The study is about climate - carbon cycle feedback, which is only one tiny corner of the "whole debate". The text you quoted talks about this; If amount of CO₂ absorbed by biosphere would diminish, as has been largely expected, that would increase the CO₂ content of the atmosphere even more which would cause more warming, therefore creating a positive feedback to the pre-existing warming. Now, if this study would be correct, it would mean at most that amount of future warming would be little bit less than previously expected. Note also that this is not the only nor the first observational study on the issue.

Some papers on the subject here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/200...ycle-feedback/

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

No, I said that either you had an oversimplified view or your were being deceptive.

When someone says something which is wrong, there are two possibilities--either he is mistaken or he is lying.
Untrue. I don't take global warming alarmists at face value.
You don't understand the limited scope of the implications of the study.

This study has the same (lack) of impact as a study which determines that space-time appears to be flat. Some cosmological models assume space is flat. Other cosmological models assume space has a small positive curvature. If a study confirms that space appears to be flat, the reaction of the cosmological community is, "Okay, that's interesting." It's data that helps refine the models, it's not something that "rocks" mainstream cosmological science.

In contrast, the discovery that expansion of space was accelerating did indeed "rock" mainstream cosmological science. Before that discovery, everyone knew that the expansion of space was decelerating. The only question was whether it was decelerating enough to cause the cosmos to eventually stop expanding and collapse in on itself. So scientists investigated to determine the rate at which space expansion was decelerating. And discovered to everyone's shock that expansion was actually accelerating.

That's the sort of discovery which "rocks" the scientific world.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

It's hard to take it as a playful joke when you begin the post by using the deliberately provocative term "religionists".

I'm personally fairly open minded on this whole issue, but I think a person can support efforts against putative global warming even without being religious about it. I can see adopting a sort of precautionary attitude: global warming might not be true, but if it is, it could be very bad not to do something about it. Now I suppose an opponent could answer back that the earth could enter a cooling phase and our efforts against global warming might exacerbate it. I think it's a fruitful debate to have, but starting out by calling the other side "religionists" just sounds like a way to win the argument by default.

__________________
As above, so below

I'm answering you first becuase i am gobsmacked that you have a go at me for using the term "religionist" but ignore the fact that IsaacKuo accuses me of deception.

Note i did not complain about what was a) slander and b) an ad hominem. I warned him not to do it again.

Can you explain that double standard please?

IsaacKuo,

I've asked you about 3 times now whether you understand the sensitivity of initial conditions in climate models. You wont answer the question and continue to make feeble excuses for accusing me of deception.

I also asked you to specifically name a climate model which already factored in the finding of this study. ie, earth's increasing capacity to absorb carbon more of it is produced.

Again you've ignored that question.

A pattern is emerging.

I don't find it surprising that the ability of the biosphere to absorb co2 from the atmosphere increases as levels rise. Co2 has been at a historically low level for a long time, and the trees and grasses love the stuff. Trees have been getting measurably fatter. Orchids turn on an extra 500 genes when levels go over 500ppm.

There is no need to panic about co2, it is a beneficial gas needed by all synthesising plants and biota which form the basis of the food chain on our planet.

Levels had become very low due to take up and sequestration by shell bearing sea critters sinking to the bottom and getting turned into limestone. It's a good job a smart ape came along and started liberating more of it, as trees start dying at concentrations of less than about 190ppm co2. Additionally, if there is any warming effect from extra co2, it'll help a bit as the long term temperature trend continues downwards towards the next glacial phase.

The Holocene optimum was warmer around 6000 years ago than the Roman warm period 2000 years ago which was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period about 1000 years ago which was warmer than the current peak in global temp. It's probably downhill from here to the next ice age on the average.

Stay warm and enjoy the interglacial.

Jens,

"It's hard to take it as a playful joke when you begin the post by using the deliberately provocative term "religionists"."

"I'm personally fairly open minded on this whole issue, but I think a person can support efforts against putative global warming even without being religious about it. I can see adopting a sort of precautionary attitude: global warming might not be true, but if it is, it could be very bad not to do something about it. Now I suppose an opponent could answer back that the earth could enter a cooling phase and our efforts against global warming might exacerbate it. I think it's a fruitful debate to have, but starting out by calling the other side "religionists" just sounds like a way to win the argument by default."

But its a fact because only a few days ago here in the UK a chap went to court and asked for the same protection of rights for his beliefs in global warming, as that accorded to religious minorities. The judge agreed and granted it.

Yes stupid but true. So if global warming proponents are to be given the same priviledges in their beliefs as religionsist then it is becoming a religion.

