Essay

It was this point you made, which was so specifically constrained, that was easily granted as true; regardless of whether my broad definition (the point about reversibility) was true or not. But.... Hey, you're right! I don't find reversibility mentioned in the dictionary definition. As a chemist, I just assumed.... But I suppose I was thinking about the "melting point" of pure substances, which does demonstrate reversibility (and so that would not apply to wood). And in fact the dictionary even mentioned "disintegration," as well as sugar melting in the mouth, mist melted by the morning sun, etc. Thanks; I learned something! ~ p.s. You sometimes use "fusion" instead of "freezing" in your posts, or am I assuming something again? Were you instead discussing different kinds of melting?

Yep, and... Just fyi... [HS = humic substances]. Humus, the nexus of the carbon cycle, is an order of magnitude more protective (of life, from damage by UV radiation) than is ozone. And humus existed before life or ozone. Humus is as fundamental to life as sunlight, water, and atmosphere... according to a fairly new book (Steinberg, 2003; isbn: 3-540-43922-6) Ecology of Humic Substances.... http://www.springer....8-3-540-43922-6 Y'know, that original experiment of a primitive atmosphere in a flask... [with descriptions such as "the water had turned pale yellow and a tarry residue coated..." & "...coated with an oily scum and the water solution was yellow-brown..." ~p.36] ...was filled with humic substances after it had reacted for a week. Some of those humic substances happened to be identifiable as previously characterized amino acids. Or in other words, the yellow-brown residue [and/or oily scum] was primordial humus that naturally contained many chemicals, some of which also facilitated and then became incorporated into life and evolution. === Neat, eh?

I think those links cover your first three points. But now you're confusing selection with mutation. Selective breeding of animals has been described since biblical times, and agriculture itself is a good example of "unnatural" selection; so what are you trying to get at? === Regardless of the mechanisms for mutation, whether random, or designed, or somatic, or environmental... Selection Happens! ~

Technically that is true, but the definition of the words "freeze" and "melt" contains the concept of reversibility (on a thermodynamic level). If the OP is asking about melting wood, the point should be to explain the difference between melting and decomposition; how decomposition is not reversible, and so more correctly applies to wood... in this case. During the decomposition of wood, many chemicals are generated that can melt and freeze (or decompose further); but the "wood" is not melting, right? ~ p.s.op: Please search and study pyrolysis... to see an amazing world... in the chemistry of wood decomposition... pyrolignous acid... pyrenes and pyranones!

Check into epigenetics. For instance, google: SNP agouti grandparents i.e. http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/542.full But it would be helpful to also realize that most mutations (that lead to new species and niches being filled) are the result of mutations in the architecture of the genome, and not from mutations of a single gene. ~Cheers! search: epigenetics Copy Number Polymorphisms INDELs "novel architecture" i.e. http://www.scribd.co...-Dynamic-Genome [very large and slow] search: CNV Indels architecture i.e. http://www.plosgenet...al.pgen.1000734 "There is a growing appreciation for the role of genome structural variation in creating phenotypic variation within a species. .... This genome content variation leads to differences in transcript content between inbred lines and likely contributes to phenotypic diversity and heterosis in maize." or: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2917707/ "Copy number variants and indels in 251 families with evidence of X-linked intellectual disability (XLID) were investigated.... Breakpoints of pathogenic variants were characterized to provide insight into the underlying mutational mechanisms and indicated a predominance of mitotic rather than meiotic events. By effectively bridging the gap between karyotype-level investigations and X chromosome exon resequencing, this study informs discussion of alternative mutational mechanisms, such as noncoding variants and non-X-linked disease, which might explain the shortfall of mutation yield in the well-characterized International Genetics of Learning Disability (IGOLD) cohort, where currently disease remains unexplained in two-thirds of families."

At the risk of taking way too long to say the same thing.... This article, "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism..." from Forbes, is making the rounds, eh? The "journalist" seems a bit biased, since he makes it sound as if NASA is making this claim. Roy Spencer has manipulated (or modeled) some of NASA's satellite data in a new way. Spencer concludes that, since his results don't match the expected results, the current level of scientific understanding must be wrong. Forbes assumes therefore, something else must be going on, right? And the only headline they {another journalist} can come out with is: "Earth's Atmosphere May Be More Efficient at Releasing Energy to Space Than Climate Models Indicate, Satellite Data Suggest." [They of course mean Spencer's interpretation of some satellite data suggest that....] {edit: i mixed up the articles/headlines as I wrote this over several days, but the points remain the same.} === So... Earth's atmosphere may be (or it may not be) more efficient at releasing heat into space, but let's wait until somebody reviews this work by Spencer and Braswell... entitled, On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance. I guess these are his musings... on the misdiagnosis of... Earth's energy balance... published by a clearinghouse supporting the chemical industry ...the Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI) platform. ....Wouldn't want to restrict new chemicals, eh? As an industry organization, I'm not sure how they conduct "peer review" for their proliferation of journals, but they claim to do so. Since the advent of online "journals," it would seem that MDPI has become a good place to get any topic published, especially if the industry or policy makers need a citable source. I can't wait to read some of these articles: "Rapid publication: accepted papers are immediately published online." Well, maybe they are "peer reviewed" after they are "immediately published." === But seriously, Spencer's "well-prepared manuscript" only says stuff such as: "The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change." Well at least he's not a denialist, and does acknowledge anthropogenic change in climate. "Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty... is ...probably due to natural cloud variations." Wow! Stop the presses! ...and be sure to call an industry journalist. "It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations." Good call, but overall climate still changes. Let's work on those details and see how it changes our understanding, okay? Thank goodness we have science to sort it out. see: http://www.realclima...ature-feedback/ "...and it was tuned to give the result it gave." Hey! That's just what the denialist often accuse science of doing; so I guess this is more evidence, eh? === So what else does Spencer write on the MDPI blog? "We have shown clear evidence from the CERES instrument that global temperature variations during 2000–2010 were largely radiatively forced." EXTRA!! EXTRA!! Read all about it!! Heat affects climate! "This behavior is also seen in the IPCC AR4 climate models. A simple forcing-feedback model shows that this is the behavior expected from radiatively forced temperature changes, and it is consistent with energy conservation considerations." So far, so good; but where's the "gaping hole?" "More recent work which attempts to minimize non-feedback influences [14] might well provide more accurate feedback estimates than previous studies." Yep, that's usually the case. "Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000–2010 was due to ENSO [9], we conclude that ENSO-related temperature variations are partly radiatively forced." Wow, what daring conclusion. "We hypothesize that changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climate system." That sounds reasonable; where is this going? "What this might (or might not) [their qualifying parenthetical] imply regarding the ultimate causes of the El Niño and La Niña phenomena is not relevant to our central point, though...." Wait! What? So what is the central point? "[O]ur central point, though: that the presence of time varying radiative forcing in satellite radiative flux measurements corrupts the diagnosis of radiative feedback." === Oh. So Spencer thinks the diagnosis of feedbacks may be off? Gosh, thanks Roy! Sounds like a good point. We'd better get right on teasing out those signals, so we better understand why our models work. How does that come to sound like a NASA satellite shooting down GW theory? Agenda-based journalism? How did that Forges piece get into these ScienceFora, with the same "perspective" perpetuated? Why not go to Spencer's actual musings "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks...." Sheesh, talk about a gaping hole, or ...mountain out of a molehill. For instance.... Why does Forbes think this "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism..." - Forbes It's not the NASA data, but Spencer's model of that NASA data, that suggests a problem with "diagnosis of radiative feedback." That's not a gaping hole, is it? What do other models say? Well, whatever.... I guess their "gaping hole" is the new way "Earth's Atmosphere May Be... Releasing Energy to Space..." ...or "May [Not] Be... Releasing Energy to Space...." Despite how the industry interprets his new model, I'm gonna wait for the scientific community to see if there is a "gaping hole." ~ 30

