The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon dioxide, mass extinction of species and climate change > Comments

Carbon dioxide, mass extinction of species and climate change : Comments

By Andrew Glikson, published 1/3/2010

Humans can not argue with the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Anthony - you are quite right to point out that the IPCC's emission scenarios report contains many, many different paths.. and none of them are considered more probable than the others. However, the fact remains that the projections for methane are already hopelessly wrong and the projections for CO2 are below the mid range of that host of projections not near the top as is constantly alleged, and that only a decade after they were made.
As for natural drivers, it has occured to me that Andrew is not be keeping up with literature in his own field.. in fact its been conceeded that solar magnetic theory is a major driver of climate - albeit with the connection supposedly breaking down in 1985. See the paper by Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory and Claus Frolich, of the word radiation centre in Davos, Switzerland.
The paper, "Recently opposite directed trends in climate forcings and the global mean surface temperature" (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, July 13, 2007) s available online. It does not try to argue against the mass of evidence for a link throughout pre-history but alleges that it breaks down in 1985.. there is considerable argument about that but the paper was well received by global warmists.
Andrew would have done well to explore that link rather than rant about CO2 again. Leave it with you..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 10:26:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Glikson’s article continues his alarmist agenda-driven crusade and use of selectively quoted science, starting from his first paragraph, where he refers to the human caused increase in the original 590GtC carbon inventory of the atmosphere . What and when was the ‘original’ carbon inventory? His own graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels up to 12 times higher than at present during the last 600 milllion years, and before that it was even higher.
He says that the present rate of CO2 rise of 2ppm/year is unprecedented in geological history. He cannot know this because there are no geological or other investigative techniques that can determine such changes in the geological past over periods as short as a year or a century or a millennium. He has tried this stunt before and compared CO2 rises in recent decades with changes over 10’s of thousands of year in the PETM. He has no idea what CO2 changes occurred during individual ten year periods during the PETM, and he can never know. The more recent time period when higher resolution is possible for example from ice cores shows that temperature rises preceded CO2 rises.
He refers to a critical threshold for CO2 but does not say what this is. He goes on to say that ‘further release of CO2 from the oceans .... warms the oceans and induces ocean acidification’. This is new science which needs to be explained!
He says the poles are warming three or four times faster than low latitudes. There is no observed evidence that the Antarctic is warming, although he would probably refer to the Antarctic peninsula which is almost 3000 km from the pole. He is selective in referring to ice loss in the Antarctic when most research is showing an increase overall. And for the Arctic he ignores the recent research showing that the 2007 sea ice loss was caused by wind changes which blew the sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean where it melted in the warmer waters of the north Atlantic. It did not melt in the Arctic.
Posted by malrob, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 10:33:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are significant paragraphs repeated in the article from a previous piece written by Andrew and one can question whether repetition of this type is an appropriate use of OLO. He paraphrases a number of paragraphs from the references to which he provides links – and what references they are! Wikipedia, which maintained a climate alarmist editor who allegedly edited over 5000 articles that did not comply with the alarmist agenda. And extremist Joe Romm’s Climate Progress. And advocacy group WWF. Not a good look Andrew.
In paraphrasing from one of his links he even converts the original 9 metres of alleged ice melt to 30 feet. Why? Because it sounds like a bigger number? Or does it say something about what he thinks of the predominantly non-scientific audience he is writing for? Don’t underestimate that audience Andrew. Most of them are clearly better than you are in their understanding of the changes that are now happening rapidly in the climate debate, from the doubts emerging about actual temperatures during the last hundred years, to the discrediting of so many of the IPCC’s pet theories and forecasts, and the disgraceful behaviour of the high priests of global warming as exposed in the CRU emails. And many of us are well aware that the science as you portray it on matters such as climate sensitivity and feedbacks, extreme weather events and other factors is far from settled. You portrayal of it as such, especially when speaking science to a predominantly non-scientific audience, does you no credit. The IPCC has given itself a credibility problem by its use of advocacy groups for some of its source material and its refusal to take into account conflicting but quality science. The same applies your increasingly strident contributions to the debate. Yes there is a tipping point coming and I suggest it will be the collapse of the AGW edifice.
Posted by malrob, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 10:35:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MalRob - good points, well made, and the usual trickery by the author.

What's is interesting is all the warmists who readily sign up to this prattle and gobbledegook and state what wonderful science it is.

An example "Reasoned, coherent argument. Thank you. The problem you face here is that of armchair experts (AEs) who don't understand the nature of scientific theories, the questions let alone the answers/conclusions. As you say the chemistry physics is beyond reasonable dispute."

The deluded lap it up, like mana from heaven, without thinking thorough the obvious - perhaps I'm being unkind and they are just so fixated in their religious warmist scientology beliefs, that they don't think unless one of their high pristes tells them to do so.

Such is science in Australia now .. how sad.
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 11:07:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not much to be gained by arguing with climate deniers!

Suggest join the NewAustralia Party instead. Currently membership is free.

We are promoting a revenue neutral tax swap as a way to provide an appropriate carbon price without having a massive net tax rise or bogus 'ETS'.

Our web site is here: www.NewAustralia.net.
Posted by Alan Ide, NewAustralia Party, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 11:56:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon

Thanks for the reference to the paper. The variability of solar activity is no doubt and influence on climate in the past and into the future. No climate scientist has ever said that atmospheric CO2 is the sole driver of changes to climate. As you say, the paper does dismiss this small scale solar variability as a significant influence since 1985, In the absence of any other mechanism, one would expect a drop in global average temperatures since that time.

I haven't looked at cosmic fluxes too much or the effect of changes to the earth's magnetic field on those fluxes. One thing I have observed while looking at papers where people used paleomagnetism to date ocean sedimentary cores to determine sea level changes over the last few million years, is there is definitely no correlation to changes in the earth's polarity and implied sea level. This has been understood since at least Shackleton and Opdyke, 1973. As an aside, there is definitely no correlation of these changes with extinction events either.
Posted by Anthony, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 2:07:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy