March 06, 2012
CO2 Driving Biggest Ocean Chemistry Changes In 300M Years?

An article in Wired takes a look at a new research paper on how the current rate of ocean acidification compares to previous episodes over the last 300 million years. How about a shift in ocean acidity at a speed and magnitude greater than the last 300 million years?

The authors conclude, “[T]he current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 [million years] of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change.”

Ocean acidification worries me. In theory we could do climate engineering to prevent the worst of global warming. But CO2 is going to dissolve into the oceans and do so at a rate that could easily exceed the ability of species to evolve adaptations.

I think the continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is inevitable unless either much cheaper substitutes for fossil fuels are developed (and I agree with those who think major energy innovations take a long time) or Peak Oil, Peak Coal, and Peak Natural Gas cause huge cuts in fossil fuels usage. While I'm confident Peak Oil is near the picture with natural gas especially is unclear.

If a clearer picture emerges that CO2-caused damage to ocean ecosystems will be extensive maybe we could find the political will to use tree growing combined with tree submersion in deep waters to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But at least for the next couple of decades the tragedy of the commons seems a more likely outcome.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2012 March 06 08:03 PM  Trends Ecology


Comments
Engineer-Poet said at March 7, 2012 5:27 PM:

At least we are still a long way from Peak Nuclear.  To the extent that rare-earth refining yields thorium as a byproduct, substantial amounts of nuclear fuel are available for close to free.

Hong said at March 7, 2012 7:10 PM:

"Global temperature increased about 6°C over 20,000 years due to an abrupt release of carbon to the atmosphere"

Starting with a misleading premise the alarmist writers want to believe CO2 causes the extinction of sea life even though in nearly every era they studied, CO2 levels were lower than today and emitting at a lesser rate. Yet we are to assume this geologically slow rate of emission (much of which occurred after the Permian cycle) killed off 95% of ocean species at a faster speed, it seems, than today. For a more skeptical and comprehensive overview of the subject with solid alternative explanations I'd recommend this post for you to read:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/06/the-permo-triassic-extinction-a-question-of-timing/#more-58476

Mark in Texas said at March 8, 2012 6:19 AM:

There is a relatively low cost method for sequestering carbon out of sea water. Look up "sea-crete" or "biorock".

It seems that if you apply a low voltage DC to a couple of electrodes submerged in sea water, calcium carbonate (limestone) collects on the cathode at a rate of about 2 inches a year. This process was originally examined as a method to build underwater structures but more recently has primarily been used to restore the health of coral reefs since the electric field seems to cause marine animals like oysters and coral to thrive even in less than optimum conditions such as polluted water or higher acidity.

Late at night after most people have gone to sleep, electric demand is significantly less than electric consumption since coal and nuclear electric plants cannot easily be started and stopped so there is a lot of available electricity if this wasted power were to be run through a rectifier and connected metal structures in the ocean. Offshore wind turbines could send a tiny fraction of the electricity they generate through the metal tower that supports the turbine resulting in a solid limestone column after a few years.

Is this enough to counter ocean acidification? I don't know but I think that it is something worth looking at.

Engineer-Poet said at March 8, 2012 9:32 AM:

I remember reading about the Seacrete thing years ago, but I could never find any details.  I'd still love to know about coulombic efficiency and chemical and mechanical properties of the product.

Making calcium carbonate might increase acidity.  Converting some of the bicarbonate to carbonate converts an equal amount to carbonic acid.

Thomas said at March 8, 2012 10:45 AM:

I saw a study a few months back that indicated that increasing ocean acidification wasn't having the effect on CaCO3-dependent sea creatures as has been theorized. I'll see if I can look it back up.

Rob Crawford said at March 8, 2012 10:47 AM:

The oceans are not being "acidified". There are spots where they are becoming slightly less alkaline. There are other spots where they're becoming slightly more alkaline. Beyond the fever dreams of the same crowd that brought us the "Population Bomb" and "The Coming Ice Age", there are no indication this has anything to do with human activity. The "poster child" places I've seen used for the "proof" of this danger are volcanic vents and natural deep-water upwellings -- and in neither case does the CO2 present come from anything human. The supposed laboratory experiments have apparently been designed to be as deadly as possible.

Did you know that many aquarium owners who have reef tanks purposefully add CO2 to their tanks? It dissolves calcium carbonate, making more of that mineral available to corals, etc. to use for their own purposes. The water does not change pH, because there's enough available CaCO to balance the added CO2.

Now, ask yourself -- what's at the bottom of much of the ocean? What lines the world's beaches? Unbelievably large masses of calcium carbonate.

MMR said at March 8, 2012 10:48 AM:

I follow the research at http://www.co2science.org/index.php, a good source for research on acidification on ocean life.

constitution First said at March 8, 2012 11:10 AM:

I'm curious how much run-off from agricultural chemicals and municipal sewer system discharge may be contributing? These are certainly a problems in the Mediterranean.
With Mann-Made CO2 emissions running at about 0.8% of the total and both CO2 & sulfur dioxide (SD) emissions down from historic highs, it doesn't make sense that fossil fuels would cause a sudden rise in oceanic Ph.
I read in National Geographic that under sea volcanoes and fissures emit more CO2 & SD than Mann.

Jim T said at March 8, 2012 11:26 AM:

What "acidification"? The ocean's average PH is currently about 8.2, it has recently become slightly more neutral. It is NOT becoming acidic.

Spencer said at March 8, 2012 11:31 AM:

Let's stop beating around the bush and just say what we are thinking: "Humans are destructive creatures who are due to have their populations reduced on a large scale. We do not much care how it happens, whether via resource depletion, climate catastrophe, ocean acidification, deadly viral contagion, or what not.

Just so humans get what's coming to them. Hell, let's just make a bunch of junk up and pretend it's scientific. Publish it in Time or Wired or any old place. You be doomed, suckas!

Steve Dwyer said at March 8, 2012 11:59 AM:

I had just caught up on an old weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal which mentioned this very topic as well as a Scripps study that debunked much of the "Woe is me, the alkaline ocean is turning into acid!" prevailing narrative. I think it was in the Jan 7-8 edition, but don't hold me to it. It's no longer in my bag, so it must be in the recycling bin. It wasn't in the Op-Ed section. I think it was in the section with the book reviews.

NextBigCrisis said at March 8, 2012 12:03 PM:

I'll be needing about $6.3 million to study this further.

Rich K said at March 8, 2012 12:35 PM:

Well, when one theory bites the dust you just go out and 'Invent" a new one with fuzzy logic, wishful thinking and bad math. And here it is.
On the bright side, no need for soda water anymore, just dip your glass in the oceans.So who's got ice? I got the vodka and schnapps.

ThomasD said at March 8, 2012 12:46 PM:

Average ocean pH is about as 'average' as average Earth air temperature.

Never mind that the mass of the oceans is at least three orders of magnitude larger than that of the atmosphere. Or that that anyone who knows a whit about acid-base chemistry should recognize that the oceans are the largest buffer system on the planet, one that makes atmospheric CO2 fluctuations pale in comparison.

This isn't science in search of knowledge, this is scientists in search of a new government sponsored grant gravy train as the tired old global warming one dries up.

Engineer-Poet said at March 8, 2012 1:10 PM:

Don't tell me, this post got linked by Instapundit.

Alec Rawls said at March 8, 2012 1:51 PM:

CO2 is near the lowest level in the history of life on earth, by a WIDE margin. It was over 1000ppm for most of the last 250 million years. Now it's about 350ppm.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

The idea that a doubling of CO2 would harm the ecosystem is insane.

AcidOceanFail said at March 8, 2012 2:10 PM:

Ocean over-acidification as a result of atmospheric CO2 is just another scam hoax fraud BS. Real oceanographers and chemists know this. Experiments have been done at Woods Hole that disproved the speculation that increased atmospheric CO2, even many times modern concentrations, can possibly acidify sea water.

Kavanna said at March 8, 2012 2:10 PM:

Over a scale of a few decades, you do get (mild) acidification (assuming nothing else changes, a false assumption) and then:

CO2 -> dissol in H20, but also outgassing back to atmosphere, slowly building up the (very mild) carbonic acid H2CO3 = H2O + CO2.

One thing that doesn't remain the same is plant respiration, which reduces the CO2 increase and converts it to O2 and C.

Over centuries, though, you get something more important, geological:

H2CO3 dissoc in H2O (as do all acids) -> H+ and HCO3-, then -> 2H+ and CO3--
Opposite reactions occur at the same rates, but CO3-- is slowly but steadily removed altogether by binding with ocean salts:
potassium (K+), calcium (Ca++), magnesium (Mg++),

... over a century or two in seawater, sedimenting out into crust and recycled over millennia, eventually to be outgassed as CO2 and H2O from volcanoes, et al., to repeat ....

http://kavanna.blogspot.com/2007/06/so-what-about-carbon-dioxide-first-look.html
http://kavanna.blogspot.com/2008/06/climate-reservoirs-and-budgets.html

Engineer-Poet said at March 8, 2012 5:08 PM:

You can tell when Instapundit links to one of these items.  All the talk-radio junkies come here to post their long-debunked think-tank propaganda points and never, ever stick around to listen to the refutations, no matter how well-sourced.

