tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6538825609799945478..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: WUWT claim? CO2 is NOT plant food. How WUWT rejects chemistry, biology and photosynthesisSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60517435879334490142014-06-27T17:37:00.043+10:002014-06-27T17:37:00.043+10:00Hi Bert
Perhaps your dog chews on the bone to exe...Hi Bert<br /><br />Perhaps your dog chews on the bone to exercise his teeth? And perhaps that what Anonymous Ed needs to do because his bark is not very effective.<br /><br />On the subject of denigration. I do notice how deniers resort very quickly to denigration. Anonymous Ed was very quick to call people simpletons and stupid as he had no real points to make or answers to explain. <br /><br />One thing I like about the HotWhopper blog is that people try to engage people until they are beyond the pail but then only resort to snarky and witty put downs which are far more amusing than mindless brickbats. Then eventually moderation kicks in when the visitor is being too inane.<br /><br /> <br /> Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19845202924734776652014-06-27T11:07:52.979+10:002014-06-27T11:07:52.979+10:00I thought that Mr Ed was far smarter than this. Hi...I thought that Mr Ed was far smarter than this. His innate horse sense has let him down. Sad really. A pedant concentrating on semantics is about a high as he will ever get. <br />Has no one considered the problems of elliptical integrals near infinite discontinuities or singularities? I know I have and it has nothing to do with anything here.<br /><br />He is just another moron that is no smarter than my dog that keeps chewing a bone in case it has more meat hidden somewhere. Unlike Mr Ed my dog sometimes finds a bit of marrow.<br /><br />I know that Sou does not allow denigration on this blog. Mr Ed should be banned because he is his own best denigrator. Bert<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28713924179634083592014-06-26T20:41:16.657+10:002014-06-26T20:41:16.657+10:00Before Ed graced us all with his motivated word-bl...Before Ed graced us all with his motivated word-blindness, ligne and millicent were expounding on this brilliant new theory of astrologically-driven sub-oceanic basalt volcanic activity.<br /><br />The thing you have to remember about this piece of genius, is that it is 100% supported by the presence of monthly stadium-wave of volcanic activity circling the globe in sync with the much stronger variations in the gravitational influence of the moon. Oh, wait...<br /><br />I'd ask - do these skeptics subject their own notions to even the most basic sanity check - were it not for the fact we all know the answer already...FrankDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88186461204657768612014-06-26T10:50:54.840+10:002014-06-26T10:50:54.840+10:00"Don't like having your stupidity pointed..."<i>Don't like having your stupidity pointed out do you?</i>"<br /><br />Classic reflection.<br /><br />Stupid anonymous, can you explain the mechanism of extremely rapid spike-and-crash that would be required for CO2 levels to reach contemporaneous values but to appear as the 250-280 pre-Industrial Revolution average that characterises the record (and that reflects the CO2 levels to which most plants are adapted...), and can you explain how many plant species didn't become extinct during the spectacular CO2 crashes that would need to have occurred in order to keep the detected CO2 trajectory at the average levels indicated by the resolution of the proxies?<br /><br />Interested, scientifically-literate readers want to know...Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11437990183164573472014-06-26T10:40:51.211+10:002014-06-26T10:40:51.211+10:00"His position is that natural processes are m..."<i>His position is that natural processes are most likely the greater effect than those of human activity. </i>"<br /><br />Ed and McCown need to concentrate especially on Sou's comment that "people measure this stuff".<br /><br />Scientists understand very well the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, its partitioning into the ocean and the biosphere, the amount of fossil fuel burned, and the concurrent decrease of oxygen in the atmosphere.<br /><br />There are only two explanations for the increase in atmospheric CO2: it is generated by the burning of fossil fuels, or there is a magic pixie somewhere taking away from Planet Earth all human emissions and replacing them with increased biospheric emissions whilst at the same time cleverly replacing that lost biosphere carbon except for the bits that humans have destroyed directly. Oh, and not to mention the magical forging of isotopic ratios that indicate that the extra CO2 comes from fossil carbon and not from biospheric carbon, and the coincidence of the contemporaneous relationship between CO2 and fossil fuel use...<br /><br />Undersea volcanoes? Erm, no - increased atmospheric CO2 is leading increased ocean CO2, showing that the oceans are collectively a sink for the increased CO2. Also, there's no evidence for increased submarine vulcanism.<br /><br />There are more factors that refute McCown, but any interested reader can find the material on sites such as Skeptical Science. This is all old stuff, rehashed time and again, and it only shows McCown, Ed, and the anonymous tanty-thrower for the ignorants that they are.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52941985474514683772014-06-26T07:18:01.654+10:002014-06-26T07:18:01.654+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88241633921774692602014-06-26T05:54:33.243+10:002014-06-26T05:54:33.243+10:00Scientific literacy is what's needed, Ed. You ...Scientific literacy is what's needed, Ed. You haven't explained what's wrong with my interpretation. On the contrary. All you've done is show that you don't understand very simple, well-known science.