tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post3221514503196767977..comments2024-01-01T18:50:35.975-07:00Comments on Citizenschallenge: Jerry Mitrovica: The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change... the video citizenschallengehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-11908498444766254102016-06-12T00:25:46.761-06:002016-06-12T00:25:46.761-06:00Mr. Burton @ 10:45PM, I have made myself clear. L...Mr. Burton @ 10:45PM, I have made myself clear. Let me do it one more time. This time please shut down that dialogue in your head long enough to listen to what I'm telling you. <b>This is not a negotiation.</b> You won't even show me the courtesy of writing straight text, you still feel compelled to pack it full of your tricky dick coding, despite my request. You don't kid me, you aren't acting in good faith. You've got a malicious game going, rather than and honorable attempt to communicate with an 'opponent.'<br /><br />I have made myself clear: <b>Straight text, no tricky dick coding. </b> I'm not your billboard! <br /><br />Furthermore, I have taken the <a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html" rel="nofollow"> time to review your first comment </a> and write up my observations. It is your turn to systematically respond to my claims, in a clear good faith matter.<br /><br />I don't give a rat's ass for your games or how many points you score within your echo-chamber.<br />I deal in the real world! Come on down.<br /><br /><b>B) If you have the intellectual integrity you are welcome to continue this dialogue by visiting WUWTW and responding to the thoughtful constructive critique of your claims. We don't need to like each other to have a constructive dialogue.* </b> Respond to my specific and clearly defined critique of your first comment.<br /><br />Heck, send me an email for a guest post, I'll post it,<br /><b>So long as you respond specifically to one of those three posts,<br />each of which seriously examines, critiques, and describes your various claims, <br />while providing supporting evidence for why your claims are rhetorically crafted but fundamentally misleading and willfully deceptive.</b> <br />Can you handle scrutiny sir?<br /><br /><a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html" rel="nofollow">http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html</a><br /><a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/seamonster-does-dave-burton.html" rel="nofollow">http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/seamonster-does-dave-burton.html</a><br /><a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/hotwhopper-does-dave-burton-claims.html" rel="nofollow">http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/hotwhopper-does-dave-burton-claims.html</a><br /><br />Incidentally Dave, Citizenschallenge.blogspot has become my non-confrontational, debate free zone. My more assertive, let's debate, activities moved to <a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot.com</a> five years ago, which explains why I've moved your stuff over there. Just in case you are wondering. <br /><br />Over there the rules of serious constructive debate hold sway! <br /><i>*That would be as opposed to the lawyerly politician's circus-debate</i>citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-654235582795264072016-06-11T16:32:18.566-06:002016-06-11T16:32:18.566-06:00oops,
whiny "comments", not posts.oops,<br />whiny "comments", not posts.<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-87195113791485049142016-06-11T16:30:11.066-06:002016-06-11T16:30:11.066-06:00ncdave4life, at 1:40PM, 6/11/16 wrote two posts - ...ncdave4life, at 1:40PM, 6/11/16 wrote two posts - of which I choose to reprint one key line: "Are you ever going to approve the rest of my comments, citizenschallenge?" <br /><br />My response:<br /><br />Hell no. Not until you rationally respond to the thoughtful critiques of your three comments. Like I told you before, I'm not a billboard for you!<br /><br />Now Mr. Burton, my question for you: <br />ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE IGNORING MY CRITIQUE OF YOUR FIRST COMMENT?<br /><br />I have addressed your first comment:<br /><br />May 17, 2016<br />#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life<br /><a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html" rel="nofollow"> http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html </a> <br /><br />I published your second and third comments with the intention of reviewing them, but the weather cleared up and life is busy and I have more pressing priorities. <br /><br />Besides, it didn't take much searching to find that much more informed individuals than I have taken the time to describe the many falsehoods you employ. It gave me an easy out, since I promised to review those comments, I'll let these folks fill in the story for me. <br /><br />Now it's your turn with you want to play.