global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[iNow]

Like a good scientist, Hansen stated it as an "if/then." He never said, "this WILL happen." Interestingly, that's exactly what the models do. They don't predict climate. They model it based on various possible inputs.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

"Is the first statement you quoted from Hansen wrong?"

 

That first statement was :

 

"As an example, let us say that ice sheet melting adds 1 centimetre to sea level for the decade 2005 to 2015, and that this doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. This would yield a rise in sea level of more than 5 metres by 2095."

 

Current sea level rise is 3 mm per year, which ties in with Hansen's 2005 to 2015. Sea level rise has increased, with about 20 years ago being 2 mm per year, and so there has been an increase. However, I cannot see any empirical evidence to support a prediction as extreme as Hansen's. Sea level rise has not been doubling each decade, and apart from catastropist pseudo-religious act of faith, there is no reason to assume it will double each decade in future.

 

iNow said

 

"Like a good scientist, Hansen stated it as an "if/then." He never said, "this WILL happen." Interestingly, that's exactly what the models do. They don't predict climate. They model it based on various possible inputs. "

 

But what Hansen said was :

 

"Of course, I cannot prove that my choice of a 10-year doubling time is accurate but I'd bet $1000 to a doughnut that it provides a far better estimate......."

 

This is not a good scientist's objective assessment of an if/then statement. This is an assertion of faith by a person who follows a pseudo-religion.

 

Now, I am not for a moment saying that all climatologists are so downright subjective. Just that Hansen showed a major weakness, and showed that his ideas on global warming do not meet the high standards any scientist should expect.

 

Now why don't we leave this sorry story behind us and move on to something that more meets those high scientific standards.

[iNow]

iNow said

 

"Like a good scientist, Hansen stated it as an "if/then." He never said, "this WILL happen." Interestingly, that's exactly what the models do. They don't predict climate. They model it based on various possible inputs. "

 

But what Hansen said was :

 

"Of course, I cannot prove that my choice of a 10-year doubling time is accurate but I'd bet $1000 to a doughnut that it provides a far better estimate......."

 

This is not a good scientist's objective assessment of an if/then statement. This is an assertion of faith by a person who follows a pseudo-religion.

Ah, yes. Quite right. I now clearly see the error of my comment.

 

 

From your source:

 

"In my opinion, if the world warms by 2 °C to 3 °C, [implied "then"'] such massive sea level rise is inevitable, and a substantial fraction of the rise would occur within a century."

 

It must have been the "in my opinion" comment with which that sentence began that through me off track and made me think he was giving a... how'd you say it? ... a "good scientist's objective assessment." As we can all now see, he intended to share "good data" and was misleading each of us, trying to convert us to follow his "psuedo-religion." It was his use of the "in my opinion" qualifier that allows us to know this with certainty.

 

 

 

Oh yeah. I need to ignore you b/c of this:

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

A blatant ad hom attack hidden behind a reference is still a blatant ad hom attack. Outright insults like that should get you banned from the thread, and if there is a moderator reading, I formally request that iNow be banned.

You may have thought that was funny. It was not!

[iNow]

It was just a reference for why I need to start ignoring you again.

 

 

I'm not sure mods ban people based on request, but perhaps they do songs? You should tip them, throw some cash into their hats and guitar cases, then wait and see what happens.

 

Funny is relative. Facts are not. You were painting Hansen's comments as some herendous factual error in someones objective work of science. They were not. It was his opinion, clearly identified as such, and couched using if/then logic. I can appreciate that you're not happy with the end of my previous post, but fail to see how you continue missing the simple fact that Hansen was not worshipping any psuedo-scare mongering religion (and you somehow have the audacity to accuse me of logical fallacies when you continue making grossly inaccurate comments such as that).

 

Oh yeah... Ignore SkepticLance. I might just remember that one of these days.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

Please, please, please, please, please ignore me!!!

 

Please just exit from any thread in which I am debating, and leave it alone. Pretty, pretty please. I am getting heartily sick of gratuitous insults and ad hom attacks purely because you do not like what I have to say.

 

Just in case you did not get the message, please ignore me and any thread I am involved in. If you cannot behave in a civilised way, it is far better that you get out.

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

"Is the first statement you quoted from Hansen wrong?"

 

That first statement was :

 

"As an example, let us say that ice sheet melting adds 1 centimetre to sea level for the decade 2005 to 2015, and that this doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. This would yield a rise in sea level of more than 5 metres by 2095."

 

Current sea level rise is 3 mm per year, which ties in with Hansen's 2005 to 2015. Sea level rise has increased, with about 20 years ago being 2 mm per year, and so there has been an increase. However, I cannot see any empirical evidence to support a prediction as extreme as Hansen's. Sea level rise has not been doubling each decade, and apart from catastropist pseudo-religious act of faith, there is no reason to assume it will double each decade in future.