For instance, the Sun's output increases by about 1% per 100 million years.  1000 ppm of CO2 a half-billion years ago produced a climate very different from what it would produce today.  Sadly, ideologues like Alec Rawls won't listen to facts which contradict the "revealed truth" of the George C. Marshall Institute.

Plutarch said at March 8, 2012 6:48 PM:

Acidification has been part of the pulsing planetary carbon-cycle from the beginning. But the carbon-cycle is not the only player in the gross modulation of ocean pH.

The most precious non-cartelized resource on the planet today is potable water. Should we state the most emergent needs for human physiology and survival, listed behind the optimal ecotonal bandwidths for temperature and oxygenated atmosphere will be drinkable water.

It's perfect really; the solution. But postmodern scholarship has been reduced to the quality of offal thrust forth to sate the tyrannical pigs who police the government-funded troughs of postmodern academe. Dialectical materialism and reductionism, polemic and the morbid state of Hegelian conceit has fermented a "Scientism" and policy subculture that spews forth mighty factoids in an effort to convince the ever so certain that they really do think.

But they don't. They can't get past the anthropomorphism.

Thus the endless fabulisms of "polemicus interruptus" which cast the Heisenberg Principle in a paradox of intermittentcy and divinity that somehow knows when to revoke its application so the secular worship of particular truths may be held high as a sacred proven between men as an absolute truth borne of "settled Science.

"Settled Science" is the term used to mobilize non-scientists to deny voice and practice of the scientific method.

When the liberty of thinking and inquiry become less important than orthodoxy, what then do you have? It may be many things, but it certainly isn't science.

Alec Rawls said at March 8, 2012 7:04 PM:

I have no idea what the "George C. Marshall Institute" is, nor do I see here any well sourced refutations of skeptical arguments, but if Engineer-Poet would follow the links in the post he would see that the referenced study is trying to blame known mass-extinctions on the rate of change of CO2.

How stupid is that? Many periods in earth's history prove that high levels of CO2 are not harmful to life, so they switch from blaming level of CO2 to blaming rate of change. The fact is we don't know WHAT caused these extinctions, and if we can't blame CO2, we certainly can't zero the microscope in further to blame rate of change of CO2. It is a ludicrous premise.

One of the paper's examples is the deep ocean extinction that occurred during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (that very scary high CO2 and high temperature time, also called the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal OPTIMUM, when mammals diversified across the globe).

Isotope signatures suggest that PETM warming was caused by a large release of methane hydrates. What caused this release? No one knows. Maybe a major volcanic/tectonic episode melted a large hydrate deposit. Maybe a cessation in ocean currents caused pools of especially warm and saline top water to sink to ocean depths where they melted the hydrates.

Once released into the atmosphere, the methane oxidized into CO2, causing CO2 levels to soar and making it impossible to distinguish whether CO2 was a significant cause of warming or was just an effect. The claim in the paper that this event was caused by CO2 is pure speculation, and so is the claim that the deep ocean extinction event was caused by CO2-driven acidification of the ocean.

If the hydrate release was caused by a cessation of ocean currents, where saline top-water sank to the deep ocean, that could also have caused the deep ocean extinction. The whole subject is HIGHLY speculative. To use it to promote fear of CO2 when CO2 is FAR LOWER that it was at that time just more irresponsible alarmist propaganda, and frankly, I'm surprised to discover that Future Pundit is enough of a rube to take it at face value. (Yeah, I did come over from Instapundit.)

marvelgoose said at March 8, 2012 7:48 PM:

Water releases dissolved gas as it warms. Since the earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years, the ability of the ocean to hold CO2 has gone down. CO2 is a *following* indicator of warming for this reason. The warmer the earth gets, the more CO2 the ocean releases. So, unless we get a massive wave of global cooling (like an ice age) worries of ocean absorption of CO2 are groundless.

Hong said at March 8, 2012 9:42 PM:

Alec:

E-P is sort of the resident alarmist troll. There are others but none as belligerently determined to cling to his green religion. He has a history of baiting others here. As you've already noticed, he's not above descending into ad hominem and, eventually he'll resort to distorting/inventing (ie lying about) your arguments when he's losing. Believe me, he'll NEVER read your links no matter how researched they are and dismiss them all as 'propaganda' while treating the bloggings of RealClimate as gospel. Eventually he'll even accuse you of shilling for the fossil fuel 'industry', implying you're collecting a check in some clandestine enterprise. It can be fun arguing with him (when you have the time); some of his responses are hysterically unhinged. Don't take him too seriously, it's the only way he seems to get any kicks in his sad and pathetic life. lol

Forever Skeptic said at March 8, 2012 9:45 PM:

World's Best Ocean Scientists Confirm Skeptics Correct: Ocean Acidification Hysteria Is Unwarranted
'Big Green' anti-science and mainstream media's hysterical reporting on ocean acidification has been proven to be meritless - rising ocean acidification is not a problem

220px-Blue_Linckia_StarfishRead here. New empirical research determines that extreme variation in pH levels of sea waters occurs naturally and frequently. The extremes are so great that marine life is often exposed to "acidified" waters without being threatened in the course of daily life.

Human CO2 emissions are not causing the extreme pH ranges currently existing in sea waters.

The peer-reviewed research by Hofman et al completely vindicates the skeptics' position of ocean acidification and thoroughly exposes the common alarmist position - hysterical leftist / liberal / progressive anti-science that is never able to withstand the scrutiny of scientific empirical research.

"The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis."..."Here, we present a compilation of continuous, high-resolution time series of upper ocean pH, collected using autonomous sensors, over a variety of ecosystems ranging from polar to tropical, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef. These observations reveal a continuum of month-long pH variability with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The nature of the observed variability was also highly site-dependent, with characteristic diel, semi-diurnal, and stochastic patterns of varying amplitudes. These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100." [Gretchen E. Hofmann, Jennifer E. Smith, Kenneth S. Johnson, Uwe Send, Lisa A. Levin, Fiorenza Micheli, Adina Paytan, Nichole N. Price, Brittany Peterson, Yuichiro Takeshita, Paul G. Matson, Elizabeth Derse Crook, Kristy J. Kroeker, Maria Cristina Gambi, Emily B. Rivest, Christina A. Frieder, Pauline C. Yu, Todd R. Martz 2011: Plos One]

Previous ocean-acidification and peer-reviewed postings.

January 10, 2012 at 04:49 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/worlds-best-ocean-scientists-confirm-skeptics-correct-ocean-acidifcation-hysteria-is-unwarranted.html

Mark in Texas said at March 9, 2012 2:38 AM:

Engineer-Poet

I'm not really sure what you mean by coulombic efficiency. The Wikipedia entry on biorock says "one kilowatt hour of electricity will result in the accretion of about 0.4 to 1.5 kg (0.9 to 3.3 lb) of biorock, depending on various parameters such as depth, electrical current, salinity and water temperature." It also says that "Biorock samples range in compressive strength from 3720 to 5350 lbf/in² (26 to 37 MPa) – for comparison, the concrete typically used in sidewalks has a strength of about 3500 lbf/in² (24 MPa)."

I particularly like the fact that it encourages the growth of filter feeders like clams, oysters and corals which clean the water that surround them. This can serve to counter some of the effect of fertilizer run off in coastal waters causing plankton blooms.

Rob Crawford

Except for coral sand beaches on tropical atolls and chalk at the White Cliffs of Dover, most of the sand in the world is silicon dioxide. There is plenty of calcium carbonate in the oceans but I think you are exaggerating to say that it makes up most of the ocean floor and the world's beaches.

papertiger said at March 9, 2012 4:27 AM:

The oceans are saturated with calcium carbonate to a depth of 4.8 km, but is that the end of the story?
No, it turns out if, as these alarmist scare tactic stories would like you to believe, just a little bit more carbonic acid were added to the ocean to unbalance the system, oceans would start precipitated gypsum instead of calcium carbonate. This has never been observed in the fossil record.
And that's the end of the story.
Only perverts talk about ocean acidification. It's what a card player would call a tell, an easy reference point to tell when a climate scientist, or their media sponsor is lying to you.

richard40 said at March 9, 2012 11:45 AM:

This topic is something that is worth studying, but I suspect that like anything to do with gobal warming, the initial studies and reports are horibly biased and alarmist. I would support more studies to find the truth, but would hope the people doing the studies are unbiased searchers for truth, rather than people looking for more things to hang onto global warming.