<br />________________________________________<br /><br />May 18, 2016<br />The Seamonster does Dave Burton's sea level claims.<br /><a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/seamonster-does-dave-burton.html" rel="nofollow"> http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/seamonster-does-dave-burton.html </a><br /><br />The NC sea level rise saga: reply to Dave Burton<br />Posted on Monday, June 18th, 2012 <br /><a href="http://theseamonster.net/2012/06/the-nc-sea-level-rise-saga-reply-to-dave-burton/" rel="nofollow"> http://theseamonster.net/2012/06/the-nc-sea-level-rise-saga-reply-to-dave-burton/ </a><br />Dave Burton of NC 20 published a reply here to recent post I did about natural and human-caused sea level rise, “Sea Level Rise 101“. This is a reply to his post and a clarification of some of his many misconceptions about sea level rise science.<br /><br />I want to start by saying that my interests in the NC sea level rise issue are not at all political. I am neutral on what coastal communities should do as adaptation measures to sea level rise and other impacts of climate change. ...<br />________________________________________<br /><br />May 26, 2016<br />HOTWHOPPER does Dave Burton's sea level claims<br /><a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/hotwhopper-does-dave-burton-claims.html" rel="nofollow"> http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/hotwhopper-does-dave-burton-claims.html </a><br />~ ~ ~<br />Dave Burton wants to level the seas at WUWT<br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/04/dave-burton-wants-to-level-seas-at-wuwt.html<br /><br />Over at WUWT, deniers are clutching at straws to continue to reject science in the face of all the "hottest evers". They really, really liked the last big El Nino in 1997-98, but they really, really dislike this current El Nino of 2015-16. It means they'll have to wait a while before they can start pointing to a drop in the surface temperature although Anthony Watts keeps jumping the gun and is excitedly telling his readers that a La Nina is just about here.<br /><br />Here is some of what they got up to today, with a moan and lots of misdirection from a WUWT regular commenter called Dave Burton about another bane of deniers' existence - rising seas (archived here). But first, what's been happening...<br />_____________________________________________________________<br /><br />Mr David Burton, <br />I have shown you good faith and posted your comments, now it's time for you to show some intellectual integrity and respond to the many examples of how you manipulate and ignore various scientific facts in pursuit of your foisting your Rainbow Realtor's Reality onto an apathetic public.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-48325819605348333902016-05-18T00:20:54.030-06:002016-05-18T00:20:54.030-06:00Mr Burton, regarding your boast of being an IPCC &...Mr Burton, regarding your boast of being an IPCC "Expert" reviewer, am I supposed to be impressed. Did you think I wasn't going to try and find your review comments?<br /><br />A search shows you had two comments, though the first was not comment, it was a mistake and you were informed your form wasn't properly filled out and couldn't be processed. The second comment and response is interesting in it's own right. Unfortunately, you display that contrarian ability to refuse all learning opportunities, as it seems you didn't learn a thing from being corrected.<br /><br /><b><a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch00_WG1AR5FOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf" rel="nofollow"> https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch00_WG1AR5FOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf </a></b><br /><br />IPCC Review - Comment number 0-12<br />(Mr. Burton writes)<br />The report contains multiple citations of studies depending on GISS ModelE, but inexplicably omits the critical analysis of GISS model E performance in Scafetta's latest papers: N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015 http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf<br /><br />N. Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf<br /><br />In these papers it is argued that the global surface temperature presents clear evidences of a strong harmonic component associated to astronomical cycles. All climate models used by the IPCC have failed to reproduce these harmonics. Here's an extended comment/summary of the above papers: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/ <br /><br />Here's one in Swedish, but you can translate it with Google translator: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF- 8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclimatescam.se%2F2012%2F01%2F17%2Fmer-harmonisk- analys%2F <br />[David Burton, USA]<br />__________________________<br />IPCC Response"<br /><br />Noted -- the papers referred to by the reviewer clearly state that there is no known physical mechanism to explain the proposed celestial modulation of climate, and so this is not included in the physically-based models whose results are assessed in this report, in particular in Chapter 9 "Evaluation of Climate Models". <br /><br />More specifically, the second paper by Scafetta referred to by the reviewer claims that not only the GISS but all climate models assessed in the IPCC reports significantly underestimate the magnitude of 20 and 60 years cycles apparently seen in the reconstructed global temperature. <br /><br />However, irrespective of whether the above mentioned periodicities are real or an artifact of the statistical analysis, this fact alone does not challenge validity of current climate models. <br /><br />Please note that the role of various known forcings is assessed comprehensively in Chapter 10 of the report.<br />____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /><br />Well that does impress me, though not the way you're hoping, I'm sure.<br />Your science is dependent on remaining confined to your echo-chamber and rejecting everything else.<br /><br />You manage to cling to your storyline only by studiously ignoring most of the available information and screaming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a cheat or stupid, no matter how rational and systematic their attempts, to explain the science to you, are.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-3132063618159948092016-05-17T19:12:29.860-06:002016-05-17T19:12:29.860-06:00Regarding the sea level.info list of papers - most...Regarding the sea level.info list of papers - most of those papers are junk and flunk the basic scientific principles you espouse.<br />And highlighting people like the fraud Morner - here I got the picture to prove what I'm claiming:<br /><br /><a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/dr-nils-axel-morners-maldives-tree.html" rel="nofollow">http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/dr-nils-axel-morners-maldives-tree.html</a>citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-65500336010708863672016-05-17T19:06:42.281-06:002016-05-17T19:06:42.281-06:00The comments get filed in chronological order of s...The comments get filed in chronological order of submission and not approval.<br />You can find Dave B's next offering at <br />May 14, 2016 at 10:43 AM<br />May 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM<br /><br />Dave, regarding your brag about being an IPCC Expert Reviewer, it's another example how you folks pump yourselves up with nothing but hot air trying lend authority to your self-certain but contrived claims.<br /><br /> – all it means is that you asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft. ( check it out <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/09/you-too-can-be-a-leading-clima/" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/09/you-too-can-be-a-leading-clima</a>) or to be formal:<br /><br />New Zealand Climate Change Centre - <br />1. First Order Draft: Expert Review<br />Author teams work for months drafting the First Order Draft. <br /><br />When the First Order Draft is ready for review, a notice is sent out to a wide group of experts inviting them to register through the website of the appropriate Working Group for participation as reviewers. A notice is also placed on the IPCC website advising that review is underway. Experts who have not received an invitation but would like to review the draft are able to advise the Working Group Technical Support Units of this. Expert reviewers are issued with a username and password to access the first order drafts online.<br />- See more at: <a href="https://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/expert_review#sthash.lMdGC94d.dpuf" rel="nofollow">https://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/expert_review#sthash.lMdGC94d.dpuf</a><br />________________________________________________________________________________citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-42843493660088661602016-05-17T12:44:44.963-06:002016-05-17T12:44:44.963-06:00Ncdave, let the debate begin.
