I was recently reading The New York Times and saw a fantastic ad:
Recent research indicates that the benefits of moderate exposure to sunlight outweigh the hypothetical risks. Surprisingly, there is no compelling scientific evidence that tanning causes melanoma. Scientists have proven, however, that exposure to all forms of ultraviolet light -- both indoors and out -- stimulates the natural production of vitamin D. And research has proven that vitamin D protects against heart disease and many types of cancer, in addition to providing other important health benefits.
If you go to their website, you can read all about it.
The similarities between the "skin cancer" scam and the "global warming" scam are all too clear. First, according to this website, there is actually no evidence linking sun exposure with cancer. Amazing. I thought the epidemiological data nailed that connection decades ago. Boy, was I wrong! This is similar to the fact that there is no evidence linking carbon-dioxide emissions with climate change.
In addition, the sunlightscam website talks about how there is an enormous conspiracy between dermatologists and sunscreen manufacturers to promote this scam. It's all about the money. That's just like the conspiracy between climate scientists and politicians to create the fake problem of climate change.
In addition, the website talks about how exposure to the sun is actually good for you. This reminds me again of global warming: if global warming does occur, it will be beneficial! After all, people love warm weather. Do you need any more evidence than that? Case closed.
And who sponsors this great and informative website? Why, it's the Indoor Tanning Association:
Founded in 1999, the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) represents thousands of indoor tanning manufacturers, distributors, facility owners and members from other supporting industries.
Again, this is reminiscent of the global warming debate. It is only large oil-producing companies like Exxon that have the credibility and moral authority to point out how the scientific community and others who promote global-warming hysteria are biased and corrupt.
Sigh.
I hope people realize I'm joking. The association between sun exposure and skin cancer is every bit as robust as the association between greenhouse gases and climate change. And that means it's pretty damn robust. What's interesting is that the Indoor Tanning Association seems to have virtually plagiarized the strategy incorporated by tobacco companies and global-warming denialists. The phrases "hypothetical risks" and "no compelling scientific evidence," along with efforts to smear the mainstream scientific community with accusations of corruption, are right out of the global-warming denialists' handbook.
This really underscores the effectiveness of the strategy. Regardless of how strong the evidence is -- whether it's the connection between smoking and lung cancer, exposure to sunlight and skin cancer, or greenhouse gases and climate change -- it seems possible to create doubt in the general public's mind with a concerted PR campaign.
Now that I'm done with this post, I think I'll go lie in the sun and relax. After all, according to the Indoor Tanning Association, it's good for me.
No healthcare reform without food-system reform
The new Senate global warming deniers
Comments View as Flat
benp Posted 7:39 am
31 Mar 2008
Dessler lying in the sun... and on Gristmill
What is interesting about Dessler's inability to discuss global warming without recourse to crude analogy is that it reveals a strategy of his own, and the poverty of climate change "ethics". Climate alarmists find it so difficult to connect their arguments to people that they need to seek abstract parallels in the structure of dubious arguments, and those of their opponents, despite their being totally unrelated. Thus we see Naomi Oreskes struggling to identify continuity between the legal defence offered by tobacco companies and the inertia of the environmental movement in the USA. And we see Marc D. Davidson attempting to diminish the moral character of climate change "deniers" by comparing their arguments to the arguments in favour of the continuation of slavery made nearly 200 years ago.
These are sure signs of the exhaustion of the climate change argument. It borrows the moral high-ground from history, but struggles to make the moral case for 'action' on its own terms; climate change denial is the equivalent of being in favour of the slave trade. The climate change argument borrows scientific credibility from medicine; climate change is like cancer, and climate scientists are like doctors. This unsophisticated reasoning isn't designed to shed any light on the matters at hand. It merely uses this borrowed moral and scientific certainty to position climate alarmists on the "good" side.
[from http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/03/more-geometric- ... ]
Permalink
bigTom Posted 8:31 am
31 Mar 2008
Stretching a minor truth.
I did read the review of a scientific study about a year back which stated that moderate exposure (say 15minutes to natural sunlight) per day does have preventive effects. I found this to be eminently believable. It all tracks with some observations of low level ionizing radiation, small doses seem to be beneficial, but large does are (very) harmful. I do think that small doses of some types of toxins stimulate an immune (or other counter response), which actually makes them protective. That of course doesn't mean large doses are a good thing. I suspect indoor tanning saloons give much more than this minimal healthy dosage, their customers are looking for the well tanned look. Of course GW does not follow such a curve, climate response to a forcing (anthropogenic or otherwise) is roughly linear, i.e. there is no threshold below which there is no or negative response.
Permalink
Ark Posted 8:34 am
31 Mar 2008
Dressler needs to do some research
I suggest you read up on the 2006 Wegman Report - The report was funded by Congress
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Re ...
Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.
Permalink
surfthistle Posted 9:25 am
31 Mar 2008
bad analogy
I agree with anthropogenic global warming, and I also agree that a little sunshine is healthy. Rubbing yourself with toxic lotions is far worse than getting a little vitamin D, as long as you don't burn.
This is a bad analogy.
Permalink
hekatonkheire Posted 10:03 am
31 Mar 2008
I don't think it's all that bad an analogy
Yes, you need a little bit of sunlight every day for the vitamin D, and yes, there are things in sunscreen lotion that are probably bad for you. So make sure you get out into the sunlight for a little while every day, and use clothing to protect yourself from sunburn. Deliberately exposing yourself to enough UV to turn yourself from white to brown every couple of months is something else entirely, and that's what the Indoor Tanning Association is promoting. At least in terms of how disingenuous their arguments are, I think they have a fair amount in common with Americans for Balanced Energy Choices.
Admittedly we have kind of a different perspective on skin cancer here in Australia. Presumably there aren't ads like this running in the US, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0ZRuZ513uE&feature=re ...
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:41 am
31 Mar 2008
Science's Achilles Heel
Its unfortunately very easy to cast doubt on science. Scientists have to follow a high standard of behavior and can't be dishonest. The PR people who work for tobacco companies, tanning businesses, oil companies etc. can, and do, lie all they want.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:21 pm
31 Mar 2008
It's Not Nice To Fool With Mother Nature.
You have to cut people some slack. Look at every other health, diet or environmental cause in the last four decades. The pendulum seems to swing one way and then another.
First cholesterol is bad and we shouldn't eat butter, just margarine. Then it turns out there's good and bad cholesterol.
By the time you figure out what's right and wrong with the world, your life is over. You might as well concentrate on having a good time regardless in a kind of Mad Max, Boy and His Dog, Cyberpunk spree of gay abandon.
Remember what Mother Nature says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
gorak Posted 1:51 pm
31 Mar 2008
Subject Matter
The fact that skeptics of both theories use similar language in advancing their scientific opinion says nothing about the value of such opinions. For instance, two people calling different things "myths" does not alter the truth values of the objects they are discussing. If one of them is obviously not a myth, it says nothing about the validity of the other claim. If one of them is indeed a myth, it still says nothing about the other claim.
And you must remember, that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein ect... were SKEPTICS of the currently accepted scientific opinion.
That doesn't say anything about the skeptics of global warming or skin cancer, but it should give you pause before you seek to overturn the skeptical workings of hundreds of years of the modern scientific method.
Permalink
cce Posted 2:35 pm
31 Mar 2008
Link
Oreskes doesn't need to struggle to establish a link. The research program that Seitz ran for R.J. Reynolds was established because "if we can refute the criticisms against cigarettes, we may remove government's excuse for imposing heavy taxes on the product."
Read the CEO's introduction of Seitz.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/29154.html?pattern=frede ...
Read Singer's defense of Second Hand Smoke:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TICT0002555-2573.html?patt ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:40 am
03 Apr 2008
Flawed analogies
In the first comment to this new thread benp hit the nail right on the head.
Andrew Dessler has an uncanny talent for shooting himself in the foot over and over again with flawed analogies between all sorts of real and imagined problems and the current AGW concerns.
As benp pointed out very succinctly, Andrew uses this ploy to try to get a point across without having to defend the real arguments.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:57 am
03 Apr 2008
Achilles Heel of science
Josullivan58 is correct in saying that scientists should "follow a high standard of behavior" and therefore should not "be dishonest".
The problem arises when science is mixed with politics and is being driven by an agenda that is fueled by large sums of money.
It would be a wonderful world if all scientists really were able to "follow a high standard of behavior" and be totally honest all the time.
But money and politics drive this world, josullivan58, whether this is the "coal lobby", the "green activist" lobby or UN bureaucrats and politicians.
This danger of being misused to achieve a political agenda is the real "Achilles heel" of science.
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:24 am
03 Apr 2008
Are you back?
max-
I thought you left after I told you and benp to read the IPCC reports for yourself. you were so offended that I wanted you to do some work educating yourself you went off in a huff. well, if you don't understand the point of this post, I doubt I can explain it any clearer. I suspect, however, that the lurkers can understand my point pretty clearly.
regards
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:41 am
03 Apr 2008
Hi Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Nice to hear from you. I'm sure the "lurkers" can understand your point, as you say.
Yeah. I read all the latest IPCC stuff (no "huff", though).
Guess if their next reports come out in 2013, we'll know more by then about the current "temperature plateau" (as their Chairman calls it) and whether this was the start of a long term flattening or even downturn of the curve. Maybe IPCC will even share some thoughts on what caused it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:52 pm
03 Apr 2008
Here's some history for Andrew
"Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative."
Hi Andrew,
This was before your time, but James E. Hansen was only 2 years old when this 1943 hit by Johnny Mercer hit the charts.
He is now heading the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). As you know, these are the guys that put together temperature records and model studies for the future, under Hansen's leadership.
But this song has obviously made a lasting impression on him over all these years.
He is now "accentuating" the "positive feedbacks" in climate change and "eliminating" the "negative" ones.
Kinda `splains this bizarre behavior, doesn't it?
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:53 am
04 Apr 2008
Weakness in the analogy
The analogy between skin cancer (caused by exposure of the skin to ultraviolet radiation) and global warming (caused by increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide) is, at first glance, compelling.
The analogy is made, "the sunlightscam website talks about how there is an enormous conspiracy between dermatologists and sunscreen manufacturers to promote this scam. It's all about the money. That's just like the conspiracy between climate scientists and politicians to create the fake problem of climate change."
Leaving aside the "conspiracy chatter", we see that there are some basic differences if we dig a bit deeper into the facts,.
These relate to the "levels of evidence" (linking the cause with the effect).
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cancernet/304733.html
The evidence linking the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer to the level and degree of exposure to ultraviolet radiation is provided by
· Controlled trials
· Case-control analytic studies
· Opinion of experts based on clinical experience
The evidence linking the incidence of cutaneous melanoma to the incidence of exposure to sunburns, especially in childhood and adolescence is provided by
· Case-control analytic studies
· Ecologic studies with a cancer incidence link
· Opinion of experts based on clinical experience
In other words, the evidence is in the form of observed effects directly linked to actual physical causes.
A description of one case-control study shows how a sample of subjects "were interviewed about their lifetime sun exposure, including exposure to the site of the squamous cell carcinoma (sites for controls were assigned randomly). Analysis was restricted to 132 cases and 1,031 controls born in Australia and with no ancestors from southern Europe. The total site-specific exposure was strongly related to risk of melanoma; the odds ratio increased to a maximum of 3.3 at 65,000 hr of exposure before falling slightly. Site-specific exposure during childhood and adolescence was more strongly associated with SCC than exposure during adulthood. The number of blistering sunburns to the site was positively associated with SCC. Use of sunscreens and hats showed inconsistent effects. Sun exposure, especially during childhood and adolescence, increases the risk of SCC."
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cgi-bin/mycite?ExtRef=ICDB/983 ...
There have been many such studies, all showing an observed direct link between skin cancer and exposure to ultraviolet radiation.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming we are missing this direct link.
The link is suggested by the greenhouse theory and computer generated climate model studies, which project future changes in globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures, based on projected future atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These are then linked to projections of a higher incidence of more intense tropical storms more severe weather events and accelerating sea level rise in the future. These possible future developments are said to be "likely" or "more likely than not" to occur as a result of human influence based on "expert opinion rather than attribution studies".
In effect we are comparing observed physical evidence with conjecture based on theory and the virtual reality of computer models.
This is the key difference and, therefore, the key weakness in this analogy.
