no temperature correlation with industrial emissions remains in that chart after you removed all signals of human emissions in pre-processing with the “/isolate:60/” command. By detrending the chart you hide the fact that CO2 continues to go up much faster than temperatures, and that the CO2 increase remains strongly positive even in cool La Nina-affected years. It’s an easy way to hide the incline. Presumably your goal here was to deceive others and not to deceive yourself, though if it is the latter case then you have a fierce battle on your hands for which only clinical psychology can help.

          The correlation between temperature and CO2 is compatible with higher temperatures increasing the outflux of CO2 from the ocean, whilst the influx increases by less, leading to a reduction in the net absorption rate, which allows aCO2 to accumulate in the air faster during that time. At no stage does the ocean become a net emitter.

          It is no co-incidence that your verbose and wide-ranging article somehow manages to studiously avoid any mention of the mass balance principle. Again your ability to refer to observational evidence and then ignore what it obviously says has saved you from learning. In your 2nd paragraph you present the IPCC summary of CO2 repository annual changes, then immediately your mental blinders are activated and you say nothing about why the annual emission of aCO2 is double the mass of the resulting annual atmospheric increase. Where did the air’s missing CO2 go? You don’t even want to know.

          The argument which tells us with the highest certainty as whether industrial activity is or is not the main cause of rising CO2 today is the conservation of mass principle applied to measurements of atmospheric CO2 and aCO2 emission. In other words, the carbon accounting argument.
          The portion of the aCO2 mass emitted each year which does not remain in the atmosphere does not disappear into nothing, it must go somewhere, and because it doesn’t go back into the hole it was dug up from, it must go Somewhere Else. That Somewhere Else is all of Nature aside from the atmosphere. It doesn’t matter where it goes into Nature, but that mass must have been absorbed by Nature to comply with conservation of mass. This implies all of Nature, in total, is a net sink of CO2. That is it. It is as simple as that.

          It is only by violating conservation of mass, ignoring the real world measurements, chartsmanship, and ignoring the pCO2 term of Henry’s law that your delusion can be maintained.

          You have admitted (quote) “So it is perfectly possible for the oceans to continue to absorb atmospheric CO2 as their temperature rises, if the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere rises in tandem with it.” The actual ocean surface measurements prove that did happen and still is happening. This implies the oceans are not a net emitter of CO2, they are a net sink. The air is gaining CO2, so it is by definition a net sink. The mass balance principle proves that Nature is a net sink of CO2, leaving human activity as the only candidate emitter.

          24

          • #
            Richard

            “The effect of temperature is not linear and to figure the significance of this small temperature change relative to aCO2 we would have to differentiate the Van ‘t Hoff equation wrt to T, but conveniently some Friendly Neighbour added a reference to the Wikipedia entry 7 years ago to helpfully tell us “Partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase in equilibrium with seawater doubles with every 16 K increase in temperature.”

            Increasing the water temperature won’t increase PCO2(g) and PCO2(aq) by exactly corresponding amounts because the respective reservoirs have different quantities of CO2 to being with. For example a 1C increase in ocean temperature will change CO2’s PCO2(aq) by 3% (which is roughly equal to 1110 gigatonnes of carbon or 4073 gigatonnes of CO2) as you can check independently for yourself with the equation or by perusing the graph of CO2’s solubility. A release of 4073 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere corresponds to 530ppmv which would easily double the current atmospheric CO2 concentration. The quote you cited appears to be a misrepresentation on Wikipedia’s part to me. The Takahashi 1993 paper actually states that the PCO2 in surface ocean waters doubles for every 16C temperature increase rather than the PCO2 of the total atmosphere.

            “In doing so you exhibit the same conflation of emissions and fluxes mentioned above. It does not matter what path the carbon atoms take through the network of repositories because whatever space is occupied by an ex-fossil molecule is space that cannot be occupied by a molecule of oceanic origin.”

            I am not conflating anything here and am not trying to calculate the total life cycle of contributions of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere merely based on residence time alone so please clear that misconception out of your mind. I simply pointed out that calculating the mean residence time for CO2 molecules in the atmosphere by the IPCC’s formula enables us to determine how much anthropogenic CO2 is up there at any one time. The reason for the calculation as I clearly stated was to dispel the assumption that observations of atmospheric isotopes prove conclusively that the increase of atmospheric CO2 over the pre-industrial level is entirely from human emissions. What do you find wrong about that? They are based on data provided by the IPCC and they embody physical principles of fluid-flows that are long-established and in general usage.

            Regarding the question of CO2’s interactions with the oceans you say:

            “The form of Henry’s law you quote explicitly says theoretically that the greater the partial pressure of CO2 the more of it will dissolve into the ocean, and it is a linear relationship. Because the real temperature increased instead of being held constant, the Henry’s coefficient will decrease and leads to an increased outgassing flux from the liquid. An increased out flux from the liquid is also a net outgassing only if the amount of CO2 in the system is held constant”. “The air is gaining CO2, so it is by definition a net sink. The mass balance principle proves that Nature is a net sink of CO2, leaving human activity as the only candidate emitter”.

            How can I make this very, very simple for you? CO2’s interaction with ocean-water is physical as well as chemical and the physical aspect is covered by Henry’s law, which ordains that the Earth’s oceans will contain about 50 times as much CO2 as is contained in the atmosphere at equilibrium at the current mean global temperature. This law is not being met under the IPCC’s carbon-cycle interpretation because the oceans are currently only absorbing 10% of the total anthropogenic CO2 pool. Also, as Henry’s law implies, there is no finite limit to the capacity of seawater to absorb CO2, so there is no discrete threshold of dissolved concentration at which the oceans will turn from being a CO2-sink into a CO2-source regardless if the oceans are warming or not. Hence your assertion that there is one seems false to me. Think of it this way. Imagine you have a bottle of coke and you increase the temperature of the liquid inside the bottle. In doing so CO2 starts to outgas from the bottle until equilibrium between CO2(g) and CO2(aq) is reached. Now imagine simultaneously you inject CO2 into the air above the bottle-cap while the temperature of the liquid is still increasing. The injected CO2 above the bottle-cap will still obey Henry’s law regardless of the CO2 outgassing because you have created a further disequilibrium between CO2(g) and CO2(aq) and forced the reaction to the right. The IPCC’s carbon-cycle diagram is in clear violation of Henry’s law and is based on speculative models and not from a rigorous application of the laws of physics as the public has been led to believe. If you wish to understand more as to why the IPCC’s carbon-cycle violates Henry’s law I would advise reading Segalstad 1998 whose analysis seems to be a realistic assessment of the situation to me.

            “It is not me that you need to engage with, you need to engage with precise language comprehension, logic, and observational measurements to have any hope of understanding the question and the answer. All of these three skills are found to be lacking in your “digging” post.”

            I apologize that my comprehension and logic are not up to your standards Andrew. Do forgive me.

            “Even by your own calculations with rough figures you could not explain more than 55% of the CO2 rise with temperature alone, and those figures must have been very rough”.

            That was only taking into consideration some 37% of the total DIC in the oceans so it was ultra-conservative.

            “Your Temperature Dunnit hypothesis would also require a net reduction in the amount of CO2 in the ocean due to it outgassing to the atmosphere“.

            Assuming those measurements are correct PCO2(aq) would still increase because the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere is less than what humans have emitted. I think humans have emitted about 1,200 gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850 depending on your source and the amount of CO2 that the IPCC assume humans have added to the atmosphere is about 900 gigatonnes. There’s also the possibility of other environmental factors leading to an increase in PCO2(aq) such as an increase in the activity of underwater volcanoes and such.

            “How on earth you can look at the evidence in front of you that shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature whilst insisting there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 is quite astounding. You either believe that correlation is directional (it’s not) or you believe a contradiction without noticing it. In particular you show graphs where CO2 uptake is clearly responding to annual temperatures variations with less than a year’s delay. According to your own sources it is impossible for temperature to flat-line for 12 years whilst CO2 continues to rise in some sort of lagged response”.

            CO2 can still increase even though the surface temperature is not increasing because there is a time-lag between temperature changes and corresponding CO2 changes since the oceans, especially the deep oceans where the majority of CO2 is stored, takes longer to react to temperature changes, apparently as long as 800 years. I am not putting the correlation forward as definitive proof that the increase is natural. However a very strong correlation of 0.996 does suggest a cause-and-effect relationship exists and this can be explained readily by the fact that the oceans regulate atmospheric CO2 based on their temperature.

            It is only by violating conservation of mass, ignoring the real world measurements, chartsmanship, and ignoring the pCO2 term of Henry’s law that your delusion can be maintained.

            I’m afraid it is your own delusions that you need to worry about, not mine. All of the purported arguments that you have offered in support of it fall down for one reason or another. It appears to be a pure fabrication of the mind dressed up as science, with no hard reality-checking of anything having been done and with no relationship to the real world having been proven. I really don’t have the time to reply to your other assertions accusing me of lying. If you’re finding my logic hard to follow my advice would be to read Segalstad 1998.

            20

            • #
              Richard

              That should read: “will still obey Henry’s law and will still be absorbed regardless of the CO2 outgassing”.

              10

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              (1790 words)

              ~~~ Errata ~~~
              Firstly my apologies for not noticing that Friendly Neighbour’s original statement had been edited by another user. I have raised a question with the first editor to verify the faithfulness of the 2nd editor’s revised text to the Takahashi 2002 paper. However I am not waiting on them for an answer as, based on other sources I have found, I believe the revised version is true.

