Professor quits job at university over "craziness" in climate science

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I understand how erring on the side of caution is appealing, but the climate is easily the most complex and interrelated system we have ever tried to analyze. At this point in time, we are assuming that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is the primary driving force behind global temperatures. That is not a foregone conclusion! The truth could just as easily be that rising carbon dioxide levels are an indication of another feedback that is countering a worse problem that we do not understand.
That is not a theory, nor even a hypothesis... just a possibility.
In short, doing something that looks like erring on the side of caution can hamper the natural controls that would solve the issue more effectively. While I doubt that is the case with carbon dioxide levels, I have to, as a researcher, accept the possibility.

Well it's refreshing to hear from someone who is working in the field, just to say that the Earth's dynamics make for number crunching a tad more difficult in the correlation, perhaps not the number crunching in itself, but more the limitation in knowledge of all possible parameters, and that's something I can understand, versus a scientific analysis that is more authoritarian, rock hard in the approach to those who are not scientists.
That I think is what is happening at the present time, and continues through politics and agenda makers, much of it based on material that in the past was not so good, and in itself in a changing environment.

As late as 2014 there was this from NASA*,
'As NASA strives to understand the forces behind global warming, it is searching for ways to make more precise measurements of carbon dioxide gas, considered the primary contributor to climate change.
That goal comes from the scientific community at large. In 2007, the National Research Council released its first-ever decadal survey of Earth science and applications from space. The report recommended a set of 17 space missions. One of them was a NASA mission called ASCENDS, which stands for Active Sensing of CO2 Emissions over Nights, Days and Seasons.
The science community and NASA envisioned ASCENDS as a way to fill gaps in the current knowledge about where atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from and where it goes.'

To me that is the nub of things, if CO2 is a heavier that air gas, then it is only going one way way eventually, and that's downward and, subject to all the dynamics that the Atmosphere has to offer as well in it's mixing, or even lack of mixing for that matter, in the atmosphere as a whole.
Now, I don't think, given the above, that NASA believes for a minute that there is a body of CO2 all around the planet Earth at say, a tentative, based on the old and new, 400ppm toasting us evenly IPCC done and dusted sort of thing, that's as plain as the nose on your face. But I give credit there to NASA for doing this stuff, as well as other ongoing experiments with satellites to find out as much as they can.

*www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: smurfy

To me that is the nub of things, if CO2 is a heavier that air gas, then it is only going one way way eventually, and that's downward and, subject to all the dynamics that the Atmosphere has to offer as well in it's mixing, or even lack of mixing for that matter, in the atmosphere as a whole.

Atmospheric gases don't separate like oil and water, not sure what you are getting at.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: smurfy

To me that is the nub of things, if CO2 is a heavier that air gas, then it is only going one way way eventually, and that's downward and, subject to all the dynamics that the Atmosphere has to offer as well in it's mixing, or even lack of mixing for that matter, in the atmosphere as a whole.

Atmospheric gases don't separate like oil and water, not sure what you are getting at.

Entropy might be a good word for it.

Look at this picture from 2003, well within the cultivated timescale,


files.abovetopsecret.com...

It appears to show that the level of CO2 over the globe is not uniform at any given time, so it's not global warming as per CO2. or rather the IPCC'S 4% although the higher global banding towards the Antarctic is curious, but then is the map a temperature guage for the globe, or simply CO2?

a reply to: smurfy

It's true that NASA at this time considers carbon dioxide the primary suspect for global temperature rise, but that does not mean it is true. It only means that is the aim of the climate models at this time: to correlate carbon dioxide levels and temperature. If no correlation can be found to accurately account for empirical data, the focus will eventually shift to other factors.

Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, but the difference is low enough to allow it to mix fairly well in the atmosphere. The one exception is a few times when there was a carbon dioxide seep from underground in a valley with no wind; carbon dioxide can pool under those circumstances and suffocate animals in the area until it can dissipate. Such is very very rare, and the carbon dioxide is not the cause of death. The cause of death is asphyxiation from a lack of oxygen since pure carbon dioxide displaces lighter gases. Any heavy gas would do the same thing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: smurfy

I have found this as well. I can't upload the image and post it. The image itself seems to indicate the largest amounts of C02 are coming from forested areas, and not the industrialized areas as one might suspect, interesting.

C02 Satellite

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: Greven

a) Counter with data, not your own belief. Total solar irradiance has not significantly changed in awhile, as is shown on that graph.
b) Counter with data, not your own belief. The sun hasn't changed much, yet the measured temperature has increased, as is shown on that graph.
c) # your and everyone else's 'it's a cycle' nonsense. CARBON DIOXIDE IS A GREENHOUSE GAS:

d) Here's a known: increasing greenhouse gas redistributes warmth towards the surface

TSI varies on a ~ 11 year cycle, with the variance determined to be ~ 0.1%. That change in and of itself is not enough to significantly heat the Earth more to change weather patterns, according to NASA. However, the Sun has other TSI changes on a much longer scale that can change the climate, e.g., Maunder Minimum.

