First, it's PlanCk's constant (not Planks).
And it's not any different than observing that the ratio of any circle's cir ference to its diameter is always around 3.14159...
There's not need for a bunch of people to get together and agree that they all believe this. It can be independently tested and verified.
We know this as both by proxy records and by experimentation that CO2 hater and air ratios change with temperature. The proxy records and experimental levels show this trend as a lag of CO2 vs. temperature. For anyone to dismiss this trend, in favor of the AGW theory... They are not being intellectually honest, or not trying to see what else the cause is. They fail the proper use of the scientific methodology, of things that may disprove their own hypothesis.
Not in this case, where other theories are at least, as credible.
Not only that, but he allowed the horizontal crosshair line to be pushed up. What about left or right?
I will contend that even if the AGW theory were correct, the extreme effects are not. The line vertical also should have been pushed to the right. Very far to the right, which would make the area of that rectangle very tiny.
Too bad CO2 lags temperature by about 1000 years. This throws your theory into the trash.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/...orius_etal.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/112
http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/...ast_420_ka.pdf
So, after Mr. Planck made his initial hypothesis, he published the information, and other scientists confimed it by testing and verifying it, THEREBY FORMING A CONSENSUS.Tell me Darrin, how would a physical constant of the universe, such as Plancks Constant, first be determined?
Is there or is there not a consensus among physicists about the value of Planck's Constant?
This is an either/or question Darrin. If you can't answer it yes or no, then I will assume you are not intending to be honest, and we can also discard your "consensus = weak science" assertion.
Another bit that science does with theories is to make predictions and test it with data. The more those predictions pan out, the better the theory looks.
If the theory is that the temperature of the oceans drives CO2 concentrations, then data such as that would tend not to support that theory.
If the theory that recent increases in CO2 levels were primarily due to human activity, then we would expect some data to support that.
Oddly enough, the types of carbon isotopes released by burning fossil fuels releases carbon isotopes in a particular ratio. The normal equilibrium ratio of the atmosphere is heavily weighted towards a different ratio, simply because plants highly prefer one isotope over another.
If human activity is leading to the recently observed rise in CO2, we would expect to see that ratio changing over time away from the "natural" equilibrium ratio towards the ratio of isotopes represented in man-made fossil fuel exhaust.
This is what we have observed.
The consensus of scientists with PhD's in climatology disagrees about the overall credibility of differing theories.
Do I take the word of people who study it for a living, or yours?
No its ty risk management.
There are more than column A and column B. He then goes to use the bandwagon fallacy to support his argument.
To me the prudent choice is to determine what the strange attractors within the climate models are. The systems are nonperiodic. Determine what the theoretical outcomes for each one of those are as well as the probability. From there you can determine the socioeconomic impacts and then you can finally get down to risk assessment.
He is basically regurgitating the outcomes that the political debate centers around and claims that it is scientific and then says the NAS supports the 'we all die' outcome so that is the prudent choice.
Its .
No it doesn't. It supports what I say.
Just how are you claiming it doesn't?
The difference being, nobody can demonstrate such scientific conclusions are wrong. There is mountains of evidence to show the AGW theory as stated is wrong.
I had found and posted at one time a critique of the math behind those assessments that showed them to be wrong. I forget if it was here or another forum, but if it was here, I would ask why didn't you disagree with it then?
He found an assessment that showed the math to be wrong in a peer reviewed paper yet the paper with incorrect math was never fixed and just floats incorrect in perpetuity with everyone ignoring it.
too funny.
I have posted this work before here. Never directly pointed to that section. From THE FINGERPRINT OF THE SUN IS ON EARTH'S 160 YEAR TEMPERATURE RECORD, CONTRADICTING IPCC CONCLUSIONS, FINGERPRINTING, & AGW:
III. FINGERPRINTS
A model in which the Sun impresses its energy pattern on Earth's climate is plainly inconsistent with IPCC's three-pronged argument for patterns of human activities to have imprinted the observed warming. IPCC urges (1) that the depletion of atmospheric oxygen matches the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2, (2) that the decline in the isotopic weight of atmospheric CO2 matches fossil fuel emissions, and (3) the sudden rise in gas concentrations and temperature match the onset of the industrial era, the family of hockey stick graphs. Of these imprint patterns, only one is strong, extensive, complex, and genuine: the Sun's fingerprint on Earth's temperature.