              The reason for the calculation as I clearly stated was

              No! Your English comprehension fails again. The illogical argument is in your first paragraph before you have done any residence time calculation. You repeated the error when you said:

              Since human CO2-emissions are currently 30 gigatonnes/year this implies that only about 0.6 gigatonnes/year will become ‘permanently’ added to the resident CO2 greenhouse. 0.6 gigatonnes of CO2 corresponds to 0.078ppmv. The Keeling Curve tells us that atmospheric CO2 is increasing at the rate of 2ppmv/year. Therefore the human component only accounts for about 3.9% of the overall increase in CO2 each year (i.e. 0.078/2).

              For the 2nd and final time: your blog post’s first paragraph has no logical connection to your argument of natural causation because the fact 96% of made-in-China aCO2 molecules are removed from the atmosphere makes absolutely no difference to the net result of all fluxes which is that the air’s carbon content should and did increase due to adding aCO2 into any part of the system. You cannot take a “blame the bullet” mentality. The atmospheric increase is caused by aCO2 emission regardless of any molecule’s individual history, which is why the residence time is a red herring.

              ~~~ Equality in Equilibrium ~~~

              In Takahashi, T., S.C. Sutherland, and A. Kozyr. 2011. “Global Ocean Surface Water Partial Pressure of CO2 Database: Measurements Performed During 1957” we find these statements (my emphasis):

              On the basis of various independent scientific methods [...list of measurements and models...], the annual uptake rate of CO2 by the oceans has been estimated to be about 2 Pg-C yr -1 for the past decade. Thus, about 30% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed annually by the oceans, and about 50% remain in the atmosphere.
              [...]
              Carbon dioxide molecules react chemically with water to form bicarbonate (HCO3-) and carbonate (CO3=) ions, both of which do not communicate with the overlying air. Only about 0.5% of the total CO2 molecules in seawater communicate with the air via gas exchange across the sea surface. This quantity is called the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2), which represents the CO2 vapor pressure. The seawater CO2 depends on the temperature, the total amount of CO2 dissolved in seawater and the pH of seawater. Over the global ocean, it varies from about 100 μatm to 1000 μatm (1μatm = 10-6 μatm =0.101325 Pascal).

              From this we can conclude that the oceans are a net sink of CO2, and further that a simple application of Henry’s Law will miss some relevant aspects of real ocean chemistry which is not a pure water solution. You know the deep ocean will take a long time to warm, but that is also the key to understanding your mistake. Due to very slow vertical mixing most aCO2 has not had a chance to get lower than 400m depth. In the words of Sabine and Feely:

              “The global ocean is far from being saturated with CO2. This further illustrates that the primary rate-limiting step for oceanic carbon uptake is not the exchange across the sea–air interface, but the rate at which that carbon is transported into the ocean interior.”

              So it is not true that “This law is not being met under the IPCC’s carbon-cycle interpretation” or that man-made causation is incompatible with Henry’s Law, it is that a simplistic application of Henry’s law at equilibrium using rough numbers will not adequately model the whole ocean and should not be misinterpreted as describing transient (pre-equilibrium) behaviour.

              Takahashi and company continue:

              When seawater pCO2 is smaller than the atmospheric pCO2 (presently about 390 μatm), seawater takes up CO2 from the overlying air; when it is greater than the atmospheric pCO2, it emits CO2 to the air. The rate of transfer of CO2 across the sea surface is estimated by:
              (sea-air CO2 flux) = (transfer coefficient) x (sea-air pCO2 difference).

              This implies, just as the revised Wikipedia quote says, that at equilibrium when there is no overall transfer of CO2 between ocean and air, that the pCO2(g) and pCO2(aq) must be equal.
              Therefore you are peddling crank science. At equilibrium (however long that takes to achieve) the atmospheric pCO2 will have been increased by the same amount as the surface seawater pCO2.

              ~~~ Quantifying The Response To Warming ~~~

              Neither do I have to wait for anonymous Wikipedia editors to verify their citations to discover if Takahashi et al ever really said the 16K figure for doubling pCO2. Writing for NOAA in “The oceanic sink for carbon dioxide“, Christopher L. Sabine and Richard A. Feely make these statements and references:

              Since the pre-industrial period, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 ppm to nearly 380 ppm. This increase in CO2 drives the sea water to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere so that surface sea water is pushed to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium with the atmospheric partial pressure. [...]
              The role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle has changed from being a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere to a net sink for CO2 of ~2 Pg C/year (Sabine et al., 2004a).
              Today, the average pCO2 of the atmosphere is ~7 ppm higher than the global ocean pCO2. This small air–sea difference, when spread across the entire surface of the ocean, is sufficient to account for the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2.
              [...]
              The geochemical response of the ocean to changing temperatures is to decrease the pCO2 by 4.23%/°C of sea water cooling (Takahashi et al., 1993).

              Isn’t that interesting. The rate pCO2 decreases with cooling is not specified as a fixed ppm per degree, it is specified in percent per degree, which means it is a geometric function which compounds for each degree of cooling. To reduce by 4.23% is to multiply by 0.957. We can then deduce what multiplier occurs from 16 degrees of cooling, it is (1 – 4.23÷100)^16 = 0.5. So the pCO2 halves for each 16 degrees of cooling, implying it doubles for each 16 degrees of warming. That’s what the Wikipedia reference said, so it is confirmed.
              Therefore the Temperature Dunnit prediction that I calculated according to that formula should be in the right ballpark. It was practically nothing compared to the rise that actually occurred. This also means your estimate of 1 degree causing a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is …(I’ll put it nicely for a change)… empirically untenable.

              According to the Takahashi figure of 4.23%/K, if the world had an 8 degree temperature rise the CO2 level should go up by a factor of: (1+4.23÷100)^8 = 1.39. Hypothetically if the starting pCO2 had been 200ppmv then the pCO2 after the 8 degree rise would be 278ppmv.
              Well gee golly gosh darn it, Richard, when you look at the Vostok ice core that’s exactly what happened. In your fantasy the orange line on this graph went up to 51,200ppmv.
              Tchya! Empirically untenable.

              ~~~ Segalstad ~~~

              Regarding Segalstad 1998, three oceanographers published a critique of his hypothesis written in Norwegian, luckily a rough English translation has been made on the blog “Mabinogogiblog” here.
              Note in particular that Dissolved Inorganic Carbon has been increasing in the ocean, not decreasing, and that the largest increases are seen in the upper ocean where warming has occurred. That is the opposite of the scenario you project where surface warming would outgas CO2, which would be soon replaced by transformed DIC, which would then leave surface DIC depleted relative to deeper waters that had not been warmed.
              How’s my evidence?

              Note also their summary of Takahashi 1993:

              Calculations based on a published and widely accepted relationship between change in the carbon dioxide content of the air and the change of the sea-water temperature (Takahashi m. fl. 1993) shows that this can, as an absolute maximum, only explain 10 percent of the increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere

              It’s all consistent with Henry’s Law, and we do not even need to dabble with 13C isotope arguments or any other nebulous IPCC hand-waving about molecule lifetimes or natural fluxes guesstimated to perfect accuracy in simplified AR4 diagrams. The measurements of pCO2 and the conservation of mass principle are sufficient.

              ~~~ Lagging Your Way To The Top ~~~~

              CO2 can still increase even though the surface temperature is not increasing because there is a time-lag between temperature changes and corresponding CO2 changes …apparently as long as 800 years.

              And therefore the current rate of CO2 increase should be mostly the same as the rate you would expect to have seen happening back in 1974 simply as a continuation of the background delayed effect of the Medieval Warm Period 800 years ago, as both 1974 and 2014 were preceded by a 13 year trend of gently cooling oceans. Except in fact the rate of CO2 increase is much higher now than in 1974. I guess that smooth 800 year curve must have a little 40 year kick at the end, huh?
              Plus if you fit an exponential curve to the Keeling curve and trace it backwards it flattens out at 1927 AD, not 1200 AD.
              And the Medieval Warm Period was finished before 1200AD.
              Guess again.

              ~~~ Et Tu? ~~~~

              no hard reality-checking of anything

              I have referenced measurements after study after measurements for every major point, pCO2 actual and theoretical, warming response actual and theoretical, and my arguments together are cohesive.
              And you’ve got some nerve dissing me about “hard reality-checking”; in your reply YOU STILL HAVEN’T MENTIONED THE MISSING MASS OF YOUR ARGUMENT. Just as I predicted, you are maintaining your delusion by ignoring the law of conservation of mass. Conservation of mass is your Kryptonite.

              00

              • #
                Richard

                However I am not waiting on them for an answer as, based on other sources I have found, I believe the revised version is true.

                You “believe” it to be true? How do you know? What reality-checks have you done on it? It is not a ‘revised version’ Andrew, it is a completely different quote and concept than what is contained within the paper. I already independently did the calculation using the equation and the graph of CO2’s solubility and so have others who I have referenced in my article! What is your problem with it? Surely if you are a genuine sceptic you should have no problem being able to do the calculation for yourself rather than blindly differing to a misrepresented Wikipedia quote? The equation and the graph I referenced clearly shows that a temperature change of 1C on a baseline temperature of 228k changes CO2’s solubility by 3%. Is the calculation flawed? Feel free to take issue with it if you wish. As I see it, the problem with the equations and calculation that CAGW-advocates often cite for determining the amount of CO2 outgassed from temperature changes are nearly always based on proxy-data. Whether you are deriving CO2 concentrations or temperatures from ice-cores or tree-rings or any other proxies, inevitably you are doing so on the basis of a host of theoretical assumptions about how the relevant data-items got into the populations that you are sampling and how they represent the things that you want them to represent. It is true that if the entire ocean warmed by 8C the increase in CO2 would be far greater than what we have seen in the ice-core data but 1) we don’t know whether the entire oceans down to 4,000m warmed by 8C between interglacial and glacials and 2) the ice-core measurements have been grossly fudged, adjusted and manipulated to suit the requirements of theoretical preconceptions about what they should be. The original ice-core measurements depicted atmospheric CO2 as high as 2350ppmv and some wet-extracted measurements exceeded 5,000ppmv.