 

And this is your error. If sea level rises were to double each decade, you would indeed get a 5-meter increase in in sea levels (1+2+4+8+16+32+64+128+256) in 9 decades. But Hansen didn't say this would happen. He said "let us say" it would happen. It's a math word problem, no more. An example of geometric growth, and as such it is 100% correct: add those numbers and you get 511 cm.

 

iNow said

 

"Like a good scientist, Hansen stated it as an "if/then." He never said, "this WILL happen." Interestingly, that's exactly what the models do. They don't predict climate. They model it based on various possible inputs. "

 

But what Hansen said was :

 

"Of course, I cannot prove that my choice of a 10-year doubling time is accurate but I'd bet $1000 to a doughnut that it provides a far better estimate......."

 

This is not a good scientist's objective assessment of an if/then statement. This is an assertion of faith by a person who follows a pseudo-religion.

 

Now, I am not for a moment saying that all climatologists are so downright subjective. Just that Hansen showed a major weakness, and showed that his ideas on global warming do not meet the high standards any scientist should expect.

 

Now why don't we leave this sorry story behind us and move on to something that more meets those high scientific standards.

 

First of all, you prematurely end the quote (beware terminal ellipses) which changes the meaning — his comparison is to a linear increase, which means that YOU, SkepticLance, are his target audience here. His betting his professional analysis and interpretation that the nonlinear form of the positive feedbacks will result in a greater-than-linear rate of sea level increase. And you respond by calling it a pseudo-religion.

 

And to argue that it won't increase faster than linearly because it hasn't in the past misses his point in spectacular fashion. I don't recall reading a scientific argument from you as to why this would not happen, only that you assume it will continue linearly. Conversely, Hansen outlines why the feedbacks are nonlinear, what the positive- and negative-feedback terms are and what could happen under his described set of circumstances. Is he wrong about albedo-flip? Is he wrong about what happens with meltwater lubrication of the ice? Is he wrong about the latitude variation n temperature increase? All the other points raised in the article?

[Edtharan]

For example : the warming over the past 30 years approximates linear. There are lots of small fluctuations in temperature over that period, but a regression line can be drawn through all the points on the graph that is damn near a perfect straight line.

The problem with an exponential growth is if you take a small enough section, it will appear linear. A 30 year period is a small time in geological time that ti would appear linear.

 

However, let me refresh you on something you said earlier: "Sure, the last 30 years has seen warming at an unprecedented rate."

 

This is in direct conflict with your position that you have repeated sevral times now: "but a regression line can be drawn through all the points on the graph that is damn near a perfect straight line."

 

First you say that it is not a straight line, but then you say it is. Is it straight or not?

 

As I pointed out, if CO2 increase continues at the present rate, the rate of warming will reduce, since the relationship is an inverse exponent.

From all the data I have seen it is not. Where are you getting this data from?

 

Only if CO2 emissions increase very substantially, will warming increase beyond what it is to any great degree.

Hang on! In the sentence right before this (see above) you said that there is an inverse relationship with CO2.

 

Again you keep contradicting your self. In one sentence you sate that if CO2 increases we will get a cooling, but then in the very next sentence you say that we will get a warming.

 

We even know which parameter. It appears to be sunspot activity, which was very high during the Medieval Climate Optimum, and nearly zero during the Little Ice Age, and rising to massive again by 1940.

So if we follow your logic, then sun spot activity only contributes around 0.5C of warming (in total). But you also state that in the last 30 years we have had a total of 0.3C in warming.

 

That means that in just 50 years we will have experienced the same warming that took around 250 years before. That is worrying. And that is from your data and assuming no increase in warming rates as per your interpretation of the data.

 

I see my role in these kinds of discussions as being the person who points out the degree of doubt and uncertainty. I may puncture a few people's fond beliefs, and make myself unpopular that way. But it is still healthy to have someone who challenges.

Although you are trying to point out the degree of uncertainty, I think you might have the degree wrong. There is uncertainty in all endeavours, even scientific ones. But you lack of understanding on complex systems and the level of understanding about the climate and oceanic systems (which you have demonstrated) means that you can't actually make an informed assessment on the level of uncertainty.

 

It would be a bit like me trying to make an assessment on the Wheat Futures markets. I understand a little bit about economics (as I have demonstrated in this thread), but as I don't understand much about wheat, or the problems that contribute to the price fluctuations, I really couldn't make such an assessment.

 

I even question your ability to interpret that data at all. You have made (and keep making) the same mistake. You cite an increased rate of warming in the last 30 years, but you maintain that there has been no increase in warming.

 

This is not interpretation, this is self contradiction.

 

If this is the rigour that you have applied to your "interpretations", then it seriously raises a lot of doubt over your ability to do such things.

 

Not only that, in the last 3 posts I have made I have brought such "mistakes" into questions. You have not responded to these in an effort to show that this is not my mistake (ie: I have read your posts wrong).

