1 year: 1.08 F rise in Arctic ocean temp

[Tide]

I normally allow Andre to present his arguments unchallenged. Since I don't feel that Andre is qualified to discredit global warming arguments, I felt that an objection was in order.

So, let me make sure that I understand your position: You are not only a climate expert, but also a fusion expert.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=41819

Got it.

I stated my positions and I stand by them. I think it's highly inappropriate and offensive for a mentor to challenge points on the basis of "qualifications" as it sets a very bad example both for members of the forum and for people entering science.

Having said that, I am a physicist and I understand the workings of science. My work was in fusion and anyone should be able to intelligently discuss the merits of global climate change with or without degrees in the sciences. The fact that you posed your "query" as you did indicates that you're less interested in educating and sharing knowledge than you are in posturing. I would suggest that you adopt a less confrontational attitude and elicit views from all rather than stifling discussion.

 

[NileQueen]

Ivan Seeking does seem more into belittlement than mentoring...

 

[pebrew]

CO2 rate of change

You are mentioning the Precautionary Principle. But how do we know the threat is big enough? Don't we need at least some undisputed scientific evidence?

The alarmists have taken this principle as cover in case AGW is false according to the principle "heads I win, tails you loose"

This principle seems to be: Fossil fuel use must be banned, either legimate as genuine cure against global warming or via a trick even if it has no significant influence on climate. So, following the Precautionary Principle, we must avoid the risk of increasing CO2 emissions at all cost.

It's possible to follow the Precautionary Principle to a degree somewhere in line with the quality of scientific evidence. I find the current AGW 'evidence' interesting, but by no means entirely convincing, which is why I mentioned taking relatively inexpensive steps towards reducing CO2 emissions. Not banning fossil fuels, but perhaps implementing biofuels and CO2-free energy where it is not incredibly expensive to do. There are a lot of novel technologies starting to sprout up that, with a moderate amount of government-funded encouragement, could blossom quickly (within 10 or 15 years) into meaningful CO2 reductions as well as other environmental benefits.
Fortunately we don't have to say 'all or nothing' to CO2 right now.

Why has CO2 become such a dangereous pest?There has been several percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without the world boiling. CO2 was way up during the geologic past without catastrophic climate consequences. We need carbon, that's what live is made of. Fossil fuels just give a new impuls to the carbon cycle. We need it to feed the billions and get the oceans back on good levels of live.

CO2 does affect plant growth immensely, but the increased growth is not enough to counterbalance increased CO2, so if CO2 is bad for some reason, the plants won't be able to suck it all up. Plus, do you want to have to mow your lawn twice as often? Even relatively small increases in plant growth could have unpleasant consequences, or environmentally harmful ones. CO2 also dissolves in the oceans, changing the pH, if only slightly. I'm no expert at oceans, but I think the change (say, at 600ppm atmospheric CO2) could be meaningful to the ocean life from what I've heard before.

Looking at CO2 data for the past (50 years, http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple-gr.htm , 1000 years, and 400,000 years) it appears that current CO2 levels are above those for at least 400k years (and I believe the new Vostok cores agree as well). The true peaks in CO2 over the past 400k are undoubtedly higher than those seen in the Vostok data since the resolution is poor. So we don't know for sure how high a CO2 concentration our global environmental system can handle. If we reach 600 or so ppm of CO2 by 2100 (as predicted) we may very well be in unknown territory for our environment.
More importantly (well, at least in my mind), the speed with which CO2 is currently rising is unprecedented if compared to the Vostok records. In the increasing periods, it took about 100kyrs to increase 100ppm CO2. We've already increased it 100ppm in just a century or two. And as we all know from calculus, the rate of change of a value can be more important than the value itself. Obviously, 200 years does not allow for the same evolution in species that 100kyrs would. A couple centuries in the geologic (and atmospheric?) carbon cycle is just a blip, too. If we're relying on the current global environmental system to take care of CO2 with whatever functions have worked in the past (for example, plankton->seacreatures-> dead seacreature on deep ocean floor-> sedimentation) we may be sorely disappointed, as our current output is a jolt of CO2 compared to history.
If a doubling, tripling, etc of historic values of CO2 is essentially meaningless to the system then it doesn't matter, of course. But since CO2 is such a basic, necessary part of so many systems in out environment, I'd be surprised if such a quick increase made little difference.

 

[Bystander]

Siv really needs to get into this discussion --- she's the forum's critical thinker; but, we'll settle for resurrection of the "Sagan Baloney Detection Kit" she brought up in earlier versions of PF

http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

An excerpt:
"Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision). "

GHW, AGW, and this discussion reek of these and other logical fallacies.