                No! Your English comprehension fails again. The illogical argument is in your first paragraph before you have done any residence time calculation. You repeated the error when you said:

                You are the one with the comprehension issues and I can agree only that you have not understood anything of what I have said. I think that is because your mind has rejected it before you have had a chance to assimilate it and accommodate it in your thinking. My calculation showing that the oceans should absorb 98% of anthropogenic when equilibrium between CO2(aq) and CO2(g) is reached is based on Henry’s law and not the residence time of an individual CO2 molecule as anyone who read my post would be able to understand. They are two completely different things Andrew. Not the same. Get it? Why don’t you take a sedative and go to bed? Your mind is hopelessly confused.

                The atmospheric increase is caused by aCO2 emission regardless of any molecule’s individual history, which is why the residence time is a red herring.

                You are completely ignoring Henry’s law while appearing to think that you are addressing it. You are not addressing it and you cannot address it until you have first allowed your mind to entertain it. So let me repeat it in a nutshell for you: Henry’s law sets a fixed partitioning ratio between the atmosphere and oceans for CO2 of about 1:50 at the current average surface temperature. Understand? This means that to maintain equilibrium if there is excessive CO2 in the atmosphere that CO2 will be forced down and absorbed by the ocean in order to maintain equilibrium and the amount absorbed by the oceans upon equilibrium will be about 98%. It’s rather straightforward and I can’t see why you have such difficulty understanding it. The physical pathway as being governed by Henry’s law does not involve any irreversible chemical reactions of course, since it relates solely to the dissolution of CO2 in pure water. It is thus not a process of carbon sequestration or a delay for CO2 to be diffused to the deep ocean but instead is one of simple dissolution. The amount of CO2 that is dissolved in the water at equilibrium depends on two factors as I said, namely the partial pressure of CO2 above the water and the water-temperature with cooler water tending to absorb more CO2. If you increase the temperature of the oceans this will not stop CO2 from being absorbed by the atmosphere if you introduce new CO2 to the atmosphere and disable the equilibrium, all it does is change the partitioning ratio. That is all. Hence it feasible that the current observed increase in atmospheric CO2 could well be mainly the result of ocean-outgassing in response to the MWP of about 800 years ago rather than being due to CO2 emissions from industrialised human society. The IPCC’s chemical Revelle Factor clearly violates Henry’s law because it implies that the surface ocean (regardless if they are warming or not, regardless of the time it takes for CO2 to diffused to the deep ocean and regardless of equilibrium time between CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere) can only absorb 10% of human CO2-emissions. As I pointed out above, the figures even show that the oceans are absorbing naturogenic CO2 molecules at a vastly greater rate than anthropogenic ones preferentially due to the Revelle Factor. This result implies some selective principle is at work in the earth’s CO2 sinks whereby naturogenic molecules are absorbed by the oceans in accordance with Henry’s law but anthropogenic molecules are not. This result is not merely surprising. It is bizarre and incredible.

                “Note in particular that Dissolved Inorganic Carbon has been increasing in the ocean, not decreasing, and that the largest increases are seen in the upper ocean where warming has occurred”.

                Are you having trouble with your eyesight? You don’t seem to have read what I wrote in my previous post.

                I have referenced measurements after study after measurements for every major point, pCO2 actual and theoretical, warming response actual and theoretical, and my arguments together are cohesive.
                You arguments are cohesive?

                You are only telling yourself what you want to believe and deluding yourself accordingly. Unfortunately Andrew, I really don’t have the time or truthfully the inclination to continue this debate with you, until you make the mental effort required to understand Henry’s law.

                10

              • #
                Richard

                Of course that should read ‘it will not stop CO2 from being absorbed by the oceans’.

                00

              • #
                Richard

                Heh. That should be ‘de-stable’ not ‘disable’. I posted that comment very fast without proof-reading due to time-restaints.

                00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                (1530 words)

                Richard it is clear we are getting nowhere.

                You “believe” it to be true? How do you know?

                I spent 17 paragraphs showing how the revised statement is true simply from the definition of equilibrium, a concept which you didn’t understand or didn’t read, plus statements from other expert oceanographers. Six of those paragraphs were quotes from Takahashi, a guy who has been studying CO2-ocean transport for 30 years.

                I already independently did the calculation using the equation and the graph of CO2’s solubility and so have others who I have referenced in my article! What is your problem with it?

                Firstly the ocean is not a pure water solution, so a graph of CO2 dissolving in pure water in a lab doesn’t reflect the effect of other reactions in which CO2 is involved as the ocean is also pH-buffered via bicarbonate. Secondly the ocean hasn’t reached equilibrium so you would not expect to see equilibrium values predicted by Henry’s Law yet.

                Is the calculation flawed?

                No. You have misinterpreted the equilibrium partitioning it produces as being the full picture and final answer to the transient rate of CO2 absorption at the present. The temperature change and forced partial pressure change are opposing forces and you have shown no appetite for finding out which of these opposing forces has actually prevailed in reality. The 0.12% increase in temperature versus the 54% increase in partial pressure of CO2 which would have occurred from cumulative aCO2 emissions had none of it been absorbed.
                You have shown no appetite for testing your hypothesis. That is why you avoid evidence. You can sit in your room fiddling with your Henry’s Law all you want but until you check what has actually been happening in the last hundred years you have not proven anything.
                With you it is all “will”, “should”, “could well be”, and “can”, but the real measurements of pCO2 in ocean and air show what “did” happen and they prove you are wrong. It doesn’t matter what Henry’s Law calculates for a pure water solution with unlimited time for equilibrium, what matters is where the emitted carbon has actually gone in the short term, way before chemical equilibrium has been reached.

                They are two completely different things Andrew. Not the same. Get it?

                Yes! That’s why your opening paragraph is nonsensical! Hooray! Finally you see that disproving an argument about isotopes and proving a short residence time both provide absolutely no logical support whatsoever for your thesis of natural causation!

                It is true that if the entire ocean warmed by 8C the increase in CO2 would be far greater than what we have seen in the ice-core data but 1) we don’t know whether the entire oceans down to 4,000m warmed by 8C between interglacial and glacials

                Total strawman. We can be very certain the oceans didn’t warm by a whole 8°C all the way down to 4000m. The ice core reconstructions of temperature and CO2, whatever their accuracy, are a response to surface warming which included any and all heat propagation. An 8°C rise must necessarily warm the ocean to a greater depth and outgas even more deep CO2 than a small 0.7°C rise could. If anything the response seen in ice cores to the Holocene transition is an overestimate of what we would see in CO2 rise from recent temperature change since either the MWP or 1901.

                and 2) the ice-core measurements have been grossly fudged, adjusted and manipulated

                Yeah. Uhuh. Sure they have. Let’s run with that. You say “CO2 within the surface-snow underestimates atmospheric CO2 by up to 20-50%.” That’s 50% at the most. Not a 65000% error that your simplified Henry’s Law estimate predicted. Jaworowski’s lifeboat isn’t big enough to save you from your Titanic error.

                You don’t seem to have read what I wrote in my previous post.

                Unfortunately I did and found it to be a banquet of red herrings and wishful thinking. It is an observable verifiable fact that the first person in this thread to mention “Dissolved Inorganic Carbon” was myself! You have not mentioned it, so how could my eyes have missed it? Perhaps there is an 800 year lag between when you post comments and when they show up on my computer. Or something.
                You seem to think that a high DIC increase near the surface and low DIC increase at depth is somehow compatible with the ocean acting as a net source of CO2. Again you are unable to spot a contradiction.
                Even if there’s been no recent warming, you maintain, the CO2 can still be coming out of the ocean deeps from the MWP warming. But water rich in CO2 must still create carbonates during its 800 year journey. Loss of that CO2 by warming must also deplete the total DIC. If the DIC-gaining area above 500m is your culprit then it should have an area of decreased DIC below it, but there’s no negatives in the data. So it didn’t come from the ocean. The DIC increase is from the air.

                Henry’s law sets a fixed partitioning ratio between the atmosphere and oceans for CO2 of about 1:50 at the current average surface temperature. Understand? This means that to maintain equilibrium if there is excessive CO2 in the atmosphere that CO2 will be forced down and absorbed by the ocean in order to maintain equilibrium and the amount absorbed by the oceans upon equilibrium will be about 98%. …
                … with cooler water tending to absorb more CO2 …
                If you increase the temperature of the oceans this will not stop CO2 from being absorbed by the atmosphere if you introduce new CO2 to the atmosphere and disable the equilibrium

                You keep trying pretend I don’t understand Henry’s Law whilst you remain oblivious to its prerequisites and the falsity of the simpleminded way in which you’re misapplying it.