Secondly, this study is a big challenge to initial condition assumptions made in the majority of climate models used by various bodies around the world.

All of those models such as Hansons' which factored in the erroneous, now falsified idea that the earth's ability to absorb carbon remains static, are just WRONG.

Until they are rejigged with the new findings they are WRONG. Thats not an opinion, that's totally in keeping with what we do know about open ended non linear systems like the climate.

Hi all
Well, the advantage of having subscriptions. According to Science Daily Knorr published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL for short), to which I subscribe. Indeed, there is the paper by Knorr for which I give the abstract:

I will save the paper as pdf, and anyone interested will have to contact me.

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Any comments in red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.

Ari,

"The study is about climate - carbon cycle feedback, which is only one tiny corner of the "whole debate"."

You also demonstrate a total lack of fundamental understanding about the sensitivity of intial conditions in these climate models. Yes this one key factor such as the carbon absorbtion rate is a vitally important variable which on its own will drastically change the outcome of those models.

So its not about the debate and whether one can argue this or that, its about the maths in the climate models and this study means the maths is obviously wrong, until this new finding has been represented in the mathematical model used to predict catastrophic climate change.

I hope that wattshupwiththat knows that that is not allowed by the AGU.

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Any comments in red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.

What also intersting is seeing which of the mainstream media have picked up on this study which is the only one using empirical data.

Nothing on the BBC, Independent, Guardian or any of the loudest promoters of agw alarmism. Funny that.

Jetlack,

The only reason I commented originally was because I was surprised at the way you were crowing about a single (as yet unconfirmed) result when even I know there are huge variations in the existing models. I say "even I" because, as I say, I am pretty ignorant about this subject - partly because I get annoyed by the petty aguments that always seem to break out in these discussions.

So, to help me get a better handle on why you think this is so important...

the carbon absorbtion rate is a vitally important variable which on its own will drastically change the outcome of those models

What percentage decrease in absorption of CO₂ are current models using? Over what timescales?

the sensitivity of intial conditions in these climate models

Surley this isn't an "initial condition", it is (was) a predicted future change in conditions?

p.s. I notice that Knorr would have got a pretty rough ride in the ATM forum here for misspelling "loosing"

__________________
In the 34th minute of the final hour the Law Of Inverse Enclosure was rediscovered and a matchbox was declared the prison of the universe, with two fleas placed inside as wardens.

Henna,

"The only reason I commented originally was because I was surprised at the way you were crowing about a single (as yet unconfirmed) result when even I know there are huge variations in the existing models. I say "even I" because, as I say, I am pretty ignorant about this subject - partly because I get annoyed by the petty aguments that always seem to break out in these discussions."

As yet unconfirmed? His study is peer-reviewed so its already been checked by a panel of peers. He also only uses empirical data, statistics etc, not dodgy climate models based on "assumptions".

I am sure many agw proponents will try to find something wrong with Knorr's findings but we will have to wait and see about that. You'll be wanting to keep your fingers crossed :-)

"What percentage decrease in absorption of CO2 are current models using? Over what timescales?"

They would be different according to whichever model. The point is that the most catastrophic models assume that the earth will reach a tipping point at which a much larger proportion of CO2 is not absorbed and remains in the atmosphere, hence contributing to a run-away global warming.

This study's results falsify that assumption by demonstrating that the proportion of absorbed and non absorbed Co2 has remained relatively stable. The earth appears able to absorb more carbon than was modelled into those climate predictions.

This means the climate modellers need to go back and rejig their maths if they want their models to be taken seriously.

"Surley this isn't an "initial condition", it is (was) a predicted future change in conditions?"

Initial conditions relates to the value of variables in any model of a an open ended non linear system like the climate. How could those models already include this new finding when a) its just been published, b) those very models assume the opposite which is that the earth's ability to absorb carbon is deteriorating?

In fact the article itself states categorically that this finding is contrary to the mainstream view on which these models are based. They couch it by saying it runs contrary to a significant body of global warming research. They mean it challenges those mainstream agw models.

"p.s. I notice that Knorr would have got a pretty rough ride in the ATM forum here for misspelling "loosing""

I looked on the ATM forum. I see no discussion about this paper or comment from Knorr. Maybe you could link to it because i cant see it.

In any case, I'm more interested in the facts of his study as opposed to whether he made a spelling mistake. Since we can all agree this is a vitally important issue regardless of the position one takes on agw; pointing out his poor spelling appears a shoddy way to discredit what is a an important piece of science.

Oji

The first sentence of the abstract is "Several recent studies have [shown the opposite]". It will therefore take further studies to confirm which of these is nearest the truth.