"Climatology," an "earth science" is a "specialized" area of physics in which normal physical principles do NOT apply? Hardly. Anyone who knows "his" (politically incorrect --- tough) physics, can apply that physics to the global warming/climate change argument/discussion and make informed decisions regarding quality of data, quality of logic trains leading to various consequences, quality of conclusions regarding cause and effect, and what special interests may or may not be driving the various "schools of thought."

Quality of data a reasonable place to start?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it interesting that most who argue against global warming also dispute the credibility of the recognized experts. To me this is no different than promoting home grown theories in the physics forums. Since this is supposed to be a site for education and not personal theory development, I feel that my objections and comments are justified. If all of you experts have published papers on global warming, please post them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should add that I like and respect Andre and I take no pleasure in being critical. I see no other way to put his arguments in perspective. He is not an expert.

I'm sorry Andre. I hope you're right.

 

[Andre]

If, Ivan Seeking, every now and then, you would have opened one of my links you would have either found that I based my posts on hard data or accepted articles of recognized specialists. On the subject of Antropogenic Global Warming I have nothing home made.

Pebrew, I respect your reflections about carbon dioxide changes. There is a lot more though. Most unfortunately there is no continuous CO2 record from the Greenland ice cores. Instead, however we do have CH4. You may recall that methane in GISPII increased sharply (about doubled) within decades about 21 times the last 50,000 years, directly following the dD Deuterium ratio. The so called Dansgaard Oeschger events. Those have been interpreted as "Ten degrees temperature change within a decade" (Richard Alley - Two Mile Time Machine). The problem however is that geologic/paleonthologic in situ evidence world wide gives no trace of supporting evidence for violent climate changes in the time frame of the D-O events. On the other hand, many ODP ocean sediment cores react simultaneously and as violent as the Dansgaard Oeschger events.So we do have evidence that we are facing a tremenduous puzzle instead of an open shut carbon-dioxide = global warming case.

No time for links for the moment but I can substantiate each and every one of that statement, Ivan Seeking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

please see late edit. I'll shut up now.

 

[Tide]

“It's humbling to find out how often you're wrong.”

That's what one of the "expert" climate modelers has to say about his own work. After spending $20 MILLION NASA finally figured out that clouds matter! http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=693

 

[Phobos]

Tide - No need to get upset with me, I'm mainly asking for more info. As I mentioned, I am not familiar with the specifics of the climate models. I have heard that they calibrate well, but you are telling me they do not. Looks like I should check into it.

 

[Tide]

Phobos

Tide - No need to get upset with me, I'm mainly asking for more info. As I mentioned, I am not familiar with the specifics of the climate models. I have heard that they calibrate well, but you are telling me they do not. Looks like I should check into it.

I was not upset with you in any way though I think other mentors, who shall remain nameless, ought to be a bit more mindful of manners.

With respect to climate models there's a vast literature on the technical issues but for a laymen's overview of the central issues I recommend a book called "Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick. It's somewhat biased and they get a little careless in some places but their main points are sound.

Good luck!

 

[Andre]

That's http://www.takenbystorm.info/ .

McKitrick is also the man who discovered the correlation between surface warming and number of (rural) weather stations. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/econ-persp.pdf.

 

[pebrew]

Most unfortunately there is no continuous CO2 record from the Greenland ice cores. Instead, however we do have CH4. You may recall that methane in GISPII increased sharply (about doubled) within decades about 21 times the last 50,000 years, directly following the dD Deuterium ratio. The so called Dansgaard Oeschger events. Those have been interpreted as "Ten degrees temperature change within a decade" (Richard Alley - Two Mile Time Machine). The problem however is that geologic/paleonthologic in situ evidence world wide gives no trace of supporting evidence for violent climate changes in the time frame of the D-O events. On the other hand, many ODP ocean sediment cores react simultaneously and as violent as the Dansgaard Oeschger events.So we do have evidence that we are facing a tremenduous puzzle instead of an open shut carbon-dioxide = global warming case.

No time for links for the moment but I can substantiate each and every one of that statement.

andre, whenever you get the time, could you post some links or book titles as i'd like to read more about this stuff. especially the CO2 record.
thanks.

 

[Andre]

Pebrew, you said "especially the CO2 record". This is how bias starts. If you're really interested I would stop reading books - They always represent scholar consensus New scientific articles are much more interesting. All of them. Books can't keep up with it. Also stop being interested in "especially-this-or-that". All of it is important. And if you're lucky you may discover the general picture, overviewing everything at once.

I'd recommend the "Climate and Clathrate" thread. There will be carbon and ice cores in it. Lots of it. You'll get the idea.

 

[pebrew]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
iiiicccccceeeeee cooorrrrreeess...