Max
In other words, the evidence is in the form of actually observed effects directly linked to physical causes.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming we are missing this direct link. The link is provided by the greenhouse theory and computer generated climate model studies, which project future changes in globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures, which are then linked to predictions of a higher incidence of more intense tropical storms more severe weather events and accelerating sea level rise. These possible future developments are said to be "likely" or "more likely than not" to occur based on "expert opinion rather than attribution studies".
This is the key difference and, therefore, the key weakness in this analogy.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:59 am
04 Apr 2008
Weakness in the analogy
The analogy between skin cancer (caused by exposure of the skin to ultraviolet radiation) and global warming (caused by increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide) is, at first glance, compelling.
The analogy is made, "the sunlightscam website talks about how there is an enormous conspiracy between dermatologists and sunscreen manufacturers to promote this scam. It's all about the money. That's just like the conspiracy between climate scientists and politicians to create the fake problem of climate change."
Leaving aside the "conspiracy chatter", we see that there are some basic differences if we dig a bit deeper into the facts,.
These relate to the "levels of evidence" (linking the cause with the effect).
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cancernet/304733.html
The evidence linking the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer to the level and degree of exposure to ultraviolet radiation is provided by
· Controlled trials
· Case-control analytic studies
· Opinion of experts based on clinical experience
The evidence linking the incidence of cutaneous melanoma to the incidence of exposure to sunburns, especially in childhood and adolescence is provided by
· Case-control analytic studies
· Ecologic studies with a cancer incidence link
· Opinion of experts based on clinical experience
In other words, the evidence is in the form of observed effects directly linked to actual physical causes.
A description of one case-control study shows how a sample of subjects "were interviewed about their lifetime sun exposure, including exposure to the site of the squamous cell carcinoma (sites for controls were assigned randomly). Analysis was restricted to 132 cases and 1,031 controls born in Australia and with no ancestors from southern Europe. The total site-specific exposure was strongly related to risk of melanoma; the odds ratio increased to a maximum of 3.3 at 65,000 hr of exposure before falling slightly. Site-specific exposure during childhood and adolescence was more strongly associated with SCC than exposure during adulthood. The number of blistering sunburns to the site was positively associated with SCC. Use of sunscreens and hats showed inconsistent effects. Sun exposure, especially during childhood and adolescence, increases the risk of SCC."
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cgi-bin/mycite?ExtRef=ICDB/983 ...
There have been many such studies, all showing an observed direct link between skin cancer and exposure to ultraviolet radiation.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming we are missing this direct link.
The link is suggested by the greenhouse theory and computer generated climate model studies, which project future changes in globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures, based on projected future atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These are then linked to projections of a higher incidence of more intense tropical storms more severe weather events and accelerating sea level rise in the future. These possible future developments are said to be "likely" or "more likely than not" to occur as a result of human influence based on "expert opinion rather than attribution studies".
In effect we are comparing observed physical evidence with conjecture based on theory and the virtual reality of computer models.
This is the key difference and, therefore, the key weakness in this analogy.
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 8:22 am
04 Apr 2008
Hack
What, offended that the reality-based community is finally discovering communication? That you can't use the same tried-and-true PR strategies to confuse the media and sew inaction? Tell me, is the oil industry clientelle for your firm statting to balk at your retainer? What are they going to do when they find out you've been billing hours to troll posting on Grist? I can't imagine they'll be very pleased.
Ethically-challenged would be a generous description for you and your ilk.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:34 am
04 Apr 2008
Who is a hack?
Hey Robco,
Instead of falling into the trap of making ad hominem arguments ("ethically challenged") and absurd "oil industry" allegations, why don't you try addressing the factual arguments instead?
Is it because you are afraid you would lose these?
I believe this is your problem.
BTW I have written that I am not for "inaction" on true energy conservation and environment related issues; just on senseless carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes that would accomplish nothing to resolve these issues.
Got it?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:47 am
04 Apr 2008
Don't delay progress
Hey Robco1,
Just so you know where I stand on "delaying progress", here is what I wrote on another Grist thread.
I am certainly NOT in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to:
· Improving energy efficiency in power generation (i.e. revamping or replacing old inefficient plants with newer plants)
· Reducing waste on all levels
· Reducing real air and water pollution (not CO2 emissions)
· Reducing dependency on imported oil coming from politically unstable regions
· Improving fuel efficiency of automobiles
· Developing new energy-efficient sources of automotive fuels
· Developing and installing more cost-effective renewable power generation sources
· Building more nuclear power plants, and ensuring these are safe, of course)
· Developing new fast breeder technology
· Developing nuclear fusion technology
· Etc.
But I am in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to the implementation of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, which will cost everyone a lot of money and will make some people, organizations, hedge funds or money shufflers rich, but will accomplish none of the above.
Hope this clears it up for you.
But this is all sort of off the topic of this thread, which has to do with an analogy of skin cancer with AGW.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 9:16 am
04 Apr 2008
No more playing nice
If you deny the science of human-induced global warming in the face of over three decades of established scientific consensus, I have no need to play nice. Deniers are only interested in inaction. That and making "ad hominem" attacks on Al Gore and Dr. Hansen.
As for cap and trade "schemes," yeah, they were so ineffective in reducing SO2 from smokestack emmissions . . . whops.
Got it?
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:33 am
04 Apr 2008
You got it wrong, Robco1
Sorry Robco, it appears you are missing the point.
SO2 is pollution. It does not exist naturally in the atmosphere to any significant extent. It is a cause for respiratory problems in humans, for destruction of plant life at higher concentrations and is believed to be a principal cause for acid rain.
CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential trace component of the Earth's atmosphere; no CO2 = no life.
There is no evidence that a reduction of CO2 emissions will have any significant impact on future intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones or future frequency of other extreme weather events.
There is no compelling evidence that a slight warming trend (if it continues) will be more harmful than beneficial for mankind, for the environment and for the future of "our planet".
Over the past 10 years CO2 concentrations have increased annually, but there has been no increase in the "globally average surface (or satellite) land and sea temperature anomaly. Why is this?
The IPCC chairman has indicated he would look into why there has been a plateau in temperatures, and we are all awaiting some answers.
So that it the basic difference here.
Got it now?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 10:27 am
04 Apr 2008
Sorry max, you just made a red herring.
Just because it occurs naturally does not mean it can't be a pollutant. As you well know, CO2 is pollution when you have too much. Don't believe me? Fill your car with CO2 and sit inside with the windows shut. Which you must already be doing to come up with a series of factual errors.
Over the past decade global temp. has increased dramatically, in line with the worst projections from credible scientists. And anyone who is intellectually honest and at all informed knows that there is a mountain of evidence showing how past warming and cooling trends have wreaked havoc on past ecosystems.
The key words there are "honest" and "credible." You folks should try to become familiar with them sometime.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:45 pm
04 Apr 2008
Robco1 gets it wrong again
Wrong again, Robco, when you say: "Just because it occurs naturally does not mean it can't be a pollutant. As you well know, CO2 is pollution when you have too much. Don't believe me? Fill your car with CO2 and sit inside with the windows shut. Which you must already be doing to come up with a series of factual errors."
Sorry Robco, looks like the "red herring" is yours. Here's a brief lesson in Chemistry 101: when you sit in your car and fill it with exhaust gas it is NOT CO2 that kills you. It is CO. (That's carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide). Got the difference?
CO2 could be dangerous to humans above 5,000 ppmv, but there is not enough fossil fuel on this planet to ever reach this level in the atmosphere.
Over the past decade (1998-2008) CO2 has gone up steadily but global temp has not increased at all, as you claim. Check the records:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
Plot it for yourself and you will see that the linear trend is flat.
The "worst projections from credible scientists" said it should increase by 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades in the 21st century. Looks like they were flat out wrong, Robco, doesn't it?
You wrote: "The key words there are `honest' and `credible.' You folks should try to become familiar with them sometime."
This statement is a bit fuzzy. Tell me what you are trying to say here, Robco.
Were the incorrect projections of your "credible scientists" "honest" and "credible"?
Face it, your argumentation is full of holes, Robco1.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:08 pm
04 Apr 2008
Message to Andrew Dessler
Hi Andrew,
The analysis of your lead article in the very first comment by benp was very much to the point regarding the "poverty of climate change ethics" as exposed by the attempts to link the climate change debate with other, totally unrelated issues. An earlier example of this fallacy was the "holocaust denier" analogy.
But I think another, more basic, fallacy in your analogy is the basic difference in the "robustness" of the cause and effect relationship between UV radiation and skin cancer as compared with human CO2 emissions and more frequent and intense tropical cyclones or extreme weather events.
In one case we have the reality of countless case studies based on the past experience of actual patients; in the other case we have the greenhouse theory and the virtual reality of computer climate models plus "expert opinion rather than attribution studies" to project future climate changes.
You made the statement that: "The association between sun exposure and skin cancer is every bit as robust as the association between greenhouse gases and climate change. And that means it's pretty damn robust."
But therein lies your fallacy. The "association between sun exposure and skin cancer" is extremely robust while the "association between greenhouse gases and climate change" (i.e. increased incidence of intense tropical storms and other severe weather events) is not very robust at all. In fact, it is very weak or even non-existent.
Do you have any counterargument to refute my statement?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:32 pm
04 Apr 2008
Managing risks amid uncertainty.
At what point do risk-management behaviors take precedence over intellectual assessments of uncertainties?
Even if you were one of those Australians who participated in the survey mentioned in an
earlier comment, who were exposed to blistering sunburns as children, your chances of getting skin cancer are not 100%.
Instead, there seems to be a rather large uncertainty about whether any particular
individual with that exposure history will ever suffer a negative effect. Given this large
uncertainty for discrete individuals, why do so many people take precautions, especially if they might be expensive, inconvenient, spoil our fun, or might have no beneficial effect for any discrete individual?
Perhaps it is because humans have evolved in an environment filled with many uncertainties. Maybe natural selection has left us with a built-in risk-management mechanism that takes a guess about the probability of an uncertain risk, and multiplies that guess by the seriousness of the consequences should the risk become real. The size of the product of that subconscious multiplication seems to determine the size of our
preventive response.
The intellectual assessment might say that the skin cancer risk faced by a discrete individual is quite uncertain, but if the risk becomes real the consequence is so severe that most people will take precautions just to be safe.
After all, a person only has one life. You can't make copies of yourself and do a double-blind experiment to see what your individual outcome will be for different exposures, nor can you remove yourself from a body with a bad outcome and install yourself in the body with the best outcome.
Since you can't switch to a new body if you mess up the one you have, most people don't want to take the chance even though, intellectually, the risk faced by a discrete individual is quite uncertain.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:39 pm
04 Apr 2008
Sounds good, MNG, but...
Sounds pretty good, MNG, until you consider that the "association between sun exposure and skin cancer" is extremely robust while the "association between greenhouse gases and climate change" (i.e. increased incidence of intense tropical storms and other severe weather events) is not very robust at all. In fact, it is very weak or even non-existent.
So staying away from excessive UV exposure to avoid the risk of skin cancer as an individual makes excellent sense, while attempting reduce the risk of hurricanes and other severe weather events by reducing global CO2 emissions does not.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:15 pm
04 Apr 2008
Please don't feed the trolls
They never, ever, go away as long as you pretend they are debating on an equal level.
They're not. They are utterly immune to the concept that peer-reviewed science in multiple disciplines over the coarse of over 30 years has established an iron-clad association between human activity and global warming.
If you really want to do something futile and pointless try and pick up a bead of mercury with a single chopstick. That's about as useful as having a conversation with the deniers.
Oh, and back to the OP, one connection between tanning and climate change is dose response. CO2 in the atmosphere isn't a problem as long as it is consistent with the conditions that keystone ecosystem components evolved with. Outside of a narrow band climate patterns change and flora and fauna can become isolated populations or go extinct.
Likewise sunlight at the proper dose rate and exposure, the early hours of the morning and final hours of the evening is beneficial. At concentrated dosages the benefit of sunlight is overtaken by the damage done.
Dose responses count.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 6:32 pm
04 Apr 2008
Different varieties of uncertainty.
If the association between sun exposure and skin cancer indicates a very solid 2% chance of cancer for a given exposure level, the uncertainty I was thinking about is not whether the 2% number is valid.
The uncertainty I was referring to is whether any discrete individual at that exposure level will be among the 2% that get cancer.