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21520781070964267552014-06-26T05:51:58.908+10:002014-06-26T05:51:58.908+10:00I should add that people measure this stuff. There...I should add that people measure this stuff. There are records of how much fossil fuel is being burnt and observations of how much CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans and land (plants etc). The amount of CO2 in the air is known. The sums work out. <br /><br />So if you reckon there's some new major source of "natural" CO2 then you've got to explain what it is. It's got to be of plant origin because that's what isotopic analysis shows. In addition you'd have to explain what's happened to all the CO2 that's released when fossil fuels are burnt. Where does it go if not into the air, oceans and land?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89560133243946690812014-06-26T05:47:06.866+10:002014-06-26T05:47:06.866+10:00Like so many US Americans, McCown assumes the US i...Like so many US Americans, McCown assumes the US is the world and so the Great Depression was global. Industrialisation was proceeding apace in the Soviet Union at the time, and was, ironically, the foundation of the Koch fortune. In the Far East, Japan was developing the Manchurian coal industry to fuel their accelerating war machine. Within the developed world the US experience was peculiarly harsh, not least because of US American economists. Of whom, I notice, McCown is one.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20664343259027636412014-06-26T05:40:43.134+10:002014-06-26T05:40:43.134+10:00You're problem is that you presume, and presum...You're problem is that you presume, and presume badly. Chemistry has nothing do do with your grotesque comprehension on what was communicated in an article. That falls under the category of basic literacy.<br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86007075515770664252014-06-26T05:29:33.005+10:002014-06-26T05:29:33.005+10:00",,, a more recent paper ..." - well, th...",,, a more recent paper ..." - well, that's just cherry-picking ;)Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21576947239345145762014-06-26T05:25:38.040+10:002014-06-26T05:25:38.040+10:00Ah. I see your difficulty Ed. You don't unders...Ah. I see your difficulty Ed. You don't understand basic chemistry either. You see when you burn hydrocarbons CO2 (and H2O) is released and oxygen is used up in the process.<br /><br />Thing is, there's nothing on earth that could cause atmospheric CO2 to increase so much so quickly except for burning fossil fuels. Deforestation only accounts for around 20% of the extra CO2. If there were a whole host of super-volcanoes erupting this past few decades spewing out massive amounts of CO2, someone would have noticed.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50548561685787041642014-06-26T04:42:52.896+10:002014-06-26T04:42:52.896+10:00He implies no such thing. His position is that nat...He implies no such thing. His position is that natural processes are most likely the greater effect than those of human activity. To interpret this as saying that fossil fuels don't produce CO2 is a leap more befitting of Superman.<br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78593439602169433292014-06-26T04:33:12.151+10:002014-06-26T04:33:12.151+10:00@Anonymous
Waiting, Waiting ...
@Anonymous<br /><br /><br />Waiting, Waiting ...<br /><br /><br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31202952515916630642014-06-26T04:05:13.404+10:002014-06-26T04:05:13.404+10:00Well I had a bit of a trial flight. I flapped my ...Well I had a bit of a trial flight. I flapped my way up to 2km above my garden. I grew a little bit alarmed, and my arms were a bit tired, so I came down again.<br /><br />I only flew for a nano second or so: So short a time that human senses could not detect it and my average height above the ground was effectively zero on any timescale that humans would recognise. The accelerations/decelerations involved made my head spin: I might have a headache later.<br /><br />You'd think that absolutely everybody would think that all I have written above is nonsense. But to our anonymous pal, who doesn't require physical explanations of how things occur and who doesn't care for physical limits, there is no reason to doubt me.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70150759565320529092014-06-26T03:59:17.741+10:002014-06-26T03:59:17.741+10:00James McCown is arguing (implicitly) that burning ...James McCown is arguing (implicitly) that burning massive amounts of fossil fuels doesn't produce carbon dioxide. He's rejecting a very simple chemical reaction. Here is his quote in full:<br /><br /><i>"But as can be seen in the graph above, and the tests of stationarity of CO2 I have conducted for the 1850 – 1957 period, the GHG that is widely viewed by the warmists as the primary culprit has a trend-stationary process. This leads me to believe that if the CO2 concentration is accurately measured by Etheridge et al (1996), then it is more likely the result of a natural process than from industrial sources."</i><br /><br />He repeats his rejection of chemistry further down, in a question:<br /><br /><i>"If the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by burning fossil fuels, which has increased significantly during the industrial era, then why don’t we see any decrease, or at least a deceleration, during the great depression of 1929 to 1933?"</i><br /><br />I don't have access to Etheridge96 but there is a more recent paper that has a good chart of CO2, Knorr (2009):<br /><br />http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf <br /><br />James McCown doesn't bother with researching the topic any further. He found something he felt put doubt on a very simple, well-known chemical reaction and he ran with it. Close to the end he gave himself a small "out" - but clearly he is lying somewhere in the "doubt" to "reject outright" camp.