-> Contents …
A. Oxygen Depletion & δ13C Lightening Do Not Match Human Activities.
IPCC asks and answers this "frequently asked question":
Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities? AR4, Frequently Asked Question 7.1, p. 512.
The answer of course is no, but IPCC answers in the affirmative, relying on two record comparisons and one logical proposition – all false. It says,
Yes, the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases during the industrial era are caused by human activities. In fact, the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations does not reveal the full extent of human emissions in that it accounts for only 55% of the CO2 released by human activity since 1959. The rest has been taken up by plants on land and by the oceans. In all cases, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and their increases, are determined by the [mass] balance between sources (emissions of the gas from human activities and natural systems) and sinks (the removal of the gas from the atmosphere by conversion to a different chemical compound). Fossil fuel combustion (plus a smaller contribution from cement manufacture) is responsible for more than 75% of human-caused CO2 emissions. Land use change (primarily deforestation) is responsible for the remainder. For methane, another important greenhouse gas, emissions generated by human activities exceeded natural emissions over the last 25 years. For nitrous oxide, emissions generated by human activities are equal to natural emissions to the atmosphere. Most of the long-lived halogen-containing gases (such as chlorofluorcarbons) are manufactured by humans, and were not present in the atmosphere before the industrial era [i.e., unprecedented]. On average, present-day tropospheric ozone has increased 38% since pre-industrial times, and the increase results from atmospheric reactions of short-lived pollutants emitted by human activity. The concentration of CO2 is now 379 parts per million (ppm) and methane is greater than 1,774 parts per billion (ppb), both very likely much higher than any time in at least 650 kyr (during which CO2 remained between 180 and 300 ppm and methane between 320 and 790 ppb) [i.e., unprecedented]. The recent rate of change is dramatic and unprecedented; increases in CO2 never exceeded 30 ppm in 1 kyr – yet now CO2 has risen by 30 ppm in just the last 17 years. … [¶]
The natural sinks of carbon produce a small net uptake of CO2 of approximately 3.3 GtC yr-1 over the last 15 years, partially offsetting the human-caused emissions. Were it not for the natural sinks taking up nearly half the human-produced CO2 over the past 15 years, atmospheric concentrations would have grown even more dramatically.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon. In addition, the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere has declined as CO2 has increased; this is as expected because oxygen is depleted when fossil fuels are burned. Bold added, AR4, FAQ 7.1, p. 512.
IPCC here states its foremost reason for ascribing the recent CO2 increase to man: unprecedented increases. It finds additional support for its anthropogenic model through isotopic lightening, never presenting the requisite mass balance analyses for the isotopic ratio and the commensurate oxygen depletion. IPCC quantifies neither model, but relies for both on a compact, duplex demonstration by graphic sophistry, shown in Figure 27.
Sun27
Figure 2.3. Recent CO2 concentrations and emissions. (a) CO2 concentrations (monthly averages) measured by continuous analysers over the period 1970 to 2005 from Mauna Loa, Hawaii (19°N, black; Keeling and Whorf, 2005) and Baring Head, New Zealand (41°S, blue; following techniques by Manning et al., 1997). Due to the larger amount of terrestrial biosphere in the NH, seasonal cycles in CO2 are larger there than in the SH. In the lower right of the panel, atmospheric oxygen (O2) measurements from flask samples are shown from Alert, Canada (82°N, pink) and Cape Grim, Australia (41°S, cyan) (Manning and Keeling, 2006). The O2 concentration is measured as 'per meg' deviations in the O2/N2 ratio from an arbitrary reference, analogous to the 'per mil' unit typically used in stable isotope work, but where the ratio is multiplied by 106 instead of 103 because much smaller changes are measured. (b) Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr-1 (black) through 2005, using data from the CDIAC website (Marland et al, 2006) to 2003. Emissions data for 2004 and 2005 are extrapolated from CDIAC using data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP, 2006). Land use emissions are not shown; these are estimated to be between 0.5 and 2.7 GtC yr-1 for the 1990s (Table 7.2). Annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red) are also shown (Keeling et al, 2005). The isotope data are expressed as δ13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. AR4, p. 138.