 

These are big and serious holes in your arguments. Such holes would be overlooked by someone who "believes" they are right, but not someone who is being sceptical about the issue.

 

I am sceptical about the global warming issue, but I actually recognise my limitations in understanding, and when I find them I seek to fill them (that is why I learnt about complex systems, and economics). What I find is that things are not as simple as I first thought. There is data that both support and contradicts a simple view of GW. You have demonstrated that you have a simple view of global warming, and so it will appear that there is contradictory evidence about GW.

 

However, if you understand it from a Complex Systems perspective, then the contradictory data is no longer contradictory.

 

The James Hansen quote was from :

 

http://environment.newscientist.com/...mg19526141.600

 

He is quoted as saying :

 

"As an example, let us say that ice sheet melting adds 1 centimetre to sea level for the decade 2005 to 2015, and that this doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. This would yield a rise in sea level of more than 5 metres by 2095.

 

Of course, I cannot prove that my choice of a 10-year doubling time is accurate but I'd bet $1000 to a doughnut that it provides a far better estimate of the ice sheet's contribution to sea level rise than a linear response. In my opinion, if the world warms by 2 °C to 3 °C, such massive sea level rise is inevitable, and a substantial fraction of the rise would occur within a century. Business-as-usual global warming would almost surely send the planet beyond a tipping point, guaranteeing a disastrous degree of sea level rise."

I think this is a bit of a Quote out of context logical fallacy here. The quote opens with: "As an example". In other words this is not a prediction, but an example of what he is talking about.

 

You have taken this as he is saying that this will happen, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that if this were to happen, than this would be the result. He is trying to point out how much water is stored in the ice sheets, not that the ice sheet will disappear in 90 years or so.

 

He then says that he thinks that there is an increasing rate of loss (not double, but definitely non-linear).

 

You keep putting this up as your argument that there are climate catastrophists (and there are). But, even if this guy is one, it doesn't mean that the other scientists that are not catastrophists, but also not deniers are also wrong. Or that if someone mentions something about global warming that is a little bit unsettling, it does not mean that they are scaremongers.

 

It would be a bit like me saying that I don't think the Ice caps are going to melt in the next 50 years, and then being labelled as a climate change denier because of that.

 

This guy has made a comment that was an example of how the sea level would be effected when all the ice has melted. He did not say what you seem to think he is saying.

 

Now why don't we leave this sorry story behind us and move on to something that more meets those high scientific standards.

You keep bringing it up, but the fact is you have severely misunderstood it (and a lot of other things by what you have posted in this thread).

 

Suggestions for what we should do range from dropping a trillion tonnes of powdered lime into the ocean, to dumping iron filings in the ocean, to orbiting thousands of mirrors to reflect heat away, to laying thousands of square kilometres of white cloth over the land to reflect away heat, to banning private cars, to building 10 million wind turbines etc etc.

Notice here how you have lumped Wind Turbines in with Dropping Powered lime or Iron fillings into the ocean, or launching a phenomenal number of mirrors into orbit in the same group.

 

Why not throw in building Nuclear Power plants too if we want to just be ridiculous.

 

the fact is, that building Wind Turbines is much more practical and economic than launching thousands of mirrors into space. Also, the problem with the mirrors (and the iron fillings and the lime) is that these are all "Business as Usual" and are not really solving the problem, but delaying the consequences, a completely different kettle of fish altogether.

 

Those "far out there", "delay the consequences" are not really considered by climate scientists, they are usually put forward either by people trying to discredit anything to do with global warming, or as part of a brain storming session which is just looking for any solution (and usually looking for a solution to a worst case scenario).

 

This is again showing you inability to actually asses anything to do with global warming in a rational or logical manner. So you demonstrate again why you can't be relied upon to be the person "who points out the degree of doubt and uncertainty".

 

Rather obviously, some of those suggestions are sheer stupidity.

Ahh. Now it comes out why you lumped them together: Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy.

 

Some of them are ridiculous and so are not really considered by climate scientists, but are used by (and quite probably put forward by) climate change deniers. Those that want to lump real and practical solutions in with them so as to make people think that business as usual is alright (usually those with a vested interest in "business as usual").

 

What you have to understand is there are a lot of people with a lot of money tied up in doing "business as usual". These people have enough money to pay others to bring out reports that support their interests, or to manipulate the media into exaggerating any perceived disagreements.

 

It is also not like there is no historical precedents for this. The Tobacco industry is one such that has done this before (DDT and asbestos are other examples).

 

If you look at the number of submissions (not only the ones that got published but that were submitted) to peer review journals on global warming, there was less than 1% of the submissions on climate by anyone denying the effects of GW. Yet the media makes it out as if there is some huge disagreement among the scientists.

[swansont]

 

Again you keep contradicting your self. In one sentence you sate that if CO2 increases we will get a cooling, but then in the very next sentence you say that we will get a warming.