Then we have, "On a much longer time scale, it's also known that the sun has increased its luminosity significantly—by about 30 percent—over its 4.55 billion year lifespan" (NASA, 2016).

"NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE" (NASA, 2003). ""Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said" (NASA, 2003).

"Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere,oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate."

I am not going to go on with this. You have some minor data, with minimal arguing and logic skills, to try and show your point. But, one must also take evidence to the contrary. I am not going to post all data and research I have done. You only argue one side of a point, but don't highlight any evidence to the contrary.

Let us not forget that we don't know everything about the Sun, weather, ecosystems, and the relationship between all of them. We don't actually know what causes some of the changes we are seeing.

The increase of CO2 alone could not cause the warming that we are seeing. I know you would like to think so, so that maybe you can graduate or get a grant, in which case you simply must agree with the money givers, which is the main idea of the original post about the professor resigning.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: Phage


Indeed, total resources are finite. That's why, coupled with the above, O2 levels are declining as carbon is burned into CO2:

That's a good post. So, the one reason I mentioned this is because the Earth as a unit has enough Oxygen to supply the Oxygen dependent creatures, including humans. The problem is that Oxygen levels are actually dropping faster than the rate of CO2 increases. Now, it's not like we can measure all the O2 or CO2 on the planet, but we measure in certain areas and go from there.

If the O2 levels continue to drop, at some point there will not be enough oxygen for all O2 dependent creatures to live. The percent of O2 itself, once below ~15% or so, will cause people to go unconscious and eventually die. For those that don't die sooner, some will get sick simply from increased anaerobic activity and the production of free radicals, etc. Those people will take longer to die. As the population dies off, at some point the strong ones will remain and the total O2 demand will drop enough that the O2 levels would stabilize, and life will too, given other factors remain the same.

We also know O2 affects the weather, but current specialists in the area have no consensus about exactly how.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rxh0272


I also remember the first time I watched "An Inconvenient Truth." I had to pause it several times to catch my breath from laughing so hard.
Haha

Anyway, back to serious... I have heard the arguments for and against various maximum populations, but I really have no opinion except that we're not there yet. The resource issue seems to be a matter of efficiency rather than quantity. But my study of humanity in general leads me to believe the issue is in fact moot, because the human species tends to regulate itself through violent means very well.

Yes. I believe that, viewing the Earth as a biological system, ecological system, and applying my understanding of life, etc., the entire planet is one huge system of interrelated systems. If we become smarter at using resources and increase our efficiency, I believe it would only be temporary at relieving the human-caused death/degradation of the planet. I believe, however, that once we hit the tipping point, the planet will stabilize, likely after a lot of humans are dead.

I do believe it is moot, as well, as it is not in our hands to control. It boggles me that some believe we can change the planet. I mean, we are not even near a type I civilization, and have not reached the limits of a type zero; although, some would disagree.

I mean, we can't just jump into a type I classification; we need to fully complete type zero requirements first. And, I am not confident that we would be completing that any time soon ... or not during my lifetime anyway. Even though Kardeshev never made a Type zero in his model/theory, that I know of. Of course, I am not an engineer.

I would say that, if we can meet type I requirements, we probably could sustain the continually growth of the population.

Carl Sagan made a mathematical model. Using that, we are at about 0.75 (75%) of completing a type zero requirements, or 25% away from reaching type I status. Of course, we need the technological knowledge and abilities first. Also, I believe we would have to function more as an entire one system, if you will, i.e., one government etc., as to accomplish this would require global functions. Otherwise, I am not sure that we would pass into Type I in a controlled manner.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Of course you can divide area by area, but is the result any more relevant than it was to start with? The total solar irradiance striking the normal plane of the earth (a disk) is the value under consideration. That is what we measure. That is what is known. That is what will deviate if the solar irradiance deviates. Anything more is useless gymnastics and confuscation.

This is correct. TSI is measured on Earth. We also now have measurements out side of Earth. I don't recall what it's called, but we have it. I just woke up so....

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

If you don't consume some organic matter, you won't be for long.

Consumption of organic matter is not called respiration. Try to consume organic matter through respiration, and you'll stop respirating even faster. FYI, that is called "aspiration" and it can be a very bad thing.
TheRedneck

Phahahahaha.
Totally true, but so funny the way your put it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: smurfy

It's true that NASA at this time considers carbon dioxide the primary suspect for global temperature rise, but that does not mean it is true.