Despite having only a one in 50 chance of a bad outcome at that exposure level, people still take precautions to avoid that exposure because they don't want to perform the experiment with the only body they have to live in.
I am guessing that this risk-aversion is an inherited behavior brought to prominence by natural selection.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 1:49 am
05 Apr 2008
Max: I'm done with you.
Okay, Fill a plastic bag with CO2 from a tank (I know it doesn't come from the car's tailpipe; you just love the red-herrings, don't you?) and stick it over your head.
You are either delusional or a bald-faced liar if you believe the BS you are peddling here. It has been well-established that global temp. has increased dramatically over the past several decades.
What I am trying to say is that you are a liar who is spreading disinformation in the hopes that a rookie reporter will read this post and be influenced to write the following:
"...controversy still exists regarding climate change..."
Don't buy it folks. All these clowns either work for PR firms or spin...I mean, think tanks like the Heartland Institute, or are right-wing ideologues clutching their dog-eared copies of Atlas Shrugged while mumbling quotes from Leo Strauss lectures. Flat-Earth Society members have more intellect and credibility.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 2:14 am
05 Apr 2008
Don't Feed the Trolls, Beat Them Down
You are right. The trolls are here to influence media and lay people into perceiving a phony controversy on human-induced global warming. Playing nice is pointless and reality-based arguments only play into their strategy of digging up the most obscure piece of data (or "data" manufactured by deniers) to reinforce the notion that there is any credible question on global warming.
Don't play the game. Expose them for what they are. Point out the money trail between th fossil fuel and utility industries and the denier "scientists" who have traded their credentials for "research grants" that are several times the norm for climatoligists, in order to produce bad science that can't pass the muster of peer-review (meaning that the numbers don't add up.) Expose the same money trail leading to the "spin tanks" like the Heartland Institute. Deniers are either amoral hacks directly employed to spread their lies, or are the self-delusional ideologues of the right wing clinging to their mantra of "regulation-bad, free-market-good." Or they are those who can't bear to recognize that the industry that employs them could be doing us unintended harm.
Call them out at every turn.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:10 am
05 Apr 2008
Robco's rant
Hi Robco1,
Looks like you ran out of logical arguments so had to resort to childish insults and unfounded, incorrect assumptions as to who is "funding" me.
Keep up the good work.
Guys like you are giving the AGW movement a great name!
But it really does show that this movement is on shaky ground.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:22 am
05 Apr 2008
Cancer link is robust
Hi MNG,
Agree with you that not everyone who exposes him/herself to UV radiation will get cancer.
The case studies based on actual patients have shown, though, that incidence is much higher for melanoma among those individuals who had sunburn during childhood/adolescence; likewise, the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer is linked to the level and degree of exposure to ultraviolet radiation. (Sort of like the studies linking smoking and lung cancer.)
This is what I would call a pretty robust cause/effect relationship.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:39 am
05 Apr 2008
Response to Pangolin
Hi Pangolin,
At the risk of "feeding a troll", I will respond to your post.
Everything you have written about "dose response" makes sense.
You also wrote: "Outside of a narrow band climate patterns change and flora and fauna can become isolated populations or go extinct."
To which "narrow band" of climate are you referring? Which evidence is the basis for determining this range? Which flora and fauna have become isolated due to climate change caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions? Which have become extinct due to climate change caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions? Please list specific examples with evidence that the isolation/extinction was caused by climate change caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions. Thanks for your response.
My point, which you did not address related to a fallacy in Andrew Dessler's analogy, i.e. the basic difference in the "robustness" of the cause and effect relationship between UV radiation and skin cancer as compared with human CO2 emissions and more frequent and intense tropical cyclones or extreme weather events.
In one case we have the reality of countless case studies based on the past experience of actual patients; in the other case we have the greenhouse theory and the virtual reality of computer climate models plus "expert opinion rather than attribution studies" to project future climate changes.
Would you like to address this point as well with some specific evidence that can refute my statement?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:49 am
05 Apr 2008
Some temp. facts for Robco1
Hi Robco1,
Yesterday you wrote me: "Over the past decade global temp. has increased dramatically, in line with the worst projections from credible scientists."
I sent you the links to the Hadley and UAH globally averaged surface and tropospheric land and sea temperature records, so you could check some actual data (not just "the worst projections from credible scientists").
Did you download the record for "the past decade" (i.e.the period 1998-2008)?
Did you copy the data into Excel and establish the linear trend line over this period?
Did you see that the trend line is flat?
You should do this before you make claims about dramatic increases in global temp. over the past decade.
Keeps you from shooting yourself in the foot with incorrect statements.
Just a tip.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:59 am
05 Apr 2008
Robco's CO2 analogy
Hi Robco,
Let's carry your "fill the car with CO2 analogy" a step further: "Okay, Fill a plastic bag with CO2 from a tank (I know it doesn't come from the car's tailpipe; you just love the red-herrings, don't you?) and stick it over your head."
With this brilliant statement you have shown me that CO2 is "pollution".
Filling your car up with clean drinking water (with or without red herrings) while you are sitting inside would not be too smart, right?
So I supposed clean drinking water is also "pollution", right?
Believe I am beginning to see how your logic works.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 10:15 am
05 Apr 2008
Offering some terms in common use.
I believe the use of the term "pollutant" to describe CO2 is an imprecise generalization, though that term probably captures the basic quality being discussed in the example of the bag over the head. I believe the more common term is "asphyxiant".
Regarding the example of a vehicle filled with drinking water, I believe the more common term is "drowning hazard".
But regardless of this minor quibble regarding terminology, both commenters have clearly made their points that one should avoid exposure to too much of a good thing.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:23 am
05 Apr 2008
Agree with MNG
Hey MNG,
Agree with you again.
"Too much of a good thing" in the case of clean drinking water is about two lungs full, I would guess, while for CO2 it is apparently somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 ppmv with prolonged exposure (or two lungs full at 100%, as you pointed out in the case of asphyxiation).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 1:08 pm
05 Apr 2008
PEL's for humans and other living things.
Yes, the OSHA PEL [prolonged exposure limit] for CO2 is 5,000 ppm for humans.
Since humans are not the only species on the planet, one wonders what the safe PEL's would be for the other plants and animals. For example, I've read comments about CO2 induced acidification of oceans which seems to threaten oceanic food chains. But I don't know what the PEL is that avoids that problem, and the uncertainty surrounding questions like that seems to stimulate many people's risk-aversion mechanism.
Interestingly, while I was reading the MSDS for CO2 I was surprised to see that rapid asphyxiation occurs at only 10% CO2 due to neurological effects, so 100% displacement of air is not needed. I was not aware of that.
It's always an eye opener for me to suddenly realize that something is ten times more dangerous than I previously thought.
Fortunately I like to maintain a really large safety margin in my daily activities, to protect me from the risks I might have underestimated.
It's a good life.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:52 pm
05 Apr 2008
Keeping safe
Hi MNG,
Glad we are very safe as regards CO2.
Can't see any reason to believe other species (especially plants!) are in any danger, either, despite some hype out there.
Fortunately we have so many natural checks and balances in the system to keep it that way.
I agree. It's a good life. Let's enjoy it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:30 pm
05 Apr 2008
Some thoughts for MNG
Hi MNG,
Sometimes it's good to clear the mind from all the day-to-day hype and take the "satellite view" on what is going on.
All of the fossil fuel we are burning today was originally atmospheric CO2.
So in our little way, we are returning to the atmosphere very slowly what was there a long time ago.
Of course, the whole cycle is much more complicated. As atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase (either from human emissions or from natural degassing as oceans warm up ever so imperceptibly), the natural cycle (which is so much greater than our human input) takes over.
This perspective sort of lets me see just how puny and insignificant we really are on this planet, despite our high intelligence and bloated egos. Insects generate more CO2 than humans.
There are some who have the arrogance of believing that they can "predict" where this is all leading us, and it will obviously be "bad" if not downright disastrous. But do these self proclaimed "prophets" really know what they are talking about? Should we really take them seriously and fear for the future of our planet?
Should we take out an expensive "insurance policy" to attempt to stop this imagined threat "just in case"?
I do not believe so.
All throughout human history there have always been prophets of doom.
Often they have tied their predictions to the wrath of an Almighty for the transgressions of man, using guilt and fear to sell their "repent now or die" message.
One of the earliest written records of ancient Sumeria (later rewritten by the Jews), tells us of a climate disaster (the Great Flood) caused as a result of the sins of man.
This latest scare is no different, MNG.
And after this one has passed into oblivion, there will certainly be a new one.
That's human nature.
But I would not take all this stuff too seriously, MNG. There is no impending disaster from human CO2 emissions.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:45 pm
05 Apr 2008
Too much of a good thing is bad
Hi MNG,
Reur: PEL's for living things
Nice to see you are back and adding some calm more philosophical aspects to the debate.
It is interesting, and surprising to me that 10% CO2 in air results in asphyxiation, but I imagine it would be slower and less awful than a 10% lungful of water, (whatever that is).
I have always imagined that drowning is not the best way to die, going on my experience of a relatively small amount of water "going down the wrong way". I think I've heard that a small amount of CO included with CO2 makes it quite peaceful if you want to part the good life.
Photosynthesis dependent life forms love CO2 of course, and have evolved in the overall biological processes such that at ~20% O2 and ~ 80% N2 everything is fine, and there is not too much oxygen about. However, I read somewhere that greenhouse tomatoes just love 1,000 PPM of CO2, and their attendants have no complaints. I seem to recall that less than 200 PPM CO2, can become a real problem for some plants, depending on other factors too.
Concerning the hype about increasing acidity in the oceans, and how it is going to destroy calcareous life-forms and hence the whole life chain, there are....well!....read-on:
a) Take one branch of climate science, and they say that as the oceans get warmer with AGW, because cold water can absorb more CO2 than warm, when it warms, there will be an increased out-gassing of CO2. (= alarming positive feed-back and a further acceleration of warming)
b) Another group(s), possibly led by marine biologists, contradicts a) by saying that despite less capable absorption capacity of warming water, it is holding ever increasing concentrations of CO2, and thus increasing in acidity. (carbonic acid)
c) More correctly, group b) should say that the pH (may) be reducing, OR the alkalinity is reducing, but of course increasing acidity sounds a bit more scary, than reducing alkalinity. One paper states in part: "surface ocean pH is estimated to have dropped from near 8.25 to near 8.14 between 1751 and 2004," (A drop in pH of 0.11 over ~250 years, in the alkaline range; neutral =7)
d) However, the whole topic is very complicated indeed: For instance, the quote in c) above almost becomes a joke when these complexities are properly considered. I refer you to the link below which takes you roughly to the middle of a more scholarly forum, on page 2 of 3, as a good starting point for understanding some of the issues.
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...
Your rational comments on this would be appreciated. I think you will find the link interesting; there's even a bit of philosophy at the end, page 3.
Regards, BobFJ
P.S. have just returned from a few days break.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 9:13 am
06 Apr 2008
The external site's comments
Regarding the link to the external site with comments on ocean pH decreases:
The lead article at the head of the comments (a link to National Geographic) did not focus on ocean pH decrease. That was one of many impacts being reported, among others such as fishing and various forms of pollution. However, in that article there was a link to another National Geographic article that focused on concerns of pH decrease. Unfortunately, neither of those articles explained what the safe PEL for atmospheric CO2 would be to avoid harmful ocean pH changes.
One of the comments provided an excerpt from a paper which attempted to estimate future ocean pH based on past changes. That excerpt seems to be where the 0.11 pH decrease over the past 250 years entered the comment section. The significance of that size of pH change on aquatic life over that time span was not explained and may be impossible to determine. However the excerpt reported that a decrease in pH from the current 8.14 toward 7.85 would produce non-trivial changes in ocean surface chemistry and have an impact on ecosystems.
There were some comments on the above-noted external site expressing concerns about the source of the 0.11 pH change number for the past 250 years. There were comments expressing concerns about the method which that particular researcher used to extrapolate this reported past pH decrease toward the year 2100.
It seemed that all the comments on the external site expressed one, negative, perspective of this pH decrease issue. Although some of the concerns raised regarding that one research paper deserve further investigation, the one-sidedness of the comments was a bit disappointing since complex issues are seldom one-sided. The assumptions of "motive" in some of the comments seemed unprofessional.