I had an unexpecte...Ncdave, let the debate begin. <br />I had an unexpected day off, so have had a chance to review your first comment.<br />I have posted your comment along with my detailed review at WUWTW, <br /><b>"#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life"<a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html" rel="nofollow">http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html</a></b><br />______________________________________________________________<br /><br />Oh and Dave, I really didn't mean it when I said I wouldn't post any deviously coded comments.<br />Guess I really meant I would do it at my pace.<br /><br />So, lets go ahead see what your next gift package has to offer.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-82325847499139926262016-05-16T08:58:03.758-06:002016-05-16T08:58:03.758-06:00Dave, I do apologize for seeming to ignore you, be...Dave, I do apologize for seeming to ignore you, believe me I would love nothing better than to spend the next day or two focusing on your comments. A lot to work with there. It will make a great vehicle for examinating the echo-chamber and to explore your willful disconnect from the full spectrum of Earth observations.<br /><br />However, your timing has been unfortunate since I'm neck deep in projects I can't opt out of. <br />But, this shall pass and I will surely be spending a bunch of time with your comments.<br /><br /><br />Good day sir.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-11636547186351296552016-05-16T08:10:17.287-06:002016-05-16T08:10:17.287-06:00ncdave4life at 4:09 AM
writes: "1" when...ncdave4life at 4:09 AM<br /><br />writes: "1" when I quote little snippets from two of my censored comments, why did you change the word &?????; and several other innocuous texts, to five question marks." <br />"innocuous" you a funny fellow.<br /><br />Thick as a brick, you appear to be. <br /><br />I have told you to comment in plain english not with a bunch of tricky dick coding. If you can't show that courtesy I certainly am not obligated to provide you with a free billboard. Why not open your blog to comments?<br /><br />This is suppose to be a discussion between us.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-81393664402523975092016-05-15T22:18:10.596-06:002016-05-15T22:18:10.596-06:00ncdave4life at 9:58 PM - Please don't talk to...ncdave4life at 9:58 PM - Please don't talk to me about nerve. I asked you to present your case without CODING.<br /><br />Want courtesy? Here: <br /><br />ncdave4life at 5/15/16 9:58 PM writes: <br />"Here ????? some plain English for you, Citizenschallenge you ????? got a lot of chutzpah asking me more questions. If you want my help, you could start by show me some courtesy"<br /><br />ncdave4life on 5/14/16: <br />"You asked, ????? your justification for conflating Carbon Dioxide's ????? role in our atmosphere with Carbon's ????? role in our biosphere ????? sorry if I was not clear."<br />_____________________________________________________________________<br /><br />I'm not muzzling you, type it up the old fashioned way.<br /><br />I actually would give your comments much more attention, but unfortunately, heavy duty working season is upon me and unfortunately I gotta jump for them right now. When things calm down I'm sure I'll have more time to spend on your game.<br /><br /><b>Like I said type it up in plan english, I'll even accept links, but cut the coding bullshit buddy.<br />This is supposed to be a dialogue between us, not a free billboard for you. ;- ) </b>citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-9736110195674651572016-05-15T09:50:50.302-06:002016-05-15T09:50:50.302-06:00Alternately, how about sharing some of your coding...Alternately, how about sharing some of your coding technique?<br /><a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18672/#223657" rel="nofollow">http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18672/#223657</a>citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-10355396925966556662016-05-15T08:14:20.588-06:002016-05-15T08:14:20.588-06:00ncdave4life at 3:43 AM
No! Telling me you answere...ncdave4life at 3:43 AM<br />No! Telling me you answered is not an answer.<br />Repeating that answer in plan english would be an answer.<br /><br /><b>Also I will not be posted coded comments - I don't like the tricky dick stuff.<br />I'll repeat, if you have something worth saying and sharing -> please use plain straightforward english here.</b> <br />Let's see if you can offer a simple serious answer, sans the gish gallops.<br /><br />(fyi - I do reserve the right to use your comments in a stand alone article, if/when time and interest permits.)citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-85702939642234047612016-05-14T21:11:03.779-06:002016-05-14T21:11:03.779-06:00ncdave4life at 7:20 PM.