FIGURE 27
IPCC shifted and scaled both the O2 and the δ13CO2 traces to give the false appearance in (a) that O2 is anti-parallel to the growth in CO2, and in (b) that δ13CO2 parallels the estimate of carbon emissions. Even at that, IPCC did not draw the O2 trace exactly parallel, as revealed in the next figure, shown in graph coordinates, O2 now reversed. IPCC's scale was arbitrary, and is shown here in inches following conversion of a pdf version of the original report.
Sun28
FIGURE 28
IPCC's argument is that the decline in O2 matches the rise in CO2 and therefore the latter is from fossil fuel burning. Every molecule of CO2 created from burning in the atmosphere should consume one molecule of O2 decline, so the traces should be drawn identically scaled in parts per million (1 ppm = 4.773 per meg (Scripps O2 Program)). Corrected to remove the graphical bias, the data diverge as shown next.
Sun29
FIGURE 29
Contrary to the Panel's claim, oxygen consumption fails as a fingerprint for ACO2.
Carbon's isotopic ratio fairs no better. Under the banner of "The Human Fingerprint on Greenhouse Gases", IPCC gushed:
The high-accuracy measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration, initiated by Charles David Keeling in 1958, cons ute the master time series do enting the changing composition of the atmosphere (Keeling, 1961, 1998). These data have iconic status in climate change science as evidence of the effect of human activities on the chemical composition of the global atmosphere (see FAQ 7.1). Keeling's measurements on Mauna Loa in Hawaii provide a true measure of the global carbon cycle, an effectively continuous record of the burning of fossil fuel. They also maintain an accuracy and precision that allow scientists to separate fossil fuel emissions from those due to the natural annual cycle of the biosphere, demonstrating a long-term change in the seasonal exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere, biosphere and ocean. Later observations of parallel trends in the atmospheric abundances of the 13CO2 isotope (Francey and Farquhar, 1982) and molecular oxygen (O2) (Keeling and Shertz, 1992; Bender et al., 1996) uniquely identified this rise in CO2 with fossil fuel burning (Sections 2.3, 7.1 and 7.3). Bold added, AR4, ¶1.3.1, p. 100.
None of these claims withstands scrutiny, but this passage serves at this juncture to underscore IPCC's reliance on parallel trends. In theory, had the O2 trace been anti-parallel to the CO2 emissions, IPCC might have produced a fingerprint for human involvement. IPCC attempted to produce anti-parallel records by gimmickry with the chart. The isotopic analysis is equally unscientific.
IPCC manufactured two parallel traces out of the rate of CO2 emissions and the history of δ13C by graphical shifting and scaling. IPCC Figure 2.3(b), (Figure 27 above). First, look at the fraudulent technique, as shown next, even though no physical reason exists for these two records to be parallel.
Sun30
FIGURE 30
The graph is in pdf inches, converted from IPCC's AR4 Figure 2.3, above. IPCC scaled the isotopic trace to be parallel in the ACO2 rate trace with respect to the two five year trends shown. It shifted the isotopic trace to lie just below the ACO2 rate so it was easy to see how parallel they were. Had IPCC not shifted and scaled one trace with respect to the other, and instead objectively used the full available range of the chart, the figure might have appeared as shown next:
Sun31
FIGURE 31
In other words, IPCC made non-parallel traces parallel by graphical shenanigans.
A relationship does exist between δ13C and ACO2, but only indirectly between it and the rate of emissions, ACO2 rate. The relationship is not complicated, once the traditional delta ratio, a legacy from a time long before computers, is simplified. The definition of the ratio is straightforward, although the reference point, the PeeDee belemnite ratio RPDB, is a bit obscure and even ambiguous.