The complexity of this issue, and the considerable uncertainty surrounding it, still seems to incline many people to err on the side of caution regarding the possible undesirable effects of excess atmospheric CO2 on ocean pH. Certainly more study seems appropriate, and in the meantime caution seems prudent.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 12:49 pm
06 Apr 2008
Don't worry about ocean pH, MNG
Hi MNG,
See in your discussion with Black Wallaby that you are apparently concerned about possible future lowering of ocean pH due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
I've seen many "predictions" of future changes in ocean pH but very few actual measurements of what is really going on today to support these forecasts for the future.
The site below provides some good information.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#how_ ...
I have quoted the conclusion below:
"How acidic are the oceans?
As this map suggests, ocean pH measurements have been done all over the world and in the most unlikely places. The false colour scale on the right suggests a range from 7.9 to 8.2 (personally I have measured a wider range from 7.8 to 8.3). The lowest pH occurs in upwelling areas whereas highest pH occurs in the centres of ocean gyres.
From this extensive mix it would be difficult to state what the 'average' pH is for the oceans, let alone whether the oceans have become more or less acidic.
Note that upwelling areas are more acidic because high-CO2 bottom water surfaces, warms up and makes CO2 more readily available, a bonus for photosynthesis by marine plankton."
The key conclusion here is "one cannot really say that the ocean has become more or less acidic".
So there is probably much less to worry about than some alarmists would have us believe.
Hope this bit of good news helps allay your concerns.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 3:06 pm
06 Apr 2008
Still cautious
The above-stated inability of this particular researcher to accurately determine the `average' ocean pH, and the accompanying conclusion that changes to the `average' pH can't be determined, seems to enhance, rather than reduce, the general risk-aversion urge that leads people to proceed with caution when faced with uncertainty.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:50 pm
06 Apr 2008
MNG is still worried - but does not need to be
Hi MNG,
You wrote:"The above-stated inability of this particular researcher to accurately determine the `average' ocean pH, and the accompanying conclusion that changes to the `average' pH can't be determined, seems to enhance, rather than reduce, the general risk-aversion urge that leads people to proceed with caution when faced with uncertainty."
Not really, MNG.
It just points out that all the "hype" about pH reduction in the ocean is just that: hype.
Other reearchers have been unable to come up with definitive 'average' numbers, while this researcher showed that there was no overall pH reduction in the ocean.
Don't fret, MNG. There is nothing to really worry about. "Not being able to determine a lowering in pH" does not equate to "maybe we should proceed with caution" (whatever that means), because there may be a pH problem, does it?
The buffering capability of the ocean and all its contents is such that the current and future CO2 emissions from the paltry human fossil fuel consumption could not do much to decrease the ocean pH significantly.
But if you enjoy worrying and fretting about imaginary future disasters, by all means, enjoy!
I just do not believe that it makes much sense.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:03 pm
06 Apr 2008
MNG, is global warming over?
Hi MNG,
You can continue your discussion on pH of the ocean with Black Wallaby, but maybe you and I can move to another topic: i.e. that of observed actual "global warming".
Both the surface and satellite records show that there has been no warming in the past decade (1998-2008).
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
To convince yourself, all you have to do is download the monthly data from January 1998 to today into Excel and put in the linear trend line.
You will see that it is flat.
When the IPCC Chairman was recently asked about this, he said he would check if there were possibly natural factors that had caused this observed plateau.
The prior trend from 1976 to 1998 has been used by IPCC as the basis for claiming accelerated global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
This record covers 22 years, or 2.2 times the time span of the most recent flat trend.
On this basis IPCC projected temperature increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century.
Is the most recent 10-year record a "trend"? Is it a temporary "anomaly"? Who knows?
We will have to wait and see.
But it does raise serious questions about the ability of the IPCC climate models to project future temperature increase.
What do you think, MNG? Has "rampant" global warming really stopped? Is the AGW bubble about to burst?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 5:38 pm
06 Apr 2008
Trends and artifacts of year selection
Regarding the similarity in temperatures during 1998 and 2007, I think this subject has been discussed in another article here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/4/121748/2663
... and the discussion seemed to indicate that the temperature similarity is an artifact of year selection, not a trend.
On that page there is a graph showing the temperatures and temperature trend from 1880 to the present.
The data on the graph illustrates the artifact of year selection. If, instead of looking at 1998 and 2007, you compare the temperatures of 1999 and 2007, you see a temperature increase of almost 0.27 degrees. But that temperature difference is no more significant than the lack of difference during 1998 and 2007. It is the trend that matters, not comparisons between discrete years.
On that graph, the trend from 1998 to 2007 seems to show a temperature rise of perhaps 0.17 degrees or so. That seems to be reasonably close to the predicted 0.2 degrees per decade mentioned in a comment above.
Although this makes that prediction look pretty good, we will indeed have to wait and see whether the next ten years continue to follow the warming trend of the past ten years.
In many ways, I hope they don't. I have serious doubts that warming will be a good thing for everyone, and hoping the prediction is correct is like hoping the Titanic actually hits one of the icebergs it was warned about by other ships in the area.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:29 pm
06 Apr 2008
Ocean pH
Hi MNG, Reur: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
Thanks for your comments, but before responding to your points, I see that Max has pointed to a good reference thus: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#how_ ...
I hope you have read it fully, and with understanding. For instance, did you notice the range of readings, (incl. graph) and relate them to your earlier concerns on that , I think, rather silly report linked over at CA? Also, the influence of biological activity in test samples etc?
Still, I guess you agree based on the info so far that we don't really have a clue what the global average (whatever that is as a parameter) pH is, or was, or if it is going up or down. Perhaps it might be appropriate for you to now weigh my items a) and b) which I paste from my earlier post:
a) Take one branch of climate science, and they say that as the oceans get warmer with AGW, because cold water can absorb more CO2 than warm, when it warms, there will be an increased out-gassing of CO2. (= alarming positive feed-back and a further acceleration of warming)
b) Another group(s), possibly led by marine biologists, contradicts a) by saying that despite less capable absorption capacity of warming water, it is holding ever increasing concentrations of CO2, and thus increasing in acidity. (carbonic acid)
Notice that group a) says that the pH should go up, and group b) says it is going down. What should we do to protect the biological life-chain in the oceans according to a) and b).....perhaps seed the oceans with nutrients or buffer agents? (for either + or - pH) Sounds like a good area for a research grant !
Are other fears like mutant pandemic bird flue, mischievous asteroids heading our way etc, more or less important, than reacting to the hype on so-called ocean acidification?
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:27 am
07 Apr 2008
The trend is flat, MNG
Hi MNG,
You took issue with my statement that global warming has leveled off since around 1998, by referring me to a gristmill site.
You wrote: "The data on the graph illustrates the artifact of year selection. If, instead of looking at 1998 and 2007, you compare the temperatures of 1999 and 2007, you see a temperature increase of almost 0.27 degrees. But that temperature difference is no more significant than the lack of difference during 1998 and 2007. It is the trend that matters, not comparisons between discrete years."
Sounds good, MNG, but I prefer to go to the actual source of the data rather than relying on sites like gristmill to tell me a message they may want to get across.
So I downloaded the Hadley record:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
If I plot the last 10 years (starting January 1998, ending February 2008) I get a totally flat trend.
If I plot the trend starting January 1999 I get a linear trend of 0.009 degrees C per decade. Taken over the 9 years this is a linear increase of 0.008 degrees C, not 0.27 degrees C as grist has erroneously stated.
You are absolutely correct; it is the trend that matters. If you take the full decade you get a flat trend, if you start in 1999 you get an almost flat trend.
This is also why the Chairman of IPCC acknowledges that there has been a "plateau" in global warming.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:49 am
07 Apr 2008
More temp. trend data for MNG
Hi MNG,
Your post got me to checking out this current "plateau" in global warming (as the IPCC Chairman calls it) in more detail.
I showed you that the trend for the past decade (January 1998 to February 2008) is flat.
I showed you that the trend is almost flat if you start in January 1999.
Now I also checked the trend with later start dates:
Starting in 2000, the warming trend is +0.004 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2001, the cooling trend is -0.009 degrees C per decade
Looks flat to me no matter how you slice it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:05 am
07 Apr 2008
Two more temp. trends for MNG
Hi MNG,
Just to round out the data series on the current global warming plateau, I checked it using two later start dates:
Starting in 2002, the cooling trend is -0.018 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2003, the cooling trend is -0.023 degrees C per decade
So I guess this is really no "artifact" as grist would have us believe, but a true "plateau", as Dr. Pachauri calls it.
But I believe we can now move on to another topic.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 8:25 am
07 Apr 2008
Reference
Black Wallaby-
You wrote:
Can you point me to a reference or other scientific paper that says that? Thanks!Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:53 am
07 Apr 2008
Wow, Dr. Dessler speaks
Hi Andrew,
You asked me; Can you point me to a reference or other scientific paper that says that? [that increased Ocean T's result in CO2 outgassing and feedback]
Let's do a deal here. If you can provide information that proves a direct cause and effect relationship between CO2 and climate change, then I will oblige. When I and others have asked you repeatedly for it before this, you have refused to help. Consequently I do not feel helpful
Oh, John Cross brought it up on one of your threads....perhaps he can help you.
Regards,
Permalink
JCross Posted 9:42 am
07 Apr 2008
Did I?
Bob: Since you brought me up, do you have a reference for me saying this? I do not recall saying it on Dr. Dessler's site, although I may have since it was something that I thought was established. I will have to read up more on it while I await your reference.
John
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:26 am
07 Apr 2008
Cite a reliable source
manacker/black wallaby:
"Max pointed to a good reference"
Seafriends? Seafriends is astroturf. Its one guy, Floor Anthoni a dive shop owner, who did not like it when New Zealand created a marine protected area. He blew a gasket over this and started spreading pseudo-science.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:27 pm
07 Apr 2008
skeptical obfuscation
Black Wallaby-
Thanks for your response. It's now crystal clear that you completely made up the "theory" that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean.
For the lurkers: there's only one legitimate scientific theory, and that's increasing CO2 leads to ocean acidification. If you want to see the science behind it, you can read the IPCC reports. See Chapter 5 of the WGI report.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:07 pm
07 Apr 2008
Andrew is wrong, yet once again!
Hi Andrew,
Sorry to cut into your exchange with BW, but you are wrong when you say: "Thanks for your response. It's now crystal clear that you completely made up the "theory" that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean. For the lurkers: there's only one legitimate scientific theory, and that's increasing CO2 leads to ocean acidification. If you want to see the science behind it, you can read the IPCC reports. See Chapter 5 of the WGI report. "
Ummm... Maybe you should encourage your "lurkers" to read what James E. Hansen had to say:
"Most effective GHG feedback is release of CO2 by ocean at higher temperature"
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf ...
Then read what J. Ahlbeck had to say about this subject:
http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
It's out there, Andrew. All you gotta do is look for it.
Now I'll admit that you can probably tell your "lurkers" that Hansen's dire predictions of "positive feedback from ocean `outgassing' of CO2 at higher temperatures" may be wrong, but this theory is out there by an otherwise respected (if somewhat hysterical) climate scientist.
The analysis by Ahlbeck may be less interesting for you and your "lurkers", but it's out there, too.
So your statement that BW "completely made up the 'theory' that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean" is not true.
Hansen and others made it up and published it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 3:30 pm
07 Apr 2008
A few thoughts on trolling
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:10 pm
07 Apr 2008
Andrew is not always wrong, just this time
Hey Andrew,
You wrote: "Max selectively quotes the Hansen article. Why not quote the entire sentence in, Max? Because it wouldn't make your point?"
Sorry, Andrew. Your argument is weak. You said that there were no papers saying that warmer oceans would cause release of CO2 which would cause an increase in global warming.
I showed you two examples that disproved your statement, one from Hansen.
Now you waffle around that I did not quote everything that Hansen said.
Face it, Andrew. Hansen said that a "GHG feedback" could come from CO2 released from the oceans due to higher temperatures. Right?
He even said this could be a most effective GHG feedback.
And you said earlier to BW that there were no scientific papers that stated this.
So you were wrong, Andrew.
Admit it. It can happen to anyone. Even you. Don't take it so seriously. You are not wrong all the time. Just this time.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:17 pm
07 Apr 2008
Facts please, Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Now to part 2 of your post: "If that's true, then why is the ocean actually becoming more acidic. See the IPCC, chapter 5."