Speaking of skepticism, I enjoyed this exchange between top-ten denialist, Fred Singer, and top-ten carbon-cycle expert, Prof. Dr. Scott Denning, which is reprised in this news article. http://www.coloradoa...te-science-bunk- Well now, that was a snappy and insightful comeback. === For comments on the follow up article: http://www.coloradoa...tics-challenged For comments on the original article: http://www.coloradoa...te-science-bunk- === Dr. Denning is currently posting on both; but be sure not to miss the links for "replies" that are follow-ups, or additional comments specific to the post, (at the bottom of some posts) which only display when clicked. ...comments such as.... Thank you Dr. Denning, for sharing your skepticism.... ~

Hey, thanks for the history points! Big day today, but I can add a few "quick" points before things get going. === First, that was my mistake; bringing up Dr. Soon. I was trying to mirror your reference to a video link, and point out how irrelevant it was... as when I asked if you agreed with: "Well, that's just Davies' opinion ...and Willie's word... and doesn't mean anything." Reuters seemed like a reasonable citation, but where do you get that vile stuff you post? (asked rhetorically... please don't actually tell me). === Second, I thought these were a lot of suppositions for one paragraph. "If Centennial variations are small, then so are the natural forcings." "Bollocks. Ask any historian... the answer is 'No'. " "Sorry but his model is wrong. " "...an assumption of... requires ...as well." === So finally, about the solar forcing.... Obviously my problem is trying to use the IPCC graph that shows about a half Watt of forcing over 400 years (1100-1500AD). I was trying to make the analogy between then and what we could expect 300 years in the future, after a larger (for 100 years already) forcing... and how we might expect a larger climate shift than the LIA/MWP shift. I'm not sure why you keep talking about (and quoting) individual solar-cycle data points for comparison. Those data point are only used for constructing the long-term average of the solar constant, aren't they? It is that particular average, displayed as the graph of solar forcing I posted, that provided the analogy for me to ask about climate change over the next few centuries... and skepticism thereof. You've stated several times how you don't understand how the lines on the graph (the long-term average SI forcing) are derived from data sets that you quote from; and I believe you. I haven't looked for myself; but I'm confident that people, who do understand how the long-term averages are constructed from the data sets, have checked and been satisfied with the methods, the conclusions, and the graphs. === Also, you talked about the rate of forcing, which I think is an interesting topic and something that I should learn more about. I will try to start a new topic soon on that subject. === One more point.... The graph I posted: http://www.sciencefo...805#entry613805 ...also showed volcanic forcings at the top, and "all other forcings" at the bottom. I suppose CO2 is included in that last group, but it didn't vary too much back then. Do you think there are missing forcers on these graphs, or that these graphs are not fairly accurate? === In that post I ended by saying: "We are now adding a similar forcing, which is an order of magnitude greater than the difference between the MWP and LIA forcing, to our climate system--for what will be a longer duration. To believe that the system will continue operating as before, with what some describe as simple "variability," takes a lot of faith. Of that judgement, I'm very skeptical." I'm skeptical that the climate will not change "unnaturally;" skeptical that it will not respond proportionally to the change between MWP and LIA conditions, for a similarly proportional "unnatural" forcing over a similar time span. [btw... I don't mean "supernatural" here, as your witchtrials probably supposed; so please don't bring that up again] I think "unnatural" simply means anthropogenic in this context. And so it seems your skepticism is about how the science is done, how complete is the existing science, and how complete is the total understanding of climate dynamics, if I'm getting the gist of your posts; and not skepticism of what the climate might do if AGW theory is valid. Is that correct? ~Later