Mr. Burton,
You did not e...ncdave4life at 7:20 PM.<br /><br />Mr. Burton,<br />You did not even get close to responding to this question:<br /><b><i>What's your justification for conflating <br />Carbon Dioxide's role in our atmosphere <br />with Carbon's role in our biosphere ?</i></b><br /><br /><b>Also, I have a new rule, write your comments in plain english, without coding.</b><br /><br />Respond to that question in an honest straight forward constructive manner.<br /><br />If you can.<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-56380924470764010332016-05-14T18:53:43.523-06:002016-05-14T18:53:43.523-06:00your rationale !your rationale !citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-85721438398497139832016-05-14T18:51:16.073-06:002016-05-14T18:51:16.073-06:00A) I just got home and don't have the time or ...A) I just got home and don't have the time or interest right now. Except to say NO.<br />I've posted enough of your echo-chamber comments, time for you to deal with some sunshine baby!<br /><br />ANSWER MY SIMPLE QUESTION if you want to proceed.<br />To repeat:<br /><br />Now that I've twice show you the courtesy of posting your spiele, please answer my simple question: <br /><i><b>What's your justification for conflating Carbon Dioxide's role in our atmosphere with Carbon's role in our biosphere</b></i><br /> <br />Please provide your rational, not a lot of fancy rhetorical dancing. Why do you feel justified ignoring know physics, physics that a large number of modern marvels depend on the scientists and engineers getting right. NO maybe - thoroughly understood!<br /><br />Your turn Mr. Burton. citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-56010474460288981352016-05-14T10:45:43.151-06:002016-05-14T10:45:43.151-06:00[part 2 of 2]
You are certainly correct that extr...[part 2 of 2]<br /><br />You are certainly correct that extreme weather damages crops. However, there's scant evidence that extreme weather is driven by anthropogenic GHGs.<br /><br />Have you noticed how long it's been since a major hurricane hit the USA? 125 months! It's the longest in recorded history. Worldwide storminess actually seems to have decreased slightly, rather than increased, as greenhouse gas levels have gone up. In fact, as <a href="http://www.sealevel.info/co2_and_ch4.html" rel="nofollow">GHG levels have risen</a>, the worldwide frequency of extreme weather events has actually declined slightly:<br /><br /><a href="http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png" rel="nofollow">http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png</a><br /><br />There's no obvious causal mechanism for GHGs to decrease storminess, so it's probably just coincidence. Nevertheless, it is certainly strong evidence that anthropogenic GHGs do not significantly worsen extreme weather.<br><br /><br />You asked, <i>"What's your justification for conflating Carbon Dioxide's role in our atmosphere with Carbon's role in our biosphere?"</i><br /><br />I'm sorry if I was not clear. Thanks to the activity of living things, there is 500x as much O2 in the atmosphere as CO2 (by volume). If Earth were a dead planet, like Venus and Mars, then the ratio would be reversed: there would be hundreds or thousands of times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as O2, just as there is on Venus and Mars.<br /><br />So it is a mistake to try to separate the discussion of CO2 in the atmosphere from its role in the biosphere. They are intrinsically connected.<br /><br />For instance, the IPCC estimates that, each year, either 27% or 29% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are removed from the atmosphere through "greening," otherwise known as the "fertilization effect" of CO2, which causes accelerated plant growth. It's a "<a href="http://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html" rel="nofollow">negative feedback</a>" machanism: as CO2 levels go up, plants remove more CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing CO2 levels, and thus attenuating the effect of CO2 emissions. On p. 6-3 of AR5 they give these numbers:<br /><br /><i>"During 2002–2011, atmospheric CO2 concentration increased at a rate of 2.0 ± 0.1 ppm yr–1 (equivalent to 4.3 ± 0.2 PgC yr–1 54 ); the ocean and the natural terrestrial ecosystems also increased at a rate of 2.4 ± 0.7 PgC yr–1 and 2.5 ± 1.3 PgC yr–1 55, respectively."</i><br /><br />That would work out to:<br />4.3 / (4.3+2.4+2.5) = 4.3 / 9.2 = 47% remained in the atmosphere<br />2.5 / 9.2 = <b>27%</b> went into the biosphere ("greening")<br />2.4 / 9.2 = 26% went into the ocean<br /><br />Their figure 6.1 gives slightly different numbers:<br /><a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1_errata.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1_errata.jpg</a><br /><br />2.6 / (7.8 + 1.1) = 2.6 / 8.9 = <b>29%</b> went into the biosphere ("greening")<br />2.3 / 8.9 = 26% went into the ocean<br />(8.9 - (2.6+2.3)) / 8.9 = 45% remained in the atmosphere<br /><br />(Disclosure: I was an Expert Reviewer on the IPCC's AR5 Report.)ncdave4lifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022815923433003840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-65300525020524157682016-05-14T10:43:54.359-06:002016-05-14T10:43:54.359-06:00[part 1 of 2]
I do not lie, Citizenschallenge.