On what basis is this claim being made?
The ocean is mighty big, and I have not seen any compelling evidence that the ocean is "actually becoming more acidic".
Sounds like another unfounded IPCC claim to me Andrew. Bring some facts.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:18 pm
07 Apr 2008
Ocean out-gassing, re John+
Hey John, I thought you had retired!
You asked: "Did I?
Bob: Since you brought me up, do you have a reference for me saying this? I do not recall saying it on Dr. Dessler's site, although I may have since it was something that I thought was established. I will have to read up more on it while I await your reference."
Yes you brought it up and we discussed early-on in that great long still pregnant blog-thread entitled in part:
"...400...Try 19."
Bob
PS I'm on my way, running late for a 3-day trip.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:29 am
08 Apr 2008
Read the IPCC on ocean acidification
Max-
I get tired of saying this, but the scientific basis for ocean acidification is in the IPCC report. I know that the last time I told you to read the IPCC, you reacted angrily ... but I feel strongly that everyone should take responsibility for getting to know the facts themselves.
Here's a hint: read chapter 5 of the IPCC report. You can find the entire report on-line at www.ipcc.ch.
Happy reading.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:54 am
08 Apr 2008
Read more than just chapter 5
Hi Andrew,
You started off with the statement to Black Wallaby that there was no paper out there that discussed a positive feedback resulting in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to out-gassing of CO2 from a warmer ocean. This turns out to have been incorrect based on two links I cited (Hansen, Ahlbeck). So we can lay this argument to rest, OK?
So now you have moved the discussion to the second topic:
"I get tired of saying this, but the scientific basis for ocean acidification is in the IPCC report. I know that the last time I told you to read the IPCC, you reacted angrily ... but I feel strongly that everyone should take responsibility for getting to know the facts themselves.
Here's a hint: read chapter 5 of the IPCC report. You can find the entire report on-line at www.ipcc.ch. "
I don't recall getting angry, Andrew. Maybe you are thinking about someone else. I am also surprised that you are getting tired. But your and my emotional or physical state is another discussion.
I have read IPCC chapter 5 in some detail, even before you gave me this helpful hint.
Chapter 5 suggests that the "surface waters of the ocean will become more acidic" (which is actually to say "less alkaline") due to higher CO2 content. The physical evidence presented for this suggestion in Chapter 5 is not very robust, i.e. a few spot measurements starting in 1985. According to the data presented, the three measurement locations started measuring around 1985, 1990 and 1995, respectively.
At the station with the shortest record, pH was actually measured and, from this pCO2 was calculated. At the other two stations, values of pCO2 and pH were calculated from direct observations of oceanic dissolved organic carbon (DIC, i.e. the sum of CO2 plus carbonate and bicarbonate).
The statement is made that "DIC reflect changes in both the natural carbon cycle and the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere". (This seems to be a rather strangely worded statement, since it would appear that the CO2 uptake by the ocean could be either of natural or anthropogenic origin, as there is no evidence that the small amount of anthropogenic CO2 would be absorbed preferentially to the very much larger amount of natural CO2.)
The suggestion is made that the change in pH is attributable to the recent uptake of anthropogenic carbon in the ocean. No physical evidence is presented for this suggestion.
The assertion is made that: "Changes in DIC between two time periods reflect the anthropogenic carbon uptake plus the changes in DIC concentration due to changes in water masses and biological activity". No evidence is provided to support this assertion.
There are calculations of past trends since 1750, but these hardly represent physical evidence, since there are no data from actual observations.
So, all in all, we have a very limited set of data points in three spots of the vast ocean plus some suggestions and calculations to tell us that the ocean is becoming "more acidic" (sounds a bit more serious than "less alkaline", which would be more scientifically correct) , that this is caused by the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 and that this trend started around 1750 (i.e. with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution).
So IPCC Chapter 5 is weak. Let's see is we can find some more data out there that IPCC may have overlooked.
A study starting with the statement: "ocean plankton have been ignored in most climate change models until now" suggests that higher carbon dioxide levels mean that ocean plankton will prosper and in doing so will soak up more and more of the carbon emissions absorbed from the atmosphere. This biological "negative feedback" is not mentioned by IPCC.
http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/plankton ...
Another study has shown that higher CO2 levels and temperatures in the upper ocean promote coral calcification, and boost coral-symbiant photosynthesis, again providing a biological "negative feedback" to pH decrease, also not mentioned by IPCC.
This study points out that corals prosper at warmer temperatures (no real surprise, when one looks at their latitudinal distribution), so that warmer ocean temperatures will be beneficial.
The study concludes: "In the Great Barrier Reef, growth rates of corals have been shown to be increasing over the last 100 years, at a time when water temperatures have risen. This is not surprising as the highest growth rates for corals are found in warmer waters."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6134& ...
The above are just two examples of important biogeochemical "negative feedbacks" (i.e. buffering or mitigating effects) not mentioned in chapter 5.
So, in summary, chapter 5 does not provide compelling physical evidence for:
· An overall "acidification" of the ocean
· An anthropogenic cause
And it overlooks some documented biogeochemical "negative feedbacks" that could completely change any projections drawn from the limited physical data provided.
Buy hey, Andrew, it's a good read and one source of information among many others ("e pluribus unum").
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 9:04 am
08 Apr 2008
Oceans, CO2, and pH for average folks
For the benefit of Grist readers who are not familiar with chemistry, I have assembled a brief description of oceanic CO2 absorption, emission, and pH, which I hope will give these readers a general understanding of this subject.
-----
It seems the oceans both absorb and emit CO2.
Absorption seems to occur through contact between mildly alkaline surface water and CO2 in the adjacent air. Apparently this process is most pronounced in the turbulent colder waters of the North Atlantic and the southern oceans, partly due to increased solubility of CO2 in colder water, and partly due to slightly greater alkalinity in the surface waters of those oceans, among other factors.
This absorption process changes the surface water chemistry and reduces the pH of the water, making it slightly less alkaline (more acidic). These cold, lower pH waters seem to end up circulating downward into the deeper ocean flows, leading to some of the observed variations in ocean pH with depth and geographic location.
Emission of CO2 from the oceans apparently is mostly due to upwelling of cold, lower pH, deep water into regions of warmer surface water, where the increase in temperature reduces CO2 solubility and results in outgassing from the upwelling water. That water reverts to a slightly higher pH as the CO2 departs.
It has been estimated that the oceans are currently absorbing about 7 billion tons more CO2 per year than they are emitting. This "net absorption" of CO2 is estimated to have produced a small decrease in overall oceanic pH. Some measurements have been made which support this estimate, but more research is being conducted to refine the knowledge in this area.
It is important to note that there are biological and chemical mechanisms within the oceans that can slowly sequester some of the dissolved CO2, and by so doing, slowly mitigate the pH decrease caused by CO2 absorption. However, it is not clear that these mechanisms can work quickly enough to fully mitigate the anticipated pH changes brought on by rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
There is some legitimate concern that oceanic pH decreases may alter the ocean ecosystem in harmful ways.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 9:08 am
08 Apr 2008
Positive CO2 feedback and ocean pH decreases
In an earlier comment on this thread, someone pointed out that elevated atmospheric CO2 levels are predicted to warm the oceans and increase oceanic CO2 emissions. This was appropriately described as a "positive feedback" which would increase warming.
That commenter also noted that oceanic CO2 emissions raise oceanic pH, and asked how it is possible for oceanic pH to continue to drop if oceanic CO2 emissions rise due to warming.
The short answer to this question is that the oceans are currently estimated to be absorbing 7 billion tons more CO2 per year than they are emitting.
If the increase in oceanic CO2 emissions is below this value, oceanic emissions will continue to be less overall than oceanic absorption, and the pH drop associated with the "net absorption" of CO2 would be expected to continue, at a rate appropriate to the reduced "net absorption" value.
Given sufficient warming, it is possible that the oceanic CO2 emission and absorption rates might become equal; however the global average temperature at which that equilibrium occurs may be harmful to both land and aquatic plant and animal species that are adapted to lower temperatures.
------
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 9:12 am
08 Apr 2008
Protecting ocean ecosystems amid uncertainty
A comment above asked, quite reasonably, what we should do to protect the "biological life-chain" in the oceans given the uncertainty over the potential impact of increased CO2 absorption by the oceans.
The simplest answer is that if the oceans are reasonably healthy at their current pH levels, we should not change the pH unless we are absolutely certain of the effects.
Obviously this simple answer does not take into account the efforts required to reduce human atmospheric CO2 emissions, but whatever course of action we take, I am hopeful it would have this nugget of common sense at its core.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:37 am
08 Apr 2008
MNG is right
Hi MNG,
Of course you are right in saying we do not know what is going to happen. By "we", I am including the IPCC and the many scientists out there.
We do not know for sure that atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with warming (even though IPCC thinks this is "very likely").
We do not know whether we are now entering the beginning of a cooling cycle, caused by some factor that we also do not know. And we do not know for sure what the effects of a colder climate would be on humanity, although we do have some recent historical evidence that it would not be too positive on balance.
To say "be cautious" implies that caution is the same as reducing CO2 emissions drastically because we do not know for sure that these may not be causing temperatures to increase, which we do not know for sure could cause sea levels to rises more rapidly than they have been ever since records started and which we do not know for sure could cause an increase in extreme weather events and tropical cyclone frequency and intensity, etc. etc.
We also do not know whether or not a warmer world would be a better place than today's world, whether higher atmospheric CO2 levels and moderately higher temperatures would not increase plant, forest and crop growth, whether it would enable arid and semi-arid reagions of the world to become green due to improved plant water use efficiency, whether or not there would in fact be fewer extreme weather events and tropical cyclones and fewer droughts, etc. etc.
To "excercise caution" in the hopes of being able to maintain the current status quo does not make much sense to me, if it includes making a significant sacrifice in our standard of living and in being able to address other, more important problems of this world that the computer generated virtual problem of anthropogenic climate change.
Just some thoughts from one who is less afraid of an unknown future than you appear to be.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 10:56 am
08 Apr 2008
Fear or desire
It is often helpful to reflect upon the idea that human-accelerated climate changes are expected to happen over the span of decades, and the people in positions of influence in today's society will probably be dead before the most significant consequences are felt.
In this context, the term "afraid of an uncertain future" does not seem to capture the situation.
The self-restraint we show today does not come from fear; it comes from a desire to ensure that future generations inherit a healthy planet.
This is why I prefer to use terms like caution, prudence, and risk-aversion when describing my desire to avoid causing long-term damage to this world.
We and the other species on this planet are well adapted to the current climate. It is always possible that some changes might be an improvement. But the changes are likely to be irreversible on normal human time scales, and I think future generations will appreciate our efforts to avoid causing unpredictable changes.
The genius of our species, if there is such a thing, will be revealed by our ability to reduce our potentially harmful inputs to the environment while simultaneously increasing our quality of life.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:10 pm
08 Apr 2008
Why MNG is wrong on fear-driven priorities
Hi MNG,
In your "fear or desire" post you revealed the basis of your fear. And the logical fallacies of your argument became apparent.
Premise 1 is that "We and the other species on this planet are well adapted to the current climate." This statement implies that we are now in the "goldilocks position of having a `just right' climate", and that any change will more than likely have a negative impact on our own lives, the other species and the environment around us. This assumption is unfounded. Certainly history has shown us that "warmer is better" (the MWP was a better time for humanity on balance than the ensuing LIA, when millions faced hardships, economic loss and even starvation due to harsher climate).
Premise 2 is that "we are causing unpredictable changes", rather than "unpredictable changes are occurring over which we have no control". This premise is also expressed in your statement "human-accelerated climate changes are expected to happen over the span of decades".
This is an anthropocentric assumption (i.e. "humans are responsible for climate change"), appealing to the emotions of guilt and fear. Many natural disasters, starting with the Great Flood and going through to the advancing glaciers and crop failures of the LIA appealed to the emotion of guilt that "the evils of man have caused the Almighty (or Mother Nature) to punish us". We take ourselves much too seriously here, MNG. Mother Nature is going to do what she wants to and we do not have much to say or control here.
Premise 3 is that we can change the course of climate change by "changing our behavior". This is the most arrogant and foolish of the premises. In actual fact, regardless of all the hype out there, we cannot change anything. There are surprises out there that our most educated scientists have no clue about, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about changes in the climate of our planet other than adapt to these changes when they occur.