One more thing, if this much CO2 is making its way into the oceans, enough to change their chemestry, then isn't this
CO2 also being removed from the air, thus reducing air CO2 levels, and remediating the problem with atmospheric CO2.

bmack500 said at March 10, 2012 2:40 AM:

I just love how the paid P.R. bloggers jump on any article relating to climate change, pointing to pseudoscience web sites and painting mainstream scientific opinion (climate science) as "alarmist", "Radical", etc...

Engineer-Poet said at March 10, 2012 6:21 AM:

bmack500 gets it in one, and succintly too.

Hong engages in his usual "tu quoque":

E-P is sort of the resident alarmist troll. There are others but none as belligerently determined to cling to his green religion.
About the only thing he got right is "resident".  Hong seldom comments except on politicized issues, and his position is always the party line.  He never has solutions to offer, let alone any that break out of established ideological boxes.  bmack500 has him pegged.

"Plutarch" is most amusing, putting forth a postmodernist miasma of nonsense while pretending to decry it.  Irony for an ironic age.

Engineer-Poet said at March 10, 2012 6:23 AM:

Rawls is more direct:

I have no idea what the "George C. Marshall Institute" is
Although he is the equivalent of the "Know-Nothing Party".  Essentially all of his talking points are straight out of GMI, whether he knows it or not.  The GMI claims about climate are slight edits from the GMI claims about tobacco, which GMI ought to be infamous for having denied the proven morbity and mortality from its use.
nor do I see here any well sourced refutations of skeptical arguments
Disingenuous or clueless?  You decide... but those are the only alternatives.
Many periods in earth's history prove that high levels of CO2 are not harmful to life.... The fact is we don't know WHAT caused these extinctions
From this you conclude that we have nothing to worry about?  That is the very definition of dogmatic, not to mention gullible.
also called the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal OPTIMUM, when mammals diversified across the globe
This is a very interesting example of "crimestop" thinking, where the mind simply won't go into forbidden territory.  Follow this just a bit further:  Q:  What let mammals radiate into new niches?  A:  The replacement of existing niches by new ones, and the loss of species which occupied many more.  Q:  What species are most likely to go extinct?  A:  Those best adapted to particular niches.  Q:  What species important to humans fall into this category?  A:  In particular, the major food crops.  Q:  What species are most adaptable?  A:  Weeds and pests.

Obvious, but Rawls can't let his mind go there.  He flees back to his comfort zone of unquestioned received wisdom.

Ronald Brak said at March 12, 2012 11:52 PM:

On matters of opinion, opinions vary. On concrete factual matters I've never seen Engineer-Poet get anything wrong.

Engineer-Poet said at March 13, 2012 8:30 AM:

I have definitely gotten things wrong before, but I tend to own up and post corrections.

Hong said at March 14, 2012 6:19 AM:

Ronald,

E-P and the alarmist trolls rarely concern themselves with the facts. Instead we deal with those who believe in big oil conspiracies, personal invective, 'evil' 'bloggers' (even after stalking me online he can't find any proof I blog, but that doesn't stop him from fabricating-the good propagandist he is - lol). Randall's blog seems to be the highlight of his small, empty life as his dogma is attacked and fades from scientific credibility. It's well documented that the warming alarmists destroy evidence, smear skeptics and commit fraud to promote their cruel green agenda. One would hope science and reason could still be practiced in any field by objective readers. But reading EP and the greeniacs here, you see how quickly hope fades. Don't join the troll camp, you'll only beclown yourself.

Engineer-Poet said at March 14, 2012 6:58 PM:

Astute readers can make a game of picking out the falsehoods and fallacies in comments from Hong.  The first sentence has the fallacies of ad-hominem and composition.  The second continues this and adds psychological projection (nobody in their right mind would bother to try to find him, we just want him to go away), he misses that my major activity recently is at Green Car Congress... enough for that one.  Third one is projection.  Fourth is projection and libel; denialists repeatedly accuse climate scientists of falsifying data, and while these charges are routinely proven false it does not stop the denialists from repeating them (for instance, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study reproduced the "hockey stick", which has not stopped the claims that Mann faked it).

If you made this a drinking game, you'd be schnockered in minutes.

Hong's consistent and abusive trolling would make it interesting to unmask him (if the major denialist trolls are paid by the fossil fuel industry either directly or laundered through grants to outfits like GMI, that would be very worthwhile to know and devastating to their credibility), but mostly I'd prefer him gone.  What he says is stupid, and dissecting it in detail is only useful as an exercise of arguing before the silent readership.  About the only worthwhile thing about trolls like Hong is that they repeat their talking points often enough that their comments could probably be auto-annotated by a script to generate notes and hyperlinks to the data showing them to be false.

The funniest part may be that he accused me of being a "greeniac", when my first comment here extols nuclear power (and my support is consistent).  Any reader can see that Hong never lets facts get in the way of a troll.

Hong said at March 15, 2012 7:34 AM:

"Astute readers can make a game of picking out the falsehoods and fallacies in comments from Hong. "

They would find little there. The fun is in fisking EP's ravings and observing his countless meltdowns.


"The first sentence has the fallacies of ad-hominem and composition"

EP is the master of ad hominem as you see from his earliest posts. This is a personal crusade for him and it's gets personal almost immediately.


"The second continues this and adds psychological projection (nobody in their right mind would bother to try to find him, we just want him to go away), he misses that my major activity recently is at Green Car Congress... enough for that one."

He often attributes to others his own bigotry and religious intolerance. Classic misdirection. And notice his cry for help to Randall (again) to ban me. Like so many greeniacs, he doesn't want a free exchange of ideas, but to silence the critics. The irony of his hypocrisy always seem to escape him though lol"


"Third one is projection."

Where I state that his blog is the highlight of his small, pathetic life? No, just read the many ravings he posts (he even boasts that he has a blog of his own-that must be a fun day) if you have any doubts and compare them to anyone's else's volume here. lol


"Fourth is projection and libel; denialists repeatedly accuse climate scientists of falsifying data, and while these charges are routinely proven false"

Climategate I and II. Hide the decline. Searching these keywords out on google would prove EP a liar (again). He and the other alarmist trolls are comfortable with such tactics.


"(for instance, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study reproduced the "hockey stick", which has not stopped the claims that Mann faked it)."

Notice again he ignores the very relevant criticism of surface temperature readings as unreliable and manipulated. Also realize the troll ignores the fact that even BEST records no temperature increase for the past 13 years. Notice too that co-writer Dr. Curry criticized Muller for submitting claims before they were 'peer reviewed'. A point made repeatedly and with good reason by the critics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html


"If you made this a drinking game, you'd be schnockered in minutes."

Yes you might if you followed the falsehoods in the above post by now you'd be hammered.


"Hong's consistent and abusive trolling would make it interesting to unmask him (if the major denialist trolls are paid by the fossil fuel industry either directly or laundered through grants to outfits like GMI, that would be very worthwhile to know and devastating to their credibility)"

He's right about consistent, I will hector alarmist trolls. It's almost a civic duty and it's often fun and morally satisfying. Here he goes with the conspiracy claims (again). And notice(again) how claims to have made no effect to search my background yet makes clear that's what he wants? Wouldn't it be devastating to find that I'm a civilian who studied the issue independently? A private citizen who's made a monkey out of our alarmist troll over here? lol


"but mostly I'd prefer him gone."

The majority would prefer EP stick with facts and logic instead of pointless and self-beclowning episodes. But I won't go anywhere or be censored by hate filled trolls.


"What he says is stupid, and dissecting it in detail is only useful as an exercise of arguing before the silent readership. "

If any of that were true, it would be easy to prove but EP fails every time. It can only be concluded that he lacks the intellectual gifts to debate and persuade others to his religion so must instead bawl out his frustration.


"About the only worthwhile thing about trolls like Hong is that they repeat their talking points often enough that their comments could probably be auto-annotated by a script to generate notes and hyperlinks to the data showing them to be false."

I would welcome any actual attempt by EP to prove the links I've posted to be false. But he can't and it's from a fundamental character weakness of the alarmists trolls to spit ad hominem and hide behind their alarmist ideology.


"The funniest part may be that he accused me of being a "greeniac", when my first comment here extols nuclear power (and my support is consistent).

Even some greens believe in nuclear so I'm hardly wrong in calling EP a Greeniac, but the reason behind my label is his remarkable gift for shilling for a discredited green religion, presenting 'studies' and climate blogs (such as the provably flawed IPCC and BEST) as gospel that AGW is real. It's a testament to their stubborn tenacity to attack the windmill and ignore all reason and objective debate. If they made such an honest attempt, it would unmask their faith as demented as any we see in the Middle East today. I don't know if that's ultimately funny or tragic that so many minds like his are so corrupted but it's fun to watch it implode again. lol


"Any reader can see that Hong never lets facts get in the way of a troll.""