W...[part 1 of 2]<br /><br />I do not lie, Citizenschallenge.<br /><br />W/r/t sea-level, you need to take those satellite altimetry figures with about a gallon of salt. They simply are not trustworthy. E.g., at the end of the ENVISAT mission, Aviso massively revised the entire decade-long measurement record, <b>tripling</b> the reported rate of sea-level rise. I have a great deal of information on this topic on my web site, here:<br /><a href="http://www.sealevel.info/resources.html#satellite" rel="nofollow">http://www.sealevel.info/resources.html#satellite</a><br /><br />The tide gauge measurements are far more reliable, and they measure sea-level whwere it matters: at the coast. (Satellite altimetry can't measure sea-level at the coasts.) The best coastal measurements show no sustained acceleration in the last 85 years. Even President Obama's former Undersecretary for Science, Steven Koonin, a devout liberal, wrote that:<br /><br /><i>"Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today."</i><br /><br />Here're some relevant papers:<br /><a href="http://sealevel.info/papers.html#acceleration" rel="nofollow">http://sealevel.info/papers.html#acceleration</a><br /><br />I don't know anything about you, so please do not take this question the wrong way: do you know how to recognize "acceleration" in a graph? If you don't, I can explain it to you; just ask. Or you could ask Google:<br /><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+recognize+acceleration+in+a+graph" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+recognize+acceleration+in+a+graph</a><br /><br />If you do know how to recognize acceleration in a graph, then when you look at the sea-level graphs from any of the best tide gauge measurement records around the world, you'll certainly recognize that sea-level rise is <b>not</b> noticeably accelerating.<br /><br />The great majority of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels has been since the 1940s. If CO2 were driving sea-level rise, then the rate of sea-level rise should have accelerated since then. Can you see the post-1940s anthropogenic surge in sea-level rise, in this graph?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_2016-04.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_2016-04.png</a><br /><br />That was a trick question, of course. You can't see the anthropogenic surge because there was none.<br /><br />Every high-quality, long-term coastal sea-level measurement record in the world shows the same thing: adding nearly 100 ppmv of CO2 (and nearly 0.8 ppmv methane) to the atmosphere has not detectably affected the rate of sea-level rise.<br /><br />When atmospheric CO2 was under 0.031%, >85 years ago, globally averaged sea-level rise at the coasts was just under +1.5 mm/year. <br /><br />With CO2 at 0.040%, SLR at the coasts is still <a href="http://www.sealevel.info/avgslr.html" rel="nofollow">just under +1.5 mm/year</a>.<br /><br />Despite increased groundwater pumping and decreased dam construction, both of which should have been expected to cause a slight acceleration in sea-level rise, the measured rate of coastal sea-level rise hasn't measurably accelerated since the 1920s. That suggests that climate-driven sea-level rise has actually slowed slightly, even as CO2 has increased from under 0.031% to over 0.040% of the dry atmosphere, by volume.<br /><br />[to be cont'd in part 2]ncdave4lifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022815923433003840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-71682620188307163302016-05-14T09:06:02.598-06:002016-05-14T09:06:02.598-06:00...that would be "now that I've twice sho......that would be "now that I've twice shown you the courtesy… Please provide your rationale"<br /><br />PS. for those interested in learning a little more about Carbon's role in creating this world we know, it takes more than reading a few paragraphs of soundbites - it requires some serious person curiosity and initiative to do the homework and study and spend time thinking about how it all fits together. <br /><br />Here's an easy introduction: <b>Appreciating Earth's Climate -<br />Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant?<br /><a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/p/understanding-earth.html" rel="nofollow">http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/p/understanding-earth.html</a></b>citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-84251889777762343742016-05-14T09:00:29.088-06:002016-05-14T09:00:29.088-06:00You are malicious liar and right now my day is too...You are malicious liar and right now my day is too crowded that this internet connection too flakey to give your devious misleading response it's due, though in time I certainly will.