 

No, I think you misread that. A reduced rate of warming is not the same as cooling.

[iNow]

Good correction, swansont. Overall, however, Edtharan's response is markedly accurate and detailed.

[SkepticLance]

It is really very easy to misread another person's statement, if you do not study it closely. A series of such misreadings have been shown on the last two posts.

 

First : James Hansen. I have NOT said that he was writing in peer reviewed journals. Even Hansen is not stupid enough to write something as utterly nonsensical as his 5 metre sea level rise in a journal where his peers can shoot it down in flames. He expressed it as an opinion, which is all it is. But he expressed it very strongly.

 

I first came across this in a paper edition of New Scientist, in a full length article. However, I cannot post that via the internet, so I have found and posted the condensed e.version. Anyway, the whole point of me mentioning this was simply to back up my earlier statement showing the absolutely normal way people go from a rational opinion based on data, to an irrational opinion based on exaggeration, via repeated discussions with others who share their opinions.

 

Al Qaeda is a perfect example. A few Muslims get together and express their view that America is a threat to their faith. After repeated such meetings and discussions, their vague fears balloon into full blown paranoia, and the end result is 9/11. This is a normal and natural human tendency and is probably a social mechanism for binding tribal groups. Sadly, in today's world, it can result in weird exaggerated ideas. Global warming extremism is just one example.

 

Since so many people have over-reacted to my example of this psychological phenomenon, let's just put it behind us?

 

Edtharan

 

You have misread and misunderstood my statements about warming and linearity. I said the last 30 years saw unprecedented warming, which it did. But over that 30 year period, ignoring minor fluctuations, that warming approached linear. The two statements do not contradict each other.

 

You said :

 

"Hang on! In the sentence right before this (see above) you said that there is an inverse relationship with CO2.

 

Again you keep contradicting your self. In one sentence you sate that if CO2 increases we will get a cooling, but then in the very next sentence you say that we will get a warming. "

 

Perhaps my wording was clumsy here. The relationship between CO2 and warming is not mathematically inverse. I used the word 'inverse' since I could not think of a better. There is a special relationship between CO2 and warming in that doubling CO2 will increase warming, but to a degree less than double. To get substantial increased warming will require an increase in CO2 that is more than substantial. I do not have the exact equation in front of me, but to illustrate the point, it is as if you need triple the CO2 to get double the warming.

 

I learned of this relationship first in Dr. Patrick Michael's book 'Meltdown' which is about global warming. However, I have seen it mentioned in other sources since. It is a fairly basic relationship in the global climate change debate.

 

You also said

 

"That means that in just 50 years we will have experienced the same warming that took around 250 years before."

 

Actually, the past 30 years saw warming and the 20 years before saw cooling. 1800 AD to 1940 AD saw a warming of 0.6 C. 1940 to 1976 saw a net cooling of 0.2 C. 1976 to the present saw a warming of 0.3C.

 

Thus you will see that your statement above is a wee bit inaccurate.

 

"You keep putting this up as your argument that there are climate catastrophists (and there are). But, even if this guy is one, it doesn't mean that the other scientists that are not catastrophists, but also not deniers are also wrong. Or that if someone mentions something about global warming that is a little bit unsettling, it does not mean that they are scaremongers."

 

Again you are ascribing to me things I never said. Of course not all climatologists are scaremongers. Most are good scientists who would not publish anything that goes beyond the bounds of good science. However, the rational and restrained ones are not the ones who get the publicity, and the opinions of the public are disproportionately modified by the exaggerators. You only need to look at something like the Greenpeace web site to see how this can get out of control!

 

"Notice here how you have lumped Wind Turbines in with Dropping Powered lime or Iron fillings into the ocean, or launching a phenomenal number of mirrors into orbit in the same group."

 

Again it would help if you read my statement a bit more carefully. I said wind turbines were one of the measures often mentioned. I did not say it was stupid. I said some of the measures mentioned were stupid. That is not the same thing as criticising wind turbines, which do have a role to play.

 

Edtharan, I have no problem with you criticising or even attacking my thesis. But in future, I would really appreciate you reading it properly first, before you launch your attack.

Edited August 31, 2008 by SkepticLance

[iNow]

I said the last 30 years saw unprecedented warming, which it did. But over that 30 year period, ignoring minor fluctuations, that warming approached linear. The two statements do not contradict each other.

 

You said :

 

"Hang on! In the sentence right before this (see above) you said that there is an inverse relationship with CO2.

 

Again you keep contradicting your self. In one sentence you sate that if CO2 increases we will get a cooling, but then in the very next sentence you say that we will get a warming. "

 

Perhaps my wording was clumsy here. The relationship between CO2 and warming is not mathematically inverse. I used the word 'inverse' since I could not think of a better. There is a special relationship between CO2 and warming in that doubling CO2 will increase warming, but to a degree less than double. To get substantial increased warming will require an increase in CO2 that is more than substantial. I do not have the exact equation in front of me, but to illustrate the point, it is as if you need triple the CO2 to get double the warming.