...finally got this finished.... ~I'd love a citation for anything written by a historian on climate, if you can.... ~[but] The "Hockey Stick" didn't match the facts of life for which period; the Dark Ages? ~Well, whatever.... It was in the late 90's, after I first saw the Vostok 400 kyr record, when I realized ...what we consider as significant climate change (LIA/MWP) is in fact unusually stable climate, relative to an evolutionary time scale; and I thought about how lucky we've been, and how we should not take that luck (or "intelligent design" of Gaia) for granted--not pushing our luck, or the design of the current equilibrium too much. Now that we know we affect the equilibrium, we should endeavor to manage it more judiciously, with providence (not profit) in mind. === ~It "pretty well" is what it is, regardless of how the media or bloggers "sometimes... presented" it. ...AND it remains a valid reconstruction, and is virtually the same, even after the "questionable" tree-ring data were removed --from what I read in the scientific literature. === ~You can probably tell CS is a lot more than a hobby for me. I've spent 40 years studying physical, biological, and earth/environmental sciences; along with enough social sciences like history, anthropology, and economics to enjoy life.... I like etymology as a sort of hobby; I enjoyed "An Exaltation of Larks" by Lipton, a few years back. === ~It didn't start out at 2.4 W/m-2; but as it has built up over the past century, the climate has changed in response --as fast as it can-- and will continue to do so for centuries to come, or at least until the ice sheets fully adjust, climate patterns change, and some new equilibrium (4 to 6 times the LIA/MWP difference) develops. === ~You might save yourself some reading if you consider that what you describe as forcings... "quite large and fast" are simply swings of the 11-year solar cycle. By looking at 50 year increments, you go from the beginning of one cycle forward to the middle of another cycle--between 44 and 55 years on. The numbers you are looking at, 2.5, 3, and 4 W/m-2, are typical of the 5 year change (or multiples thereof) in a solar-cycle. It was the change in the long-term solar constant, illustrated by that graph I posted, of a bit over half a Watt changing over 400 years --a slow change in forcing-- that gradually moved us from MWP conditions into LIA conditions. <reprise> ~So our 2.4 Watts does not "pale in comparison," but dwarfs the 0.6 Watt forcing of those centuries. === ~Yes, some seemingly reasonable people can be exceptionally idiotic at times, eh? === ~OMG, the same words?! You must be referring to how severe weather was characterized as: "It's unnatural!" Well that clinches it, eh? It's just like with the witch trials. Yep, the climate debate must only be simpletons fearmongering; nothing to see here folks, just move along... it's all "quite clear." ~While I'm sure this is not just another idiot with a microphone, though the edited clip doesn't help convey that, I have a problem with the credibility of a source that can't even get the name spelled correctly. ~I see she worked with Willie Soon, on a Heartland Institute publication. D'ja catch the news yesterday? http://www.reuters.c...E75R2HD20110628 Well, that's just Davies' opinion ...and Willie's word... and doesn't mean anything, right? === ~I thought we were given dominion over nature back in 4004 BC, but that's just from some unreliable, oral history thing I read. ~Ruddiman indicates the same time range though, about 6000 years ago, for early influences; when we started widespread agriculture, and we started using fire (and forests) to fuel the Copper Age, Bronze Age, and finally the Iron Age. === ~Before reading Ruddiman, look over that first graph you posted and notice how stable (relatively) our climate has been over the "Anthropocene" ...compared with any previous 10,000 year era since we split from the chimps. What are the odds on that? === ~ ~p.s. ...odds of about 1 in 700? That alone should qualify it as a new Age, the Anthropocene; not to mention the loss of megafauna and other biodiversity, along with the addition of agriculture and fire, and the reworking of the biosphere they wrought, (oh, and) plus some new, non-glacial climate regime. It should be at least as significant as the PETM, the dawn of the Eocene, don't you agree?