Any reader can see that EP never lets facts interrupt his trolling. Notice again his response is largely personal, ignoring science and evidence. Wait for him to post more propaganda on BEST, IPCC, Mann, or Hansen in the future. Perhaps it's best we leave him in his sandpit.

Ronald Brak said at March 17, 2012 3:29 PM:

Hong, would you care to take a short two question test on climate change? It's very quick - two yes or no answer questions and possibly a single explanatory sentence for each:

1. Do you think human activity has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

If not, please briefly explain why in one sentence.

2. Do you think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

If not, please briefly explain why in one sentence.

Engineer-Poet said at March 17, 2012 8:13 PM:

I don't know what's funnier:  that Hong thinks he's refuted me, or that he thinks The Daily Mail is a scientific source.  But funniest of all is probably this:

He's right about consistent, I will hector alarmist trolls.
In other words, Hong admits he is a stalker!  His claims that I, let alone anyone, bother to stalk him have zero evidence because they're false (they're actually projection:  Hong stalks, and thinks everyone does).

In other news, Hong is blind to irony.  Film at 11.

I would welcome any actual attempt by EP to prove the links I've posted to be false.
Don't need to:  they aren't peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists, and only your conspiracy theory lets you claim that the TRUTH cannot be published in reputable journals.  It's a paranoid tautology.  After refuting the first N generations of such nonsense, it's up to you to prove yourself CORRECT.  Linking to British tabloids falls laughably short of a legitimate attempt to do so.
Even some greens believe in nuclear so I'm hardly wrong in calling EP a Greeniac
Bah.  I've been pro-nuclear for the last 40 years; the few Greens who've seen the light have followed me, not I them.  Hong grasps at straws.
such as the provably flawed IPCC and BEST
The hallmark of a conspiracy theorist is that they deny the legitimacy of all scientific evidence which proves their assertions false.  The IPCC and BEST are scientific, non-partisan, and the best we have.  Hong puts himself in the company of young-earth creationists and platygeans.  I suppose that's where he belongs.

Engineer-Poet said at March 17, 2012 8:20 PM:

I forgot to referece this, which shows the politicized nature of Republican denial of AGW (as opposed to Democratic policy thereon, which is different), but if pols won't listen to science their policy will diverge from sensibility into insanity.

Hong said at March 18, 2012 7:11 AM:

"I don't know what's funnier: that Hong thinks he's refuted me, or that he thinks The Daily Mail is a scientific source. But funniest of all is probably this: "

It merely points out the obvious (which Dr. Curry had to spell out to evangenlical greens like EP), that there has been no temperature increase in 13 years. A point EP apparently missed (more likely ignored). So now I've proven him wrong again with a simple, 'tabloid' newspaper article. Now that's funny.


"In other words, Hong admits he is a stalker! "

How intellectually incompetant is EP? Applying his own logic (and projection), he's just admitted to being a stalker! He calls me a troll and is obviously quite abusive in his responses-therefore, he's just admitted what I've always said. If I'm a stalker for mocking and ridiculing his hate and intolerance then so should all sensible thinkers. The troll complains about someone attacking his online stalking? Hilarious irony.


"His claims that I, let alone anyone, bother to stalk him have zero evidence because they're false (they're actually projection: Hong stalks, and thinks everyone does)."

Yeah he's remarked in the past about conducting such searches for my internet footprint but finding nothing. He boasts of his blog and many writings yet now when it's exposed as creepy, he denies it. Being a denier (of science, good behavior, and common sense) is what EP embraces. He's strangely comfortable being a liar and a hypocrite (not a surprise from climate alarmists who need to fudge data).


"Don't need to:they aren't peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists, "

Quite a few have been peer reviewed despite the academic blockade but that's beside the point. The ultimate craven excuse to be a coward is to hide behind discredited procedures. EP would have you believe that the word of 'Climate scientists' like Mann who's been exposed smearing critics or Phil Jones, caught destroying data or Hansen who refused FOIA for years(to protect his failing reputation) should be trusted. And for his talk about peer review, the BEST study he cites still isn't. Talk about the blind leading the blind...lol


"and only your conspiracy theory lets you claim that the TRUTH cannot be published in reputable journals. "

LOL, truth? We've seen the corruption of the 'peer review' process by activist scientists who've destroyed data, used unreliable sources (like Best is guilty of) to promote a green agenda and acquire public funds. This is truth to alarmist stalker trolls like EP. Pathetic...


"After refuting the first N generations of such nonsense, it's up to you to prove yourself CORRECT"

Climategate I and II, Hide the decline, Phil Jones destroying data, we've won. If this were a legal proceeding, EP would surrender rather than await the final verdict. He can natter on about more proof his Titanic is sinking but the rest are beginning to search for the lifeboats.


"Bah. I've been pro-nuclear for the last 40 years; the few Greens who've seen the light have followed me, not I them. Hong grasps at straws."

EP hates being lumped with the Greeniacs but since he shares their opinions on climate alarmism, he's deserving of their flies. He simply cries that people mock his religion. These bullying trolls need to grow a thicker skin and stop sending emails. Heh


"The hallmark of a conspiracy theorist is that they deny the legitimacy of all scientific evidence which proves their assertions false."

The hallmark of a greeniac is to forget the proper use of english in their bed wetting fury since we only criticize flawed studies like the IPCC (which claimed the Himilayas would lose their ice, grad papers and Nature articles would be accepted as scientific evidence, the Hockey stick, etc) and BEST. They most certainly should not be treated as gospel because of their many retractions and critics - oh heavens no.


"The IPCC and BEST are scientific, non-partisan"

He needs to stop right there and wait for the laughter to subside. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a serious mind to claim they were not partisan when it's director was a shill for the green industry. And isn't it obvious to any informed adult that anything from the UN is skewed Left? Didn't I already embarass EP with the revelation that BEST data was from surface temperature readings that a) are notoriously unreliable and b) showed NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE for 13 years according to their own scientists? lol


"and the best we have."

Try examining satellite temperature data, that's not tampered with surface heat island effects like...a city.


"Hong puts himself in the company of young-earth creationists and platygeans. I suppose that's where he belongs."

EP belongs with his playmates in the sandbox of eugenics, Ice agers, Malthusian doomsayers, and anti-vaccine fanatics. He's proven that over and again with his spirited defense of ignorance.


"I forgot to referece this, which shows the politicized nature of Republican denial of AGW (as opposed to Democratic policy thereon, which is different), but if pols won't listen to science their policy will diverge from sensibility into insanity."

Good for them, man made global warming has been shown a hoax and an empty attempt for socialist projection. Obama shows what following their insane activism leads to (Solyndra, Carbon tax anyone?) In EP's desperation to smear again, he abandons reason and objectivity (again) for his green religion. A faith that demands punishing carbon taxes (during a recession) and heavy subsidies for worthless green technologies. What does logic, sense and economic health have to do with the alarmists' political agenda?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/
http://thegwpf.org/international-news/5241-germanys-failing-environmental-projects.html

Hong said at March 18, 2012 11:56 AM:

"1. Do you think human activity has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? "

Yes in fractional doses, far less so than water vapor.

"2. Do you think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?"

No, it's a lagging indicator. Nearly all of the geologic record concludes that, based on ice core samples. Perhaps it's accelerates the warming effects of sunspot or methane levels but it doesn't cause temperature increase and probably never has.


Ronald Brak said at March 18, 2012 5:02 PM:

Thanks for replying, Hong. I'm afraid the explanations you kindly provided are wrong . Human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about a third but, but has an insignificant effect on directly increasing water vapour. This is because water vapour in the atmosphere has a half life of a few days and about three quarters of the earth's surface is liquid water. Human activity can't really compete with the action of the sun and wind on the world's oceans. You also say that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas but we are able to directly observe its greenhouse properties by measuring its absorption of infrared energy. And it's not even necessary to go to a lab to do this, measuring the infrared absorption of CO2 is done everyday at your local soda bottling plant. And if you were to claim that CO2 somehow changes its properties outside of the lab, or the soda bottle, the examples of Venus and Mars quite clearly show that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Because you are wrong on such basic matters I cannot trust anything you write on the topic. If you are interested in facts you can do some research on water vapour and carbon dioxide and then come back and say you were mistaken.

Hong said at March 19, 2012 1:08 PM:

"I'm afraid the explanations you kindly provided are wrong "

lol, in other words I must agree with everything you say in order to 'debate'. Then what's the point of an argument if I must concede to your opinion? Do you see how ridiculous and uncompromising you sound? There is room for disagreement among reasonable people on this topic. You must recognize that if you are to debate like an adult.