EQ28
(28)
where, with [.] meaning concentration of,
EQ29
(29)
e.g., Keeling, C.D., et al. (2001), Table 3, (p. 50 of 91). On the other hand,
EQ30
(30)
e.g., Tans, P.P., et al., (2003), p. 355. In recognition that Keeling's definition may be most common in the literature, while the second is the more useful for this paper, the following definitions shall apply:
EQ31
(31)
and
EQ32
(32)
With these relations,
EQ33
(33)
and in the other direction, the ratio of G13 to G, r, in terms of δ13C becomes
EQ34
(34)
With these results, the ergonomic but esoteric δ13C can disappear, and the graph of IPCC's Figure 2.3 or Figure 34 immediately scaled in terms of the ratio of 13C, r:
Sun32
FIGURE 32
The value of δ13C becomes evident – it solves the human problem of dealing with changes in the fifth significant figure. In other words, the isotopic ratio solves the problem humans have coping with the first four significant figures being insignificant.
With the value of r for the atmosphere, ra, at any time and the value for the ACO2, principally attributed to fossil fuel burning, rf, a new value of ra or, equivalently, δ13C can be readily derived for the a slug of ACO2 added to the atmosphere and well-mixed. However in spite of the importance, values for δ13Ca and δ13Cf are rare in the literature. IPCC cites neither, and apparently used neither. Battle, et al., (2000) provided the following estimates:
EQ35
(35)
and
EQ36
(36)
Battle, M., et al., (2000), cited by IPCC, AR4 Ch. 7, pp. 520, 524, 568.
These equations yield
EQ37
(37)
and
EQ38
(38)
These definitions and equations reduce to the following equation:
EQ39
(39)
where G0 and r0 are the initial conditions, k is the ratio of ACO2 retained in the atmosphere, g(t) is the total ACO2 emitted to time t, and x(t) is ratio of the total ACO2 emitted to the initial atmospheric content.
Following are four possible solutions to the mass balance problem.
ACO2 ISOTOPIC FINGERPRINT IS NOT A MATCH
# Parameter Value Source
1 G0 762 AR4 Fig. 7.3, p. 515 C cycle
2 g(2003) 133.4 AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
3 δ13C0 -7.592‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
4 r0 0.011028894 Eq. (7)
5 δ13Cf -29.4‰ Battle, et al.
6 rf 0.010789151 Eq. (7)
7 k 50% AR4 TS p.025
8 r(2003) 0.011009598 Eq. (12)
9 δ13C -9.348‰ Eq. (6)
10 δ13Cfinal -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p138
IPCC provides all the parameter values but the one from Battle, et al. Those values with the equations derived above establish the ACO2 fingerprint on the bulge of CO2 measured at MLO, as if it were a well-mixed, global parameter as IPCC assumes.
IPCC does not provide δ13Cf, the parameter found in Battle, et al., suggesting IPCC may have never made this simple mass balance calculation. A common value for that parameter in the literature is around 25‰. The figure from Battle, et al., being published with a tolerance, earns additional respect. As will be shown, the number is not critical. The result is a mismatch with IPCC's data at year 2003 by a difference of 1.3‰, more than twice the range of measurements, which cover two decades.
This discrepancy is huge, and is sufficient to reject the hypothesis that the surge in CO2 seen in the last century was caused by man. The CO2 added to the atmosphere is far heavier than the weight attributed to ACO2.
CO2 SURGE IS TOO HEAVY TO BE ACO2
# Parameter Value Source
1 G0 762 AR4 Fig. 7.3, p. 515 C cycle
2 g(2003) 133.4 AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
3 δ13C0 -7.592‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
4 r0 0.011028894 Eq. (7)
5 δ13Cf -13.657‰ Eq. (12)
6 rf 0.010962235 Eq. (7)
7 k 50% AR4 TS p25
8 r(2003) 0.011023529 Eq. (7)
9 δ13C -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
10 δ13Cfinal -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
This computation is the first of three to examine other parameter values that would have rendered IPCC's fingerprint test affirmative: ACO2 was the cause of the CO2 lightening. The isotopic ratio for fossil fuel would have had to be considerably heavier, -13.657‰ instead of -29.4‰, for the increase in atmospheric CO2 to have been caused by man.