                You continue to agree with me that colder water absorbs more CO2, and the effect of anthropogenic CO2 emission should be for the oceans to absorb the additional CO2, and that they can do so even in presence of a small amount of warming, exactly the qualitative argument I have made from the very beginning. Yet you still come to a false conclusion. This is because you incorrectly and clumsily believe that a prediction of equilibrium condition quantities should be valid for the short term transfer rates. You have confused a quantity with a rate, a basic dimensional error.
                Further you ignore that increases in surface ocean temperature impeded the ocean’s absorption rate at the same time that it altered the partitioning ratio – showing you don’t even understand the Henry’s Law that you’re clinging to.

                all [temperature increase] does is change the partitioning ratio. That is all. Hence it feasible that the current observed increase in atmospheric CO2 could well be mainly the result of ocean-outgassing in response to the MWP of about 800 years ago

                You have hands, therefore it is feasible that you stole from the cookie jar. That doesn’t mean you actually did, because due to other variables it is not a sufficient condition. Your “hence” does not logically follow.

                There is no incompatibility between the ocean absorbing 20% of aCO2 emissions today and a Henry’s Law prediction that a cumulative 98% will be absorbed by equilibrium time.

                Is that simple enough for you to understand? Wait don’t answer that, I’m not continuing this debate with you anyway.

                I have a bunch of reasons for not continuing, including your pretensions that a simplistic application of Henry’s Law is sufficient for understanding the ocean of today, your pretensions that I have asserted things I never said (“discrete threshold”), your proven peddling of pseudo-science on equilibrium pCO2 response to warming, your ad hoc invention of excuses (underwater volcanoes, faked ice cores, and 800 year lags), ultra-Mannian chartsmanship, and your refusal to acknowledge the validity and relevance of any observation that is contrary to your hypothesis (such as modern ocean-air pCO2 survey and the DIC survey).

                But y’know, I could overlook all of that if it weren’t for this one other obstacle.
                Here is the main reason I will not debate with you further on this issue.

                For the third time in a row, despite my continued emphasis of its importance, YOU STILL HAVEN’T MENTIONED THE MISSING MASS OF YOUR ARGUMENT. You have never attempted to explain, or even acknowledged the existence of, the discrepancy between recorded annual anthropogenic carbon emissions and observed annual atmospheric carbon content increase. That discrepancy proves which of two forces, warming or emissions, prevailed in the ocean’s CO2 balance. Just as I predicted, you are maintaining your delusion by ignoring the law of conservation of mass.

                00

  • #
    Nathan

    The more you explain the complexity of accurately calculating CO2 emissions, the more it sounds like the old ‘dig a hole and fill it in again’. How much money was spent to ‘educate’ people to the degree they can work out formulae to the best of their ability to calculate as near as they can a meaningless number of a harmless (beneficial!) gas.
    Imagine if all this money, energy and manpower was put to work on something useful.
    Sheesh!

    130

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    I have written here before of the Hawke government’s partisan management of the CSIRO.

    That marked the beginning of my scepticism, before I even knew where the bogus science would turn up.

    The first identifiable example of this corruption was a full front page headline in our newspapers: “Cows Australia’s biggest source of greenhouse gases”. They told us that a CSIRO scientist named Galbally working in Tasmania had discovered this.

    Now I never believed that Dr Galbally, a scientist, ever said any such thing. What had happened was that the CSIRO’s now Marxist publicity machine had seized some of Dr Galbally’s Tasmanian research figures and extrapolated them across Australia. It was a monstrous lie.

    But, at that time nobody had researched Australia’s other sources of greenhouse gases, nor even how much greenhouse gas would have been released from an acre of Tasmanian land if no livestock had grazed on it. So this lie stood for a very long time, and was taught to our schoolteachers and in our schools. Agriculture is now a long way down the list of emitters, but that lie is remembered by many.

    For what purpose this lie? In Australia agriculture was the last sector of the national economy still dominated by small business capitalism. The last of the truly free enterprise economy, where the owners made the business decisions. The purpose of that lie was to convince the wider electorate that the farmers were villains in society, who must be put out of business.

    For which the AGW alarmism is just another tool.

    141

  • #
    ROM

    And we were told we’re doomed because all the oceans were all turning acidic.
    And now this !

    All that carbonic acid, you know the stuff you breathe out all the time as a gas and the stuff that Coca Cola puts in those bottles and cans where all those bubbles of CO2 fizz away when you open the bottle,
    And now they tell us it is just running down those Indian and Bengali rivers and acidifying the oceans.

    We’re doomed I tell ya,! We’re doomed !

    130

  • #
    handjive

    Doing the UN-IPCC Green Maths.
    ~ ~ ~
    Add these carbon(sic) credits:
    +
    “In the fields around this giant chemicals factory in Gujarat, the barren soil smells of paint stripper and the water from the well makes you gag.
    So why has it been given tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer-funded UN ‘green reward points’, which are traded hungrily on the financial markets at huge profit? ”

    Then, subtract these bags of carbon murdered in the name of United Nations Green environMENTALism

    = equals =
    Fudged numbers and a racist, people hating, freedom hating agenda of the United Nations & it’s flying monkey/useful idiots.

    50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Handjive,
      The “giant chemicals factory in Gujarat” you mention – did the document you quoted contain the name of the company, by any chance?

      10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Answered my own question:

        The factory is owned by Gujarat Fluorochemicals, which is part of the Inox Group of companies – a family owned conglomeration.

        20

  • #
    Skiphil

    “Carbon accounting is a fog of best guesses.”

    This is a mere quibble, but “best” guesses may be far too generous. “Wild” guesses may be more appropriate for a range of +/- 40% (and maybe more, who really knows yet?)

    60

    • #

      Good comment. Much of global warming science has those “wild guesses” bars.

      60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Similar I expect to the recent posting of temperature rise of 0.14 C +- 0.07, an error of 50%.

        But let’s not be scared by the problem of credibility when the fate of the Earth and mankind hangs so perilously in the balance. ;-)

        70

    • #
      JohnRMcD

      But … but … These are “scientific wild assed guesses”; otherwise known as SWAGs …

      40

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Damn! What a racket, this carbon accounting is – just endless possibilities for making money. How do i get the necessary degree so I can get in on the deal? :-)

    80

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      One would think that if accounting for all the carbon in India is so important they would have to include all the millions of people in the country, who, after all, are largely composed of carbon.

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Then there are the animals to account for…

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Right down to the last insect.

          Then you need to start on the vegetation…

          40

          • #
            Steve

            Do insects fart?

            Think of all that methane….best include that too.

            40

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Absolutely!

              40

            • #

              Apparently they do Steve,
              According to Wikipedia:
              “Termites are also considered to be a major source (11%) of atmospheric methane, one of the prime greenhouse gases.”
              So at least they’re doing their best to make the planet habitable.

              50

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Ever heard of a stink bug?

              10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                The question to be asked is, have you ever pissed one off? If you have then you’ve heard of a stink bug.

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                A stink bug’s stink is not methane of CO2.. but aldehydes…

                “A 2006 study done at Clemson University used Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry to determine at least two of the compounds present in the stink bug odour: the aldehydes trans-2-decenal and trans-2-octenal. These two compounds are used in the food industry to add flavour and aroma to products.”

                20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                So now that I know at least part of why they smell the way they do, how do I avoid stepping on one (which also proves very, shall we say, aromatic sometimes) or getting one mad at me. They’re all over the temperate parts of North America.

                As a kid, by the way, we used to brave the inevitable to see who could collect the largest number of them in a jar.

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @the Griss

                I got to use the /sarc tag more often. It was not a serious response. But really, your response is TMI – I do not want to know what is in my food! (ok, /sarc)

                00

    • #
      James Bradley

      Move to Nigeria.

      70

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Somehow I don’t think I would blend in with the dishonest crowd in Nigeria.

        60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        But don’t take your young daughters.

        The are considered property, don’t-’ya-know, and can therefore be stolen, and sold, just like any other chattel.

        00

  • #
    Alan Bates

    All right. I know I’m a pedant but they quote:

    “… the LULUCF sector was estimated to be acting as a sink of 177.0 Tg CO2 yr-1 in 2007 …”

    That’s a plus and minus of 0.05 in 177 or 0.03%.

    CLOWNS!

    (I used to work in a nuclear power plant. I would have deserved the sack if I’d made such a stupid assertion.)

    50

  • #
    richsrd

    “Humans are putting out less than 4% of total natural emissions of CO2 ”

    So even if you chose to believe that co2 causes any significant warming man has only added 4% to the less than a degree of warming, so lets call it 0.04 % of a degree.

    It’s all such tripe!

    50

  • #
    MartinX

    “In come the sharks, the smoochers, the white collar crims…”

    I think you mean the moochers.

    40

  • #
    michael hart

    The second attempt at launcing the Orbiting Carbon Observatory is due to take place in July.
    http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

    I’m genuinely excited. If it works, I suspect there might be some big surprises coming.

    40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      We need a satellite in orbit to observe carbon? Wait a minute. I can see plenty of carbon right here on the ground. It’s all around me. What do they expect to find, inhabited carbon atoms in space or something?

      On the other hand, if there are inhabited carbon atoms in space it would probably be the first intelligent life form known to the universe because there aren’t any here on Earth.

      Or maybe we ought to save our money. The whole country is so broke that my last medicare payment statement has an item called the Federal 2% Sequestration payment reduction that they levy on the doctor (U.S. residents will recognize that term Sequestration); not that I’m fooled by that, it’s a tax on me that will eventually show up in the form of fewer doctors available, higher charges or a tax increase somewhere. Pardon my language but damn the whole bunch of them, including this project to observe the Earth breathe from space. They can’t stop spending money like it grows on trees so tax the medical consumer to pay for it. Look out Democrats because we seniors vote. AND WE’RE FAR FROM THE SENILE OLD BASKET CASES YOU TAKE US FOR.