Premise 4 is that by enforcing a political course of action (carbon taxes or carbon cap and trade schemes) we can achieve beneficial changes in the future climate of this world so that "future generations inherit a healthy planet". There is absolutely no valid reason to believe that these actions will ensure a "healthy planet for future generations", or even more importantly, that not taking these actions will risk that future generations will not inherit a "healthy planet".
There will be a few who benefit enormously both politically and financially from these policies (companies, individuals, hedge funds, politicians), and these individuals and organizations are the ones that are crying out most loudly that these policies are essential for our survival. But, unfortunately, the general public will lose from these policies, in particular those at that are already on the bottom of the economic pyramid. And, most importantly, there is no reason to believe that there will be any change in future climate.
But these policies will certainly take away funding from the more urgent real problems of today. I can mention just two, both of which cause some 4 million deaths annually in the poorest countries of this world:
- lack of clean drinking water
- lack of electrical power for clean cooking
These are the "poor man;s" problems we must solve today to pass on a healthier planet to the future generations, not the virtual computer-generated "rich man's" problem of anthropogenic climate change.Sorry, MNG, you have not convinced me.
But you are a "nice guy" anyway.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 5:33 pm
08 Apr 2008
Being Mister Nice Guy
A previous comment said: "Sorry, MNG, you have not convinced me."
I reply that this is okay. I am not here to convince you.
I read the content on this and other web sites to learn about current events and to try to understand the attitudes and perspectives of the small group of people who post articles and comments. Including the people with whom I disagree.
Until just recently I have not felt the urge to post here. The comments on this site generally seem to express most sides of any issue, including unpopular and factually-challenged perspectives. Quite often the comments are of very high quality with worthwhile content. I never felt the need to add to it.
But recently some of the threads have drifted quite far from that style, toward "winning of arguments" instead of exchanging information or perspectives. Many of the comments have been characterized by intense disrespect covered by an intentionally inadequate veneer of politeness, if that. This loss of composure disappoints me.
My comments are an attempt to help return these threads to the character that attracted me to this site in the first place, by restricting myself to providing the most truthful and accurate information I can for the benefit of all readers, by expressing my perspective as clearly as I am able, and by answering, on those occasions when I can, the questions I am asked in good faith.
I do not know whether my actions will help restore the civil discourse here, such that I can return to reading without posting, but this is the only action I could think of to try to achieve that end.
-----
Regarding the comment: "But you are a "nice guy" anyway."
I reply: Thank you. I appreciate that very much. I do try.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
JCross Posted 10:39 pm
08 Apr 2008
CO2 in oceans.
Black Wallaby, I am trying to follow MNG's example so I will only point out (without comment) that your comment about me commenting on the release of CO2 from the oceans due to the current warming is not correct. If you read the context, my comment was in relation to transitions from iceages which is well supported.
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 10:44 pm
08 Apr 2008
MNG and Others
MNG; I was persuaded by your argument in the previous thread so I desisted in my argument there. However let me ask you, how do you think the posters on this thread should deal with what they see are inaccuracies? I could point out that there are some points above which I believe I can show are wrong, but that would only call for a rebuttal and then we are into a back and forth again.
Is it the attitude of the posts that you object to or the fact that some don't seem to get anywhere? More importantly what do you think should be done about it?
These are serious questions and I would encourage other readers to post opinions about it as well.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:25 am
09 Apr 2008
Thoughts on the AGW debate for MNG
Hey MNG,
Just read your well-expressed thoughts on the contribution of the various threads to the ongoing debate surrounding anthropogenic global warming, and I admit that I agree with almost every single point you have made.
Let me give you one rational skeptic's view on what is going on here to see if we can find any common ground.
There is an on-going debate surrounding the current AGW "scare" (you may prefer to categorize this as an "awareness" rather than as a "scare", but unfortunately the fear factor has been injected into the discussion, so it is more than just an "awareness").
This debate covers not only the accuracy, completeness and objectivity of the "science" supporting the suggestion that humans are causing major changes in climate, but also the veracity and credibility of computer-generated predictions of future changes allegedly arising from these anthropogenic causes and, finally, the political measures that are being proposed in order to mitigate these potential future problems.
This site (as well as many others) was set up to convey one particular viewpoint. As can be seen from the lead articles, this site it is clearly supportive of the so-called "consensus" position that anthropogenic factors (primarily the emission of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, etc.) are causing significant changes in our planet's climate, that these will have, on balance, more negative consequences than positive ones on the environment, on mankind and on other species and that these changes could become alarming if something is not done to address the root cause (i.e. human CO2 emissions).
This view is summarized in the various reports of the IPCC, a UN body that was specifically set up to evaluate the anthropogenic impact on climate and, as a result, has "a dog in the race", (i.e. no anthropogenic impact = no need for IPCC to continue to exist).
Another premise of many of the proponents of this view is that "the science is settled" (because a majority of climate scientists support a "consensus view"), and it is now time for "action", rather than for further debate. "Action" is vaguely defined, but it goes much further than the very sound steps of conserving energy where possible, eliminating waste and pollution of the environment, etc. (which every rational human being should fully embrace). In this context, however, "action" means implementing draconian political policy steps (carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes) involving hundreds of billions of dollars being shuffled around by politicians and bureaucrats, hedge funds, carbon trading companies, etc., where a few individuals will enhance their personal and financial power at the expense of everyone else. These are the steps that many rational skeptics of the AGW scare oppose as unnecessary and ineffective.
There are other, more alarmists, views, expressed by politicians, such as Al Gore (in his Oscar winning film) and UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, (in newspaper articles warning of imminent inundations) or by scientists turned activists, such as James E. Hansen (in his many publications and "tipping point" testimony before the U.S. congress). These individuals proclaim, "Time is rapidly running out; we must act now or we will certainly be doomed!" Many of the more vocal contributors to this site support these more alarmist views and believe that IPCC is being far too conservative and lackadaisical in describing the future disaster that awaits our planet.
There are also many sites, which support the view of rational skepticism and oppose the more alarmist predictions that are floating around (climate audit, etc.). Individuals supporting both sides contribute to these sites, as well.
It has been my observation (as I believe it has been yours) that the discussion of these topics by individuals who hold different views is, in effect, a debate of the issues. Each side states its arguments, premises and conclusions and in some (rare) cases finally agrees on a point of view that both parties can embrace. Undoubtedly, both sides can learn from such a discussion, as you have pointed out.
You point out: "But recently some of the threads have drifted quite far from that style, toward "winning of arguments" instead of exchanging information or perspectives". Yes, MNG, there is a "debate" going on, and the point of a debate is for each participant to listen to the opponent's arguments and premises, "get his/her points across" and, yes, in the end to "win the argument".
"Winning the debate" would appear to be a natural tendency when topics are discussed that could have far-reaching consequences.
It becomes especially true when emotions are involved. In a debate the appeal should be to reason rather than to emotion. But when an argument is based on the emotion of fear (we will soon all be inundated!) or guilt (we are all at fault for being so disrespectful of our planet and other species!), then the discussion automatically becomes emotional rather than rational.
There is also the tendency of both sides to "dig in and hold ground" rather than conceding even a small bit. I have seen this very clearly whenever (for example) a weak point, error or omission in an IPCC report is brought up. The "IPCC supporter" will go to all extremes to point out that IPCC could not have been in error or could not have intentionally omitted important scientific data from its report. Semantic distinctions between "made an error" and "cherry picked" become all-important. (I had a recent exchange on another site on such an issue.)
The debate can easily degenerate into a debate of "belief", much like a debate with a religious fundamentalist: "the Bible says so, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible cannot be wrong" (exchange "IPCC Report" for "Bible" and "2,500 scientists" for "God").
It is also obvious that the longer an individual exchange goes on the more pointed the debate becomes.
There are some contributors to this and other sites that start off with "ad hominem" attacks, accusing the other party of being a "troll", a "denier", a "delayer", a "flat-earther", a "stooge" for big oil, etc. and making all sorts of personal insults. The individuals who fall into this trap have difficulty keeping their personal emotions (anger, fear, disgust, hate?) out of the discussion.
In this context you remarked that it disappoints you that, "Many of the comments have been characterized by intense disrespect". I agree that this is disappointing and that we should all avoid making disrespectful comments about the other individual.
But, MNG, I believe that what is going on is just human nature. AGW is more than just a theoretical scientific discussion and a "multibillion dollar industry", it is an issue that can and may affect and involve us all. That is why there are so many sites covering various aspects of this issue out there.
Fortunately we live in a democratic system, where issues can be discussed openly and dissent is not squashed.
And that is why the rational debate on these issues must continue.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:13 am
09 Apr 2008
Silly proposals
Hi MNG,
There was an April Fool's joke recently on another gist thread.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/31/155730/362
Believe you also saw it and reacted.
It was interesting how many people thought the suggestion (of wiping out all penguins by relocating the allegedly threatened and "overheated" polar bears to Antarctica) was for real.
But it just shows how ridiculous proposals get made to "solve" a possible (but maybe unlikely) future problem by creating a certain immediate problem.
Many of the "get rich quick" carbon sequestration proposals of injecting CO2 into the oceans or into permeable geological formations (rather than leaving the CO2 in the atmosphere, where it is a natural trace component and the source of all life on this planet) are out there for real, not as April Fool's jokes.
One proposal calls for "sequencing the genomes" of microbes that produce fuels such as methane and hydrogen or aid in carbon sequestration, to allow an evaluation of their potential use to produce, for example, methane or hydrogen from either fossil fuels or other carbonaceous sources, including biomass or even some waste products.
Another calls for capturing the CO2 with lime. Another one (probably a joke) calls for covering the planet with concrete, which will gradually absorb CO2 as it cures and ages.
Now I am certainly not against developing new energy efficient technologies or planting new forests and stopping rampant destruction of tropical rainforests, etc., but I believe that there are some truly hare-brained schemes out there.
Why do such silly schemes even pop up?
Wikipedia gives us a clue when it tells us, "This concept of CO2 sinks has become more widely known because the Kyoto Protocal allows the use of carbon dioxide sinks as a form of carbon offset."
Oops!
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 10:22 am
09 Apr 2008
Replies
Two commenters, JC and MM, have recently asked questions and made comments that I think deserve thoughtful answers.
It may take me a while to respond to all of the points raised, so I want to let these two commenters know that I will post when I am able, probably a little bit at a time.
------
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:05 pm
09 Apr 2008
A look at global temperature facts for JCross
Here is one for JCross, who has recently shown his face on this site.
Hi John,
As one who is evidently concerned about climate change and its impacts, I would appreciate your comments on the statements below.
If you have no opinion, or if you are in agreement, you do not really need to reply.
There has been a lot of "hoopla" lately about "global warming". The latest records show that it has essentially stopped over the past 10 years, which skeptics are eager to point out, but supporters of the global warming hypothesis are crying "foul". It has not really stopped, and we are still at the highest levels of temperature anomaly today, therefore global warming is still a very real and apparent threat to humanity, the environment and our planet.
So let us see if we can cut through the hype from both sides and look at some facts.
Since global temperature records have been kept (based on the UK's Hadley Centre), and we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age, there have been several multi-decadal cycles from warming to cooling, with an overall slight warming trend.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
Period Trend Years Increase
1860-1879 0.196 20 0.39
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
1906-1940 0.161 35 0.56
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
1976-1998 0.175 22 0.39
1998-2008 0.000 10 0.00
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
Increase is linear change over period in degreesC
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend.
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken).
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906.
Then came another warming trend until around 1940, followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (this one has been very briefly rationalized by IPCC, without any supporting evidence, as having been caused by anthropogenic aerosol emissions).
Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase from 1976 to 1998. This trend has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).
This trend appears to have reached a "plateau" from 1998 to today, in sharp contrast to the IPCC projections from model studies, which predicted a record rate of increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades in the 21st century.
The longer-term trend over all these cycles has been an increase of somewhat more than 1 degree C over the 150+ years of measurement.
In its TAR (2001) IPCC reported an increase over the 20th century (1901-2000) of 0.6 degree C.
If one "jiggles" the definition of the 20th century (as IPCC did in its 2007 SPM report) to replace the 1900-1906 cooling trend with an essentially flat trend from 2000 to 2006, one can show a 100-year increase of 0.74 degrees C.