"Human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about a third but, but has an insignificant effect on directly increasing water vapour. This is because water vapour in the atmosphere has a half life of a few days and about three quarters of the earth's surface is liquid water. Human activity can't really compete with the action of the sun and wind on the world's oceans. "

I'm familiar with the half life argument and the propagated 'one-third' talking point (hard to believe when human activity only accounts for 3% of global CO2 production). It may hold merit but the lag cannot be explained by your theory. Nor can it explain how one volcanic eruption can set a global cooling trend while decades of human emissions have minimal effect.


"You also say that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas but we are able to directly observe its greenhouse properties by measuring its absorption of infrared energy. And it's not even necessary to go to a lab to do this, measuring the infrared absorption of CO2 is done everyday at your local soda bottling plant. And if you were to claim that CO2 somehow changes its properties outside of the lab, or the soda bottle, the "

Perhaps so but CO2 only absorbs a fractional amount of IR radiation so it's a stretch to argue such a measured global temperature rise is due solely to human caused CO2 when the oceans and volcanic eruptions produce far more.


"examples of Venus and Mars quite clearly show that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. ""

Yet the planets are all experiencing temperature rises. Is solar emission more of a factor than fabled 'greenhouse gases'?

And I notice you avoid my comment about the lagging indicators. I suppose the alarmists can't quite explain why temperatures rise hundreds of years before CO2 levels so censoring such topics is preferable to their emotional wellbeing, but it hurts your credibility.


"Because you are wrong on such basic matters I cannot trust anything you write on the topic. If you are interested in facts you can do some research on water vapour and carbon dioxide and then come back and say you were mistaken. "

Spoken like a true McCarthyite, you're wrong (because I say so) so I won't debate. I thought I was speaking to a rational adult but I can tell by your dogmatic responses that I cannot trust you to behave like one. Perform some research on this subject and we can talk or else troll and stalk like the rest. Thank for your rigid attempt at debate. It was disappointing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2QKY3zW8Q

Ronald Brak said at March 19, 2012 4:44 PM:

I'm not debating you, Hong. I'm telling you that you're wrong. It's not possible to debate when we don't agree on the most basic facts of the matter. It would be like us debating the local budget when we don't even agree that two plus two equals four. For example, you don't even think human activity has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by a third or more. We can discuss this if you like. But it won't be debate, it will be education. If you're not sure of the effect human activity has on CO2 levels then I suggest you look up how much fossil fuel humanity uses in a year, roughly determine how much CO2 results from its combustion, and then see if it is enough to account for the current year on year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere we are currently experiencing. After you do that then there will be one thing we agree on. This will take a little effort on your part, but this appears to be a topic that is very dear to you, and you seem to have plenty of energy to spend on it, so I think it will be effort well spent.

Hong said at March 20, 2012 6:20 AM:

"I'm telling you that you're wrong."

But you've offered nothing to support your opinion except lazy talking points. I'm telling you you're wrong (I can play the game too)


"For example, you don't even think human activity has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by a third or more."

Reasonable people can disagree and you've shown where you stand on this. The Alarmists believe this figure while skeptics argue it's exaggerated by about half. And even if you were right, so what? Temperatures increase 800 years before CO2 rises.


"We can discuss this if you like. But it won't be debate, it will be education."

Strangely, you fail to offer proof again which ought to be simple if what you say is true. And again you avoid the lag proving you argument is hollow and religiously based. Obviously, it's you who needs an education.


"If you're not sure of the effect human activity has on CO2 levels then I suggest you look up how much fossil fuel humanity uses in a year, roughly determine how much CO2 results from its combustion, and then see if it is enough to account for the current year on year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere we are currently experiencing."

Fossil fuel activity isn't the issue, the absorption and overall emissions in the atmosphere is. All greenhouse gases represent only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere and CO2 is just 2 percent of that figure. I've heard it to be as low as 2 percent of 4 percent.

I would suggest you educate yourself on the subject and stop using Wikipedia or Real Climate for your information. Apply your common sense because even government numbers have become suspect with it's rampant politicization. The emissions are about 3 percent. Water vapor is lighter than CO2 and more prevalent and temperatures rise before CO2 levels. Also, the planetary temperature remains unchanged in 13 years. If you cannot explain these obvious facts and discrepancies from you narrative then you lose again.

You are unqualified to offer debate because you will not offer proof (probably because there is no accepted standard) or even manfully engage in the subject of the lag. You disappoint me again

Ronald Brak said at March 20, 2012 6:37 AM:

Come on, Hong. Are the CO2 emissions from burning fossil in a year equal to or greater than the yearly increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?

Hong said at March 20, 2012 11:19 AM:

Come on Ronald, you must know the proportion of human caused CO2 emissions is a fractional amount of total global emissions. Still avoiding the issue of lag I see. lol

Ronald Brak said at March 20, 2012 3:43 PM:

Hong, are emissions from burning CO2 sufficent to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2? Do you agree with me that they are or do you disagree? If you can show that they aren't you can blow me and the world's climatologists out of the water, so please go ahead and do so if you can. If you do I will gladly admit I was wrong, apologise to you and write an open letter explaining that I was wrong and you were right. Also, I'll go and post in any forum that you like that I was wrong. So, is the amount of CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels equal to or greater than the increase in quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Engineer-Poet said at March 20, 2012 7:12 PM:

Ronald, you mean well but you're wasting your time trying to argue with Hong.  As you can see, he:

  • has no site of his own, no collection of writings which sets forth his thinking, no "past".
  • goes from place to place to "hector" those he considers "alarmists" (stalking behavior).
  • will not even stipulate to established facts about atmospheric science, radiation physics, or anything else that might force him to subject his claims to factual tests.  He will deny anything he wants to, even that atmospheric CO2 has gone from a pre-industrial 280 ppm to 393 ppm and there are multiple lines of evidence that human activity is responsible for it.  This is classic troll behavior.
I'm pretty sure "Hong" is not an actual person, but one of the faces of someone using personalty-management software as part of the on-going astroturf campaign against climate science.  If Randall didn't have far more patience than I do, he'd have been banned long ago.

Engineer-Poet said at March 20, 2012 7:30 PM:

I wouldn't be surprised if Hong is either paid by the same people [Heartland Institute] who finance Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat (which he seems to use as his major source), or is just a sock-puppet of Watts himself.

Hong said at March 20, 2012 8:19 PM:

"Hong, are emissions from burning CO2 sufficent to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2? Do you agree with me that they are or do you disagree? "

You're asking the wrong question again. Human CO2 emissions are not 100 percent of global CO2 emissions, or even a large part of it. Therefore they cannot be largely responsible for any 'global increase' can they? And why do you hide from the issue of lag? Is it so hard to answer honestly? Don't be such a coward.


"So, is the amount of CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels equal to or greater than the increase in quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere? "

Your question makes no sense. How can anything be greater than a recorded quantity? Therefore it's obviously far less, if at all.

Hong said at March 20, 2012 8:26 PM:

"has no site of his own, no collection of writings which sets forth his thinking, no "past".

LOL, EP admits again that he stalked me online for an internet trace like the good troll he is.


"goes from place to place to "hector" those he considers "alarmists" (stalking behavior)."

How would EP know this? So far as he or anyone knows, this is the ONLY site where I annoy alarmist stalker trolls such as him. lol


"will not even stipulate to established facts about atmospheric science, radiation physics, or anything else that might force him to subject his claims to factual tests."

Facts from poisoned sources like the IPCC or Hansen? I think it's best to remain skeptical about 'consensus' when it pertains to AGW.


"He will deny anything he wants to, even that atmospheric CO2 has gone from a pre-industrial 280 ppm to 393 ppm and there are multiple lines of evidence that human activity is responsible for it. "

I don't deny the possibility that CO2 levels have increased, only that it's primarily caused by human activity. A nuanced reader would understand that, which clearly EP is not. His 'multiple lines' talking point is again sourced from corrupt ones such as a IPCC, Hansen, and fellow alarmists.


"This is classic troll behavior."

Classic troll behavior is refusing debate and applying personal invective. EP just demonstrated it for you again Ronald (quite shamelessly) which is why I suggest you begin to debate the issue of lag honestly rather than hiding...


"I'm pretty sure "Hong" is not an actual person, but one of the faces of someone using personalty-management software as part of the on-going astroturf campaign against climate science. If Randall didn't have far more patience than I do, he'd have been banned long ago."

Hilarious, Randall knows who I am because I have contacted him. EP's mind is so twisted with paranoid dementia as you can see. It's impossible for him to believe a common adult made a monkey out of him so now he invents this 'stealth software' 'astroturf'. Next he'll be calling me an AI cyborg from his mothership. This is classic EP it's so 'Mission Impossible' and Hollyweird, only an alarmist can dream it up. I wonder how it must feel to inhabit such a pathologically insane mind as his. lol


"I wouldn't be surprised if Hong is either paid by the same people [Heartland Institute] who finance Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat (which he seems to use as his major source), or is just a sock-puppet of Watts himself."