      What a boondoggle. :-(

      40

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Actually, I think it might be a good idea. How about we name it Voyager 6?

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Only if we send it where we sent the others named Voyager — as far from Earth as possible, to wander endlessly and pointlessly until someday they get drawn into the middle of some star somewhere, briefly lighting up in a spectacular death dance as they go into the oblivion they deserve, along with our money used to design, build and launch them.

          Do we not have more important problems to solve? Observe the Earth breathe indeed. Sorry but I’m not buying this.

          10

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Or returning after some machine planet builds it a bigger ship to fulfill its simple program.

            Maybe Nomad. You know the one Dr. Roykirk designed?

            20

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Phil,

              Are you watching Star Trek reruns again? Or Star Trek movies? Either way, you know what happens when you do that. ;-)

              00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                I never stopped! But other than being able to speak the lines before the characters do, I am not sure what happens. Are my ears pointier now? ;-)

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Are my ears pointier now?

                I can’t see your ears but that definitely is one of the results of Start Trek overload. ;-)

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Live long and prosper.

                (and yes I am doing the Vulcan V). ;-)

                00

    • #
      Steve

      A satellite to observe carbon?

      Are they out of their tiny minds?

      20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        They seek it here, they seek it there,
        they seek that damned elusive CO2 everywhere.
        Is it in the river? Is it in the well?
        Once they find it, they’ll say it’s warm as hell.

        50

  • #
    pat

    WaPo propaganda on full display! pretty much the same in all the MSM today:

    a correction is prominently displayed above the headline:

    Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, founded the Cato Institute. Charles Koch was a co-founder; his brother was not. This version has been corrected.

    6 May: WaPo: Darryl Fears: U.S. climate report says global warming impact already severe
    Video: Global warming is rapidly turning America the beautiful into America the stormy, sneezy and dangerous
    “The report affirms a number of things we have known,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University professor and lead co-author of the changing-climate chapter of the assessment…
    Other contrarians include libertarians at the Cato Institute, co-founded by Charles Koch, one of two brothers whose multibillion-dollar fortune is partly derived from fossil fuels, and are well-known to deny the impacts of climate change.
    Cato researchers Paul C. Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels said the assessment was “biased toward pessimism,” the opposite of how Wolfe described it. As a resource, it is meant to justify “federal regulation aimed towards mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.”…
    By the end of the century, temperatures could be up to 5 degrees higher if the nation acts aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry, or up to 10 degrees if emissions are high…
    More from The Washington Post:

    Global warming over the last century, in one graphic

    For Obama, a renewed focus on climate change and the environment

    All but certain humans are causing global warming

    East Antarctica in peril from warming

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-climate-report-says-global-warming-impact-already-severe/2014/05/06/0e82cd3c-d49c-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html

    40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Almost someone reads the Washington Post, so don’t worry Pat, no one will see the headline.

      40

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Almost someone

        Would that be the Borg? ;-)

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Not even the Borg would read that junk publication. Now the Washington Times is another matter. But because it has it’s journalistic head screwed on straight it gets no mention.

          10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          And you are watching those Star Trek reruns again, aren’t you? ;-)

          10

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Again??? I never stopped! ;-)

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Actually Star Trek is better than most of the new fare on TV and I pick up an episode or two myself now and then. :-)

              As for the new stuff, a lot of it is no better than soft porn… …not in my living room thank you. I shudder to think what prime time will be like in a few years. :-(

              00

  • #
    pat

    6 May: Phys.org: AFP: Sweden’s Vattenfall abandons research on CO2 storage
    “Vattenfall will discontinue its R&D (research and development) activities regarding coal power with CCS (carbon capture and storage),” the group said in a statement explaining its new research plans.
    The state-owned giant had been investing in this technology for more than 10 years, with plans for a power plant equipped with CCS in 2016…
    Capturing and liquifying CO2 coming from carbon combustion to later store it underground was meant to curb greenhouse effect gas emissions, but its costs and the energy it requires make the technology unviable.
    These difficulties had already forced Vattenfall to give up in 2011 a large project at a pilot plant in Jaenschwalde, in eastern Germany.
    The European Union then demanded the reimbursement of funding worth 45 million euros ($62.75 million), but neither Vattenfall nor the EU ever said whether the group complied with the request.
    In late 2011, the Swedish company said it still believed in the project and stated that it expected to build a coal power plant equipped with CCS by 2025.
    But Tuesday, the group said that CCS was not among its priorities anymore…
    With a capacity of 11,300 megawatt in 14 plants in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Vattenfall is one of the biggest European coal and lignite—a combustible rock considered the lowest rank of coal—electricity producers, which accounted for 40 percent of its total production in 2013…
    http://phys.org/news/2014-05-sweden-vattenfall-abandons-co2-storage.html

    40

    • #
      ROM

      Norway also abandoned their carbon sequestrastion project last year after spending $1.2 billion dollars on the project.

      And if Norway and it’s Statoil owned North Sea oil fields and it’s consequent very extensive knowledge of North Sea oil field geology in the now increasingly depleted North Sea oil field reservoirs which would have been ideal, ready made, geologically stable long term storage depositories for sequestered CO2, can’t make a economic proposition out of sequestering CO2 then nobody can.

      The sequestration of CO2 in geological structures is a dead issue, just like so much of the rest of the CO2 cult like alarmist ideology and it’s increasingly cult like beliefs.
      The CAGW / climate change ideology is dying but like all the purely emotion based and dying ideologies down through history, it can become and possibly is becoming a very, very dangerous ideology as a small minority of it’s most fanatical adherents become increasingly radicalised and unpredictable to the point where the prospects of assassinations of prominent skeptics or political figures who dare to question the CAGW ideology become fixated in the twisted and warped minds of the ideology’s most fanatical adherents. They come to believe that such assassinations will destroy all the opposition to their hard held ideological beliefs and will be greeted by a grateful world for having saved the world from a catastrophe that is solely due to actions and power of the the assassinated one [ s.]
      They themselves are so thoroughly mired in the righteousness of their cause that they usually believe that in assassinating a prominent opposition figure they will be hailed as heroes by a thankful world.

      And it is only a small step in the mind of the most radicalised and fanatical believers of an ideology that from a constant denigrating and constant slandering and threatening of a person who is regarded as a threat and a pariah and an apostate of the [ catastrophic warmist ] ideology to actually carrying out those threats; ie suicide bombers. as a modern and current example of this type of carefully orshestrated by the ideology’s leadership, suicide killer mentality.

      All the signs are already there for a potential assassination of a prominent skeptic or political figure originating from within the increasingly radicalised and fanatical minority of the cult like CAGW ideology.

      The world has been there and done that many, many times down through history as the fanatical supporters of radical emotion based ideologies decide they can force their ideology onto the populace through the assassination of prominent and / or leading political figures that purportedly do not support a particular ideology and set of beliefs.

      We are now seeing and witnessing the first possible signs of an increasing radicalisation of a small minority of fanatical CAGW cultists including a few from within climate change science circles with their increasing demands to shut down, cut off and prosecute and persecute everybody, what ever their qualifications or status who dares to raise any questions on the truth, the veracity and the validity of the CAGW ideology and / or bluntly states negative and derogatory comments on the increasingly science lacking cult like ideology of the alarmist catastrophic global warming / climate change meme.

      70

      • #
        Phil

        Had your angry pill today did you ROM?

        10

        • #
          ROM

          Just the straight out reality of human nature in all it’s multitudinous forms. Phil.
          I have lived through enough history, including some of the big history items mankind would sooner forget and often does.

          I have read enough history to see if still only dimly, the foibles and faults of mankind that is the core of our inability to live in a world without conflict.

          When the next generation comes along it does not want to know the lessons of history of the past as it doesn’t apply to them, they know much better of course than those ancients of the past and they think they have invented the only correct way to run the world, all over again.
          And then they find, usually to their great cost that they still have a great deal to learn, some of which history could have told them.

          As to conflict, to put it another way, “Tribalism in all of it’s multitudinous forms is the curse of mankind”.

          10

  • #
    pat

    7 May: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Climate Change Impact No. 326: The Birds Start Sleeping Around
    Those monogamous birds? Another casualty of climate change…
    “Climatic fluctuations increase the probability of infidelity in birds that are normally monogamous.”
    – U.S. National Climate Assessment…
    The Assessment, which comes out every four years, cites a 2012 paper published in the journal Plos One, titled “Fluctuating Environments, Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Flexible Mate Choice in Birds.” Or, in the tabloid version: “Birds Get Hot, Start Spouse-Swapping, Page 4.”…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/climate-change-impact-no-326-the-birds-start-sleeping-around.html

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      God knows what the headlines would be if there had really been any warming.

      Although in a few years the paper will probably be recycled as showing the effect of global cooling as birds huddle together to keep warm.

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        They would all have died from the heat if what they claim is going on had actually happened. Or drowned in the rising ocean as it swamped huge parts of the globe.