Hoy! I'm still working on the reply to your last post. But you raised some unique issues here, so very quickly.... Um, No. Sorry but that doesn't work. By your own accounts and posting above, the amplitude of a solar cycle is 1.4W/M-2. ~So, what does that have to do with anything? I only offered that "amplitude of a solar cycle" number as a contrast with the long-term change in the solar constant of around half a Watt. You also say that baseline SI won't change quickly and only by about 1 W/M-2 over a long time period. The bottom line of this argument is that the SI rise cannot exceed 2.4W/M-2 and will only reach that after centuries of time. Increase in baseline from Maunder to now is 1W/M-2 plus the Schwabe cycle of 1.4W/M-2 = 2.4W/M-2. The figures you've quoted simply don't allow for more than that figure on a time scale of less than centuries. ~Huh? The graph you posted does not illustrate the long term solar forcing. It shows the long term solar forcing that is used by the models. This means that it is an estimate and not a fact, unless the value can be shown to be correct. The graph doesn't demonstrate this. So what does it demonstrate? ~It is what it is. The IPCC uses Bauer 2003 twice in the graph so I'll start there. (These two are referred to in the IPCC graph as B..2003-14C and B..2003-10Be.) Bauer et. al. 2003 is a reconstruction of SI over the last 1,000 years. They assume a relationship between C14, Be10 and SI so as to use C14 and Be10 as proxies for the SI. Figure 1a in the paper shows the results. According to the C14 proxy during the MWP the SI was about 1368 W/M-2 or 3 W/M-2 above median. This dropped as we went into the LIA with the SI going down to 1362 W/M-2 around 1700AD. (3W/M-2 below median) This then rose again in the instrumental period to the 1368 W/M-2 mark. This is a change of 6W/M-2. The 10Be isn't as marked in variance but is still plus or minus 1 W/M-2 deviation from median. ~Okay, and what is your point? This is the only SI reconstruction in the graph, all the rest are forcings used as inputs for modelling purposes as is made clear by the description. We must mind the difference between data and facts, musn't we? ~What!? I'd be interested in learning more about what you've discovered relating to these data being "used as inputs for modelling purposes." Do you think that means they were simply "made up" so something could be "used as inputs for modelling purposes?" Please clarify. Again looking at Figure 1a in Bauer, we see that the proxies don't have high resolution in the distant past but show the variations due to the standard solar cycle quite well in the recent past. The one and a bit variance is plainly visible in the post 1850 period. The problem here is that what the graph shows is models that use a .5W/M-2 SI long term variation and a (roughly) 2.6 degree sensitivity to CO2 doubling produce similar curves. This is not a surprise. However it is not proof that the long term variation was in fact .5 W/M-2 for SI. The only paper represented in the graph that is an SI reconstruction places the value at more than 3 W/M-2. In fact I can expand on this a bit. Now that I've located and at least skimmed all the papers in the graph I can say that the graph demonstrates that climate models using the SI from Crowley 2000 and a CO2 sensitivity of about 2.8 degrees agree with each other. One of the problems, or difficulties with paleoclimate is what do we calibrate the models against? The most obvious things are the paleo reconstructions. But which ones? Taking a simple comparison do we use MBH 1998, the "Hockey Stick" which shows a gradual decrease over 1,000 years and a sharp uptick or Moberg 2005 which has a rather more pronounced MWP and LIA? While they are said to be comparable, because they each fall within the others error bars, they are quite different at the 95% level. If Centennial variations are small, then so are the natural forcings. (Talking pre industrial here) An extreme example for this opinion is Tett et al 2007 (TBC 2006 in the graph) Their view is: "These simulations suggest that since 1550, in the absence of anthropogenic forcings, climate would have warmed by about 0.1 K." Bollocks. Ask any historian or Archaeologist if the climate anywhere has been that stable for 450 years ever, the answer is "No". Sorry but his model is wrong. Be that as it may, an assumption of slow and small natural climate change requires natural forcing changes to be slow and small as well. ~Gosh that's a lot of supposition on your part. I've linked to Bauer to show that the SI reconstuction is for a 6 W/M-2 change in SI between the Maunder and now. Many of the papers reference Lean et al 1995. I draw your attention to Figure 2 in that paper where the reconstruction shows a maximum of 1364 W/M-2 for STI during the Maunder rising to a (then) figure of 1368 W/M-2 a change of 4 W/M-2. Lean et al is also a reconstruction using Be10 and C14. Note the extreme flatness during the Maunder Minimum. It is highly unlikely that SI was so constant for a 70 odd year stretch. Far more likely is that the relationship between SI and the creation of Be10 and C14 breaks down once the SI drops below 1364 W/M-2. (At least using the methodology of Lean et al, anyway) ~LOL! Just so that there is no mistake I'll also point you to Bard et al 2000. Figure 1 in this paper reviews previous work and shows the TSI reconstructions from Lean et al 1995, Hoyt and Schatten 1993 and Zhang et al 1994 and none of them show a measly .5W/m-2 change over 400 years. Figure 3 in this paper shows their own reconstruction and a change of a good 5 W/M-2 for the period 1860 to present. The models might use .5W/M-2 over centuries (which possibly explains their inability to account for modern temps without an enhanced CO2 effect) but the reconstructions show a vastly different situation. I think that I've shown that TSI doesn't change by .5W/M-2 on centennial scales, it changes much more than that and on very short time spans. A final point. Crowley 2000 is referenced by many of the papers and is another Be10 reconstruction. Due to the paywall I can't check but it could be that this is where the long, slow .5W/M-2 comes from. This immediately begs the question that since this would make Crowley 2000 an outlier compared to all the other reconstructions, why use those values and not the ones from the other papers which generally agree with each other and have much higher values? ~see below: References (To save people having to find them themselves): From the Graph; González-Rouco et al., 2003 http://w3k.gkss.de/s...l.2003.soil.pdf Osborn et al., 2006 http://coast.gkss.de...-echog.2006.pdf Tett et al., 2007 http://www.springerl...6116h0t30g26g2/ Mann et al., 2005b http://journals.amet...1175/JCLI3564.1 Bertrand et al., 2002b http://onlinelibrary...02.00287.x/full Crowley et al., 2003 http://www.sages.ac....003GL017801.pdf Goosse et al., 2005b http://coast.hzg.de/...etalGRL2005.pdf Gerber et al., 2003 http://www.meteo.psu...erClimDyn03.pdf Bauer et al., 2003 http://www.mpimet.mp...1000_grl_03.pdf González-Rouco et al., 2006 http://esrc.stfx.ca/...005GL024693.pdf Stendel et al., 2006 http://www.gps.calte...del-etal-06.pdf Also read and/or mentioned; Bard et al 1997 http://www.college-d...PSL___copie.pdf Lean et al 1995 http://www.geo.umass...ey/lean1995.pdf Hoyt and Schattern 1993 http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf Bard et al 2000 http://www.college-d...lus___copie.pdf Crowley 2000 that a number of papers are based on is behind the paywall at Science http://www.sciencema.../5477/270.short Moberg et al 2005 http://coast.gkss.de...nature.0502.pdf MBH 1998 (Mann, Bradley and Hughes) http://www.astro.uu....annetal1998.pdf Cheers. ~Thanks, but.... Clearly, all of these authors, the publishing journals, and the IPCC have overlooked all the errors that you've discovered here; or ...you have misunderstood some of their methods for reaching conclusions. I'm gonna stick with their conclusions, until you notify them of their mistakes and sloppy work (and you become famous for setting science back on a valid track). === Notwithstanding the "large" swings (2 to 4 Watts/m-2) from maxima and minima of the 11-year solar cycle (or short-term multiples thereof) that you seem to be focusing upon.... The IPCC graph in post # 32 I posted, based on a compilation of those citations you posted: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__613805 ...clearly shows forcing by long-term average solar insolation changed by about (slightly over) half a Watt over 400 years, from 1100 to 1500, when we shifted from ongoing MWP conditions to the onset of LIA conditions. The graph may be wrong, but that is what it shows. === But, however this graph was created.... I'm assuming you see that this is a graph of the long-term "average" for the solar constant (expressed as solar irradiance forcing in W/m-2), right? Is your skepticism then based on your suggestion about poor work done by the authors, the journals, and the IPCC graph above; or is it based on what the IPCC graph shows about climate ...about how less than a Watt of forcing, over 400 years, noticeably changes the climate? ~bbl