I know EP is of the same ilk as Gleick, willing to fake documentation in desperation to discredit his opponents. How sad and enraging for him that a shoe string operation as Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, or McIntyre can delivered so many hammer blows against the Alarmist faith.

http://climateaudit.org/2012/03/10/gleick-and-the-watergate-burglars/

Believe me guys, I doubts Watts would need a pseudonym or even waste time with one dedicated troll like EP when he probably gets visited by so many as his own site.

Ronald Brak said at March 20, 2012 8:55 PM:

EP, yes, I didn't really have any hopes of convincing Hong of anything. I was just morbidly curious. As a person who is more reasonable than average I am occasionally flabbergasted by the behaviour of some people such as supernaturalists, racists, and the like. I thought it might be a good idea to expose myself to Hong for a while so to prepare myself so that in the future my flabber might be less gasted.

Hong said at March 20, 2012 9:10 PM:

"I was just morbidly curious."

Of asking bad questions and hiding from harsher truths.

"As a person who is more reasonable than average"

LOL. A reasonable person who can't answer simple questions.

"I am occasionally flabbergasted by the behaviour of some people such as supernaturalists, racists, and the like. I thought it might be a good idea to expose myself to Hong for a while so to prepare myself so that in the future my flabber might be less gasted. "

So you say, yet you're still unable to answer simple issues like temperature lag my alarmist dupe. Pathetic. Thanks for trolling though. You always operate in pairs don't you? LOL

Ronald Brak said at March 20, 2012 11:05 PM:

Hong, I'll answer your question about lag if you answer this question with a yes or a no. Has burning fossil fuels released enough CO2 to raise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about a third?

Hong said at March 21, 2012 4:09 AM:

I've already answered that twice:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008547.html#reply20120320201923
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008547.html#reply20120320062002

A reasonable mind could determine my answer without me having to spell out my skepticism of this alarmist talking point. I'm sorry, I thought I was debating an adult but your responses have proven otherwise. You've been another disappointment here. Please troll again. Heh

Hong said at March 21, 2012 9:15 AM:

I've answered that question quite patiently

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008547.html#reply20120319130800
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008547.html#reply20120320201923

I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Are you really this obtuse? I remain skeptical about this talking point when critics have argued the number is half if anything at all. You've proven to be another disappointment. I thought I was talking to an adult but your responses above prove the lie to this assumption. Please, though, continue trolling. lol

Engineer-Poet said at March 22, 2012 6:08 AM:

Hong refers (not even quoting himself to highlight specific passages) to a comment full of obfuscation like this:

I'm familiar with the half life argument and the propagated 'one-third' talking point (hard to believe when human activity only accounts for 3% of global CO2 production).
No wonder he doesn't want to clarify.  His purpose is obviously not to elucidate (which would subject his claims to critique on the facts), but to make noise so that people currently biased toward the AGW-denial camp see "their side" represented without raising anything that calls the position into question.

Hong could prove me wrong by answering Mr. Brak's questions directly and concisely.  I predict he will not, because he cannot without shooting himself in the foot.

Hong said at March 22, 2012 8:16 AM:

"Hong refers (not even quoting himself to highlight specific passages) to a comment full of obfuscation like this:"

As EP has done often enough to earn another gold star of hypocrisy.


"No wonder he doesn't want to clarify. His purpose is obviously not to elucidate (which would subject his claims to critique on the facts), but to make noise so that people currently biased toward the AGW-denial camp see "their side" represented without raising anything that calls the position into question."

Again, another gold star, this one for projection. Is there anything in the above quote that wasn't clear? Do I answer the one third CO2 argument or not for a reasonable reader to surmise? Or is EP and Ronald so dense they require a 'yes', 'no' response? Even if their one third claim was proven true, it is based on models claiming it's the result of 300 years of accumulated emissions. Yet the temperature remains flat for the last 13 years despite NASA's attempt to rejigger the data. How much of this enters the mind of the alarmists? Reading Ronald's silence and EP hysteria, not very much.


"Hong could prove me wrong by answering Mr. Brak's questions directly and concisely. I predict he will not, because he cannot without shooting himself in the foot."

Answered and still awaiting an intelligent response from Ronald. Was 'hard to believe when human activity only accounts for 3% of global CO2 production' not clear enough about my skepticism for any but our resident alarmist trolls? EP obviously disagrees but can offer no rebuttal and rarely does because the numbers he believes are based on flawed models. Now, EP could prove his argument...with actual arguments but that's not his style or ability. His alarmist religion cannot tolerate dissent therefore critics must be destroyed, not debated. Clearly he would lose (and has consistently) and prefer to complain about 'oil conspiracies', 'heartland fraudulent documents', 'identity software' and tinfoil hats.. lol

Another link to EP's favorite foundation. Heh
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

Engineer-Poet said at March 24, 2012 5:30 PM:

I normally don't bother to follow Hong's links because I won't waste my time with long-debunked nonsense (written for blinkered ideologues like him), but I went through the Forbes article in a moment of boredom.

Jackpot.  I haven't had such a huge payoff in hilarity in days!

The author is one James Taylor, whose bio on the right sidebar says "I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute..."  Heartland Institute.  Wink wink, nudge nudge...

In the article itself, Taylor writes "he atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted."  Is he dumb enough to believe that the UN does computer modelling, or is he just writing for people who are?  Either way, this is rolling-on-the-floor funny.

A little more research reveals that the paper was another stealth submission to sneak past the review process, like the Stephen C. Meyer paper published in the Journal of the Biological Socity of Washington in 2004.  In this case, the publication of the Spencer and Braswell paper led to the resignation of Wolfgang Wagner as editor of the journal Remote Sensing.  Wagner put this in his resignation letter:

I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements.
Obviously, everyone felt they'd been played and the paper wasn't close to good science.

Real Climate has some screamingly funny observations on the Spencer and Braswell paper:

The signs of sloppy work and (at best) cursory reviewing are clear on even a brief look at the paper. Figure 2b has the axes mislabeled with incorrect units. No error bars are given on the correlations in figure 3 (and they are substantial – see figure 2 in the new Dessler paper). The model-data comparisons are not like-with-like (10 years of data from the real world compared to 100 years in the model – which also makes a big difference). And the ‘bottom-line’ implication by S&B that their reported discrepancy correlates with climate sensitivity is not even supported by their own figure 3. Their failure to acknowledge previous work on the role of ENSO in creating the TOA radiative changes they are examining (such as Trenberth et al, 2010 or Chung et al, 2010), likely led them to ignore the fact that it is the simulation of ENSO variability, not climate sensitivity, that determines how well the models match the S&B analysis (as clearly demonstrated in Trenberth and Fasullo’s guest post here last month).
This is what Hong thinks ought to drive our policy.  Given that he specifically mentions anti-vaxxers in this discussion thread, I think we can dismiss a general conspiratorial orientation on his part and conclude that yes, he IS a paid Heartland Institute propagandist.  It's his sole source of talking points; he even copies Taylor's rhetoric about "alarmists".  Hong might just be a sock puppet of Taylor himself.

Too.  Funny.  For.  Words.

Hong said at March 24, 2012 10:13 PM:

"because I won't waste my time with long-debunked nonsense"

Translation: He's right and I'm left sputtering into my tea with impotent, urinating rage.


"Heartland Institute. Wink wink, nudge nudge"

Of course it's EP's favorite group. The one his ideological twin was caught attempting to forge documents from. Apparently as with so much the joke was lost on him.


"Is he dumb enough to believe that the UN does computer modelling, or is he just writing for people who are? Either way, this is rolling-on-the-floor funny."

Notice again how EP doesn't argue the point but changes the subject. The models Taylor mentions are the outside ones the IPCC study based their conclusions on; models which falsely predicted loss of snow on the Himalayans or grossly exaggerated temperature increases worldwide. Clearly this shouldn't have been too difficult for our resident alarmist troll to follow.