        40

  • #
    pat

    2 pages: 6 May: Forbes: Christopher Helman: Obama’s New Carbon Gospel Blames High U.S. Living Standards For Destroying The World
    The 300 climate gurus who wrote the report are advanced in their practice of modern-day augury. Instead of peering at the patterns of goat entrails, these sages instead squint at the secretions of complex computer models. With these models they have peered 100 years into the future, and with greater confidence than TV weathermen forecasting a chance of rain later in the week, they prophesy two possible outcomes for our future…
    The message: The change is upon us no matter what we do. You don’t want to live in an A2 world. B1 represents the least we should do if we care about the children. And the children’s children…
    Got that? All we have to do to achieve the great de-carbonization is to accept slower economic growth than what we’re enjoying now. After all, that model is already proven — during the anemic economic years since 2007 the United States has already cut its carbon emissions by 10%. A Great Depression redux could really give us a push in the right direction…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/05/06/obamas-new-carbon-gospel-blames-higher-living-standards-for-destroying-the-world/

    5 May: NYT: Peter Baker: Obama Aides Tell Executives to Skip Forum
    The White House has pressured the chief executives of some of America’s largest energy, financial and industrial corporations into canceling plans to attend an international economic forum in Russia to be hosted by President Vladimir V. Putin this month…
    The top executives of such giants as Alcoa, Goldman Sachs, PepsiCo, Morgan Stanley, ConocoPhillips and other multinational companies with business in Russia have either pulled out of the conference or plan to do so after an intensive lobbying campaign by President Obama’s advisers. Corporate officials predicted that nearly every American C.E.O. will now skip the forum in St. Petersburg…
    Hoping to avoid alienating Mr. Putin at the risk of jeopardizing their operations and tens of thousands of employees in Russia, several companies are sending lower-level executives based in Moscow or Europe to the meeting from May 22 to 24…
    Among the top administration officials who have been working the telephones are Valerie Jarrett, the president’s senior adviser and liaison to business; Jacob J. Lew, the Treasury secretary; Penny Pritzker, the commerce secretary; and Jeffrey D. Zients, the national economic adviser.
    “They’ve basically been saying, ‘We’re not telling you what to do, but it wouldn’t look good,’ ” said an executive at one of the companies who received such a call, and who, like others, declined to be named to avoid offending either side in the dispute…
    They (some industry officials) said European or Asian competitors may simply fill the void. “Nobody wants to get caught on the wrong side of anybody in this if they can help it,” said one such official. “Some companies are trying to do their best to avoid getting trapped in this minefield.”…
    At a closed meeting in Moscow of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia last week, representatives of United States firms expressed aggravation at being penalized either way. “The understanding is that those that choose to go will be on the Obama administration’s dog list,”*** concluded a participant’s summary of the session…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/world/europe/us-urges-executives-to-skip-russian-forum.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0

    ***aw shucks. that’s preferable to being on Obama’s “kill list”.

    read it all for Boeing, Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Alcoa, GE, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Caterpillar, Cargill, Pepsi details.

    10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The White House has pressured the chief executives of some of America’s largest energy, financial and industrial corporations into canceling plans to attend an international economic forum in Russia to be hosted by President Vladimir V. Putin this month…
      The top executives of such giants as Alcoa, Goldman Sachs, PepsiCo, Morgan Stanley, ConocoPhillips and other multinational companies with business in Russia have either pulled out of the conference or plan to do so after an intensive lobbying campaign by President Obama’s advisers. Corporate officials predicted that nearly every American C.E.O. will now skip the forum in St. Petersburg…

      Obama’s reach has grown long indeed. I wonder what threat he made to these CEO’s.

      40

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        IRS Audit.

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Would the IRS audit someone just because they didn’t want to do what the President asked them to do? Of course not. Right? Right? I’m sure they wouldn’t. Please tell me they wouldn’t.

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I have to say that I’ve dealt with the IRS three times over my life and I’ve always found the people I had any contact with to be polite, professional and quite willing to explain why they disagree with me so that I could understand it.

            I think that description probably fits most employees of the IRS.

            They do, of course, have to do what the Internal Revenue Code says they must do and collect any extra tax owed along with interest and penalty. But I’ve been surprised several times when they disagreed in my favor and increased my refund accordingly.

            So I figure that the recent scandal at the Cincinnati facility where applications for tax exempt status are handled is not the usual behavior of the IRS. That mess does need to be cleaned up and anyone guilty of criminal behavior punished accordingly. And it does look like the head of that branch is guilty because she invoked the Fifth Amendment to protect herself from self incrimination. I hope they can get at her somehow in the House of Representatives to get the truth of the matter out to the public because there’s evidence that the whole thing is larger than the IRS and involves other government departments acting in concert with the IRS. In other words, in spite of the president, it is a very big deal.

            00

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              The people you deal with are not the ones making the decisions (they never leave the curtain). Fortunately, all of my dealings with the IRS (audited 3 years due to a bank screwing up an IRA) have been very formal and all by mail.

              I have not dealt with any employees yet, just computers. But then you know what they say about the difference between a computer and an accountant – the computer has a personality. So what do I know?

              00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Phil,

              I suspect you know that any resemblance between the behavior of a computer and a personality is all a reflection of the personality of those who gave the specs to the programmers and maybe the programmers themselves. The result can be good or it can be bad.

              Some web sites are nightmares to deal with, some are very easy and most fall somewhere in-between.

              Computers themselves all have the personality of a rock, deaf, dumb, blind and happy to be that way.

              00

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            According to this site – http://www.taxdebthelp.com/tax-problems/tax-audit/irs-audit-statistics

            1% of tax returns are audited annually.

            House republicans found that 10% of tea party contributors are audited annually – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/house-republicans-find-10-of-tea-party-donors-audi/

            I am not drawing any conclusions. I allow the facts to speak for themselves.

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Phil,

              I think I have to draw a conclusion that there’s trouble in the IRS somewhere high up, along with other government agencies and the finger points toward the White House or at least its political machinery. But I’m unwilling to paint the whole organization with the same brush.

              I just had an email come in this morning (I’m on nearly every mailing list between Jupiter and the sun) saying the House will vote to hold Lois Learner in contempt of Congress. If they’re smart they’ll grant her blanket immunity for anything she did in her official capacity, which will force her to testify truthfully about everything she knows under threat of prosecution. I don’t know if the DOJ would prosecute since it belongs to Obama, lock, stock and barrel. But the pressure on her would then be very heavy.

              I hope they do that because she certainly has something to hide and I think getting to the bottom of the mess is more important than prosecuting what looks like a participant rather than an instigator. But let the chips fall where they fall. I just want them all to fall.

              00

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              I agree to where the finger points, but disagree that granting her immunity will do any good. to some, prison is better than death (and there is a pardon coming in any event). Holder will not prosecute anyone. And contempt of congress is worthless these days (already 2 held in contempt and nothing done).

              Oliver North showed that you do not grant blanket immunity. But she would lie even if given it. Once she has blanket immunity, she has nothing to gain by outing Obama, and a lot to lose.

              In time the truth will be learned. But not while Obama sits in the oval office.

              00

  • #
    pat

    6 May: Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: Barack Obama to make climate change case to weather forecasters
    US president signs up for eight interviews with TV meteorologists to defend landmark climate impacts report
    PHOTO CAPTION: Barack Obama wipes sweat off his face as he unveils his plan on climate change, June 2013, at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
    Barack Obama has signed up for eight interviews with TV meteorologists on Tuesday to defend a landmark report against those who deny climate change.
    The interviews were scheduled as part of a carefully co-ordinated rollout of the National Climate Assessment…
    TV weather forecasters remain among the most trusted sources, according to opinion polls.
    Some 89% of Americans rely on local television for their weather news, according to a 2012 report from the Pew research centre.
    The same report said 62% of Americans trust television weather reporters on climate change far more than they do climate scientists.
    The problem is, however, that there is a strong current of climate scepticism among weather forecasters. Some of the most prominent television meteorologists deny a human cause in climate change – or insist there is no evidence of climate change.
    A 2010 study by George Mason University’s centre for climate change communications found that only 19% of TV weather forecasters accepted that human activity was the main driver of climate change…
    (Andrew Freedman, who covers climate change for Mashable): “Many TV meteorologists also lack specific training in climate science.”…
    Meanwhile, the campaign group Forecast the Facts complained that broadcast meteorologists do not do enough to explain how climate change is contributing to heatwaves, drought, and other extreme weather events.
    “I don’t talk about [global warming] on television … because I don’t see it as part of my short-term forecast,” the group quoted Tampa weatherman Steve Jerve as saying. “I don’t think it’s good for a scientist to talk about an opinion.”
    The meteorologists interviewing Obama on Tuesday include: Al Roker, co-anchor of NBC’s Today Show; Ginger Zee, meteorologist on ABC’s Good Morning America; John Morales, chief meteorologist of NBC 6 in Miami, Florida, and Jim Gandy, meteorologist of WLTX-TV in Columbia, South Carolina.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/06/barack-obama-climate-change-us-weather-forecasters

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: Barack Obama to make climate change case to weather forecasters
      US president signs up for eight interviews with TV meteorologists to defend landmark climate impacts report
      PHOTO CAPTION: Barack Obama wipes sweat off his face as he unveils his plan on climate change, June 2013, at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
      Barack Obama has signed up for eight interviews with TV meteorologists on Tuesday to defend a landmark report against those who deny climate change.

      And I wonder what threat he’ll make against the unlucky meteorologists. You can be sure there’ll be one.

      I hope they tell him to go to Hell.

      40

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Roy Hogue:

        “A 2010 study by George Mason University’s centre for climate change communications found that only 19% of TV weather forecasters accepted that human activity was the main driver of climate change”…
        Translation: Get that up to 97% or else…

        “Many TV meteorologists also lack specific training in climate science.”…
        Translation: Compulsory brainwashing sessions.

        Isn’t it strange that with “Climate Science” meteorologists doesn’t like the meteorology, physicists criticise the physics, chemists criticise the chemistry, geologists criticise the paleontology, historians dispute the history and astronomers criticise the astronomy but people who know nothing about these subjects think “The Science” is settled?

