My original statement in post #397 was: "Carbon isotope measurements of atmospheric CO2 are heavily disputed, as are CO2 longevity and ocean acidification." Although the two Norwegian articles you posted are interesting, they do little more than support my point that the issues are heavily disputed.
The 2015 letter to Nature certainly acknowledges the problem
I would prefer if they had said 'measured temperature impact' rather than "radiative impact,"
I'm looking for statistical evidence that global surface temperatures are causally changed by measured atmospheric CO2.
I have several articles that review the history of the CO2 issue, and of course they differ. Litebeam, if you're interested ...
Cross-correlation functions also show that CO2 typically lags temperature by ~600-800 yrs. This appalling oversight was most notable in Al Gore's famous VuGraph presentation ... and has never been corrected.
Ugh...forgot the attachments
I think you're (purposefully) misrepresenting the situation to the wider audience here Ed. These are the (translated) rebuttal conclusions:
"Segalstad's understanding of the atmospheric CO2 increase does not support the existing scientific literature:
(1) There is no known massive CO2 emission that can explain Beck's (2007) description that the atmospheric CO2 concentration between 1920 and 1945 increased by 110 ppmv,
(2) The theory of Endersbee (2008) that the atmospheric CO2 increase due to exhaust gas emissions is not consistent with what has been observed,
(3) Segalstad misinterprets the result of its isotopic calculations, and
(4) Segalstad's criticism of Olsen et al. (2006) is baseless."
That's not a 'heavy scientific dispute', that's slapping down someone who either hasn't done their homework properly, or is being purposefully misleading to an audience who knows less about the topic and trusts the author's authority.
And for those readers who didn't look beyond the quote selected in post #421, the authors of the paper then go on to provide empirical evidence to address the problem and conclude as follows:
"These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance."
The full paper is attached.
...
Joost
Do you now. To make it easier for those following the dialog, I've taken the liberty of attaching the English translation of Segalstad's response to your so-called "slapping down" (printed in the same publication).
Since you (purposefully?) suppressed the sequel, I'll leave it to the "wider audience" to judge my guilt or innocence in "misrepresenting the situation."
Thanks,
Ed
Do you now. To make it easier for those following the dialog, I've taken the liberty of attaching the English translation of Segalstad's response to your so-called "slapping down" (printed in the same publication).
Since you (purposefully?) suppressed the sequel, I'll leave it to the "wider audience" to judge my guilt or innocence in "misrepresenting the situation."
Thanks,
Ed
Touche'!....
...Ed, I had not seen the follow-up article you attached so my apologies for that. No suppression intended, or indeed required.
(P.S. since you'd clearly read the whole exchange, this does raise the question why you chose to present only one side of the argument in your original post?)
Joost,
Let's settle this. I did not "present only one side of the argument" in my original post. The sole reason for attaching the Segalstad article was to show that there is ongoing scientific debate regarding the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, its retention time in the atmosphere, and so forth.
I knew nothing about Bellerby, Olsen and Nondal's glossy article until you brought it up — apparently to show how he could be so easily 'slapped down.' Logic suggested that Segalstad probably would have responded at some point, and as it turned out he did.
Thanks,
Ed
PS. I'll comment about one of the two articles you attached shortly.
3
So what did you make of the Nature and Sci Rep papers I posted yesterday?
Hi Ed, fair enough. I suspect we both did the same thing and found the 'counter-article' via Google
I'd still like to point out that one scientist arguing against the going consensus based on not very convincing (or easily countered, take your pick) arguments does not, in my view, constitute a scientific debate.
Btw not sure if "glossy" is a term you use across the pond - I was going to go for newspaper or tabloid, but wasn't sure either was appropriate.
Cheers,
Joost
Royal Society's motto: Nullius in verba.
Are you a scientist BTW?
Joost, with ranch chores I can't claim to have quite as much free time as y'all do...bear with me.
I read only as much as I had time to respond to.
"Take nobody's word for it" - I quite agree! Hence my statement of Segelstad using "not very convincing (or easily countered, take your pick) arguments". If he (and others) had stronger data to substantiate their criticisms or support their own theories I'd be much more inclined to think they have a point. Ultimately solid observations and repeatable experiments are needed to confirm or refute scientific theories.
Unless you're a "very stable genius" of course, then you can just make up any old cr@p :clap:
Of course. I've made a full disclosure before (think it's buried somewhere else in this thread...), but in summary:
MSc in earth sciences & palaeoclimatology (Free University Amsterdam & University of Iceland)
PhD in organic biogeochemistry & marine microbiology (Utrecht University & Netherlands Institute for Sea Research)
Research assistant in marine microbial ecology (Rothera, Antarctica)
Then switched career paths and moved to the UK
Postdoc in metabolomics & disease biomarker discovery
Currently trying to get something a bit more permanent, but funding for science is tight, and tenured posts are thin on the ground.
So I wouldn't call myself an expert on the topic, but I do have a good basic knowledge and work with researchers active in the field (e.g at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton).
Having access to the actual papers helps too...btw I despise the academic publishing system. It pushes millions of public funds into the pockets of publishers, takes the copyright away from the people who did all the work, and then makes the results inaccessible to the public who paid for it in the first place.
Cheers,
Joost