If a meteor that was large enough, and was heading close enough to Earth for us to be uncertain (within the time needed to implement a solution) about whether it would hit or not, we would need to take action to be completely assured of being safe. The estimated costs of any suggested solutions doesn't change the problem. Marat, I'll let somebody else try addressing this point going forward, but for now: You can apply all the skepticism you want toward any suggested solutions for the global warming problem, due to the "social costs" that you perceive; but to "adjust the degree of skepticism" about the science itself, based on your perception of estimated, proposed costs, is not logical. ~SA *__* ~~ Gotta run, but for now this might save some time.... You might save yourself some reading if you consider that what you describe as forcings... "quite large and fast" are simply swings of the 11-year solar cycle. By looking at 50 year increments, you go from the beginning of one cycle forward to the middle of another cycle--between 44 and 55 years on. The numbers you are looking at, 2.5, 3, and 4 W/m-2, are typical of the 5 year change (or multiples thereof) in a solar-cycle. It was the change in the long-term solar constant, illustrated by that graph I posted, of a bit over half a Watt changing over 400 years --a slow change in forcing-- that gradually moved us from MWP conditions into LIA conditions. ~more later

Thanks JohnB, Oh, I see. You were talking about the rate of the forcing, not the rate of the response. That's the "perspective" that I didn't get. Thanks for the clarification! It's an interesting thing to think about. Most forcers change slowly enough for the climate to adjust in tandem, or with little lag, and something instantaneous like a volcano usually is not large enough in magnitude to create more than a few years of lag until fully affecting the system. But a large forcer such as our CO2 injection, added over a geologically instantaneous moment, will take centuries to fully manifest its effects within the planet's heat exchange mechanism--the ice sheets, deep ocean, and our climate. The deep-ocean conveyor takes about 1000 years to cycle once. Most of that unique climate "buffer" (unlike the ice sheets) doesn't even know the Industrial Age has happened yet; it has yet to be affected by the new GHG forcer. Thanks for the thoughts.... === But in general I'd say: Don't confuse facts with data. Data from different sources inherently come with different levels of skepticism, but.... Data are still data, whether they are from direct observations or from calculations... ...generated from reconstructions of observed proxies, or from models of observed processes. And: When a model meets a model.... If previous work is adjusted, then the subsequent work is not invalidated; but only needs to be readjusted accordingly also. Just completely out?=== But aside from your skepticism of how the science is built upon previous work, I take it you see my point about the magnitude of the problem. I guess we could hope that, as you suggest, the climate sensitivity may only be 1.4 degrees; so then future generations can expect a change only 2 to 3 times as great as that between the LIA and the MWP. Of course that is also assuming we keep our CO2 levels from increasing any higher. === But hey, JB! I expected a kudo for correctly guessing "Anthropology" as the missing science you asked about. It amazes me also that climate science hasn't sooner more closely examined the long human influence on climate change. Have you heard of Wm. Ruddiman's work? ..."Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum"...? http://cires.colorad...tures/ruddiman/ I found this especially compelling (like a 2x4 to the forhead), since I had already read "1491" by Mann, and "Larding the Lean Earth" by Stoll (and subsequently, "Vestal Fire" by Pyne). Sea level doesn't interest me much, since it is only a response to climate; but I suppose as another way of checking models, it would be good to know more. What I find surprising for climatologists to have overlooked until recently is that: Anthropology can tell us about our land-use changes and the effects on albedo, soil carbon and soil hydrology, and GHGs --by telling the story of how silva/agriculture, irrigation, soil and biomass management, and especially anthropogenic fire has reworked the biosphere several times over-- increasingly during the past few millennia. === ~SA p.s. http://www.washingto...sweyerfire.html ~off to lunch

I know you get twice as much carbon emission from coal, as compared with natural gas, per Watt of power. But, whatever that might mean, I'd expect coal to burn hotter since there are lots of double-bonds in the carbonaceous structure of coal. Coal has a lot of graphene, with a benzene-like structure, and I assume benzene burns hotter than methane. Methane has a higher ratio of H/C, compared with coal... carbon burning hotter than hydrogen also, I think; so coal would burn hotter than methane... I'm speculating. ~

