NC State Global Warming Professor accused of "recklessly falsified work"

Charlie Rose, during a panel discussion about the new UN report on climate change, had the audacity to insult global warming skeptics as “climate deniers” even as he brought on a so-called expert who once predicted the “greenhouse effect” would cause “food riots” all across North America...in 1995.

Everyone remembers the great North American Food Riots of ‘95? Right? Well that crazy scenario was dreamed up by one of the UN report co-authors Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer. On PBS's Charlie Rose show Oppenheimer dismissed climate change skeptics as people who “just like to stand away from the crowd.”...

 

you become a bigger troll liar everyday.

 

your point is to a stick your finger in your ears and say I am not listening and then call names.

your statement, not logically written, is apparently based on the bern model.
apparently you provided a definition and missed the entire point of the paper which is that observational evidence challenges the idea of the turnover time of Carbon assumed by the bern model.

additionally the only side I am taking on this argument is that most likely you are wrong because you always argue for the leftist drone point of view. A view which is rarely accurate.

in short you make an assumption which is almost always wrong...

Stu said: "There is nothing else, no other source, no other reason like nuclear tests, or volcanoes, or anything else to explain it. "
But of course there are other possible reasons.

The paper said: observational data shows Carbon turnover time is 10 years instead of 100. (which if true explains why the curve goes down so much faster than the bern model. This also makes much more sense than your illogical dilution concept. (another point you miss is thermal outgassing would also counter you assumptions and is also discussed in the paper)

In short if you understood what you were typing you lied when you made that statement as other explanations wer given in the paper.
But, I suspect you were just reciting a definition and did not understand what you were regurgitating.

 

Thank you, stu, for responding to my question and my post. I wasn't referring to subtraction between two isotopes concentrations. My remarks were meant to point out the difficulty of obtaining any arithmetic result from experiment data by subtraction when you are either subtracting two nearly equal numbers ,or subtracting two numbers that differ markedly in magnitude, and neither number is known with much precision or accuracy. I don't question the C-14 content measurements by scintillation counting, I question their interpretation.

The reason I believe that C-13 and C-14 are liable to encounter the same problems with regard to interpretation is that I assumed they were both being used in essentially the same way as markers, i.e., the concentration of both were being monitored. If both C-13 and C-14 are being used in this same way, then I would think that the problems that have plagued interpretation of the C-13 data would carry over to C-14 as well.

But am I wrong about how C-14 is being used?

Do you know how C-14 is being used as a marker for anthro carbon in the atmosphere? That's really what I'd like to know. I guess I'll have to spend more time with Google!

Incidently, fossil fuels, at least coal, are not zero in C-14. The C-14 content of fossil fuels should be zero, but this is never found in practice so far as I know. Coal for example, when it is burned in large quantities, contributes a measureable amount of C-14 to the atmosphere. C-14 in coal corresponds to a carbon dating of about 30000-40000 years, so obviously that's too young (or is it?, I thought coal was millions of years old!). I don't know where the C-14 in fossil fuels comes from, but a small amount is still there. Uranium is often concentrated in coal, and there is a path to C14 via U decay, so possibly that is one contributor, who knows?

Another thing one would have to correct for is decay of the C-14 spike from the atmospheric bomb tests in the 1950's. If you just looked at C-14 in the air today you are going to see a steady decline in beta emission just due to the decay of all that extra C-14 that popped up in the mid-1950's. I know the competent scientists will be correcting for these things, but there is some pretty shoddy work out there when it comes to climate research. For example the early ice core measurements were apparently misinterpreted because correction for diffusion over the very long times involved was not done properly.

I realize you have more confidence than i do in the early work. As far as I'm concerned we are just now seeing really good work being published. It seems to me that in the 1980s and 1990s everyone was just jumping to conclusions without giving proper thought to their results. It is easy to get caught up in the feeding frenzy once an issue has been popularized and politicized.

The only scientific papers I have read and studied in some detail with regard to AGW were Lindzens, years ago now. It was obvious to me, though he stopped short of coming right out and saying it, that Lindzen had a very low opinion of Hansen's science. I then lost interest in the subject until you guys got me interested again.

 

It recently occurred to me while looking at that very often seen graph of CO2 and temperature versus time made from the ice core CO2 and deuterium measurements that the shape of this graph is that of the output of a pulse generator. And it does not matter, at least initially whether the numbers in the graph are correct or not, the importance is in the repeating pattern. There has got to be an RLC equivalent circuit that could go a very long way toward unraveling, by simplification, the way atmospheric water and CO2 interact to control the earths temperature. I won't be surprised to see the academic, Ph.D. electrical engineers enter the fray. I believe they could make a great contribution to our understanding.

 

I doubt stu can adequately answer the question so be prepared for buzzwords and bullshit. He really can not answer the question as a nutter because the Bern model does not conform to observational data. It also takes what I would describe as the closed model, static environment approach.

After reading multiple observations running contrary to Bern, I thought this was most enjoyable ....

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/co2-lifetime-which-do-you-believe.html

"....Carbon isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2 proves that the theoretical Bern model is far from reality.

Furthermore, breweries test this experimentally numerous times every day. They artificially add CO2 to the air on top of water in bottles, to produce soda, "mineral water". It would be bad business for them if it was not possible to add this CO2 to the water. Either the 1st IPCC CO2 lifetime approach would take the breweries 50 - 200 years to produce their soda; or with the Bern Model, it would take forever. Pick your choice. It looks like the brewery industry is proving IPCC wrong every day?

Best regards,
Tom V. Segalstad"

 

A couple of your recent posts seem to imply, I could be wrong, that there is some naturally "preferred" temperature equilibrium on Earth, presumably one that is friendly to Man.

 

this is the bombtest curve..



The question is why is it that c14 "relaxes" (buzzword) much more quickly than the bern model predicted. Some seem to argue the incongruity is caused by c-14 being diluted by man made co2. Which makes no sense. (let me know if that is not your argument stu)

it is much more probable that the turnover time of CO2 is much faster than the Bern model suggests.

Therefore, if CO2 really turns over as fast as observation suggests and if there is thermal off gassing --- the entire premise of man made co2 causing all the warming is eviscerated.

 

wow --- is ricter wondering if the thermostat like properties of CO2 or the earths dynamic environment like a fine tuning? I have not yet ventured and don't plan too --- but good question.

 

But Richter this is exactly what I feared. This suggests two thing, one of which is wrong. C-14 in fossil fuels is not zero! Though it should be in theory. It apparently isn't known for sure why it is not zero but several explanations have been proposed. The other thing the article suggests is that all the very old natural sources of CO2, and therefore also very low in C-14, are just being ignored! I'd certainly like to know why these can be ignored, Volcanoes for example. Ocean CO2 too should be just a bit lower in C14 than the atmosphere, I doubt that is significant though. (I won't go into why that should be. Ask if you're curious.) But what about that whopping spike in C-14 in the mid 1950. We will see a steady decline in atmospheric C-14 from the 195Os on. I hope someone is paying attention to THAT! (Until I can read one of the peer reviewed papers on this topic my education forces me to remain skeptical.)

Please don't assume I am concluding that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is not due to man. I am not concluding anything of the sort. It very well could be, but at the same time it very well may not be! I just want the science to make sense.