"In this case, the publication of the Spencer and Braswell paper led to the resignation of Wolfgang Wagner as editor of the journal Remote Sensing. Wagner put this in his resignation letter:"

The real scandal was that the editor was punished not for a false paper but because it was published at all. Any criticism of the Church of the Alarmist must be punished. Normally a flawed paper would've resulted in it's retraction, not the editor. But apparently, apart from minor errors, the work was correct. It's a sign of how desperate the alarmists have become that they must punish the messenger. His words can be perceived as craven CYA for his next job interview. lol


"Real Climate has some screamingly funny observations on the Spencer and Braswell paper"

One can safely ignore the hysterics of EP's gospel source for the alarmists evangelists they are. Nothing objective or serious minded exists there. They are the MSNBC of 'Climate science.' Again, if there was a problem with the paper, it would've been retracted. The criticism appears mainly on how the conclusions were sensationalized: I'm sure EP, who shills for the BEST study. knows nothing about that whatsoever. lol

Who better to defend himself from criticism than Spencer himself who responded to someone (Dessler) who actually tried to read his paper.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/our-grl-response-to-dessler-takes-shape-and-the-evidence-keeps-mounting/


"This is what Hong thinks ought to drive our policy."

Science with a healthy dose of skepticism for the latest green hysteria, which EP disbelieves in favor of advocacy masquerading as reason. Pathetic.


"Given that he specifically mentions anti-vaxxers in this discussion thread, I think we can dismiss a general conspiratorial orientation on his part and conclude that yes, he IS a paid Heartland Institute propagandist."

Since I made mention of anti-vax loons (such as EP perhaps) I'm a paid member of the heartland payroll? This logic is both grasping and desperate. I can safely apply his 'logic' more rationally to accuse him of taking bribes from Soros and Al Gore since he's whored shamelessly for the greeniacs.


"It's his sole source of talking points; he even copies Taylor's rhetoric about "alarmists". "

There's a plethora of sources of AGW skepticism. Forbes and the Wall Street Journal are hardly the only mainstream publications to publish criticism of global warming theology. As for the 'alarmist' label. It's actually becoming more frequently used by skeptics here and across the world. Neither I nor Taylor can hardly take credit for it but lets give EP another stalking project and research the divine origins of that label since it obviously irritates him so badly!


"Hong might just be a sock puppet of Taylor himself.

Too. Funny. For. Words."

Yes, EP's obsessive need to embarrass himself with NO EVIDENCE (but lots of internet stalking) that any of the skeptics are 'bloggers', 'sockpuppets', or 'oil conspiracists' never gets less funny each time he drives his head against that wall. First he accuses me of being Anthony Watts, now I'm Taylor? When will he finally jump the shark and accuse me of being the Architect from the Matrix because we all know he's headed there! Despite offering no rebuttal other than his favorite trolling site, he somehow fools himself into disbelieving the science. Hows that for laughs? Heh

And notice how the alarmists like EP still can't explain temperature lag. They just want inconvenient facts to disappear so they can return to ostriching themselves.

Ronald Brak said at March 26, 2012 8:18 AM:

Hey, Hong! If I burn 100 grams of carbon in oxygen, how many grams of CO2 will result?

(a) 0 grams
(b) 1 gram
(c) 367 grams
(d) It's impossible to say as combustion is just a theory.

Hong said at March 26, 2012 7:39 PM:

Hey Ronald, what about the lag?

a) There's no lag, all the geologic core samples are wrong
b) Obviously, global warming theories need to be updated to include this unfortunate reality but CO2 may serve a feedback effect yet unknown
c) I'm just an alarmist troll, who needs logic and common sense?
d) It's a Heartland Institute conspiracy, go ask EP he'll tell you lol

Ronald Brak said at March 26, 2012 7:48 PM:

Hmm, out of that lot I'll have to go for D. What's your answer?

Hong said at March 26, 2012 8:24 PM:

Still no answer Ronald? I'll give you another shot but it's not the one with Gleick, burglary or forgery associated with it. lol

Ronald Brak said at March 26, 2012 8:40 PM:

Did you forget to refresh your browser, Hong?

Engineer-Poet said at March 26, 2012 8:47 PM:

Why are you asking me to explain temperature lag, Hong?  It's a consequence of which forcing function changes first, as I'm sure the climate scientists (who are the ones you SHOULD be asking) would tell you.  Any feedback channel will "lag", unless it's being driven by something outside the feedback system itself (like humans burning coal, oil, NG and peatlands); if it's the thing being driven, it will lead.

Was anything converting fossil fuels to CO2 in previous interglacial cycles?  No.

Is anything converting fossil fuels to CO2 in this interglacial cycle?  (Hong will obfuscate and dodge the question just as he did above).

Hong said at March 27, 2012 3:29 AM:

"Did you forget to refresh your browser, Hong?"

No, I read your attempt at being funny but felt obligated to offer you a chance at a serious answer. Sadly you and EP are still trapped in conspiracy land with Gleick and the others. lol


"as I'm sure the climate scientists (who are the ones you SHOULD be asking) would tell you. "

'scientists' like Gleick and Mann of course who don't shy from fraud or slander. Heh


"Is anything converting fossil fuels to CO2 in this interglacial cycle? (Hong will obfuscate and dodge the question just as he did above)."

Let me get this straight, there's a lag between temperature and CO2. It's been shown historically to be true yet it merely proves man made emissions are the cause? LOL, complete nonsense as usual from the alarmist troll here. What explained the lag during the Medieval warming or the other recorded patterns of increased temperature? How do you cause a lag: does that train of logic ever stop at EP's mind? There were no fossil fuels emissions then yet magically we are expected to believe, this time, it drives temperature increases. Obviously were EP being honest he'd have to admit CO2 wasn't a cause but rather an effect of an outside unrelated force but his hamster mind seems to be on a feedback loop of it's own.

Engineer-Poet said at March 27, 2012 4:36 AM:
Let me get this straight, there's a lag between temperature and CO2.
No, Hong.  There's a lag between the forcing function and the feedbacks.  This time, CO2 (and methane and N2O and SF6) are the forcing function.
Hong said at March 27, 2012 7:49 PM:

"No, Hong. There's a lag between the forcing function and the feedbacks. This time, CO2 (and methane and N2O and SF6) are the forcing function. "

No EP, there IS a lag, which you neatly avoided admitting again. You still refuse to believe the scientific evidence. You cannot logically argue CO2 causes temperature changes when CO2 levels lag behind temperatures as it does nearly every single time by a difference of hundreds of years. CO2 may amplify these changes but cannot cause them. The 'forcing' is likely orbital.

Engineer-Poet said at March 28, 2012 3:58 PM:
there IS a lag, which you neatly avoided admitting again.
Silly troll, are you trying to compare the past "lag" when the forcing function was the Milankovic cycle, with this situation when the forcing function is CO2?

The temperature anomaly has a strong resemblance to the Keeling curve, and for good reason.

The 'forcing' is likely orbital.
Ah, right.  Earth's orbit has changed how much since 1950?  Since it's predictable millenia in advance, what's the predicted change from here on out... and why weren't we reading about this decades ago?  I've got to see you explain this one.

Hong said at March 29, 2012 5:05 AM:

"Silly troll, are you trying to compare the past "lag" when the forcing function was the Milankovic cycle, with this situation when the forcing function is CO2? "

Little troll where did you miss the geologic record? How did that become too difficult to grasp or understand or do you still pretend it doesn't exist? lol

"The temperature anomaly has a strong resemblance to the Keeling curve, and for good reason."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

A combined chart with a clearer picture that EP is trying to obscure. Notice the delay of hundreds of years between temperature changes and CO2. And remember the actual temperatures by Mueller's own admission is fairly steady for the last 13 years.

"Ah, right. Earth's orbit has changed how much since 1950? Since it's predictable millenia in advance, what's the predicted change from here on out... and why weren't we reading about this decades ago? I've got to see you explain this one."

Clearly, as usual EP remains ignorant of or ignores other posts (including my own) on the subject that implicate a variety of factors including orbital, sunspot/solar activity, cloud cover, volcanic activity to account for global temperature changes. All of these have been active in the past and continue to play a role today. It's impressive to me that you still pretend CO2 lag is irrelevant. As for orbital change, our present 'warming' began during the end of the last ice age millenia ago, including the medieval warming period (which EP and the alarmists cannot or will not explain).

Engineer-Poet said at March 29, 2012 7:26 AM:

Notice the very right edge of that graph, where CO2 is leading temperature because fossil carbon is being added to the natural CO2 sources of the carbon cycle?  (Using a graph where the entire period since the start of the Industrial Revolution is squeezed into a couple of pixel-widths on the very end is a nice obfuscatory touch.)

Thank you, Hong, for proving yourself wrong yet again.

Hong said at March 29, 2012 7:35 AM:

"Notice the very right edge of that graph, where CO2 is leading temperature because fossil carbon is being added to the natural CO2 sources of the carbon cycle?"

The graph obviously hasn't been updated with your BEST study where the evidence shows temperature stabilizing but points for trying EP.

"(Using a graph where the entire period since the start of the Industrial Revolution is squeezed into a couple of pixel-widths on the very end is a nice obfuscatory touch.)"

You're the expert on hiding but no, the graph is appropriate for capturing all the warming cycles in geologic time. Maybe you should actually do some research on the ice core sampling.