Interestingly, the highest decadal rate of increase occurred over the 20-year period from 1860 to 1879, in the "horse and buggy" days long before AGW was a problem.
The multidecadal cycles are apparent in the record, as is the underlying warming trend over the entire period.
Whether or not the past 10 years are the beginning of a new "flat" or cooling cycle remains to be seen.
What is apparent, however, is:
· that temperatures have been in an overall slow rising trend since 1850
· that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming
· that the recent warming trend from 1976 to 1998 is not unusual when compared to earlier warming periods, which occurred prior to AGW
· that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe
· that the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends is limited
John, I would appreciate your comments on the above, if you have any.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 1:25 pm
09 Apr 2008
Attitudes and impasses
A comment above asked:
"Is it the attitude of the posts that you object to or the fact that some don't seem to get anywhere? More importantly what do you think should be done about it?"
------
On the first point: I dislike disrespectful posts. I especially dislike posts in which politeness is turned into a tool for conveying disrespect.
Sometimes we don't respect a particular commenter. That's life. But we should be able to express our perspective and provide our information without our dislike pointedly permeating our words.
If we can't do that, we shouldn't interact directly with that commenter on the thread. If they show disrespect toward us, we should ignore them. This will reduce the potential disrespect in the thread by half. If the other commenter behaves like a child, we should make sure we behave like an adult. Remember: the readers can tell the difference.
------
On the second point: I don't mind posts on subjects that end in an impasse. Sometimes those discussions are quite useful. But I dislike it when commenters refuse to accept when an impasse has been reached. Repetition of previously expressed views and declarations of victory are not impressive.
Don't get me wrong here; I fully understand how tough it can be to disengage sometimes. I keep the following paragraph at hand to help me conclude the dead-end discussions I get involved in, and I paste it here in the hope it will help others:
"It appears we have clearly expressed our positions and still do not agree. Perhaps for the time being we can agree to disagree."
------
I will post later on the related subject of dealing with inaccuracies in comments.
Hope this helps...
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:43 pm
09 Apr 2008
Awaiting comments from JCross
Hi JCross,
We had a lively discussion about IPCC "cherry picking" on Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss (resp. gain) earlier.
I am still awaiting your comments on the actually observed temperature record per my earlier post.
If you have nothing to say, I can understand that. It could be unpleasant to admit that the observed link between temperature and human CO2 emissions is tenuous.
But if you do have something to say, please do so.
And hey, MNG, I am not at all being disrespectful to JCross by asking him for his comments, OK?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:08 pm
09 Apr 2008
MNG makes sense
Hey MNG,
Your comments to JCross re "disrespectful posts" and discussions that "end in an impass" make sense to me.
When you have time, I would appreciate your response to my recent posts to you.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 4:31 pm
09 Apr 2008
Following MNG's advice
Max: I am not convinced that MNG is correct, but I think that his advice is good enough to try to follow. So I will only point out that choosing to not answer is not the same as admitting that something is tenuous.
If you care to ask your question again without the rhetoric I will answer. If not, no problem.
Regards,
John
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:52 pm
09 Apr 2008
Dealing with inaccuracies in comments, part 1
A comment above asked:
"...how do you think the posters on this thread should deal with what they see are inaccuracies?"
-----
When we disagree with someone on a public forum like Grist, we are aware that we have two audiences. The first audience is the person on the other side of the debate, and the second audience is everybody else reading the thread.
It's important for us to figure out why the "inaccuracies" bother us, because that knowledge is the key to dealing with them. Here are some possibilities:
1. We might feel that the "inaccuracies" could lead innocent readers to make bad decisions. In this context I believe we have a duty to point out the "inaccuracies" and more importantly to provide a little background information so Grist readers can understand the contentious issue. Generally, the people who post on these threads are quite good at this, which is why I like this web site.
But the question is: What do we do when someone insists on repeating an "inaccuracy" after we have posted to "correct" it? I would recommend the following:
1.1. Assess the seriousness of the "inaccuracy". The "corrective" actions should reasonably match the significance, or relative insignificance, of the "error" being "corrected". Some "inaccuracies" deserve only one "correction".
1.2. If your concern is for Grist readers, post a comment directed at us, with the background information we need to understand the issue. Don't discuss the other commenter in that post. Stick to the contentious issue. Don't overstate anything. Just try to explain all sides of the issue, including the uncertainties.
1.3. Remember that Grist readers are not a bunch of idiots. Not everyone has a science education, but I'm guessing most of us have a pretty good BS meter. Give us the information we need, so we can decide for ourselves.
1.4. If the person posting the "inaccuracy" wants to have the last post, let them. We can find your comment up above theirs.
1.5 Grist has a "no spam" policy for comments. If the person posting the "inaccuracy" tries to bury the thread with repeated posts, report them to gristmill@grist.org (This is fairly severe, so don't abuse this mechanism.)
------
...to be continued in a later post.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 6:00 pm
09 Apr 2008
Dealing with inaccuracies in comments, part 2
...a continued reply to the original question:
"...how do you think the posters on this thread should deal with what they see are inaccuracies?"
-----
I mentioned in my last post that it's important for us to figure out why the "inaccuracies" bother us, and offered one possibility in my last post. Here's another:
2. These threads are a bit like being on a stage, and in this environment it can be very difficult to separate "inaccuracies" regarding scientific information, from "inaccuracies" that are basically personal attacks. But it is essential that we make this separation.
"Inaccuracies" regarding scientific information were discussed in my last post.
"Inaccuracies" that are basically personal attacks include things like putting words in other people's mouths, claiming that a question wasn't answered when it was, etc. To deal with these "inaccuracies", I recommend the following:
2.1. Recognize that these "inaccuracies" are intentional errors and thus simply cannot be fixed by posting "corrections". They should be ignored, no matter how irritating the misrepresentations are. The other person is behaving like a child. Be the adult. Remember that Grist readers can tell the difference.
2.2. If another commenter takes your words, turns them inside out, and sticks them back in your mouth to irritate you, almost everybody following the thread will say to themselves: "He didn't say that!" Don't worry that you will end up "looking bad" or "beaten" if you ignore this stuff and stick to the scientific issues. This will also considerably reduce your workload.
2.3. All the regular readers of this site are familiar with the aggressive commenters. You might have noticed that not many of the regulars will post when an aggressive commenter is around. That isn't a bad sign. It's a good one. It means those aggressive commenters have a bad reputation on this site, and readers take what they say with large grains of salt.
2.4. Grist does not condone attacks on other commenters. If the commenter starts to harass you because you have not responded to their posts, or for any other reason, report them to gristmill@grist.org
-----
...to be continued in a later post.
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 6:55 pm
09 Apr 2008
Dealing with inaccuracies in comments, part 3 of 3
...a continued reply to the original question:
"...how do you think the posters on this thread should deal with what they see are inaccuracies?"
-----
I mentioned in my last two posts that it's important for us to figure out why the "inaccuracies" bother us, and offered two possibilities. Here's a third:
3. People spend a great deal of time seeking the acceptance of others, often without consciously realizing they are doing it. When someone accepts us or our views, we tend to feel "reinforced". When someone does not accept us or our views, we tend to feel "undermined". This effect can be particularly pronounced when we are put "on the spot" in a public forum like Grist.
This pursuit of acceptance is often subconscious and can produce counterintuitive behaviors like expending large amounts of effort trying to gain the acceptance of people we don't even like or respect, and who have no intention of accepting us or our views.
If you think you might be subconsciously pursuing acceptance, I recommend the following:
3.1 Ask yourself whether you respect the other commenter. If you don't respect them, ask yourself how much value you should attach to their acceptance of your view.
3.2. If you discover that their acceptance has no value to you, you will probably lose interest in trying to get them to accept your view.
3.3. Your focus can then return to the Grist readers you are attempting to serve. Your concern about "inaccuracies" in scientific information can hopefully then be addressed in the manner described in the first post of this three-post series.
-----
Hope that helps...
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:32 am
10 Apr 2008
Message to JCross re long term temp trends
Hi John,
Thanks for reply.
You wrote: "If you care to ask your question again without the rhetoric I will answer."
Please eliminate this sentence in my post to you:
"If you have no opinion, or if you are in agreement, you do not really need to reply."
Believe this is the sentence that was offensive to you.
But please let me know if any other statement in my post was unacceptable "rhetoric" and I can modify or eliminate it.
Looking forward to your viewpoint and a discussion on this topic.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:31 am
10 Apr 2008
Clarification of point 2.3 above from MNG
In a post above, I said:
2.3. All the regular readers of this site are familiar with the aggressive commenters. You might have noticed that not many of the regulars will post when an aggressive commenter is around. That isn't a bad sign. It's a good one. [snip]
-----
I would like to clarify the phrase: "That isn't a bad sign. It's a good one."
I did not mean to suggest that there is anything good about having regular Grist commenters chased off a thread by some aggressive commenter. I think that situation is quite objectionable and I expect Grist's editors are concerned about the impact this has on their readers.
My comment was only intended to convey that this "chasing off" is a possibility and we should realize that if the regular commenters pull back, that does not mean an aggressive commenter is being taken seriously.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:11 pm
10 Apr 2008
Temperature trends.
Max: No, I would consider the statement "If you have no opinion, or if you are in agreement, you do not really need to reply." to be a very reasonable statement.
The statement that I was referring to was "If you have nothing to say, I can understand that. It could be unpleasant to admit that the observed link between temperature and human CO2 emissions is tenuous."
However I will take your statement that you are willing to withdraw the phrase I objected to at face value.
So, I think a good place to start would be with the following comments that you made.
I generally agree with your points 1, 2 and 3, although I would say that the recent warming trend does not end in 1998. Depending on which data set you take there are years since 1998 which are warmer than 1998.
I would not agree with your statement that the IPCC thinks the various forcing components are simple. There are a large number of factors involved and this is an active area of research.
In regards to the climate models, I have not yet entered a discussion on this topic that has come to any rational conclusions. So instead of commenting I will point to this post at Tamino's site.
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:15 pm
10 Apr 2008
Point 2.3
MNG: Your point 2.3 is the one that is giving me the most trouble. I think I can see your point, but I am concerned that some people might not post because they are afraid of entering into an aggressive discussion. Hopefully a blog is a place where people can post questions or comments without being abused.
Regards,
John
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 2:17 pm
10 Apr 2008
2.3 and JC
I fully agree with the concern you expressed regarding my point 2.3.
I don't want contributors such as yourself and the Grist regulars to be afraid to post. You are the people I come here to read.
I hoped my last post on this thread, titled Clarification of point 2.3 above, from MNG, which I excerpt here, expressed the same concern you just mentioned:
"I did not mean to suggest that there is anything good about having regular Grist commenters chased off a thread by some aggressive commenter. I think that situation is quite objectionable and I expect Grist's editors are concerned about the impact this has on their readers."
I hope I'm not misunderstanding your concern.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:31 pm
10 Apr 2008
Almost in agreement with JCross
Hi John,
Thanks very much for your reply.
Objectionable sentence deleted.
Glad we could agree to the first three points of my conclusion.
You wrote: "I would say that the recent warming trend does not end in 1998. Depending on which data set you take there are years since 1998 which are warmer than 1998".
What will happen in the future is anyone's guess. The warming trend may again accelerate, or it may turn down into a real cooling trend. Nobody knows, and I certainly do not want to make any predictions.
But for the past trend I have used the Hadley record, which shows that 1998 is the record warmest year, as does the UAH satellite record. Which record do you feel shows which years to be warmer than 1998?
Do you feel that the Hadley (or UAH) record somehow is not representative of what is actually going on, and, if so, why not?
The rapidly warming trend from 1976 to 1998 is irrefutable. There was a linear decadal warming trend of somewhere between 0.14 and 0.18C per decade over this 22-year period, depending on which set of data is taken. I used the Hadley trend of 0.175, which I believe is also the basis used by IPCC.
But whether or not 1998 was the all time record year, the leveling off since 1998 is also irrefutable, based on all records.
Let's not fall into the trap of "my record is better than your record", but let's concentrate on the decadal linear rate of change over the period 1998 through February 2008. This clearly shows a flat trend, which is the point I was making. I believe this is true no matter which record is used.
You stated: "I would not agree with your statement that the IPCC thinks the various forcing components are simple. There are a large number of factors involved and this is an active area of research".
I agree with your statement. I do not believe that "IPCC thinks the various forcing components are simple". My point was that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe (i.e. in its emphasis on anthropogenic CO2 as the principal driver of climate change).
