GW: Separating facts from fiction

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Uh? Deforestation causes CO2 emissions. Hell, any dead organic matter emits CO2 and methane gas. You will cause CO2 emissions when you die. It's so obvious to me that I didn't bother explaining it, I assumed you knew.

I've heard numbers between 1/3 and 1/4 of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions being attributed solely to deforestation.
The FAO site says 25%.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/1000176/

You ask precise numbers, whereas my understanding of this stuff, like most layman's, is mostly qualitative.

Well, I have to say that living organism exhale lots of CO2. And I mean LOTS

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

More skeptics indeed. A few more of your friends:

Tom Coburn:

This is all, not much science to find: During his run for the U. S. Senate, Coburn was quoted as saying that there was, "....no hard evidence to support global warming." Coburn called global warming "just a lot of crap."

Phillip Cooney:

On June 8, 2005, The New York Times reported that it had obtained internal White House documents which proved that Cooney had altered national climate change reports during 2002 and 2003 to undermine consensus findings that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming. Two days after the article was published, Cooney resigned his position as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality

Myron Ebell:

Ebell is most famous for asserting that prevailing scientific opinion on global warming is incorrect and suggesting that it is a scientific hoax and a conspiracy perpetrated by the rest of the world to harm America's economy

Jerry Falwell:



Pat Robertson:



Are these people your friends? Are they, as you state, scientists opposing AGW?

Can somebody please go to the facts? Edufer himself said that there are questionable names in the list. But does it invalidate the claims? Or, you suddenly will become anti-ecologist if we find some idiots supporting ecologism?

 

[Orwell]

Well, I have to say that living organism exhale lots of CO2. And I mean LOTS

A bit of high school chemistry for you: plants (all kinds of plants, from the lowly blue-green algae to the mighty sequoia) absorb CO2, combine the C with H2O to form organic matter and exhale O2 in the process. If you burn or kill the organic matter produced by plants, you release the C they sequestered back into the atmosphere: C + O2 (that's a combustion reaction) becomes CO2. Things are a bit more complicated than this, because you have to take into account a bunch of mass balance reactions involving the amount of organic matter dead vs. the amount of new plant matter, but this is the main argument behind the deforestation/AGW link.

 

[delphi_ote]

Can somebody please go to the facts? Edufer himself said that there are questionable names in the list. But does it invalidate the claims? Or, you suddenly will become anti-ecologist if we find some idiots supporting ecologism?

We're not the ones who posted the list and the names. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Cleon]

Can somebody please go to the facts? Edufer himself said that there are questionable names in the list. But does it invalidate the claims? Or, you suddenly will become anti-ecologist if we find some idiots supporting ecologism?

A key point of Edufer's "argument" is the masses of scientists that supposedly agree with his point of view. He has brought it up time and time again.

When it turns out that many of these "skeptical" scientists turn out to be frauds, charlatans, amateurs, and other lunatics, yes, it does tend to put into question his line of reasoning (such as it is).

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I found an interesting page:
http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/pd/pd0058.htm
"The Hockey Stick again

I have referred previously to the very public debate about the so-called "hockey stick", a central feature of the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (see PD#6). There have been some interesting developments this year, and a particularly interesting one just recently.

Background: Mann et al. (1998) used a large set of proxy data (mainly measurements of tree ring widths) to estimate temperatures going back centuries. They found that temperatures have been pretty stable since 1400, until they suddenly increased, starting around 1900 (described as the "hockey stick" result). It's a striking result, and the IPCC featured it very prominently in their last set of publications. (Interestingly, Mann himself was lead author of the chapter that featured his result.)

A geologist (McIntyre) and an economist (McKitrick) tried to reproduce the Mann et al. study, and in the process found errors in the basic data, and a major problem with the statistical method. With errors removed, the hockey stick shape is completely lost, and temperatures in the 1900s seem pretty unremarkable. M&M also found that the model has absolutely no statistical power or significance, with an R2 of 0. There are now three refereed publications by M&M describing their work on this, including one in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, where one of Mann's papers was published.

Remarkably, Mann et al. have rejected all criticisms of their work. Worse than that, they have refused to provide the full data set and computer code that they used, so that the results could be reproduced independently. The behaviour of Mann and his team has been rather disturbing given that they are meant to be scientists.