"Thank you, Hong, for proving yourself wrong yet again."

Actually you helped prove me correct by paying attention for once EP, thank you. lol

Engineer-Poet said at March 29, 2012 3:50 PM:

Actually, it's worse than I saw at first:  the CO2 scale on that graph peaks at 300 ppm, so the post-industrial escalation wouldn't even fit on it.

Hong is claiming that this graph proves something about the current relationship between CO2 and warming... without even being able to show the current CO2 level.  Par for the course.  One more reason he belongs at the kiddie table, not here with the adults.

Hong said at March 30, 2012 5:15 AM:

The proof which EP won't admit is that CO2 levels almost always follows temperature change rather than leads it. But why should inconvenient fact interrupt their greenie narrative?

Engineer-Poet said at March 30, 2012 5:43 AM:

It follows when it's the feedback.  It leads when it's the forcing function.  Not hard to understand, unless you're being paid not to.

Hong said at March 30, 2012 11:05 AM:

"It follows when it's the feedback. It leads when it's the forcing function."

With no 'evidence' but broken climate models and corrupted activist scientists? And in defiance of geologic history? Flimsy EP..


"Not hard to understand, unless you're being paid not to."

LOL, still angling for that money conspiracy stalker? Or is reading a graph that difficult for you to understand?

Engineer-Poet said at March 31, 2012 6:04 AM:
With no 'evidence' but broken climate models
"Broken" so badly that they reproduce the observed temperature trend... but only if the effect anthropogenic GHG's is included.
and corrupted activist scientists?
Talk about projection!  There were no activist scientists until the fossil-fuel lobby decided to falsify the science and whip up hysteria.  The claims of corruption have been investigated and found false... which doesn't stop scum like you from repeating them.  Par for the course from a paid liar and PR hack (but I repeat myself).
is reading a graph that difficult for you to understand?
Gotta love projection.
Hong said at March 31, 2012 1:35 PM:

""Broken" so badly that they reproduce the observed temperature trend"

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdf

Notice how EP neatly avoids the issue of lag...again. Does it really hurt you so much to admit the inconsistency to your green theology? And still relying on spurious data from unreliable surface readings and altered stats I see. No wonder EP is always the last to know. What comic dishonesty from the alarmist evangelists.


"Talk about projection! There were no activist scientists until the fossil-fuel lobby decided to falsify the science and whip up hysteria."

In what universe does someone like EP seriously believe Mann, Hansen, Jones et all were ever unbiased and objective in their treatment of fact and counter argument? So you're admitting your pals lied and cheated but did so because of big oil? lol...hysterical that's a new low even for you EP.


"The claims of corruption have been investigated and found false... which doesn't stop scum like you from repeating them. Par for the course from a paid liar and PR hack (but I repeat myself). "

I love the name calling from EP, always a sign of his implosion. Let me ask, how was it ever found false by a university with a massive incentive to continue the global warming hoax for government funds? How was a 'study' that consisted of a handful of character witnesses and with NO independent scientific inquiry a 'vindication'? Pathetic, don't be such an amateur EP. The claims of the skeptics are vindicated by common sense and basic logical deduction which clearly shows the alarmists at CRU and NASA altering and destroying data, smearing critics, and falsifying graphs. This would be grounds for dismissal in nearly every profession except for Climate Scientologists. Again where's your proof EP of my oily paymasters? Of course you have none (but I repeat myself).


"Gotta love projection. "

Gotta love your incompetence. Don't ever read a subway or road map for your family, they'll never be seen again (but then you can always blame it on the fossil fuel bogeymen LOL).

Bruce A. Kershaw said at May 12, 2012 3:10 PM:

There are more than 300 very active Valcanoes, out of the thousands of valcanoes below sea level and another fifty major valcanic eruptions every year, feeding the Ocean and the atmosphere with the cause of all carbon based life and energy on this carbon based planet where everything has carbon in it, for the last 600 million years above sea level, if all volcanoes were above sea level there would be ash miles thick covering this planet all the time. There is 70 times the CO2 level in the ocean, the warmer it is the more water vapor and CO2 there is feeding the the atmosphere, CO2 was the first atomsphere causing the carbon cycle, 96% of the CO2 in the air comes from the ocean. all of the O2 we breathe today came from CO2 over 600 million years of carbon cycle.
$25,000 reward for the proof Humans cause climate change.
Bruce A. Kershaw
http://co2u.info

Engineer-Poet said at May 17, 2012 10:38 AM:

Total volcanic emissions of CO2: 65-319 million tons per year

Human emissions of CO2: 29 BILLION tons per year

source

Bruce A. Kershaw said at May 18, 2012 10:11 AM:

How do you measure the volume of CO2 from all active valcanoes below sea level?

and then determine how much stays in the Ocean and how much makes its way into the atmoshpere?

~ you can not ~

Engineer-Poet said at May 18, 2012 3:00 PM:

It's called seawater chemistry and dissolved-gas measurements.  You should read up sometime.

You should also read up on little things like carbon isotope measurements; volcanic CO2 has considerably more 13C than fossil fuels do.

anonyq said at May 18, 2012 3:44 PM:

It actually sounds like an easy problem. Finding active underwater volcanoes isn't that hard. Find a region in which dissolved CO2 is elevated. Likely coarse is a volcano. Find the volcano. Do measurements of the underwater CO2 "plum". Have an imaginary box around the volcano. Calculate how much the CO2 emission of the volcano needs to be to keep the CO2 elevated. Do that for all volcanoes found and you get total world volcanic CO2 emission. Don't worry that not all volcanoes are found because total emission will be dominated by the big ones and those are the easiest to find.

Bruce A. Kershaw said at May 19, 2012 7:18 AM:

How do find the 50 major valcanic eruptions that happen every year, above and beyond the 300 active valcanoes, and know how much of the carbon dioxide makes it to the atmophere?
We do not monitor all valcanic activity, we will never know how much carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere on any given day, or mounth, or year, or century from the Ocean.

anonyq said at May 19, 2012 1:32 PM:

You don't need to monitor all volcanic activity, only most. And finding the big events, which causes most of he CO2 emissions, is simply not that hard

Engineer-Poet said at May 20, 2012 4:36 AM:

Bruce, do you think that worldwide volcanic activity has been on an upward exponential trend sufficient to explain the Keeling curve?

Bruce a. Kershaw said at May 20, 2012 6:59 AM:

The point I am trying to make is, carbon dioxide does not cause climate change, proving Human caused carbon dioxide can not cause climate change, the point being there are more than a dozen causes for climate, each with an infinity of variable, now add the fact carbon dioxide has been a very proven refrigerant at any temp. or pressure for the last 177 years, now add the basic laws of heat transfer science, and millions of years of climate history.

All of the above are excluded from the IPCC climate study, making the study very flawed.

My base testing shows Pure CO2 and Pure O2 and the air we all breathe all heat and cool at the same rate, but under differant condtions carbon dioxide will ~ absorb ~ more energy than the surrounding gases, making the surrounding gases cooler not warmer as all the heated gases rise to cooler air through the basic laws of heat transfer science, forcing sub zero air to the ground.

Carbon dioxide does not generate energy it absorbs energy, taking energy away to a cooler place, and can not cause warming by absorbing energy.

You can not know from day to day how much carbon dioxide will come from valcanic activity, or how much of it from day to day will be absorbed in to the atmosphere from from unknown variables like the sun along with many other variable conditons.

Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon is the cause of all carbon based life and energy on this carbon based planet.

Nothing is a constant, eveything is a variable, and there are to many variables left out of the study.

My five year investigation of the climate sciences concludes,

Humans are not the cause of climate change, nor is carbon dioxide, ~ a proven refrigerant since 1835 ~ and there is no consensus in the real world of science, the consensus is only political media opionon, not based on science fact.

Engineer-Poet said at May 20, 2012 8:19 AM:
The point I am trying to make is, carbon dioxide does not cause climate change
If that's true, why did you spend so much space above making this claim:
There are more than 300 very active Valcanoes, out of the thousands of valcanoes below sea level and another fifty major valcanic eruptions every year... There is 70 times the CO2 level in the ocean, the warmer it is the more water vapor and CO2 there is feeding the the atmosphere, CO2 was the first atomsphere causing the carbon cycle, 96% of the CO2 in the air comes from the ocean. all of the O2 we breathe today came from CO2 over 600 million years of carbon cycle.
If CO2 doesn't have any influence on climate, why did you start out making (false) claims that the rise in CO2 we're seeing couldn't be from humans?

I know, I know... you won't answer that, you'll just go into another level of evasions.  You do this because you're wrong, can't admit you're wrong, and wouldn't know what to do if you did.  It's the eternal curse of people who are dogmatic but not intelligent.

Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

                       
Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©