Reader Tips

58 Replies to “Reader Tips”

1. Shamrock: I have said nothing about whether there was a global MWP or not. But if there was one, then the methodology of S&B would not have discovered it.
   In regards to your “non trick question” (I have been tricked by these before on this site) my understanding is that CO2 is considered more serious than H2O because of two factors.
   1) CO2 is more persistent than H2O with an atmospheric residency time of decades to centuries as opposed to days for H2O.
   2) The level of H2O is controlled by temperature. If things warm up then the atmosphere will be able to hold more moisture. CO2 is not like this and the amount is a function of the production of it.
   Regards,
   John

2. John, I believe that surrogate markers for anything always have to be viewed skeptically, including using tree rings as surrogate markers for past temperatures. I’d prefer to rely on historical descriptions and facts (Charles XII marching his armies across the frozen Baltic, Nelson’s description of skating parties in Quebec in October, Rye once being one of the Cinque Ports) to gain a better sense of past climate.
   If small errors of math can badly skew observational data so as to render it invalid, what more the impact of badly incomplete algorithms on climate models — global climate models no less. If one cannot develop an algorithm which adequately models precipitation, if one cannot model the monsoon, what stock should one place in computer models which claim to model the entire earth’s climate one hundred years into the future? My point is that human CO2 production causing global warming is far from settled, and massive expenditures on public policies with reasonably predictable detrimental economic effects sans any positive effect on a problem which may not even exist, is foolish, wasteful, and squanders resources which could be used to address other social or environmental needs.

3. DrD, fair enough, but if that is your argument then the CBC documentary does not make a strong case for you. In fact, Christy only mentions the points you made in passing without offering anything of substance.
   In regards to the specific points that I mentioned, do you feel that the documentary presents a valid point?
   Regards,
   John

4. John Cross, I accept your criticisms of the documentary, in fact I have a couple more of my own which I won’t get in to. However, bear in mind that you appear to be the one assigning causality i.e. anthropogenic CO2 production is causing global warming (Am I correct?). Therefore the scientific burden of proof is upon you. Otherwise we make the logical fallacy of the appeal to ignorance i.e. “It’s not known therefore you must adopt my position.” If we don’t know, then we don’t know.

5. DrD: I think we can agree to a certain extent. I realize and accept that there are things we don’t know and I will never use the phrase “the science is settled”.
   I would be willing to say that there are parts of the science that are – to all intents and purposes – settled. For example: 1) we are responsible for the current rise in CO2 and 2) that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in IR radiation at the earth’s surface are well established. So I would say that the case is much stronger than an appeal to ignorance.
   Regards,
   John

6. OMMAG . . . I think you miss the point. Correcting actual errors on Wikipedia is hardly an “abuse of position and public trust”. If the people at the CBC are not to be making changes during their work day, then presumably no one else should do so either if they are being paid by a particular company, using company resources, etc. (Even though we are probably talking about a 3 minute change . . . I expect more time than that is regularly wasted at the CBC.) So then, anyone who comes across errors on Wikipeida must remember to head back after work hours to make changes. Since this is not likely to happen, the integrity of the Wikipedia goes down. Since many people (including journalists and CBC) use Wikipedia for research,it’s important, I think, for everyone to work towards accuracy. In other words, I think it helps all journalists and the broader public good to catch and correct errors. Your approach totally destroys the spirit of cooperation which is essential for Wikipedia to thrive.

7. John Cross, what contribution to atmospheric rise do you perceive coming from offgassing from the oceans — (Henry’s Law — as the temperature of a liquid rises the quantitiy of gas dissolved in the liquid decreases)? In other words, couldn’t rises in atmospheric CO2 be the effect of ocean warming vs the cause? The oceans are, after all huge CO2 reservoirs.

8. DrD: at the present time I would say it was 0. If the water warms up sufficiently then it may start to offgas, but we are not there yet. In fact the oceans appear to be acting as a sink.
   As I discussed in another thread, you can show that the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is actually more than what shows up in the atmosphere (a simple analysis where you calculate the CO2 from burning X amount of oil). The rest is taken up by the ocean. As I said, this is solid but I can work through the math if you like.
   Regards,
   John