Well, that's the thing, They definitely were of that opinion back a few years pretty much in line with the IPCC, but somehow I think they are somewhere else now. That 2014 event was an experiment with the new equipment they had devised for atmospheric measuring using specific wavelength infrared LASER's but they also have a programme of new satellites to come on line using satellites measuring pretty much it seems continuous monitoring day and night, and the seasons, and the poles. It's just not as simple as the IPCC's 'blanket of CO2 wrapped around the globe' malarkey, and I'm sure NASA know that.
Another thing to add is the everchanging estimate of how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere, and it's in the low end that is the figure most changed, so you may say, ?years to 200years. I don't think that's so good for climate modelling though. I think Judith Curry has a point, tear it all up and start again with a decent programme like NASA has going, and give them the money to get it all up and running, and keep it running for years to come.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

But is consumption a part of respiration?

noun
1. the act of respiring; inhalation and exhalation of air; breathing.
2. Biology.

the sum total of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which oxygen is conveyed to tissues and cells, and the oxidation products, carbon dioxide and water, are given off.

Respiration does not include the mere act of consumption. However, the lack of consumption leads to complete death. Our cells are constantly dying. It's like body entropy. We eat to gain resources necessary to grow, i.e., have those dead cells replaced. Without consumption, the total regeneration would fall below life sustainable levels, and the person would then begin to completely die. We never actually are not dying. And, sidebar, this is why people who live in very cold climates need to consume so much more total daily nutrients, as it creates body heat, and they would freeze without it.

Also, I just want to note that in healthcare and medical studies, we used to use respiration and breathing interchangeably, but not anymore. That definition is out of date, in that regard.

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
a reply to: TheRedneck
You mentioned in other words that it is logical to assume closed loop control of atmospheric CO2, which I agree with.

However, we don't know the current response of this loop and we are reducing its ability to respond via destruction of rain forest etc whilst simultaneously applying more error via combustion of fossil fuels.

Maybe the loop can respond quick enough, maybe it can't. It's likely that our models will never be good enough so I believe we should err on the side of caution even if this means a reduction in living standards for us lucky, over consuming westerners. The stakes are just too high.

Well said. I agree with this. It seems like you are now the third person herein who is viewing this on a global scale.

a reply to: smurfy

The problem is that people who lack grad school level training, or even engineering training, fail to see that the process is exactly that ... a process. The process of researching what causes weather changes is the entire topic. Science may find a correlation between this or that, etc. So, at some point studies showed a link between CO2 and warming. However, further studies indicate that the human contribution of CO2 by fossil fuels and all other human caused increases in CO2 are not sufficient to account for the warming that we are seeing. We also know, now, that TSI has increased on the billion year time scale; however, for some reason since ~ the mid 19th century, we have seen temperatures rise disproportionately to CO2 levels and Sun output, based on current theories and models and calculations.

Like I said, we simply don't know what is going on. The Earth has warmed, and some now show evidence that it is cooling.

We don't know everything, but we do know that human activity of CO2 production in and of itself is not sufficient for what we are seeing.

a reply to: smurfy

"New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth's thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere" (NASA, 2016).

"""A fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that upper atmosphere will cool in response to greenhouse gases in the troposphere," says Mlynczak. "Scientists need to validate that theory. This climate record of the upper atmosphere is our first chance to have the other side of the equation"" (NASA, 2016).

"Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade -- even as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise at a rate similar to previous decades. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas generated by humans", (NASA, 2014, RELEASE 14-073).

The immediately above statement contradicts itself. Go figure.

"Some recent research, aimed at fine-tuning long-term warming projections by taking this slowdown into account, suggested Earth may be less sensitive to greenhouse gas increases than previously thought" (NASA, 2014, RELEASE 14-073).

Also, here is some resources:
Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002’ (www.climatedepot.com... tention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/).

a reply to: rxh0272

But is consumption a part of respiration?

The equation for respiration is C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6 H2O + 36 or 38 ATP. Consumption is a part of respiration, where else would the sugar come from? Being in health care, you should know this.

a reply to: rxh0272

One thing about the global temperatures that I have noticed is that, discounting noise, the temperature changes appear to correlate to a sinusoidal waveform, i.e. a fast rise to a peak, slowing as we approach that peak (e^-jwt). Viewed from a control system perspective, that would be indicative of an adjustment to a new equilibrium point. That new equilibrium point very well could be due to higher carbon dioxide levels, but it does not mean the readjustment is continual. A systems analysis of the 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide reveals that, due to the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide and the mechanism behind the effect in general, temperature versus carbon dioxide levels is probably not a linear trend. The absorption spectra of carbon dioxide lies in a narrow band just below the mean frequency of blackbody radiation expected from the earth, so higher temperatures would lead to a smaller percentage of that blackbody radiation being subject to carbon dioxide absorption, and lower temperatures would conversely result in a higher percentage of expected black-body radiation coinciding with the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide. Multiple absorption/re-emmission cycles would tend to stabilize reflected radiation compared to passed radiation toward unity at 100% carbon dioxide content. Thus, temperature would be expected to change far less at higher levels than at lower levels, and indeed, there are journal publications that seem to verify this.

