• Member Statistics

    15,570
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    diviningweather
    Newest Member
    diviningweather
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
Jack Frost

Dr. Ed Berry on Human and Atmospheric CO2!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jack Frost said:

 

Excellent analogy JC-CT.  Do you work for the IPCC?

Anyone can post their thoughts on Dr. Berry's blog.  You are cordially invited to join the discussion.

I am sure comments like this will be greatly appreciated for their contribution to the scientific discussion.

Frosty, Frosty, Frosty - You keep feeding us a line of BS. There is no exchange of ideas over at Berry's blog, no far from it.  Scientific information is very unwelcome there as indicated by the response to Don's post.  You have an agenda. Why won't you advance it openly and honestly? 

Frosty the Snowman, knew the sun was hot that day,
so he said, "Let's run, and we'll have some fun now, before I melt away."

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

46 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Frosty, Frosty, Frosty - You keep feeding us a line of BS. There is no exchange of ideas over at Berry's blog, no far from it.  Scientific information is very unwelcome there as indicated by the response to Don's post.  You have an agenda. Why won't you advance it openly and honestly? 

Frosty the Snowman, knew the sun was hot that day,
so he said, "Let's run, and we'll have some fun now, before I melt away."

 


 

 

Brilliant Chubby Ubbsy!!!

Who remembers the show that featured that character?

Hint:  Hr had a crush on Ms. Crabtree....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2017 at 4:59 PM, Jack Frost said:

Hope some many of you are watching the fascinating discussions on Dr. Berry's site, linked above in the first post, amongst Don, Dr. Berry and others. 

Don, keep up the good work.  That is a tough crowd and you are certainly holding up your side of the discussion!

 

FYI, it appears that Dr. Berry has withdrawn from the discussion. Bart raised a good point about testing the relationship between instantaneous changes atmospheric CO2 and temperature aimed at undercutting the relationship. Although I didn't address that angle, as there are numerous ways to address the problem, I was aware of a fairly recent paper on that topic. I've posted the link there. In any case, the relationship was found to be statistically significant.

The paper can be found at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.6316.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm no climate scientist have a bachelor's in meteorology but am always curious in trying to better understand how the climate is ever evolving and the causations of what we are currently seeing. So my question is with our (human) input of CO2/ fossil fuel usage is it possible, while not all is being sequestered in the ocean or taken up by bio life, that this "extra" CO2 has been accumulating as we have seen from measurements at Moana Lou(sp) but has caused a feedback that has allowed heat to trap and allow changes and release of natural CO2 sources over time to then again aid in this process of climate change and create a positive feedback by continually adding from both sources and trapping more heat over time?

I guess the biggest discussion is how much of human induced CO2 release has caused this warming, but I feel given time even just an increase of say 75ppm over the time period combined with again this helping aid in release of natural sources, combined together is too much for the system and throwing it in a mess. So the earth has responded by transferring heat to polar regions to cool such changes inducing sea ice melt and giving us the conundrum we are seeing now. Is it also possible that there will be snap back to all of this and throw us into a possible new glacial period?

 

That then the release from human emissions, to what extent maybe is unsure, coinciding with the natural release of CO2 is helping enhance these changes in temperature an climate alot quicker then would naturally occur at the end of a glacial period?

 

I may be stating obvious statements but again not real strong in the climate field. when I say human input: burning of oil/fossil fuels and burning of bio life, basically carbon based sources. when I say natural I'm referring to: melting of perma frost/sea ice and glaciers there may be more that I'm unsure of.

 

It's a lot harder stating exactly what I want to come across in this question versus verbally talking to someone about it. Any info would be appreciated. Sorry also for the long winded questions again climate of this type is not my Forte, I'm more of a forecaster type of meteorologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, so_whats_happening said:

Now I'm no climate scientist have a bachelor's in meteorology but am always curious in trying to better understand how the climate is ever evolving and the causations of what we are currently seeing. So my question is with our (human) input of CO2/ fossil fuel usage is it possible, while not all is being sequestered in the ocean or taken up by bio life, that this "extra" CO2 has been accumulating as we have seen from measurements at Moana Lou(sp) but has caused a feedback that has allowed heat to trap and allow changes and release of natural CO2 sources over time to then again aid in this process of climate change and create a positive feedback by continually adding from both sources and trapping more heat over time?