Of course not. It would be good if he is correct. And even better if it has as dramatic effect on forecasts as you believe. Don't assume everyone is as excited or extreme about these thing as you seem to be. I really don't care that much. If this has the effect you hope, it increases the odds of me not being around when the "water wars" start (my money is on the Danube as being one of the critical areas in that).

In other words, you don't know? And some may even have zero already, as Isaac suggested?

Calm down mate. It was intended as a "joke" - as indicated by the conditional "would" and the smiley - but apparently not as funny as my serious comments. The point was that people pick on ATM proponents for their poor spelling ("loose" is a favourite) but, obviously, serious scientists are quite capable of making the same sort of mistakes.

And obviously it doesn't matter (well, it does to me because it is my job to care about such things).

__________________
In the 34th minute of the final hour the Law Of Inverse Enclosure was rediscovered and a matchbox was declared the prison of the universe, with two fleas placed inside as wardens.

Here are couple of assumptions from Knorr (2009):

"For 2007, a 3.3% increase in fossil-fuel emissions is assumed [Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2009], while land use emissions after 2005 are kept constant for lack of newer data."

So, he in addition to empirical data, he also has to assume things.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

There is also a 2007 paper in GRL (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L09703, doi:10.1029/2006GL029019, 2007) by W. Knorr, N. Gobron, M. Scholze, T. Kaminski, R. Schnur, and B. Pinty on Impact of terrestrial biosphere carbon exchanges on the anomalous CO2 increase in 2002–2003 with the following abstract:

where at the end of the discussion they claim:

Just another bit of input about CO2 and climate.

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Any comments in red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.

He didn't say that you were being deceptive, he said that you were mistaken or you were being deceptive.

I suspect that you are simply mistaken and that you are consciously or unconsciously adopting the bullying tactics that global warming deniers usually take in lieu of argument.
Attacks on the character or circumstances of someone providing a point is not a fallacy when that character or circumstance is relevant to the point. In this case, what is relevant is how much impact one could reasonably expect this one study to have. It would not be reasonable to suspect that this study would have significant impact on global warming projections.

That's going to inspire intelligent debate.

I've edited out the link. Suggest you do the same.

In climate models atmospheric CO2 is generally a parameter developed as part of a scenario so this paper has no barring whatsoever on model results. IOW the amount of CO2 it takes to achieve a given atmospheric CO2 level is basically irrelevant to the model.

Where it may come into play is projecting what atmospheric CO2 concentrations will result from a given emissions scenario. This is an area where climate science has always been quite conservative, and to my knowledge the IPCC has always used the current trend with a warning that it may not continue.

There is good physical evidence this trend cannot continue so what are we to believe a statistical study showing that CO2 uptake has been relatively constant or empirical; studies showing that major CO2 sinks are reaching their limit?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1022120224.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...urcetype=HWCIT

You seem to be confusing climate models with weather models. Initial conditions play a big role when trying to model the exact state of a chaotic system, but this isn’t what climate models do.

Rather then the exact state climate models attempt to reproduce the behavior of the systems attractor. Unless you cross a tipping point the behavior of the attractor is quite consistent, and since long term averages follow the attractor (hence the name) it can be used to model long term trends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

Jetlack first.

Will you please use the proper quote tags, your replies are hard to read.

second.
Havwe you read the paper yourself or are you basing all your claims on an artical on a website about the paper?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Oh gee, he makes an assumption about fossil-fuel emissions. Big deal. If thats really the best you can do in an attempt to rebutt his whole study then you really are grasping straws.

climate models and weather models are based on the same basic physics regarding open ended non linear systems.

Are you suggesting that erroneous assumptions pertaining to initial conditons would not deteriorate the accuracy of a climate model prediction?

Captain,

I use the quotes sometimes, and other times i just make bold others comments to which i am replying. That will have to do unless you have some other reason to ban me. :-)

Yes I've read the paper, thanks for asking.

I am neither mistaken nor being deceptive, and offering those two choices is typical straw-man argumentation.

Well we'll know pretty soon whether this study will have a siginificant impact of previous models and those going forward. You are entitled to your opinion.

Daffy,

There is no intelligent debate over agw. I thought you knew - its all settled.

Before i forget i just want to put a marker down here.

Numerous people, including moderators have seen fit to create a precedent here that its okay to say to someone who you dont agree with "you are either deceptive or dont understand", or howabout "you are either being thick, or you are a liar".

You see where this will take us? So let this thread be a record that the above is perfectly acceptable method for making ad hominem attacks on others in debates.

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Any comments in red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.