 

It's like deja vu, all over again:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=379657#post379657

You have once again mischaracterized the chain of events' date=' but this has been pointed out may times; you can go back and reread previous posts to see the details. You made a linear projection of temperature, which was the objection.

 

One thing you haven't acknowledged is the measurement of CO2 concentrations, which — as you recognize — are a significant driver of the temperature change. It is quite obviously an exponential.

 

Your (well, everybody's) admission that CO2 levels several decades before did not have a significant effect on temperature is another bit of data that shows that the longer-term trend cannot be treated as linear.

 

Despite the fact that a linear fit to the graph in question yields the numbers you gave, the projection of further tempeature increase and the conclusion you drew (i.e. whether a 3ºC increase is likely) isn't justified.[/quote']

 

 

 

Probably time to close this thread, too. Lance did not learn from the previous exchange, and seems impervious to accuracy or learning in this one, too.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

Until you apologise for your reprehensible action is delivering gratuitous insults and ad hom attacks, you have forfeited your right to be taken seriously.

 

Perhaps someone who can debate in a more civilised fashion may choose to respond, but I have no interest in debating with iNow.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd like to point out that the idea of fertilizing the ocean with iron is actually not such a bad idea. Much of the ocean has very little life in it, mostly due to the lack of iron in the water. Mostly, life is only plentiful around the coastal areas, and places where mineral rich water rises from the ocean floor. Iron is very cheap, and relatively little is needed to produce a large effect. In addition to removing CO2, it will increase the food supply of the oceans, which might be enough to cover the costs of the iron. It is probably the cheapest way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

Oh, and I believe the suggestion was iron sulphate. Iron fillings would just sink to the bottom.

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

 

The 'idiot' factor surrounding the addition of iron is simply lack of data. We know that iron stimulates plankton growth. We do NOT know if that translates into carbon removal. To do that, the increased biomass would have to somehow end up in long term storage, so that the carbon is not recycled. It is possible that some would end as deep sea sediment, but there is no data to confirm or deny that.

 

In addition, we need to be aware of possible deleterious ecological effects. Adding heaps of iron, with the subsequent plankton blooms would almost certainly have unpredictable effects on the wider ecology. Until we have a LOT more information, such ideas have to be put into the crackpot hat.

[iNow]

I'd like to point out that the idea of fertilizing the ocean with iron is actually not such a bad idea. Much of the ocean has very little life in it, mostly due to the lack of iron in the water. Mostly, life is only plentiful around the coastal areas, and places where mineral rich water rises from the ocean floor. Iron is very cheap, and relatively little is needed to produce a large effect. In addition to removing CO2, it will increase the food supply of the oceans, which might be enough to cover the costs of the iron. It is probably the cheapest way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

Oh, and I believe the suggestion was iron sulphate. Iron fillings would just sink to the bottom.

 

To Mr Skeptic

 

The 'idiot' factor surrounding the addition of iron is simply lack of data. We know that iron stimulates plankton growth. We do NOT know if that translates into carbon removal. To do that, the increased biomass would have to somehow end up in long term storage, so that the carbon is not recycled. It is possible that some would end as deep sea sediment, but there is no data to confirm or deny that.

 

In addition, we need to be aware of possible deleterious ecological effects. Adding heaps of iron, with the subsequent plankton blooms would almost certainly have unpredictable effects on the wider ecology. Until we have a LOT more information, such ideas have to be put into the crackpot hat.

 

 

 

While won't go so far as to suggest an "idiot factor" or this being deserving of being tossed into the "crackpot hat" like Lance did, I do want to say that we DO understand what will happen to the wider ecology through such an action, and we understand that those deleterious effects are pretty significant.

 

The additional plankton can also lead to anoxic dead zones, very bad for oceans. We see this now at river mouths which feed into larger bodies of water, carrying with them fertilizers and plant growth chemicals from run off of farms and residential areas (see graphic below):

 

 

 

 

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/oceanColor/dead_zones.shtml

"Dead zones" in this context are areas where the bottom water (the water at the sea floor) is anoxic — meaning that it has very low (or completely zero) concentrations of dissolved oxygen. These dead zones are occurring in many areas along the coasts of major continents, and they are spreading over larger areas of the sea floor. Because very few organisms can tolerate the lack of oxygen in these areas, they can destroy the habitat in which numerous organisms make their home.

