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- ... ]

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Re ...

Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.

This is a bad analogy.  

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 ...

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


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

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.

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 ...

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Ethically-challenged would be a generous description for you and your ilk.

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

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

As for cap and trade "schemes," yeah, they were so ineffective in reducing SO2 from smokestack emmissions . . . whops.

Got it?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

You wrote:

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)

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,

John

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.  

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.

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

1. Max selectively quotes the Hansen article.  Why not quote the entire sentence in, Max?  Because it wouldn't make your point?

2. If that's true, then why is the ocean actually becoming more acidic.  See the IPCC, chapter 5.

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

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

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.

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.

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