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          The whole National Weather Service has said over and over that nothing is unusual in the weather of the past several decades and those are the people with records pf past weather going back a lot longer than global warming has been claimed to be happening.

          So strange isn’t nearly the word. I’m at a loss when it comes to figuring out how these people can stand themselves, all alone in bed at night with only their own demons for company, trying to sleep… Amazing is perhaps a better word or maybe suffering from some personality disorder?

          I could not do it.

          But the human ability to rationalize away a great big lie, a fraud, seems to know no bounds.

          00

          • #

            It’s not hard to behave as described if your moral imperative is to just get as much as you can and care nothing for anyone else. People simply don’t bond anymore so they tend to care only about themselves. Add in the media and politics being all for yourself, and no surprise. At one time this would have been a personality disorder, but with the number of people now behaving badly, I doubt you could get the label to stick. You know how fluid those “personality disorders” are—if drugs can be sold or if the behaviour serves to make society more rude and uncaring, it’s just ducky. (I wish I was being sarcastic, but sadly, no.)

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Sheri,

              I can’t help wondering if deep down somewhere there’s not some vestige of conscience left.

              But out imperative (good choice of words) is to protect ourselves and what we have left of our country in any way we can. We’ve been under attack for a long time. It’s time for some kind of offensive. Even if I go down, I intend to go down fighting. If all I have to fight with are words, then I’ll use words. No matter how bad it may get, I’ll be fighting it.

              I handed the mail carrier a letter at the door today — I luckily happened to be at the kitchen window and saw him coming. We had a short conversation which quickly turned to his concern for his future and his retirement and then to the future of his children. It’s everywhere. People don’t know where to turn anymore. No political party is really trusted and neither are most politicians. I know for certain that if I complain about anything or ask for a different vote than I think they will make on something, my senators and my representative will all three simply ignore me because that’s their entire voting history. Where do you turn for even a sympathetic ear, much less action? From those who represent me in DC all I get is form letters.

              00

              • #

                My guess is no, there’s no vestige of conscience left in a large number of people. Politics may or may not solve this. As I have noted before, humans cycle through smart/dumb/really dumb/self-destructive/relearning/smart all the time. You can fight it, and should. There’s no guarantee you’ll win but if you don’t stand up for what you believe in, you’ll hate yourself. The only protection we can give to our children are the skills to deal with life, even if that life involves a bunch of selfish, narrow people. I wish it could be different, but it can’t. It’s who we are. And understand that I don’t want things to fall apart, but that’s just the reality of life on earth. I can’t change the nature of human beings. That’s God’s thing. I can only deal with humans as they are.

                00

  • #
    Robert O

    If those people supporting the AGW theory with CO2 as the culprit, perhaps they should show some integrity and stop drinking beer, wine, spirits, and also stop eating bread, since they should know that CO2 is a by-product of fermentation.

    40

    • #
      James Bradley

      Maybe they should also stop drinking water – you know the stuff purified using active charcoal filters – the same purified water each and every greenie proudly carries around in their recyclable, designer, P.E.T. bottles or nonchalantly taps through the charcoal filters from their clay water cannisters on their kitchen benches.

      40

  • #
    pat

    5 May: CBS: Sen. Introduces Bill To Test Out Taxing Motorists For Every Mile They Drive
    The California Legislature is looking at a voluntary program that would tax motorists for every mile they drive.
    KCAL9’s Bobby Kaple reports that Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, introduced a bill to test out the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax because the state’s gas tax was no longer bringing in the revenue it used to due to people driving more fuel efficient vehicles.***
    The program is modeled after ones in Oregon and Washington.
    “We want to do as Washington and Oregon have done in a much bigger state with much longer commutes…to make sure that we find out whether it would work, whether the public would like it or not,” DeSaulnier said…
    Southland commuters were not thrilled about the idea of a VMT tax…
    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05/05/sen-introduces-bill-to-test-out-taxing-motorists-for-every-mile-they-drive/

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I’ve heard of this one before. The per mile tax will net them one godawful backlash. And I do wonder, who was it that wanted such high gas mileage, carpooling and commuter trains to get cars off the road and reduce the gas consumption, hence gas tax revenue. Could it be the same ones who now find the gas tax inadequate to their needs? I don’t trust them to be using it for its intended purpose anymore either?

      I’m at the point where I think the sooner they enact all their repressive measures the sooner they’ll be over.

      40

      • #

        Odd, isn’t it.

        They exhort people to leave their cars at home and take public transport to lessen the number of cars on the road. The extra buses they would have to get hold of to handle the extra passengers must run on air.

        The extra trains are either electrified, hence extra electrical power needed, hence extra emissions, or if not electrified, then large emitters themselves.

        Then there’s the case of the CO2 Tax, or every renewable power plant known to man, and how the supposed emissions savings would be the same as X thousands of cars being removed from the roads.

        Was ONE car ever removed from the road as a direct result of any of these things?

        Just tell these politicians to just shut down those power plants. Let’s see how brave they are then.

        Tony.

        120

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Tony,

          When it comes to nitwit politicians,

          - Using electrically powered trains generates no pollution, no CO2
          - Running buses on natural gas generates no CO2
          - Plug in electric cars generate no pollution, no CO2
          - Someday buses will be solar powered and so will trains

          You’re missing the whole point. When a politician says something then it’s the truth, it’s the solution, it’s the road to everlasting happiness. All you have to do is have faith brother, just have faith.

          20

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            When a politician says something then it’s the truth, it’s the solution, it’s the road to everlasting happiness. All you have to do is have faith brother, just have faith.

            Just drink the Kool-aid (Flavor aid actually).

            10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Yesterday my Verizon home page had an item about testing a solar powered car. Maybe I should add to my list…

            - Someday cars will be solar powered.

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              And to add to the frenzy to go solar — I noticed yesterday that one of my neighbors who hasn’t had any solar panels suddenly has them. They’re on his garage roof and tipped up at an angle so as to catch the sun more effectively, except they are facing almost due west. Nearly half the days solar energy is totally lost to this pair of pv panels. And this is typical of what I see, no regard for where the sun really is all day long.

              What can you say when such stupid placement is looking like standard operating procedure? Can we not at the very least, do better than this?

              00

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    These ongoing exposures of the gaping holes in the AGW thesis make it the most risible proposition that mainstream humanity has come up with in my memory. We could readily fund the study of alchemy in or universities in lieu of climate science and lose no credit.

    40

  • #
    pat

    6 May: Reuters: UPDATE 2-Europe stuck with Russian gas dependence, say G7 ministers
    Germany says no alternative to Russian gas in short term.
    Europe will be saddled with its dependence on Russian gas for years, ministers from the Group of Seven industrial nations said on Tuesday, condemning the use of energy as a weapon of political coercion.
    “I don’t know anyone in the world who could tell us how Europe’s dependency on importing Russian gas can be changed in the short term,” German Economy and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters…
    U.S. shale gas was not expected to aid Europe until at least the end of the decade, when it could be imported from tankers as LNG.
    Both Italy and France restated their support for the South Stream pipeline project, which will bring gas from Russia into Europe bypassing Ukraine – while also declaring the need to build up alternative channels.
    A third of the EU’s gas imports is from Russia, with almost half of that passing through Ukraine…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/06/g7-energy-gabriel-idUKL6N0NS3I220140506

    20

  • #
    James Bradley

    Just OT for a bit, visited Sks and there seems to be some really serious paranoia happening. It is the weirdest site.

    Now they have only about maybe 20 to 30 responses to a post and that after about a week and i’ve noticed they are absolutely afraid of freedom of speech so any poster questioning the theory is chastised publicly then deleted.

    Also deleted are other threads for no reason other than OT and upon questioning that is challenged and chastised by the moderator. Then the whole thread of each post seems to be directed towards the psychi of ‘deniers’ and then continued ridicule of ‘denier’ arguments that haven’t even been posted by writers – these things are just plucked from the ether and ridiculed as are a number of scientists who don’t agree with the ‘science’.

    Even the term CAGW is contested as a label that the ‘deniers’ use with all the overwhelming media coverage from Bolt, and Devine and … Bolt and Brandis and … Bolt that the struggling Global Warming Believers are trying to defend themsleves against.

    There are some really negative vibes man – but it is good for a giggle. Please feel free not to post this if you feel it is too far off topic. It’s just that it serves as a reminder to me of the religious, ferver, cultistic, totalitarian regime that is unhealthy.

    70

    • #
      PeterK

      James: This is a fun sight…got a few laughs surfing around and I especially enjoyed doing the carbon foot print calculator. I think if these guys ever took control of this world, I would be taken out back and shot because of my so called high carbon foot print.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Carbon-CO2-Footprint-Emissions-Calculator.html

      30

      • #
        the Griss

        Darn, I only managed 48.6 tons CO2/yr

        They didn’t ask about “the shed”, though ;-)

        Add another 20 :-) :-)

        10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        They wouldn’t like me either if it’s any consolation to anyone. My carbon footprint works out to be 25.1 tons/year (I hope I got the U.S. to metric worked out correctly, small house too). I’m sure that 0.1 tons must be significant to someone. In fact I’m sure my carbon footprint is significant to someone. But I certainly don’t care. To me, I passed the test with flying colors; good old red, white and blue, the stars and stripes for the best place on earth where this sort of disapproval is my right to ignore and where the government should not have joined in this corruption of nearly everything.

        And if they come for me they better come ready for resistance because I’ll be ready to resist.