I guess the biggest discussion is how much of human induced CO2 release has caused this warming, but I feel given time even just an increase of say 75ppm over the time period combined with again this helping aid in release of natural sources, combined together is too much for the system and throwing it in a mess. So the earth has responded by transferring heat to polar regions to cool such changes inducing sea ice melt and giving us the conundrum we are seeing now. Is it also possible that there will be snap back to all of this and throw us into a possible new glacial period?

 

That then the release from human emissions, to what extent maybe is unsure, coinciding with the natural release of CO2 is helping enhance these changes in temperature an climate alot quicker then would naturally occur at the end of a glacial period?

 

I may be stating obvious statements but again not real strong in the climate field. when I say human input: burning of oil/fossil fuels and burning of bio life, basically carbon based sources. when I say natural I'm referring to: melting of perma frost/sea ice and glaciers there may be more that I'm unsure of.

 

It's a lot harder stating exactly what I want to come across in this question versus verbally talking to someone about it. Any info would be appreciated. Sorry also for the long winded questions again climate of this type is not my Forte, I'm more of a forecaster type of meteorologist.

Here's a paper that concerns the possibility that climate change-induced warming in the Arctic could lead to releases of methane that had been trapped under the permafrost there. Much research remains underway on this topic.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.full

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General Request:

When posting graphs, charts or anything really that is not purely original material, please cite the source.  Providing a link to that source if possible would also be greatly appreciated. This would be quite helpful to those who would like to better understand context and credibility.  Thanks in advance!

Let's make the American Wx Climate Forum the best that it can be and a real resource to all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

Let's make the American Wx Climate Forum the best that it can be and a real resource to all. 

Nah, let's invite everyone here to go post in the comments section of some nutjob's blog site instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JC-CT said:

Nah, let's invite everyone here to go post in the comments section of some nutjob's blog site instead.

Link to Dr. Berry's bio: http://edberry.com/dr-ed-berry/longer-bio/

JC-CT, please provide a link to your bio or cv.  I am, and perhaps others may be, just a little curious to see the tremendous credentials that qualify you to call a PhD in Atmospheric Physics "some nut job".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

Link to Dr. Berry's bio: http://edberry.com/dr-ed-berry/longer-bio/

JC-CT, please provide a link to your bio or cv.  I am, and perhaps others may be, just a little curious to see the tremendous credentials that qualify you to call a PhD in Atmospheric Physics "some nut job".

 

Straw man much?

Why don't you invite your buddy Ed to create an account at americanwx. I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to engage him here.

I think you should stop encouraging posters to take their discussion of climate change to a different online venue. It could easily be construed as promotion of a competitor site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

Straw man much?

Why don't you invite your buddy Ed to create an account at americanwx. I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to engage him here.

I think you should stop encouraging posters to take their discussion of climate change to a different online venue. It could easily be construed as promotion of a competitor site.

Deflect much?  And the link to your bio???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

Deflect much?  And the link to your bio???

I am not a PhD in climate science, never claimed to be. Neither are you I'm guessing, and I'm betting neither is Don. You don't need to be to see the fallacy in Berry's logic. Nor do you need to be to post here. So stfu with that crap.

And yeah, like I said earlier about Berry - for someone claiming to be an expert, which he is claiming and I am not, he has quite the dearth of peer reviewed publications in the past 35 years. As in, zero.

But you REALLY want us all to go googoo gaga over this guy...I wonder why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JC-CT said:

I am not a PhD in climate science, never claimed to be. Neither are you I'm guessing, and I'm betting neither is Don. You don't need to be to see the fallacy in Berry's logic. Nor do you need to be to post here. So stfu with that crap.