<br /><br />No-one reading his article could think anything other than that he is questioning a very simple, straightforward chemical reaction.<br /><br />Doug Proctor is missing the point usually stressed by climate science deniers, which is that plants use CO2 in photosynthesis. There is more land in the northern hemisphere and more plants, which is why the effect in the northern hemisphere shows up in the CO2 record.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45686298720030085312014-06-26T03:00:55.805+10:002014-06-26T03:00:55.805+10:00I saw the quote. How does that support your claim?...I saw the quote. How does that support your claim? The commenters remarks are his own and insependent of the author's article. Having said that, I don't see how it supports your rebuttal.<br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71976110405622430992014-06-26T02:46:24.449+10:002014-06-26T02:46:24.449+10:00Ed, you missed the quote. Not hard to do. It was t...Ed, you missed the quote. Not hard to do. It was the <b><i>second</i></b> paragraph of the above article, just under the first paragraph. <br /><br />And then you missed the comment by Doug Proctor. Easy to miss, it was way down the bottom of the article. Just above the last sentence.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42359033781540350292014-06-26T02:40:31.146+10:002014-06-26T02:40:31.146+10:00I have read the article in question a few times ov...I have read the article in question a few times over. I fail to see anything that even remotely suggests that the author disputes photosynthesis, or rejects, in any way, chemistry or biology. This rebuttal is absolute nonsense<br /><br />Ed KurrantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15617003894048166892014-06-26T02:30:05.732+10:002014-06-26T02:30:05.732+10:00Anonymous has, quite intentionally I'm sure, d...Anonymous has, quite intentionally I'm sure, drawn us into the same neverending vapid discussion we had when Marcott et. al. 2013 was published. McIntyre throws a spitball out there saying that there could be spikes that weren't detected due to the temporal resolution of the proxies...<br /><br />But since McIntyre doesn't do science, he can't propose a physical basis for these spikes (for reasons well discussed by several posters above), so he just leaves that bit of doubt hanging there for all the McIntyre/Watts sycophants to latch onto, and the result is years of having tired old arguments with no basis in reality flung at you by the likes of Anonymous in the hope that it will stick - much like flung poo occasionally sticks to the wall... or so I'm told.<br /><br />It's the way McIntyre rolls, still getting mileage out of MBH98 over 15 years later even though his attacks on it have been thoroughly discredited by multiple sources.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84347664717830762202014-06-26T00:45:30.565+10:002014-06-26T00:45:30.565+10:00Anonymous, if I can overlay the actual data and th...Anonymous, if I can overlay the actual data and the 10,000-year averaged, and see only very minor differences, I know the smoothing introduced by the 10,000-year averaging has no effect on the conclusions that Sou draws.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14468952471315828582014-06-26T00:28:58.174+10:002014-06-26T00:28:58.174+10:00Hey Anonymous
Do you accept that looking at the c...Hey Anonymous<br /><br />Do you accept that looking at the complete dataset and seeing there are no values over 300 (pace 1 anomalous outlier) makes the graph quite an acceptable representation of the data? <br /><br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61416978065875979572014-06-26T00:18:42.279+10:002014-06-26T00:18:42.279+10:00Oh, I see that ligne pre-empted my first point - I...Oh, I see that ligne pre-empted my first point - I should have refreshed before posting.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5209688898259364612014-06-26T00:17:17.667+10:002014-06-26T00:17:17.667+10:00Anonymous' blathering about averages and resol...Anonymous' blathering about averages and resolutions falls for more reasons than just for needing to explain what might cause CO2 spikes of the magnitude of the contemporary increase. You see, for any period where such an undetected spike occurred there's need to be an accompanying crash in CO2 in order for the proxies to average as they do, and there are two profoundly problematic issues that arise.<br /><br />Firstly, there is no physical mechanism that can account for such a rapid dropping of CO2, especially one that acts multiple times but remains completely absent from the historical record and from the suite of multiple, independent pre-history proxies.<br /><br />Second, if such a drop did occur there'd be numerous plant extinctions recorded in the fossil record as many flora species became unable to fix sufficient amounts of the carbon they require, given that many species begin to struggle much below 250 ppm, and oddly enough there are no such extinction events recorded...<br /><br />There are many words to describe this anonymous's staggeringly eye-watering inability with basic intellectual rigour, but none of them are polite and as there are ladies and gentlemen present I will leave it to the reader to imagine what those words may be, as they see fit.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4597816765104695262014-06-25T23:51:02.863+10:002014-06-25T23:51:02.863+10:00Well I have decided I am in sympathy with Anonymou...Well I have decided I am in sympathy with Anonymous: if we only need to consider ourselves limited by mathematics and don't concern ourselves with the petty problems that physical limits impose then life is so much easier.<br /><br />I was going to walk up to my mum's later. But now I'm going to fly there by flapping my arms.Millicentnoreply@blogger.com