But I am glad we can both agree that there may be other very important factors that are still unknown to us all that are affecting global temperature trends and that the temperature record shows that there is something else going on besides just AGW.
And we apparently do not disagree basically on the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends accurately since you say "I have not yet entered a discussion on this topic that has come to any rational conclusions".
So where do we actually disagree?
We may be closer to agreement that we both thought at the onset.
Appreciate your feedback.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:57 pm
10 Apr 2008
MNG philosophies continued
Hi MNG
You give long and detailed multi-post advice as to how us bloggers should behave in their correspondence. In general, I find your opinions to be quite sound, if perhaps over-ideological. However, there is one behaviour of yours that is very unsatisfactory per my philosophy. That is; your tendency to treat earlier comments as anonymous; interpret them in your own way; and then elaborate them for the alleged benefit of other readers, as if they were unable to form their own opinions. (and/or do not wish to post, for clarification or objection, whatever, for whatever reason)
Anyone who wishes to compare the sources with your opinions, especially when it is buried way-up-there in a long thread, is, unless prepared to work-on-it thus left with; "trust me", I, MNG am the oracle!
May I suggest that political correctness can be over-done? If I would like to know what you are talking about, I would like to see some clues. Give the commentator you speak of an identity, or better still, the short-cut link to his/her post. Grist has incorporated a feature on-site for that purpose. Just right-click the date at the foot of each post and then click "Copy short-cut", and paste it into your post, where it is appropriate. That way, there is no need to go searching for it; one click, and you are there.
I am also wondering if when you make one of your summaries, that if you are challenged on a point of accuracy, that it is unimportant, and it is the end of debate as far as you are concerned. A case in point can be found at: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
Incidentally, I sometimes wonder if it is worth debating with some of the AGW alarmists anyway, because they mostly refuse to believe certain facts that cut across their belief systems. (sometimes with extreme abuse.... Even Dr Dessler is guilty of this sometimes). What encourages me to keep going is that there may be some rational people who quietly observe the debate. BTW, I have been fully retired for ~13 years, and do not work for "big oil" or anyone. As Max mentioned somewhere, ~4 million PEOPLE (yes; human beings) alone are thought to die each year from drinking polluted water and from inhaling smoke from cooking and heating fires. That e.g. is where the money should be spent, not on the "we think" self perpetuating politics of the IPCC!
Sorry, I got carried away there, the question I was to ask is: Do you know how many "quiet visitors" there are to these threads?
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:29 pm
10 Apr 2008
MNG inaccuracies 1
Hi MNG, Reur: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
You wrote in part:
"A comment above asked, quite reasonably, what we should do to protect the "biological life-chain" in the oceans given the uncertainty over the potential impact of increased CO2 absorption by the oceans.
The simplest answer is that if the oceans are reasonably healthy at their current pH levels, we should not change the pH unless we are absolutely certain of the effects..."
It seems that you are summarising my Black Wallaby posts : http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
From which I quote in small part from # 48:
"...Notice that group a) says that the pH should go up, and group b) says it is going down. What should we do to protect the biological life-chain in the oceans according to a) and b).....perhaps seed the oceans with nutrients or buffer agents? (for either + or - pH) Sounds like a good area for a research grant !
Are other fears like mutant pandemic bird flue, mischievous asteroids heading our way etc, more or less important, than reacting to the hype on so-called ocean acidification?
- If you properly summarise my posts etc, you should be able to determine that I cannot believe in either a) or b), because although both opposites have plausible arguments, there is simply inadequate information to say which is right and which is wrong. You talk of potential increase in CO2 absorption in the oceans and do not mention the opposite possibility.
- You might be able to recognise that my poser was a touch satirical! The proposal to seed the oceans, is about as silly as sending polar bears to the Antarctic! That is to say that my comment was NOT a reasonable one, as you claim.
- The whole point of this part of my posts was to highlight the hype out there which adds more alarm to the alarmist's already overfed fears. The hype has no evidential basis, when 3-dimensional spatial and temporal factors are applied to the sparse recent or nil past data!
- There are several other issues that you ignore.
I submit that your summary is VERY inadequateRegards, BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:23 pm
10 Apr 2008
MNG inaccuracies 2:
Hi MNG, Reur:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
You wrote in part:
"In an earlier comment on this thread, someone pointed out that elevated atmospheric CO2 levels are predicted to warm the oceans and increase oceanic CO2 emissions. This was appropriately described as a "positive feedback" which would increase warming.
That commenter also noted that oceanic CO2 emissions raise oceanic pH, and asked how it is possible for oceanic pH to continue to drop if oceanic CO2 emissions rise due to warming...
... The short answer to this question is that the oceans are currently estimated to be absorbing 7 billion tons more CO2 per year than they are emitting..."
That someone is probably me; Black Wallaby. I commented on the views of two camps in climate science with opposing views, which, as I pointed out above, have no evidential adequacy. You do not address the core issue which is: How can these opposing scientific opinions exist in parallel, bearing in mind that with current resources, neither can be proven either way. The short answer is not your estimated 7 billion tons of CO2 per year, but: we don't know which of the plausible possibilities is correct, or their scales.
When you say "it has been estimated", you give no indication of where that estimation came from. The absence of an estimation for the opposite opinion, which is probably of several orders of magnitude more difficult to determine, should not be argued as proof that increased out-gassing from warmer water does not exist. (although you make no argument but just ignore it). Finally, are you aware that the estimates of ocean CO2 flux, (last time I looked), were so huge that a mere 7 billion tons would be an extremely bold estimate VV the error margins on the estimated flux.
You also wrote:
"...Given sufficient warming, it is possible that the oceanic CO2 emission and absorption rates might become equal; however the global average temperature at which that equilibrium occurs may be harmful to both land and aquatic plant and animal species that are adapted to lower temperatures..."
Do you have any references for these ocean warming assumptions etc?
* I submit that this summary is unbalanced and inaccurate*
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:27 pm
10 Apr 2008
Further #2
I meant to add that the opposing opinion does not prevent hype of "everything is agreed" and the end is nigh; Our food chain in the ocean will perish etc etc, depending on what level of exagerration can be mustered!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:24 pm
10 Apr 2008
MNG inaccuracies #3
Hi MNG,
Reur: Oceans, CO2, and pH for average folks
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
You wrote as a preface:
"For the benefit of Grist readers who are not familiar with chemistry, I have assembled a brief description of oceanic CO2 absorption, emission, and pH, which I hope will give these readers a general understanding of this subject."
This appears to be in response to Max's post to Dr. Dessler at
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
However, I would comment that most readers would have learnt by now what CO2 and pH means WRT the oceans. On the other hand you do not explain the significance of pCO2 or DIC, or the interrelationship of carbonate or bicarbonate, which chemically may have a lot of readers, (or average folks as you call them), rather puzzled, including me. Thus you do not help them adequately with the chemistry.
In fact, most of what you say relates to physical and other processes for which YOU appear to have an agenda and personal belief
For instance, you say:
"Some measurements have been made which support this estimate, but more research is being conducted to refine the knowledge in this area."
Please advise where did you get this spin? What measure of magnitude are you claiming, with what measure of confidence? What do you mean by refine?
And another for instance, you say:
It is important to note that there are biological and chemical mechanisms within the oceans that can slowly sequester some of the dissolved CO2, and by so doing, slowly mitigate the pH decrease caused by CO2 absorption. However, it is not clear that these mechanisms can work quickly enough to fully mitigate the anticipated pH changes brought on by rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
More conditionals, more unscaled parameters, more opinion without references, more assumption by simply not mentioning the opposite possibility that CO2 may be out-gassing more rapidly than in your opinion. (It's solubility reduces with increasing water temperature AOTBE)
I submit that this is a biased and inaccurate summary
Perhaps you should also place a few "I think" or "not all scientists agree" statements too.
Regards BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:54 pm
10 Apr 2008
CO2 in oceans John+
Hi John, Reur http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
You wrote in full:
"Black Wallaby, I am trying to follow MNG's example so I will only point out (without comment) that your comment about me commenting on the release of CO2 from the oceans due to the current warming is not correct. If you read the context, my comment was in relation to transitions from iceages which is well supported.
John "
Yes John, that is correct; you brought-up that as the ocean gets warmer, it results in degassing of CO2. It is true that the particular topic was ice-age transition. It is also true that I thought you knew something about it; hence a suggestion to that effect to Andrew. It is also a plausible argument that the warmer the oceans get, say with AGW, the more rapid will be the out-gassing, since that is a physical characteristic of water and CO2. (AOTBE)
You also wrote in part in an earlier post, my emphasis added:
"...although I may have [said that about CO2 out-gassing] since it was something that I thought was established. I will have to read up more on it while I await your reference."..."
So what is your position anyway?
BobFJ
Oh, PS "...my comment was in relation to transitions from iceages which is well supported."
Really? Without comment?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:23 pm
10 Apr 2008
Dr. Dessler and obfuscation
Hi Andrew,
Reur sceptical obfuscation
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
"Black Wallaby-
Thanks for your response. It's now crystal clear that you completely made up the "theory" that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean.
For the lurkers: there's only one legitimate scientific theory, and that's increasing CO2 leads to ocean acidification. If you want to see the science behind it, you can read the IPCC reports. See Chapter 5 of the WGI report."
I'm pleased with the comments from Max, whilst I was away for a few days, and I guess your unkind accusation of me is now seen as unfounded.
I don't see anything worthwhile adding other than querying your use of the word `lurker' My mother-tongue is of the mother-land of the English language, and my understanding of `lurker' is that it is a far from complementary address, in all usual contexts. Since certain bloggers on this site like to obfuscate about the meaning of certain words, in a moment of insanity, I invested $41 on the most substantial Anglo-Oz dictionary I have ever owned. (The respected Macquarie Concise) It confirms my understanding of that word.
What meaning do you have in Americano, and at whom was it aimed?
In the furtherness of international understanding!
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:03 am
11 Apr 2008
Agreement is a tricky thing
Hi Max:
We do agree on some things, but we still disagree on others.
The data set I generally use is the GISS Land-ocean set. As with all sets there are problems with it, but there are some specific reasons I use it. Using that data set, I calculate a trend from 1998 to 2007 (inclusive) of + 0.20 C/decade which is pretty close to what is the generally accepted value is. The problem is that the R2 value for the trend is quite small (0.30) so I would not say it was significant. Another problem is that of course temperature trends are autocorrelated functions and thus usually require advanced statistical techniques. From everything I have read, we can not really say too much about the trend in climate right now. Over on Skeptical Science, I think that John Cook has a really interesting idea . I don't think the professional climatologists accept it, but it is interesting.
You also have not understood my point about the climate models. I have not yet entered a discussion with anyone with enough actual knowledge of climate models to provide rational discussion and thus the discussions tend to not be productive. I have done a great deal of modeling in regards to engineering and was not impressed with the climate models of 10 years ago, but since they have been able to recreate climate without flux adjustments and my opinion has been changing.
So apart from the places where we disagree, I would say that we are indeed in agreement.
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:07 am
11 Apr 2008
Corrections to Above
Not sure what happened to my link to the autocorrelation post from above, but here is one that might work:
Also I should be clear that when I said "From everything I have read, we can not really say too much about the trend in climate right now. " that was for looking at the last 10 years. If we look at the overall time frame then things are, of course, stronger.
J.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 3:29 am
11 Apr 2008
Mr. Dressler's point is proven by this thread
The thread started by comparing how the tanning industry tries to subvert medical science to protect their business with how the fossil-fuel industry attempts to subvert climate science to protect their profits. All of the activity of the deniers on this thread prove his point. Following the thread shows a pattern of attempts to manipulate statistics in misleading ways, draw false conclusions by taking data out of context, and attack the messengers. All tried-and-true PR tactics employed by industries protecting their destructive practices by sewing confusion with the public.
At this point people need to ask "why" and follow the money trail.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:48 am
11 Apr 2008
Robco1 follows the money trail
Robco1 writes: "At this point people need to ask "why" and follow the money trail."
Follow the money trail indeed.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf
How about 10-12 billion $ per year globally today on AGW (50% in USA).
AGW really has become a "multibillion dollar big business".
And just wait until the hundreds of billions from carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes start really kicking in.
Robco1 is right: Follow the money trail.
Max
Permalink