And yeah, like I said earlier about Berry - for someone claiming to be an expert, which he is claiming and I am not, he has quite the dearth of peer reviewed publications in the past 35 years. As in, zero.

But you REALLY want us all to go googoo gaga over this guy...I wonder why.

JC-CT, so emotional!  

I would be angry too if I blindly believed in something grounded in physics and a PhD in Atmospheric Physics contradicted my blind belief with hard science.

But Dr. Berry is not alone:

1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist!

More than 1000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last 3 years expose climate alarmism as fake science.

I know, JC-CT, what a bunch of kooks...

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/03/1000-skeptical-peer-reviewed-climate-papers-should-put-un-ipcc-to-shame-says-harvard-astrophysicist/#sthash.TXqRbz6c.dpbs

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for outing yourself.

The scientific community is fairly unanimous about the existence of agw, your buddy is on the fringe.

Exactly what will happen because of it is surely a matter of debate, as none of us know the future. But that's scary as hell to me, and you seem to be gloating in it.

I'm not going to engage with you after this post, so have it. People like you run things now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JC-CT,

Since you have admittedly lost the argument that the science is settled and no longer wish to engage in the discussion, I would invite you to go fly a kite.  But I know better than that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

JC-CT, so emotional!  

I would be angry too if I blindly believed in something grounded in physics and a PhD in Atmospheric Physics contradicted my blind belief with hard science.

But Dr. Berry is not alone:

1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist!

More than 1000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last 3 years expose climate alarmism as fake science.

I know, JC-CT, what a bunch of kooks...

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/03/1000-skeptical-peer-reviewed-climate-papers-should-put-un-ipcc-to-shame-says-harvard-astrophysicist/#sthash.TXqRbz6c.dpbs

   

NoTrickZone is a denialist fake news site masquerading as a science site.  You could not have outed yourself as a 'Concern Troll' more thoroughly if you had tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PhillipS said:

NoTrickZone is a denialist fake news site masquerading as a science site.  You could not have outed yourself as a 'Concern Troll' more thoroughly if you had tried.

PhillipS,

I do love all the open minded thinkers in Austin.  Very insightful and scientific response indeed!

What is your response to the 500 peer reviewed papers published in 2016 questioning the "settled science"? 

Better yet, what are your qualifications / education/ cv to question these peer reviewed articles.

Even better yet, why exactly are you qualified to even begin understanding high level scientific discourse in the field of Atmospheric Physics?

Do tell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS:

 

  1. dc76000243a3b04f426c0a4cb5dcc4d4?s=120&dDr. Ed says

    January 30, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    "Thank you both Don and Bart for your excellent discussions in my absence. I had to finish up the second edition of my book that I now advertise in the right-hand column."

    So refreshing to see civilized discourse on the subject of the human contribution of CO2 to earth's atmosphere.  I also thank Don, who is American Wx's very own Don Sutherland.  Don, you have demonstrated once again that people can disagree and do so in the spirit of mutual respect.
    The link to Dr. Berry's paper is set forth here again for your convenience: http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/#more-35375  
    As i've said before, please make sure to read the comments.  Very entertaining and enlightening....
     

 

 

 

 

 

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised the topic of ocean surface pH didn't come up. Obviously, the atmospheric carbon in his theory has to come from somewhere. If it's the ocean, you would expect mean surface pH to rise and mean aragonite saturation levels to deepen. However, mean surface pH is decreasing and mean aragonite saturation horizons are shoaling. Only surface, mixed layer and upper-intermediate waters have generally had time to interact with the atmosphere on the decadal time scales we're talking about and that's eminently provable by using Strontium-90 as a marker, a hallmark of our atmospheric nuclear testing era. If it's land (natural only), you'd expect a notable, fast decrease in soil carbon content in the upper layers. Except for the Arctic, we see an increase in soil carbon content and storage.