        00

    • #
      Mark D.

      James Bradley, I’d advise not going there at all. There is no science to be found on Craptical Seance except maybe an ongoing experiment in psychology.

      30

      • #
        James Bradley

        Is psychology a science?

        30

        • #

          Psychologists think so.

          30

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Psychologists think many things, Sheri, including that you and I can’t get along without their help. Witness the rampant grief counseling at every school tragedy where instead the students need their parents to comfort them, tell them the world is dangerous but they’re alright and maybe hold them a while and above all else, tell them it’s not their responsibility to take on so-called survivor guilt (why my friend and not me?). Kids need functioning parents a lot more than they need psychologists and we’re going in the opposite direction.

            00

            • #

              True. It wasn’t always that way—and there were psychologists that promoted self-reliance in the past. I guess when a MS got you $80/hr and a PhD even more, the impetus to cure the patient may have dropped off a bit? The grief counseling is rediculous. If we had not lied to children and tried to tell them the world is safe, when it most emphatically is NOT, we wouldn’t need grief counselors. If we taught children about dangers and dealing with death, the counselors would have to seek employment elsewhere. Functioning parents would be good, though I suspect part of the problem is parents prefer to use the grief counselor and skip the tough questions.
              (Actually, psychology had the potential to be science. Many of the things I learned in experimental psych were based on double-blind testing.)

              10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Sheri,

                I know this for sure. The 2-semester psychology course I was required to take to get my bachelor’s degree scared me to death. You can find someone out there who’ll tell you pretty much whatever you want to hear. I suppose that’s exaggerated a bit but from my perspective as a student (and years later too) some 3 or 4 major schools of thought with conflicting basic assumptions certainly doesn’t look like science.

                It still doesn’t.

                And you’re right on the mark about parents. Some don’t know how to handle “bad” things any better than their kids do. The human race has been muddling along for thousands of years with each generation having to learn the same lessons over again. I suppose it’s destined to be that way but I surely do wish for better than muddling along.

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I should have added this.

                If we could learn to not act on our emotions but instead, think things through I think that would be a big start in the right direction.

                10

              • #

                Roy- agreed that thinking instead of emoting would be a big step in the right direction. As you note below, some of psychology is helpful—behaviour modification, etc. There were therapies out there (rational-emotive, reality therapy, implosion therapy—needed careful monitoring on that one, etc.) and some are still used. Psychology is unique in having actual experimental evidence and off-the-wall fantasy theories all lumped under the same umbrella. Perhaps there should have been two disciplines.

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                If we could learn to not act on our emotions but instead, think things through I think that would be a big start in the right direction.

                More commonly known as “growing up”. Sadly too few do it.

                00

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              I remember in HS when we actually had a bomb go off (after numerous threats – it was the early 70s). A couple of kids were hurt by flying glass. The next day we were back in school. No counselors, and we all thought how neat it was that we had a real story to tell.

              00

              • #

                That was back in the days when we were rational and dealt with the world as it is, not as someone wishes it would be.

                00

        • #
          Mark D.

          James, If I answered “yes psychology is a science” how would you feel about that?

          :)

          20

          • #
            James Bradley

            Mark, I’m already rocking back and forth in the fetal position repeating “warm dark place, warm dark place, warm dark place… ‘

            10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Or is it guesswork?

            In any case, I think there’s some useful psychology out there. For one thing, behavior modification if it’s undertaken voluntarily can help some people overcome difficulties.

            But beyond that, I see a lot of evidence that sometimes the psychologists need help even more than their patients. I could tell you a couple of stories along that line but it takes up too much space.

            00

    • #
      Carbon500

      SkS is in my view doing the best possible job imaginable to make people in their droves listen to the arguments of the sceptical fraternity.
      The condescending arrogance of the website’s contributors is clear for all to see, and their attitude anything but scientific.
      Keep up the good work SkS!

      40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Last time I looked at Sks was a long time ago. But then they were much more subtle, always trying to appear skeptical but then steering you as subtly as possible back around to the conclusion they wanted you to reach. Jo has called it an ambush site since I first started ready her blog.

      What you describe is anything but what I remember seeing at skepticalscience. I wonder, could reality finally be coming home to roost — that no one believes their nonsense.

      What you describe looks like plain old fear.

      00

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        So you missed them prancing around in Nazi uniforms? it was supposed to be part of their ‘secret’ forum, but they left it exposed to web crawlers. Some claim they were hacked. But kind of hard to declare that when the results are on Google.

        00

  • #
    pat

    help! missed Patrick Michaels on APAC Channel yesterday, so noted it was on at 3pm today. switched on with muted sound, to the PM making some 5-minute announcement on something or other. wasn’t interested to find out.

    now, instead of Michaels, it’s a bitter, twisted-mouthed Christine Milne giving a lecture somewhere or other, can’t even say where, because it’s not showing on the screen, but it is obvious she is going to take up the slot that is advertised for Patrick Michaels. i’m seething with anger.

    40

  • #
    pat

    update.

    give thanx. milne disappeared. brief something else.

    and now Patrick Michaels….

    20

  • #
    pat

    excellent talk. easy to understand. so….

    just did a search to see how much MSM coverage Michaels has had since this trip was announced.

    NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING.

    please prove i am wrong.

    10

    • #
      scaper...

      Try 2GB. Last night I remarked to Patrick, Mark Steyn and himself would make a great comedy duo. He replied that Chris Smith would be more apt.

      Apparently, Patrick was going to do a short stint on his timeslot but they were having such a ball that it went well overtime.

      The MSM is missing so much of the main game I can not take them seriously anymore.

      20

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    OT but note worthy if only for the rhino like hide of Christine Milne.

    Commenting on the ABC (where else) today regarding the proposed debt tax, Milne observed that “this will be like a millstone around Tony Abbotts neck if he proceeds. It will be the same as the broken promise of the carbon tax by “Juliar”!!!

    I was utterly gobsmacked. It was The Greens tax, implemented along with the rest of the nonsense that tried to convince ordinary Australians that politicians can change the weather using money, totalling tens of billions of dollars in expenditure and lost revenue that created the fiscal conditions for the Libs to argue for a debt tax in the first place.

    The sheer gall of The Greens truly knows no bounds. They whine to get what they want, then they get it so they move the goalposts, now they block the measures need to fix the problem. The whole while, the weather does its own thing, despite the influence of billions of dollars allegedly affecting it’s behaviour.

    Every time I think this topic has moved into nothing more than high farce and can be safely ignored with few risks of missing any entertainment, the nonsense peddlers, alarmists and straight out eco loons step it up another gear into the realms of true circus. I wonder what they would all be doing if it wasn’t for having a myth to fret over? Heaven forbid they might focus on some measurable environmental objectives….. naaaa now its me being silly.

    70

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      The Devonport cow must have convinced you that she gives a damn about the environment or anything else.

      Foremost in her mind is the desire to control every single thing you do, Safety guy, from when you get up in the morning to what you eat and when and how you take a leak. She is a Stalinist just like Lee Rhiannon. The two of them would have made Marx and Lenin blush.

      40

    • #
      James Bradley

      Yep, noted that one myself after watching her on the news this evening. I couldn’t believe that she just went and blurted that one out.

      20

    • #
      GregS

      So help me to understand this. For the past 3 years Milne and every Greens/Labor apologist has been saying that Julia did not lie, that there was no broken promise and that she had always meant to put a price on Carbon, etc, ad infinitum…….

      Now because she is no longer sharing power with Labor and she wants to try and score points against a Coalition government she says, “this will be like a millstone around Tony Abbotts neck if he proceeds. It will be the same as the broken promise of the carbon tax by Julia!”

      She has no shame.

      20

  • #
    pat

    Patrick Michaels made a joke to the audience i saw that Fairfax Media needed them, not they who needed Fairfax. of course, he was correct:

    7 May: ABC: Fairfax journalists strike over loss of 80 jobs at The Age, Sydney Morning Herald
    Fairfax staff have gone on strike for 24 hours in protest after the company announced it was set to cut about 80 full-time positions across newsrooms in Sydney and Melbourne…
    As a result, 35 editorial jobs were on the line, 30 photographers would lose their jobs and 15 positions would be lost from the Life magazine division, the company said, as any “new arrangements will absorb more copy-editing and page layout work”…
    Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) federal secretary Christopher Warren called the cuts “an assault on the quality journalism” that might lead to a decline in the volume and quality of content…
    “It strips a massive loss in skills, experience and knowledge from the group,” he said…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/fairfax-journalists-strike-for-24-hours-over-loss-of-80-jobs/5436232?google_editors_picks=true

    the Govt must cut back the ABC. if they were not paid for by the taxpayers, they would be – at maximum – a quarter of the size they are today. just think of how many TV & radio stations they now have. it’s completely ridiculous.

    the very fact Patrick Michaels hasn’t been on breakfast, 7.30 report, lateline, etc – when complete idiots are featured on their shows daily – is enough reason to shut them down.

    give thanx for the internet.

    40

    • #
      the Griss

      Hey, not fair..

      What am I going to use to start my wood burning stove in this very cold start to May !?

      The budgie need new cage floor stuff as well. :-(

      Not happy !!

      (no, no…before y’all get worried… I don’t actually buy the SMH, I grab a copy from the café when I pick up my afternoon soya decaf latte. !)

      20

      • #
        GregS

        I admit I scrounge up old copies of the Fairfax papers from the office before they are binned to use for the bird cage. Nice and absorbent, I assume that the budgie reads it as I don’t.

        30