OR, ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS OVER 1400 PPM
# Parameter Value Source
1 G0 2913.9 Eq. (12)
2 g(2003) 133.4 AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
3 δ13C0 -7.592‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
4 r0 0.011028894 Eq. (7)
5 δ13Cf -29.4‰ Battle, et al.
6 rf 0.010789151 Eq. (7)
7 k 50% AR4 TS p.025
8 r(2003) 0.011023529 Eq. (7)
9 δ13C -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
10 δ13Cfinal -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
For ACO2 at the stated rate and retention to have caused the small drop measured in atmospheric δ13C, the initial atmosphere concentration would have had to be 2,913.9 GtC, 3.8 times the figure used by IPCC. This is equivalent to 1,453 ppm of CO2 instead of 380 ppm.
OR, 13%, NOT 50%, OF ACO2 REMAINS IN THE ATMOSPHERE
# Parameter Value Source
1 G0 762 AR4 Fig. 7.3, p515 C cycle
2 g(2003) 133.4 AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
3 δ13C0 -7.592‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
4 r0 0.011028894 Eq. (7)
5 δ13Cf -29.4‰ Battle, et al.
6 rf 0.010789151 Eq. (7)
7 k 13.1% Eq. (12)
8 r(2003) 0.011023529 Eq. (7)
9 δ13C -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
10 δ13Cfinal -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
The mass balance will agree with the measurements if the atmosphere retains much less than 50% of the estimated emissions. The necessary retention is 13.1%, a factor again of 3.8 less than supplied by IPCC.
These results apply to IPCC's model by which it adds anthropogenic processes to natural processes assumed to be in balance. Instead, the mass flow model must include the temperature-dependent flux of CO2 to and from the ocean to modulate the natural exchanges of heat and gases. The CO2 flux between the atmosphere and the ocean is between 90 and 100 GtC of CO2 per year. This circulation removes lightened atmospheric CO2, replacing it with heavier CO2 along many paths, some ac ulated several decades to over 1000 years in the past. The mass flow model is a mechanical tapped delay line.
Oddly enough, when you Google consensus planck's constant, this thread comes up first.
Must be that nobody questions the consensus of it.Oddly enough, when you Google consensus planck's constant, this thread comes up first.
To add...
If the peer review process of the AGW theory actually worked, and allowed open peer review of skeptics, most of those skeptics would be believers if the science was sound.
If you had finished watching the video, he himself agrees.
If you watch the follow up material, he also addresses everything you just pointed to.
Risk does indeed have two dimensions, magnitude and probability. Something I have had a hard time getting WC to accept.
I highly doubt that the "skeptics" you would trust would treat the material fairly or honestly.
Feel free to get a PhD in climate science and get on a peer review panel.
Should I go back to the OP and point out that conspiracy theories regarding peer review are one of the prime indicators of pseudoscience?
There are mountains of evidence to show that the AGW theory as stated is right.
There is no difference between the scientific process that formed the consensus regarding hitherto unknown theories of the physical universe and the one that posits rising CO2 levels are causing some amount of warming of our planet.
If the evidence really is as voluminous as you suggest, peer-review should be a very easy hurdle to clear.
Further, we do not have to fully understand the exact scope and dimension of warming to the level of certainty that we do for Plancks Constant in order to make resonable public policy decisions, do we?
That is awesome.Oddly enough, when you Google consensus planck's constant, this thread comes up first.
I think you watch "The day After" one too many times. Some of us believe Global Warming is good.
1) Added CO2 increases crop output.
2) Added warmth increases usable land.
3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.
4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.
I could go on, but why beat a dead horse? Besides, I'm mul asking, doing two other things also. Just jumping in here from time to time.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