So, where's all the carbon coming from again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good overview of the carbon cycle from NASA.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

The diagram below (from that page) summarizes the fast carbon cycle, where the numbers in yellow are the yearly fluxes of carbon (PgC/yr), the numbers in white are the stored carbon in each component of the cycle (PgC), and the numbers in red are the human-induced fluxes (PgC/yr).

carbon_cycle.jpg

So not all of human CO2 emissions go into the atmosphere; roughly 2/9 of those emissions go into the ocean and roughly 3/9 of those emissions go into the biosphere.

Also, here is more-thorough overview of the carbon cycle from the latest IPCC report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 6, 2017 at 1:36 AM, csnavywx said:

Surprised the topic of ocean surface pH didn't come up. Obviously, the atmospheric carbon in his theory has to come from somewhere. If it's the ocean, you would expect mean surface pH to rise and mean aragonite saturation levels to deepen. However, mean surface pH is decreasing and mean aragonite saturation horizons are shoaling. Only surface, mixed layer and upper-intermediate waters have generally had time to interact with the atmosphere on the decadal time scales we're talking about and that's eminently provable by using Strontium-90 as a marker, a hallmark of our atmospheric nuclear testing era. If it's land (natural only), you'd expect a notable, fast decrease in soil carbon content in the upper layers. Except for the Arctic, we see an increase in soil carbon content and storage.

So, where's all the carbon coming from again?

Perhaps a good question.  

Why don't you ask Dr. Berry?  Comment section is still open at: http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

 

DR. Berry for the win - going once, going twice.....

If Dr Berry was interested in an open and honest discussion of climate science he has been, and will continue to be, welcome to post on this forum.  But he chooses not to, doesn't he?  I wonder why that is.  If his hypotheses had any merit he would be reaching and, perhaps, convincing a large and scientifically literate audience - but he chooses not to.  Or he could write up and submit his ideas for peer-review and publication in reputable scientific journals - but he chooses not to.

There isn't a singe plausible reason for Dr Berry to avoid open and robust discussion of his ideas - except intellectual cowardice on his part.  So far from "DR. Berry for the win" it is Dr Berry for the fail - failure to inform, failure to convince, failure to advance in even a small way our understanding of climate science.  He won't even be a minor footnote in the field of climate science - he's just another failed denier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 6, 2017 at 8:19 AM, PhillipS said:

If Dr Berry was interested in an open and honest discussion of climate science he has been, and will continue to be, welcome to post on this forum.  But he chooses not to, doesn't he?  I wonder why that is.  If his hypotheses had any merit he would be reaching and, perhaps, convincing a large and scientifically literate audience - but he chooses not to.  Or he could write up and submit his ideas for peer-review and publication in reputable scientific journals - but he chooses not to.

There isn't a singe plausible reason for Dr Berry to avoid open and robust discussion of his ideas - except intellectual cowardice on his part.  So far from "DR. Berry for the win" it is Dr Berry for the fail - failure to inform, failure to convince, failure to advance in even a small way our understanding of climate science.  He won't even be a minor footnote in the field of climate science - he's just another failed denier.

No offense, but I kinda see why a PhD in Atmospheric Physics might not want to engage with this crowd - myself included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More support for Dr. Berry's assertion that the anthropomorphic contribution to atmospheric CO2 is de minimus:

"These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the Industrial Era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission. The results are consistent with the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect.

Our analysis of the carbon cycle, which exclusively uses data for the CO2 concentrations and fluxes as published in AR5, shows that also a completely different interpretation of these data is possible, this in complete conformity with all observations and natural causalities." 

 

Link to entire paper: http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/HardeHermann17-March6-CarbonCycle-ResidenceTime.pdf

 

And please, if you're still really concerned that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause the destruction of the planet, engage in a little self-sacrifice and stop exhaling.  Inhaling is fine....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe I'm reading this nonsense. Every other person in this thread, including the climate deniers, can see the obvious flaws in "Dr" Berrys "argument." Doesn't that tell you something?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Can't believe I'm reading this nonsense. Every other person in this thread, including the climate deniers, can see the obvious flaws in "Dr" Berrys "argument." Doesn't that tell you something?