The sinusoidal pattern is seen quite frequently with equilibrium readjustments, and may or may not include some overshoot and damped oscillation, depending on the response time of the various feedbacks. This means that temperature may stabilize at this point, or temperature may oscillate down and back up during the stabilization. Given the typically slow response times associated with thermal dynamics, I would expect the former. In either case, it appears we are approaching a sinusoidal peak in temperature at a point that obviously has not made the planet uninhabitable, or even hostile.

None of what I wrote above discounts the possibility that the temperature shift we see is either a measurement anomaly based on evolving accuracy and signal-to-noise levels or a natural sinusoidal variation. The above is simply an alternate explanation based on an assumption of accuracy in data and higher than personally expected causation of carbon dioxide levels.

TheRedneck

a reply to: D8Tee

Even considering consumption, the reaction releases carbon dioxide. To balance the equation so that the same amount of carbon dioxide appears on either side of the equation (meaning carbon dioxide is neither consumed nor created, but acts as a catalystic agent), one would also have to include photosynthesis.

So, is photosynthesis a part of respiration?

To make sense, a chemical equation must start and end with one single, controlled process. Otherwise, one could write any balanced equation simply by expanding the range to sometimes ridiculous proportions. That is propaganda, not science.

The term 'carbon-neutral' was created as a layman's term to mean 'carbon dioxide neutral' in order to qualify reactions which did not directly increase carbon dioxide. If you want to include other carbon compounds (like C6H12O6), then there is no reaction in or on earth... actually, in or on the solar system... that is not carbon neutral, including CH4+2O2 --> CO2+2H2O (methane combustion). Carbon itself can only be created in stars more massive than our sun, during heavier fusion cycles than our sun will experience.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So, is photosynthesis a part of respiration?

Both are part of the carbon cycle. In respiration the energy yield is 686 kcal per mole of glucose oxidized to CO2, while photosynthesis requires 686 kcal of energy to boost the electrons from the water to their high-energy perches in the reduced sugar -- light provides this energy. If you are good at writing chemical equations, you can write one above the other and balance them.

If you want to include other carbon compounds (like C6H12O6), then there is no reaction in or on earth... actually, in or on the solar system... that is not carbon neutral, including CH4+2O2 --> CO2+2H2O (methane combustion).

The equation for respiration is C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6 H2O + 36 or 38 ATP. It's not a matter or 'wanting' to include the C6H1206, it's a matter of having to include it. Without the inclusion of sugar, the equation is no longer balanced and you get an F from the instructor.

The term 'carbon-neutral' was created as a layman's term to mean 'carbon dioxide neutral' in order to qualify reactions which did not directly increase carbon dioxide.

We seem to disagree on the definition of carbon neutral. Oh well, can't agree on everything. I have always thought of it more along the lines of "If carbon that has been sequestered for 650 million years is dug up by humans and burned, this will be new to todays carbon cycle, and not considered carbon neutral"

There's reason to believe the biosphere is adaptable, research shows that 40 or more percent of the C02 emitted from fossil fuels is being recycled into the modern carbon cycle, so perhaps my thoughts will need to be adapted.

originally posted by: rxh0272
a reply to: smurfy

"New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth's thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere" (NASA, 2016).

That's why I say they should get the shekels they need, correct me if I'm wrong, that satellite is only useful in daylight, and it seems that NASA realised at sometime on their own the need to go much further the the huff-puff from the IPCC, and having something up there...in force, to be able to measure what goes on at night time, through the seasons, day after day after day, potentially for ever, and be able to capture every dynamic, nuance whatever you want to call it, of what can influence the Earth in terms of from where ever, and those effects on weather, temperature sensitivity to animals, like the proverbial Squirrel to the fecking Polar Bears whether they are green or white, instead of some poor researcher ferreting away on those subjects in isolation, only to find out at some time all his work is a waste of time, because his base material is a load of doo doo.
Yes it is a process, that means if information is shared, it should be Empirical...in the best possible taste. That has not happened with the whole warming thing, it became agenderised. With Trump in charge, who's he got to listen too, more agenda?