 

The cause of anoxic bottom waters is fairly simple: the organic matter produced by phytoplankton at the surface of the ocean (in the euphotic zone) sinks to the bottom (the benthic zone),where it is subject to breakdown by the action of bacteria, a process known as bacterial respiration. The problem is, while phytoplankton use carbon dioxide and produce oxygen during photosynthesis, bacteria use oxygen and give off carbon dioxide during respiration. The oxygen used by bacteria is the oxygen dissolved in the water, and that’s the same oxygen that all of the other oxygen-respiring animals on the bottom (crabs, clams, shrimp, and a host of mud-loving creatures) and swimming in the water (zooplankton, fish) require for life to continue.

 

The "creeping dead zones" are areas in the ocean where it appears that phytoplankton productivity has been enhanced, or natural water flow has been restricted, leading to increasing bottom water anoxia. If phytoplankton productivity is enhanced, more organic matter is produced, more organic matter sinks to the bottom and is respired by bacteria, and thus more oxygen is consumed. If water flow is restricted, the natural refreshing flow of oxic waters (water with normal dissolved oxygen concentrations) is reduced, so that the remaining oxygen is depleted faster.

 

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

The estimate I heard was that about 30% of the carbon in the plankton would find its way to the bottom.

 

Yes, the anoxic effects it could cause would be bad news for oxygen breathers (it does mean that the carbon is going to mostly stay there though). However, that is less of a problem for the deep sea floor, which is composed largely of bacteria and viruses anyhow. Obviously, you wouldn't want to do that near the coasts where much of the ocean life already is. Also, adding a smaller amount of iron so as not to have anoxic effects should be possible.

 

In any case, global warming is expected to mess up the environment pretty badly anyhow.

[JohnB]

Hmm. Busy with work and crook for a while and a sh*tload of reading to catch up on.

 

A couple of points.

 

Has it occurred to anyone that the rather large and well organised groups around the world who would dearly love to shut down the coal fired power stations are also against nuclear power and sand mining? Why do you think there is a shortage of silicon for solar panels? Lack of sand?

 

WRT James Hansens comments. I think this is a great example of what happens when science plays second fiddle to advocasy. It makes a great sound bite for the news while carefully (as has been pointed out) phrasing for scientific accuracy.

 

I particularly like his comparison to the Iowa Utilities Board. Transcript here.

For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.

While his rhetoric bugs me, there is much I agree with in his submission.

 

He also thinks;

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

That's just silly. Unless we want to believe that all those CEOs are incapable of caring about the future of their own children and grandchildren. (They do have families, you know.)

 

A final point for people to think on. The temp record trend for the last several years has been pretty much level. (I don't say 10 years because of the large ElNino of 1998 distorting the picture.) It is of course argued that we should look at longer (generally 30 year) trends. I admit to some amusement when I realise that the original Hansen 1988 paper only used figures up to 1986. Since the mid century cooling was from circa 1940-1975 (graphic), then he was basing his worries and Congressional testimony on only 11 years of temperature rise.

 

Hence, if the rules now were applied then, nobody would have listened to him. (Just my warped mind)

 

inow. Nice post about the "Dead Zones". I'll read your link more thoroughly later. I must admit that the pics just look (to me) like true colour sat photos and just show standard silt discharge from river mouths. (Live and learn.)

 

Edtharan, the Antarctic ice sheet isn't breaking up. Some ice shelves on the western antarctic peninsular have collapsed. Just as they have built up and collapsed over the last 15,000 years.

 

Let's look at the recent Wilkins collapse.

 

Firstly size. "The size of Manhattan" as this piece puts it. Sounds big, but nope, only 26 square miles from a continent of over 3 million square miles extent.

 

Secondly duration.

An Antarctic ice shelf the size of Manhattan that has been in place for several hundred years is collapsing and falling into the sea because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica, scientists say.

So presumably it wasn't there 1,000 years ago? Why not? How about "Because it formed during the LIA, and as we are no longer in a LIA it breaks up".

 

If you want, I can provide estimated dates for the previous breakups.

 

Just as unusual cool weather in a small region of a continent should not be held up as "proof" against AGW, warming in a small region of a continent (especially one with such a singular geographical situation like the W.A. Peninsular) should be viewed carefully as well. Sea ice extent down there is up 1 million sq km compared to usual coverage.

[iNow]

Hi John - Since you brought up sea ice and ice shelves, I'll share this article I read this morning:

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7595441.stm

The ice shelves in Canada's High Arctic have lost a colossal area this year, scientists report.

 

The floating tongues of ice attached to Ellesmere Island, which have lasted for thousands of years, have seen almost a quarter of their cover break away.

 

One of them, the 50 sq km (20 sq miles) Markham shelf, has completely broken off to become floating sea-ice.

 

Researchers say warm air temperatures and reduced sea-ice conditions in the region have assisted the break-up.

 

"These substantial calving events underscore the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic," said Trent University's Dr Derek Mueller.

 

<...>

 

Reduced sea-ice conditions and unusually high air temperatures have facilitated the ice shelf losses this summer," said Dr Luke Copland from the University of Ottawa.