Really!? Marat, the full post sounds compelling; but you are still judging the validity of the problem (the science) based upon how you feel about various suggested (the social policy) solutions. Shouldn't the degree of skepticism about a science be based upon the levels of authority, consensus, and breadth & depth of supporting evidence informing that science? ~ ***End of post #1*** ***Begin post #2*** Thanks.... ~~Yes, I'd agree with that. === ~No, that isn't what I was trying to say. First, I used the wrong numbers by half. It should have been a 0.6 W/m-2 for the forcing difference between the MWP & LIA, which is what the prof's email clarified (along with correcting 1.4 W/m-2 for the sunspot cycle, instead of 3 W/m-2). ~Neither was I trying to point at CO2 as special forcer in any way. I often try to point out that CO2 adds watts-per-square-meter, 24 hours/day, 365 days/year, unceasingly year after year, and it is more evenly distributed than solar insolation; but I think that is accounted for in determining its forcing value. === ~Huh? I don't agree with what you've written, but you imho must think it's true relative to some perspective that you've left unspecified. You must imho also mean "for a forcing to impart its full effect on the system," because a 10 Watt forcing over one day would not change things as much as a 10 Watt forcing over one century. The duration of the forcing does matter; both to fully effecting its change on the equilibrium heat exchange, and to maintaining that new equilibrium so long as the forcer is in effect. === ~Yes, this is closer to what I was getting at. I was trying to point out that a relatively small change in forcing, of 0.6 W/m-2 over 400 years, changed climate from MWP conditions into LIA conditions. ~~The solar cycle was just included for contrast, showing how a larger forcing--over a short period--has little effect; as the influence of volcanoes also shows. === ~He was just correcting my numbers, as mentioned above. I'm sure he said 0.6 W/m-2 in his lecture, but I wrote down "+/- 0.3 W/m-2" in my notes to indicate the 0.6 Watt range. I didn't adjust for that when I first posted above. === ~We still finish up with a 0.6 W/m-2 forcing having the same (temp change) result as a 2.4 W/m-2 forcing has had so far! ~~That is the point! We only have seen the preliminary effects of GHG forcing, so far. Our relatively large forcing has only just begun to impart its full effect on the climate (heat exchange system), and it will be ongoing for centuries to come. If a small forcing can change climate that much over several centuries, then what should we expect for the future--from a larger forcing--over several centuries and even millennia? === ~Right, the math doesn't work that way, because 400 years of forcing shouldn't be "directly related to" the past few decades of forcing. ~~But... Temperature changes are indirectly related to the change in the forcing value through a system of enhancing and attenuating feedback mechanisms. Average air temperature is just one manifestation of how the planet's heat exchange system expresses itself. Ice and ocean currents absorb the bulk of the forcings, and it is these that establish the baseline climate; hence the worry about tipping points. === ~Anthropology?? ~Points and laughs.... ~~ === This longer-term perspective makes the descriptions of vinyards in England, etc., more understandable. MWP conditions allowed people to farm in Greenland, but that doesn't mean it was warmer than the current climate. It only means the MWP climate had been nearly as warm, but for a century or more--long enough for the edges of the ice, populations, and agriculture to adjust. So what I was trying to say was that: When the current forcing fully manifests its effects in our planet's heat exchange system, we should expect to see --after a few centuries-- changes that are 4 to 6 times as great as the difference between the LIA and MWP, if the effects are proportional to the forcing. ~

The same... for 7 years! My first thought was that you have developed a very tough biofilm somewhere in your equipment (or water supply?), and that it is leaking some simple metabolite such as propionic acid, lactic acid, etc. But whatever, it sure looks like a contaminant from somewhere, eh? ~

Plus, the discussions back in those days make more sense when viewed from the perspective of a hot new revelation, the newly confirmed Milankovitch Cycle.... "At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump." ~from wikipedia's page on global cooling. http://geography.abo...ilankovitch.htm "Though he did his work in the first half of the 20th century, Milankovich's results weren't proven until the 1970s. A 1976 study, published in the journal Science* examined deep-sea sediment cores and found that Milankovich's theory corresponded to periods of climate change. Indeed, ice ages had occurred when the earth was going through different stages of orbital variation." [* Hays, J.D. John Imbrie, and N.J. Shackleton. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages." Science. Volume 194, Number 4270 (1976). 1121-1132.] Yes, but that large difference between the LIA and now is not due to solar forcing. It is mostly attributed to CO2, as a "new forcer" in the system. My numbers came from notes on a climate science course, in a class about radiative forcing, but the lecture used these IPCC sources. I'm not sure how the "3 Wm-2" figure came into in my notes. Here is a clarification from my professor today: "According to the reconstructions, the difference in solar irradiance from the MWP max to the LIA min is about 0.5 or 0.6 W/m2 (reading from the figure, there are several different estimates presented by IPCC). By contrast the difference between the irradiance during the solar min in 1997 and the solar max in 2002-3 was about 0.1% or roughly 1.4 W/m2." ~Dr. Scott So... it's only a quarter of an order of magnitude, by these figures. But the point remains that several generations, or a century or more, of a small change will move climate from MWP to LIA conditions; whereas larger, but shorter (decade-scale) changes aren't easily noticed within one's lifetime. It's easy to point to past variability when speculating about the effect of the large change we have put into the climate system, but we can't yet conceive of how that will play out on a multi-generational or century scale for civilization. === http://www.ipcc.ch/p...h6s6-6-3-4.html "Various simulations of NH (mean land and marine) surface temperatures produced by a range of climate models, and the forcings that were used to drive them, are shown in Figure 6.13. Despite differences in the detail and implementation of the different forcing histories, there is generally good qualitative agreement between the simulations regarding the major features: warmth during much of the 12th through 14th centuries, with lower temperatures being sustained during the 17th, mid 15th and early 19th centuries, and the subsequent sharp rise to unprecedented levels of warmth at the end of the 20th century." ... "...different reconstructions of solar irradiance (Bard et al., 2000; Y.M. Wang et al., 2005) to compare the influence of large versus small changes in the long-term strength of solar irradiance over the last 1 kyr (Figure 6.14b)." http://www.ipcc.ch/p...igure-6-13.html === As I said, I'm skeptical that this large, constant, long-term, "new forcer" in the climate system will manifest itself as (what we have come to think of during the past several millennia as) "normal variability." ~