<br /><br />Sea level - <br /><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought" rel="nofollow"> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought </a><br /><a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-accelerating-18543" rel="nofollow"> http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-accelerating-18543 </a> <br /><br />Extreme weather damaging crops - <br /><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature16467.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature16467.html<br /></a><br /><a href="javascript:void(0);" rel="nofollow"> http://wqad.com/2015/07/28/extreme-weather-takes-toll-on-illinois-crops-and-farms/ </a><br /><a href="http://cropwatch.unl.edu/usda-nrcs-funding-aid-storm-damaged-crops" rel="nofollow">http://cropwatch.unl.edu/usda-nrcs-funding-aid-storm-damaged-crops</a><br /><br />You do your work within an echo chamber, and you believe by ignoring information and creative manipulation of words you've created an air tight justification for pretending that we haven't set our planet on a course for a profound decimation of this biosphere that's been created over the past hundreds of millions of years.<br /><br /><b>Now that I've twice show you the courtesy of posting your spiele, please answer my simple question: What's your justification for conflating Carbon Dioxide's role in our atmosphere with Carbon's role in our biosphere - <br />Please provide your rational. </b><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-35288810746854590692016-05-13T23:16:04.902-06:002016-05-13T23:16:04.902-06:00Your complaint that I "don't allow for co...Your complaint that I "don't allow for comments" on my critique is misplaced. I first posted my comments on YouTube, on Prof. Mitrovica's video. The reason you can't see them there, and respond to them, is that the NAS won't let you. If the NAS hadn't "ghosted" my comments on Prof. Mitrovica's video, you could have responded there. But they don't allow critical comments there, so I posted my comments on my own web site.<br /><br />My sealevel.info web site is not a blog. It doesn't run Wordpress or any other CM or blogging software, so there's no provision for reader comments. But if you (or anyone else) find any errors, please let me know, and I will correct them.<br><br /><br />You asked, <i>"what about predictable weather patterns and their role in producing bumper crops"</i> and the disruption caused by anthropogenic climate change?<br /><br />The answer is in the data. Thus far there's no evidence that anthropogenic climate change is causing extreme weather events, or adversely affecting weather patterns in any other way. It certainly hasn't adversely affected agricultural productivity:<br /><br />http://sealevel.info/image024_agricultural_productivity_1958_to_2004.jpg<br />(The red line is CO2.)<br><br /><br />You wrote, <i>"It's utter malicious nonsense trying to conflate what CO2 does in our atmosphere with it's biological role."</i> That's wrong in two different ways:<br /><br />1. The fact that you're unfamiliar with something does not make it "malicious nonsense." Every word I wrote is true. If you learn more about the climate issue, what you'll discover is verification of what I wrote.<br /><br />Environmentalist David Siegel has already trod that path. Here he shares <i>What I Learned about Climate Change:</i><br />http://www.climatecurious.com/<br />He learned a lot, and so can you.<br /><br />2. It is a fundamental error to try to separate what CO2 does in our atmosphere with its biological role. They're intimately connected.<br /><br />Have you ever wondered about the high level of free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere?<br /><br />On Venus and Mars nearly all the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2. O2 is nearly non-existent, because it is highly reactive, and combines with other elements to make less-reactive, more stable molecules, like CO2, H2O, SO2, etc.<br /><br />But on Earth, other than some water vapor, >99% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of O2. Only 0.2% is in CO2, despite fires and animal respiration which constantly produce CO2 from O2.<br /><br />Have you ever wondered why?<br /><br />The correct answer is that it's because CO2-hungry living things have stripped nearly all the CO2 from the atmosphere, to get the carbon, releasing the O2 as a waste product. That's why, although 21% of the Earth's atmosphere is oxygen, carbon dioxide levels are measured in parts-per-million.<br /><br />The CO2/O2 balance is determined by a race between plants and animals. Animals use O2 and produce CO2; plants use CO2 and produce O2. But there are a lot more plants than animals, and in the tug-o-war between plants and animals the plants have won. They've tugged the CO2-O2 tug-of-war rope all the way to the end. Animals are relatively scarce, compared to photosynthetic plants, and the plants have used up nearly all the CO2. The animals just can't produce enough CO2 to keep up.