Reading through all the material (and there is a lot of it), it is pretty clear that McIntire and McKitrick have thoroughly won the argument.

Mann's refusal to lie down and concede defeat, even after he has been comprehensively maimed and dismembered, made me think of the wonderful movie, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". You have probably seen the scene where King Arthur (M&M) has a sword fight with the Black Knight (Mann) (script here). Arthur hacks off one of the Black Knight's arms, then another, then one leg, then the other, but through it all the Black Knight refuses to concede, and keeps haranguing Arthur to continue fighting.

Arthur: What are you going to do? Bleed on me?

Black Knight: I'm invincible!

Arthur: You're a looney!

This is such a wonderful description of the hockey stick "debate". There is Mann, just a head and a bloody torso, madly clinging to the belief that he is still in the fight."

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Here is the guide I'll follow. I'll be back
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

INTRODUCTION:
This page provides a guide to our work on replicating the "hockey stick" graph made famous by the 2001 IPCC Report. For those new to the subject here are some useful overview papers:

In April 2005 RM presented a paper What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? to the Australian APEC Study Group. This paper provides a nontechnical summary of the main issues as well as a discussion of why they matter in the larger debates over climate change.

Our research was profiled in the cover story of the Feb. 1, 2005 edition of Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (NWT) , a prominent European science magazine. High-Res (3MB) version; Low-Res (0.9MB) version. It was also the subject of a commentary and a lead editorial. The articles were well-researched and clear.

In January 2005 we prepared a pdf backgrounder to accompany two new journal articles. This provided a (somewhat) nontechnical overview of our work and some FAQs on the subject up to that point.

The recent exchanges in GRL are discussed below

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

A key point of Edufer's "argument" is the masses of scientists that supposedly agree with his point of view. He has brought it up time and time again.

When it turns out that many of these "skeptical" scientists turn out to be frauds, charlatans, amateurs, and other lunatics, yes, it does tend to put into question his line of reasoning (such as it is).

Come on Cleon, we are not talking about many. The sample size is too small. Somebody will have to dicredit at least 1,000 of the people who signed it.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

We're not the ones who posted the list and the names. You can't have it both ways.

Ok then if both side refuses to use the overhelming supportters of both POVs, then we can stick just to the facts. I agree.

 

[Cleon]

Come on Cleon, we are not talking about many. The sample size is too small. Somebody will have to dicredit at least 1,000 of the people who signed it.

Look, it's really very simple. If you want to make an appeal to authority, don't go whining when people point out how unauthoritative said appeal actually is.

 

[Mark]

Mann's refusal to lie down and concede defeat, even after he has been comprehensively maimed and dismembered, made me think of the wonderful movie, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". You have probably seen the scene where King Arthur (M&M) has a sword fight with the Black Knight (Mann) (script here). Arthur hacks off one of the Black Knight's arms, then another, then one leg, then the other, but through it all the Black Knight refuses to concede, and keeps haranguing Arthur to continue fighting.

Arthur: What are you going to do? Bleed on me?

Black Knight: I'm invincible!

Arthur: You're a looney!

This is such a wonderful description of the hockey stick "debate". There is Mann, just a head and a bloody torso, madly clinging to the belief that he is still in the fight."

Your bias is showing:

The central thrust of Legates' article is rejected by other climate scientists, who claim that the sudden upsurge in temperatures since 1900 is all too real.

"This isn't a scientific paper, it's absolutely awful," said Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

Professor Jones and Mann extended the 1,000-year temperature record back to AD 200 for a research paper published in 2003. But the sharp warming trend in the post-industrial age was still clear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick attempted an "audit" of MBH98 [11] in Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series. This publication claimed various errors, but M&M offered no explanation as to why their analysis also differs from other reconstructions [12].

In turn, Mann (supported by Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit) has disputed the claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick [13] [14], saying "...MM have made critical errors in their analysis that have the effect of grossly distorting the reconstruction of MBH98...". In 2004 Mann, Bradley, and Hughes published a corrigendum to their Nature 392, 779-787 (1998) article, correcting a number of mistakes in the online supplementary information that accompanied their article but leaving the actual results unchanged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

 

[Bjorn]

Can somebody please go to the facts? Edufer himself said that there are questionable names in the list. But does it invalidate the claims? Or, you suddenly will become anti-ecologist if we find some idiots supporting ecologism?