 

"And extensive new cracks across remaining parts of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf mean that it will continue to disintegrate in the coming years."

 

Loss of ice in the Arctic, and in particular the extensive sea-ice, has global implications. The "white parasol" at the top of the planet reflects energy from the Sun straight back out into space, helping to cool the Earth.

 

Further loss of Arctic ice will see radiation absorbed by darker seawater and snow-free land, potentially warming the Earth's climate at an even faster rate than current observational data indicates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty dramatic when viewed year-over-year (YoY).

[swansont]

A final point for people to think on. The temp record trend for the last several years has been pretty much level. (I don't say 10 years because of the large ElNino of 1998 distorting the picture.) It is of course argued that we should look at longer (generally 30 year) trends. I admit to some amusement when I realise that the original Hansen 1988 paper only used figures up to 1986. Since the mid century cooling was from circa 1940-1975 (graphic), then he was basing his worries and Congressional testimony on only 11 years of temperature rise.

 

Hence, if the rules now were applied then, nobody would have listened to him. (Just my warped mind)

 

 

Unless Hansen knew some the effects pollution was having in masking temperature increases. The danger in arbitrarily (or not arbitrarily) choosing a time span is cherry-picking the data. If you use a multi-year moving average, the warming trend is still very obvious; it's the comparison to a particular year that is suspect. That's true even in your graph, and also if you include a few more data points from recent years

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

 

This one is quite interesting, as it shows some of the variation with latitude

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif

[iNow]

A final point for people to think on. The temp record trend for the last several years has been pretty much level.

 

No, it hasn't, unless you're referring to the upward trend.

 

See below.

 

This one is quite interesting, as it shows some of the variation with latitude

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif

[JohnB]

I'll see your GISSTemp and raise you a Hadley Centre.

 

Interesting article. I notice it also says

Over the past 100 years, this expanse of ice has retreated by 90%, and at the start of this summer season covered just under 1,000 sq km (400 sq miles).

 

Much of the area was lost during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s.

No-one denies that the world is warmer now than 100 years ago remember.

 

Actually I'm getting a bit worried about the BBC bias. There is a link from your article to this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7461707.stm

You might notice the graph of sea ice extent is shown as sourced from NSIDC and shows extent level pegging with 2007. Yet if we go to the actual NSIDC graph we see nothing of the kind. 2008 is over 100,000 sq km behind 2007 the melt season ends this month. I admit to finding a number of BBC articles misleading to say the least.

Unless Hansen knew some the effects pollution was having in masking temperature increases.

Possible. This is an area that I have trouble with. I've read many papers on climate modelling and keep seeing statements like "We used actual values for particulates" or similar. But I've yet to read one where they state what those values were or where they got them from. It has been claimed constantly that the increase in particulates "masked" the signal and created some sort of artificial cooling during the 1940-1970 period, but I've yet to see a paper that proves the signal was in fact masked. Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true.

 

Even if it was true, what's masking the signal now?

Edited September 4, 2008 by JohnB

[swansont]

I'll see your GISSTemp and raise you a Hadley Centre.

 

"The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

[Edtharan]

No, I think you misread that. A reduced rate of warming is not the same as cooling.

Ahh, thanks For that. I read that as being an inverse (like multiply by -1) exponential curve.

 

Perhaps my wording was clumsy here. The relationship between CO2 and warming is not mathematically inverse. I used the word 'inverse' since I could not think of a better. There is a special relationship between CO2 and warming in that doubling CO2 will increase warming, but to a degree less than double. To get substantial increased warming will require an increase in CO2 that is more than substantial. I do not have the exact equation in front of me, but to illustrate the point, it is as if you need triple the CO2 to get double the warming.

Ahh now I get what you are trying to say, but it doesn't really counter my argument. This has just been one big red herring.

 

The only argument that matters is if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has NO effect, or a reverse effect on global temperatures.

 

Not only that, you have misread what I was saying. I was not saying that for each unit of CO2 the temperature will rise exponentially.

 

As this was what your argument was arguing against, this whole exercise has been one of a Red Herring (based on a strawman of my argument).

 

Let me put it to you very plainly:

 

An increase of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) that leads to an increase in temperature, leads to increased temperatures in areas with permafrosts. This leads to a melting of the permafrosts.

 

In areas where the permafrosts cover vegetation, then this vegetation will begin to rot and release CO2 and Methane.

 

This rotting vegetation then leads to a further increase in temperatures (as an increase in greenhouse gasses leads to an increase in temperatures).

 

As this increase in temperature then leads to more permafrost melting and more rotting vegetation and so more warming, and so more melted permafrost and so more warming and more rotting vegetation...

 

You get the idea now?

 

This is the cause of the Exponential increase in warming, not the direct relationship between the amount of CO2 and the global temperature as you seem to think I was saying.