 

Brilliant scientific analysis skimiester!  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

On a serious note, why do so many of the AGW religious zealots resort to name calling and rely so little on objective analysis pursuant to the scientific method?

Oh, I forgot...because AGW is a RELIGION and not science!  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

Brilliant scientific analysis skimiester!  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

On a serious note, why do so many of the AGW religious zealots resort to name calling and rely so little on objective analysis pursuant to the scientific method?

Oh, I forgot...because AGW is a RELIGION and not science!  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

No, it's because we're tired. Day after day, the evidence pours in. Day after day, there is research to support AGW. Day after day, people like you show up and give us the same simplistic arguments we've heard a 1000 times. We're tired. We don't want to educate you at this point because you don't want to be educated. We're name-calling because we are labelling you what you are. If you want to actually understand AGW and perhaps debate some points where the science truly isn't settled, in an honest and open way, I'm sure people will be more than happy to engage in a civil fasion. But you aren't here for that. You don't know any of the facts and you are spewing denier BS. We have no incentive to be nice. But feel free to change your approach anytime.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WidreMann said:

No, it's because we're tired. Day after day, the evidence pours in. Day after day, there is research to support AGW. Day after day, people like you show up and give us the same simplistic arguments we've heard a 1000 times. We're tired. We don't want to educate you at this point because you don't want to be educated. We're name-calling because we are labelling you what you are. If you want to actually understand AGW and perhaps debate some points where the science truly isn't settled, in an honest and open way, I'm sure people will be more than happy to engage in a civil fasion. But you aren't here for that. You don't know any of the facts and you are spewing denier BS. We have no incentive to be nice. But feel free to change your approach anytime.

 

Your reference to the collective "we're" is creepy.

Refute the conclusions made by Dr. Berry, a PhD in Atmospheric Science.  Doing so on his site, where others educated in the sciences have tried - and failed - would be especially impressive.  But somehow I seriously doubt that you have the chops for that. 

Unless - your credentials are so impressive that they allow you to be completely dismissive of actual analysis and the scientific method.  Nah.  You're just tired.

Ironic thing is you and your ilk do more to foster "deniers" by just having such  a disingenuous and downright nastey attitude.  Not to mention the hypocrisy of proclaiming that the sky is falling and yet contributing by engaging in activities that unlock carbon - like breathing.  Wouldn't want to be part of the "we're". 

I understand however.  Being a religious zealot can be very tiring.  

Although, on the bright side, being a religious zealot, at least you don't have to be burdened by facts.

Be honest, you believed every word in "A Convenient Lie" until each and every prediction proved to be false.  And yet, like Charlie Brown, you continue to believe that Lucy really is going to let you kick that football!  

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jack Frost said:

Be honest, you believed every word in "A Convenient Lie" until each and every prediction proved to be false.  And yet, like Charlie Brown, you continue to believe that Lucy really is going to let you kick that football!

Which predictions turned out to be false? I haven't gone back and re-watched the movie to catalog all the predictions, but since it appears you have, I am curious about which ones were wrong.

Also, please do not accuse people of calling others names when you are doing the same thing. Try to rise above. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack Frost said:

 

Your reference to the collective "we're" is creepy.

 

 

No, the reference to the collective "we're" is not creepy. As I tried to explain to you last time, there's a couple dozen of "us" that have been on this forum for 10 years. "We" all know and respect each other. "We've" seen deniers like you come and go. I've spent hundreds of hours refuting the exact same denier nonsense you are spewing in this thread. Collectively, "we've" spent thousands of hours. "We've" can also refer to the scientific consensus in this area.

Honestly, I haven't seen a denier claim so obviously wrong in at least a few years on this forum. Even most deniers don't dispute the very obvious fact that humans have increased CO2 concentration. They'd rather expend their energy in more easily obfusticatable areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.