Wow! There is so much to address in your posts, and it sounds genuine, but it's just too overwhelming. Maybe later each misconception can become a topic itself, in the proper sub-forum, but until that day.... It is the transition to a new economy that builds wealth. Where do you think the wealth came from to build our existing economy? It's not as if the wealth existed to begin with.... But about the future, it is specifically so that future generations can continue to enjoy a vibrant economy, and continue to pursue cures to diseases and social problems, and continue to benefit from the pursuit of knowledge, that people are currently concerned with the sustainability of our civilization and its resources and life-support systems. It's not really about the climate, but about how climate affects the biodiversity that supports the ecosystem services that provide us with properity. But that means it is neccessarily, in the end, about the climate. === But where did that "parasites on Gaia" notion come from? We are a part of the whole system, described metaphorically as Gaia, and should not be seen as separate from Gaia. As E. O. Wilson suggests, we need to realize that we cannot "transcend nature," but only aspire and strive to be One with nature, or to be as good and effective as nature, or to understand and embrace nature, mutualistically building resilience and supporting evolution. Get rid of the suburbs? We don't "got to" get rid of the suburbs, though I know that is a conclusion jumped to by some. All of your suggestions about what we need to be "destroying" in order to save the future are speculative and should not influence your judgement of the science behind the greenhouse effect and how it affects climate. === Gosh what a torrent of caveats that you see, but rather than address each.... Skepticism about a problem shouldn't be based on fear of suggested solutions, but that seems to by your justification for doubting the problem. A perspective beyond one's own lifetime can be helpful to focusing on the problem, rather than focusing on fearing the implied consequences. So can we look at influences affecting climate over multiple generations versus shorter-term influences? ...just to focus more on the problem? === On average we exchange several hundred watts/sq.meter over the surface of the globe; but a few extra watts per square meter, in the right place for enough average duration, can make a big difference to the climate. QUESTION: How many watts difference does it take to send us into an ice age, or to swing us back out of an ice age? Well, it's a trick question, because there isn't any difference in total energy between an ice age and interglacial period; it's just distibuted differently, as described by the Milankovitch cycle, which then affects feedbacks and so ice ages come and go. Differences of from 3 to 6 watts/sq.m in the distribution of heat (especially insolation at 60 deg.N.) controls the ice ages via feedbacks. We are now adding close to that amount of heat to the whole system (24/7/365), changing the baseline on which the feedbacks developed and then operate. === Now consider.... A difference of about a third of one (0.3) watt/sq.meter describes the variability in forcing by solar output between the medieval warm period (MWP) and the little ice age (LIA), but that was ongoing for decades and so was very noticeable. Compared with.... Insolation varies almost 3 watts/sq.meter during the sun's 11-year sunspot cycle, but that averages out to become part of the baseline on which the feedbacks have always operated and so is not very noticeable. What do you think would happen if the sunspot cycle was stuck on maximum for a few centuries? We are now adding a similar forcing, which is an order of magnitude greater than the difference between the MWP and LIA forcing, to our climate system--for what will be a longer duration. To believe that the system will continue operating as before, with what some describe as simple "variability," takes a lot of faith. Of that judgement, I'm very skeptical. ~

No.... Well, I'd be very surprised if it could be made to work; and even if you could, that is a very energy intensive way to run pyrolysis. Microwaving might be useful in an industrial scale pyrolysis process, as one part of a larger scheme to maximize oil production... but I don't think it'll work in a kitchen setting. First, the name pyrolysis (breaking by fire) suggests that fire is involved, and that wouldn't work well in a microwave; plus the "lysis" part suggests breaking chemical bonds, and conventional microwaves work by making water molecules vibrate (boil) and so aren't strong enough to break (biomass) bonds requiring temperatures (like fire) above boiling water. Mainly though, it is the exclusion (or reduction) of oxygen during pyrolysis that would be hard to maintain in a microwave on your kitchen counter. Venting the steam would be problematic also, but on an industrial scale both of those difficulties might prove to be useful in some way. But using strictly microwaves would probably only yield some tarry resin, if any transformation of the biomass could be achieved. For pyrolysis around the house (outside, or in a well-vented indoor area), I use the woodgascampstove, which may be made by a different company now but can still be searched as a word (woodgascampstove). If you are interested in pyrolysis of biomass, it's very handy and simple. All of the structure within the biomass is retained; it is like petrified life. ~