 

It does not matter one iota whether there is an exponential, linear, or otherwise relationship between the amount of CO2 and the amount the temperatures rises. The ONLY factor that is important in this part of the discussion is that there is a CAUSAL relationship between an increase in the amount of CO2 and ANY increase in temperature.

 

From your data, you state that for a tripling of CO2, then we get a doubling of temperature increase. So you agree that there is a causal relationship between the amount of CO2 and temperature increase. This increase is despite any negative feedbacks that might be acting to slow down the temperature increase.

 

Not only are you making this mistake you are also focusing on the rate of change and comparing it to an absolute value of CO2. This is an invalid comparison for this point argument.

 

What you are saying is that if we triple the absolute amount of CO2, then we double the rate of change in temperature.

 

This in itself is extremely scary. This is far scarier than any claim by a global warming scaremonger.

 

What it means is that if we continue as is, then we can expect massive increase of temperatures within this century, and that even if we halt all CO2 production, we are going to see these increases continue for centuries to come.

 

Lets address these 4 points:

 

1) Global Warming is real.

2) Humans are having an effect on Global Warming.

3) Human activity is a primary cause of Global Warming.

4) The rate of warming is increasing.

 

As point 1 does not require it to be caused by humans, and can be directly measured (ie is the temperature of the Earth going up, down or staying the same?). It also doesn't rely on the temperature being warmer or colder than at some arbitrary point in the past. All it is looking at is temperature increase over time.

 

Do you agree with this.

 

With point 2. The question is does emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have a causal relationship with temperature increases. You yourself have state that you accept that this causal relationship exists. You even specified a rate of increase compared to the amount of CO2.

 

This means that you agree with point 2.

 

Point 3: Well according to your claim about the connection between the amount of CO2 and the rate of temperature increase, then you can only conclude that Humans are having a significant influence on Global Warming as he relationship you specified means that the amount of CO2 we have outputted would be the major factor in the amount of warming we have experienced.

 

So you therefore agree to point 3. The data you provided states that.

 

What about point 4. Is the rate of increase, increasing. Well again, I'll refer back tot he causal relationship you specified between CO2 and temperature. We have been increasing the amount of CO2 being outputted, so this means that the rate of increase must be increasing to match as per the relationship you stated.

 

You therefore agree with point 4.

 

However, this is only due to the data you put forward. With the words that you write, you claim the opposite. You say that you agree with points 1 and 2, but with points 3 and 4 you disagree.

 

So, the data you provided states that you agree with all points, but your words (the conclusions you draw form the data) says that you don't. How are we going to resolve this dilemma. Do we trust your data, or your words to determine your stance on Global Warming?

 

Edtharan, I have no problem with you criticising or even attacking my thesis. But in future, I would really appreciate you reading it properly first, before you launch your attack.

But you are free to do so right.

 

Let me start:

Of course not all climatologists are scaremongers.

I never said that you did.

 

I said wind turbines were one of the measures often mentioned. I did not say it was stupid. I said some of the measures mentioned were stupid.

You have a problem with people that exaggerate. It is one of the big things you keep repeating. Yet, you seem to be free to exaggerate. You use the exaggeration of "building 10 million wind turbines" and placing it in a sentence which consisted only of these ideas which you call "sheer stupidity".

 

Every single other item in that list was what you call "sheer stupidity". You have lumped an exaggeration of wind turbines in a list of "sheer stupidity". You then use the "rather obviously" to indicate some in that list were not supposed to be "sheer stupidity". However, "building 10 million wind turbines" is not one of them.

 

Yes, striclty speaking you can claim that building wind turbines was not intended to be included as "sheer stupidity", but the phrasing of the whole passages indicated that tyou thought otherwise.

 

It is called Double Speak. In other words you wanted us to misinterpret your meaning so you could catch us out on it. This is trolling.

 

It is also a Red Herring logical fallacy. Does this mean you actually can't create a logical reason why my argument is wrong? If you are a sceptic, then you should recognise faulty logic and that an argument based on faulty logic should be rejected (otherwise it is an unsubstantiated belief).

 

Edtharan, I have no problem with you criticising or even attacking my thesis. But in future, I would really appreciate you reading it properly first, before you launch your attack.

If you word your arguments in a way so as to promote misunderstandings, then don't be surprised at all if it is misunderstood.

 

Perhaps someone who can debate in a more civilised fashion may choose to respond

It is this double standard that you apply and the way that you comes down on others that has created this hostility towards you.

 

You expect others to not misinterpret your posts, but the posts are phrased in such a way as to promote misunderstandings. You attack people who exaggerate, but you feel that you can be free to exaggerate yourself. You post data that disagree with your claims, and then state that it does not disagree with your claims (when it blatantly does), and then come down heavy on those that try to point this out. You use red herrings to distract from the point, and apply logical fallacies in your arguments.

 

No. I can understand why the others are hostile towards you. I am just a very patient person.

[iNow]

I'm not.