<br /><br />The plants would use much more CO2, but they ran out of it. The chronic shortage of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is the primary limit on plant growth. That's why anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which have increased atmospheric CO2 from about 0.03% in the 1940s to about 0.04% today, are directly responsible for 15%-20% of current agricultural productivity.<br /><br />If CO2 were still at 0.03% instead of the current 0.04% of the atmosphere, we'd need 18-25% more land under cultivation, just to maintain current agricultural output. If all the world's rain forests were put under cultivation, that would almost, but not quite, make up the deficit. The rain forests can thank their continued existence to anthropogenic CO2!ncdave4lifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022815923433003840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-22126446236113436902016-05-13T19:30:23.118-06:002016-05-13T19:30:23.118-06:00PS. How ironic, you write: "Unfortunately, t...PS. How ironic, you write: "Unfortunately, the National Academy of Sciences is censoring comments on YouTube."<br />Yet, you don't allow for comments under your string of shear misrepresentations and creative nonsense - which all the while ignores all evidence that doesn't fit into your neat echo-chamber story.<br /><br />(excuse the typos))citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-38153541219335286382016-05-13T19:22:47.338-06:002016-05-13T19:22:47.338-06:00Dave Burton, I gave you the benefit of the doubt a...Dave Burton, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and posted your comment before reviewing your link. I have now looked at it and am appalled at your malicious crazy making. In fact, what you are doing fit's right under what some consider criminal negligence. Check it out: <a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/co2scienceorg-criminally-negligent.html" rel="nofollow">Is CO2Science.org 'criminally negligent'? Why not consider it?</a><br />______________________<br /><br />Now to your link, it starts: "The great bulk of scientific evidence indicates that anthropogenic CO2 is beneficial to both mankind and natural ecosystems, and the warming which results from it is modest and benign.<br />Atmospheric CO2 is the basic building block of plant life, from which Atmospheric CO2 is the basic building block of plant life, from which plants extract the carbon they need. …"<br /><br />It's utter malicious nonsense trying to conflate what CO2 does in our atmosphere with it's biological role in life. It's like your trying your best to confuse, rather than clarify.<br /><br />You are all concerned about CO2 what about predictable weather patterns and their role in producing bumper crops???<br />What about about the upheaval as Plant Hardiness Zone are marching towards the poles and higher elevations??? <br />What about the disruption of age old pollinator and blossoming timing, and mountain water melt rates???<br />Or the role glaciers forms as anchors to regional weather patters and hydrology systems???<br /><br />I really hate the way this sounds, but it is so appropriate for the likes of you: "IT'S THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION STUPID !"<br /><br />All your handwaving is merely arrogant self-certainty driven self-delusion coupled with a profound disconnect from our physical planet > acting out for power political reasons. Got nothing to do with learning about our planet.<br /><br />You are a con artist of the highest order Mr. Burton and what you are doing is contemptible!<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-23870638647611238482016-05-13T18:34:30.394-06:002016-05-13T18:34:30.394-06:00Parts of Prof. Mitrovica's talk were very inte...Parts of Prof. Mitrovica's talk were very interesting, particularly his discussion of how melting ice sheets affect the Earth's mass distribution, and hence its gravity field, which, in turn, causes non-intuitive effects on sea-level.<br /><br />However, he also got some things badly wrong. I have a detailed critique here:<br /><a href="http://www.sealevel.info/mitrovica_cmts01.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.sealevel.info/mitrovica_cmts01.html</a><br />ncdave4lifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022815923433003840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4212235251641475783.post-66827258605080151402013-09-15T14:07:36.734-06:002013-09-15T14:07:36.734-06:00Please add me to the email list for your blog. Tha...Please add me to the email list for your blog. Thanks!Alastihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13953712927557028668noreply@blogger.com