Here's what he said, word by word:

the number of scientists opposing AGW. This Wikipedia link gives a list of some more, but those are simply the most famous ones, the most vocal, those who make their voices heard in Congress testimonials, etc. More Skeptics

I am personal friend of many of those guys there.

Edufer is claiming in this thread to be not just an expert, but a member of one or more groups of specialists in this with a level of expertise we others can only dream about.

He then posts a list of very famous/scientists/heard in congress/friends of him who turns out to be a Wikipedia compilation of GW skeptics.

(No, it didn't prove a single thing about GW, but it rocked the very foundations of my trust in Edufer.)

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

A bit of high school chemistry for you: plants (all kinds of plants, from the lowly blue-green algae to the mighty sequoia) absorb CO2, combine the C with H2O to form organic matter and exhale O2 in the process. If you burn or kill the organic matter produced by plants, you release the C they sequestered back into the atmosphere: C + O2 (that's a combustion reaction) becomes CO2. Things are a bit more complicated than this, because you have to take into account a bunch of mass balance reactions involving the amount of organic matter dead vs. the amount of new plant matter, but this is the main argument behind the deforestation/AGW link.

Well, I have this:
"Carbon dioxide is an end product in organisms that obtain energy from breaking down sugars or fats with oxygen as part of their metabolism, in a process known as cellular respiration. This includes AALL PLANTS, animals, many fungi and some bacteria. In higher animals, the carbon dioxide travels in the blood from the body's tissues to the lungs where it's exhaled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Plants only produce Oxigen during the day in the Photosintehsys proccess. At night, plants release CO2

 

[delphi_ote]

Ok then if both side refuses to use the overhelming supportters of both POVs, then we can stick just to the facts. I agree.

No. You brought a list of 12 with Mickey Mouse entries. That's not the same as the consensus of the scientific community. If you want that list to be used, then you can defend the indefensible. If not, I'm afraid you'll have to come to terms with the fact that global warming is accepted by most people that know what they're talking about.

 

[Orwell]

Well, I have this:
Plants only produce Oxigen during the day in the Photosintehsys proccess. At night, plants release CO2

But plants do not release all of the CO2 they've absorbed because part of it is transformed into organic matter. In the long run, the net balance goes clearly towards CO2 sequestration in plant tissues. Why do you think plants absorb CO2 during photosynthesis? See, we have to eat to satisfy our carbon needs. Plants have photosynthesis for that. This is elementary high school level biology.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Look, it's really very simple. If you want to make an appeal to authority, don't go whining when people point out how unauthoritative said appeal actually is.

Wich I would like to know now is this: If we find wackos supporting man made GW would you concede the point?

 

[sphenisc]

Well, I have this:
"Carbon dioxide is an end product in organisms that obtain energy from breaking down sugars or fats with oxygen as part of their metabolism, in a process known as cellular respiration. This includes AALL PLANTS, animals, many fungi and some bacteria. In higher animals, the carbon dioxide travels in the blood from the body's tissues to the lungs where it's exhaled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Plants only produce Oxigen during the day in the Photosintehsys proccess. At night, plants release CO2

Plants grow. What's the net direction of C movement?

 

[Cleon]

Wich I would like to know now is this: If we find wackos supporting man made GW would you concede the point?

I'm not the one making the appeal to authority.

 

[Orwell]

Plants grow. What's the net direction of C movement?

My point exactly.

 

[delphi_ote]

Well, I have this:
"Carbon dioxide is an end product in organisms that obtain energy from breaking down sugars or fats with oxygen as part of their metabolism, in a process known as cellular respiration. This includes AALL PLANTS, animals, many fungi and some bacteria. In higher animals, the carbon dioxide travels in the blood from the body's tissues to the lungs where it's exhaled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Plants only produce Oxigen during the day in the Photosintehsys proccess. At night, plants release CO2

Please don't be stupid about trees and CO2 emissions. I worked on a study about trees sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere for a Department of Energy lab. If you're suggesting that trees emit CO2, at best I can call you ignorant.