For my 2 cents worth, I don't "believe in" AGW; but I do think, estimate, and judge that the theory is valid. I accept the axioms of physics, and I understand the various sciences informing the concept of AGW theory; and I am persuaded by the published literature that the measurements, observations, and extrapolations are overall correct on average--if not also in magnitude--at least in direction. So I don't "believe in" AGW as an article of faith, but I do accept the significance of continuing validations to the theory as reason to advocate for socioeconomic change--based on concern for society's stability in an increasingly unstable climate--since history shows that society's fortunes are often linked with and turned by climate. So I worry about AGW because I think AGW theory is valid. === I also have a "nasty feeling" that we're screwed, based on the observation that many people think AGW-type climate change is no different from "the climate constantly changing" throughout Earth's history, instead of people thinking AGW theory shows how our effect on the atmosphere is forcing change in the climate that is several orders of magnitude faster than occurred during the PETM, 55 million years ago; but that is just a nasty feeling about the public's perception, and it is not based on anything scientific. === I also try to avoid looking like the poster child for "An Inconvenient Truth," by not being "personally skeptical" of the science, just "primarily because of plausible or viable solutions that have been offered" are personally disliked or distrusted. I wouldn't want to confuse scientific research and theory with socioeconomic ideology and policy. Social policy may be inconvenient for me "personally," but that doesn't change the reality that CO2 is acidifying the base of the food chain for our fisheries, nor does my uncertainty about any solution change the reality that CO2 is adding 2 to 4 Watts per square meter, over the entire planet's surface --24/7-- 365 days a year, year after year, decade after decade; pushing growing zones and desert regions into new territory, shifting migration patterns northward into new territory, and lowering soil moisture content during an era when (cheap, fossil fuel-dependant) agriculture is critical to maintaining a healthy, stable civilization. But there are at least 15 identified strategies that easily solve the dilemma, which are already developed and deployable. Check out the "Wedges Strategy," at: http://cmi.princeton...edges/intro.php Solutions to keep CO2 from rising, at least beyond the levels that have existed since modern mammals evolved, are identified in this "Wedges Strategy." This concept calculates how the problem can be stabilized if enough CO2 can be cut. Fifteen stabilization wedges can be mixed or matched to accumulate reductions by working... thru the use of currently developed technologies based on improved fuel-use efficiency, fuel switching, expanding alternative energy sources, and improved land-use practices. Stabilization Wedges, each of which can yearly cut a Billion Tons of Carbon-- or 3.7 GtCO2 (Billion tons of CO2) --use existing technology and are simple to employ. And speaking of employment, many new and enduring jobs are created when the economy evolves and a new economy develops. Fifteen "possible solutions" that are currently "shelf-ready" are suggested, and we only need to choose 8 or 9 to stabilize the growth in CO2. But that's more of a matter for policy makers to customize for their national interests, and not for science or scientists to be judged by. === It is a lot of carbon to cut, and I trust the literature that explains how natural sources of atmospheric carbon such as coal mine fires or volcanoes amount to about 1% of current carbon emissions. It is the rapidity of current climate change that worries scientists who measure the large anthropogenic sources of atmospheric carbon and compare that with natural sources and historical variation. Rapid climate change means that sea-level rise will change the map centuries after food web and population crashes occur, and after climate has shifted into some different heat-distribution mode. Sea-level rise is the least of our problems, so I don't care at all about that very gradual change, nor do I care much about Polar Bears at the top of the food chain--except as a lesson for other species in the top trophic level--hint, hint. I care more about the web of life that supports today's biodiversity, which evolved and refined itself during the Tertiary and Quaternary Epochs, and I worry about the consequences, to the stability and population of our species, from a growing extinction rate across many trophic levels. === But acidification alone is reason enough to keep CO2 levels in the atmosphere moderated to within limits set during the Quaternary Epoch, when humans evolved from Lucy-like creatures. This is evidence that we already have been geoengineering the planet and "controlling the climate," however unintentionally it may have been. We've had "dominion" over nature for more than 6 millennia now (I read somewhere). Between agriculture and our many uses of fire (from mining to forestry to warfare), man has remade the surface of the planet several times over, cumulatively. Check out Pyne's "Cycle of Fire" books, especially "Vestal Fire," as well as "Changes in the Land" by Cronon or "Larding the Lean Earth" by Stoll, and of course "1491" by Mann. They used forests--not coal--back then to fuel the Copper, Bronze, or Iron Ages, and for making pottery, quicklime plaster, glass, and for shipbuilding and resins, pitches, and tars. As a species that controls fire and land use/agriculture, we are perfectly suited to intentionally geoengineer the planet, and to maintain this finely tuned, heaven-on-earth that finally evolved here. The question is whether or not we should accept our dominion, and start geoengineering the planet intentionally. I do believe in advocating for the maintenence of our planet's highly evolved ecosystem services, which support biodiversity and also are critical to society's sustainability; it's the moral imperative. ~

The Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences (IBERS, Aberystwyth University, Wales) has a biochar project in Sulawesi. If you have the opportunity, contact the assembly government's Academic Expertise for Business program for information, or contact the university (IBERS) directly or through Lore Lindu National Park. ~Godspeed in your journey === Momento mori Nasser Hejazi

You point to true value....=== Hey, soil ...my favorite topic; the source of our sustenance! Weathering is just "the other side of the coin of" humification; the buildup or loss of humus-- the carbon richness --in soils. This carbon richness in soil supports the base of our food chain... and more microbial biomass than all the forests and animals living above that soil.... See: diagenesis, humus, rhizosphere, kerogen, humins, inertinite. === Anyway, you should google the phrases (including quotemarks): "soil moisture content" "soil amendment" together ...and hopefully find some information about humus, and especially the benefits of "charred humus" or biochar (charcoal from waste biomass). There are high-efficient methods for producing charred biomass that yield biofuels and "process heat" as co-products. The charred (solidified) humus resists decay so it lasts for decades or centuries in soils, and protects them from erosion, leaching, dessication, compaction, anoxia, and acidification. But trees or anything that helps fight dessication, increasing soil-moisture content, should be seen as a valuable commodity!!! ~ edit: ...google the phrases (including quotemarks): "soil moisture content" biochar "soil amendment" ...to avoid the "fly ash" (with their toxic heavy metals) links, and to find the restoration, biodiversity links.

I notice that your first answer is "exactly" twice the expected answer. Could the difference between atomic oxygen and molecular oxygen (O/O2) be an overlooked point in calculating your "n" value? ~

Sounds like a story.... Maybe I can help more if you get beyond the dynamics of maintaining that mixture on a global scale. If you have enough methane to burn, then it will burn until the levels fall below that required to support combustion. Alternatively if you keep replacing the methane, then you eventually run out of enough oxygen to support combustion--at about 12% oxygen (today = 21%)--but that's a lot of methane to keep replacing. And speaking of keeping that level up at 5%, what about photo-oxidation of methane into CO2? ...and what of oxidation/reduction (redox) reactions? Early Earth's atmosphere was a "reducing" atmosphere and could maintain lots of methane; but now that we have an "oxidizing" atmosphere, a chemically reduced compound such as methane won't survive for very long. What time frame are you looking at for this scenario to develop, and for it to play out? Does life survive? Do you know of the Lake Nyos example? Lake Nyos and similar cases are not about methane (that rises in air and disperses), but they are about CO2 that sinks in the air to form invisible streams, ponds, rivers, and lakes described as "death pockets" in low-lying areas; but it's an example of an altered atmosphere. ~

If there has ever been an ear or sinus infection, there could be a chronic, subclinical or asymptomatic, underlying infection that can be exacerbated or "flare up" in cold, wet, or windy conditions. This could easily be interpreted as a "new" infection resulting from the exposure to adverse conditions. ...I have an ear that must be protected from wind--even cold gentle wind or warm high wind--to prevent pain and fluid buildup that is noticable upon leaving those conditions. But I agree that it is a myth that those conditions cause a disease. At most, those conditions allow some underlying or impending affliction to manifest itself; or it might have been otherwise unnoticed or healed without the stress of those adverse conditions. ~