'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2 40

[Ataloss]

Allow me to bastardize Mr. Newton's third law to show my view of the Global Warming debate:
"For every argument, there is an equal and opposite argument".

Petit et al (in ElectricPete's "picture is worth a thousand years" post above) say that CO2 is going up dramatically and have the ice core data to prove it.

Jaworowski says that using ice cores for CO2 data is flawed because of the behavior of various gasses under the extreme pressures that exist under thousands of meters of ice.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Bob

 

[LCruiser]

One thing the ice core aficionados continue to ignore is the averaging of gas concentrations from the time the snow falls until the ice bubbles close. For example, Vostok core bubbles take an average of about 4,000 years to close, based on the age of the ice and the age of the air inside the bubbles. People that don't get out of the lab much will say that they all close at the same age, but a little common sense disagrees with that. Therefore, even if we double CO2 in the next 100 years and it takes another 200 to get back to 5% of normal (about right with a concentration half life of 40 years) future ice core drillers won't even see the blip of this Century.

 

[electricpete]

So... I guess the mainstream support for ice core records as an indicator of past CO2 is part of the grand conspiracy?

The link given by Ataloss above (8 Jul 08 16:22) cites 3 publications by one single author (Jaworowski).

The first publication linked is a 2007 article "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time" published in "EIR" magazine

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

And what prestigious publication is EIR? Executive Intelligence Review? The editor is politician Lyndon Larouche, former presidential candidate. Read more here:

http://www.larouchepub.com/

Safe to say this is a political magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal (read their home-page link)

The second publication linked above is a "Forward" of an article ("Ancient Atmosphere") dated 1994, in publication "Environmental Science and Pollution Research" (ESPR)

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/frank.pdf

ESPR is in fact a respected peer-reviewed journal ( for example see

http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/startseite

)
We don't have the text of the article itself. The abstract (

http://www.fao.org/agris/search/display.do?f=./1995/v2124/DE95K0220.xml;DE95K0220

) suggests that the article is a little more guarded in it's conclusions than the 2007 article – primarily focusing on questions (rather than conclusions) and the need for further research. Review of the editors comments which are available in the link above (frank.pdf) indicates also that the editors consider it an important area worthy of discussion, but not that they agree with any conclusions. Furthermore, the end of the "forward" introduces the article as an item for comment by the readers. But where are the supportive followup comments? I notice none of them are linked. If in fact Jaworowski's ESPR paper was not discredited, then it would be a very hot topic for today's discussion. If in fact that were the case, (not discredited), then why is it that this subject has not been revisted by Jaworowski in peer-reviewed literature since 1994 ? (Think about it - we know he was still pushing his viewpoint in rags like EIR up until at least 2007 as linked above!)


The third publication linked is a publication in 1997 "ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD EXPOSED - Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide
Increase" in 21st Century Magazine

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

What do we know about 21st Century Magazine?
Their home-page has the look of a magazine that peddles sensational science:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/about.html

Don't believe me? They don't don't even make the journal citation index. Try finding them here: (hint – you won't find them – they are not a peer review journal).

http://www.isinet.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlsearch.cgi?PC=D

Finally, we have on Ataloss' linked web page Jaworowski testimony before congress. Needless to say, not a peer-reviewed environment. In the event that anyone attaches undue significance to testimony before congress – let's remember that the folks who invite him are politicians.

So, in the spirit of so-called skeptics, call me skeptical of Jaworowski's claims. Is there any reasonably-current peer-reviewed support for his claims?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[frv]

Star for your diligence, electricpete.

I lost interest in this thread long ago, but it's good to see someone keeps the sanity.

 

[Unotec]

The most interesting thing I have gathered about this GHGE thing is that so called scientists are forecating global warming or cooling or a mix. They can't even forecast the weather for the week correctly. how am I to believe 10-15-100 yrs down the road?

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[SomptingGuy]

That is a troll post I assume?

- Steve

 

[SomptingGuy]

unotec,

Apologies for the jibe. Here's an analogy to your question:

How can scientists predict long term changes in the mean temperature of water in a beaker over a flame if they can't even predict the turbulence inside it (i.e. the local "weather").


- Steve

 

[Unotec]

Apology not necessary, made me look-up "troll post" and find out what it means. You caught me writing the reply: Not really, I did state my opinion, giving it a little more thought, but I do not agree with the global warming theories at all. I do believe, instead, on looking after the environment. I have a hard time seeing all the money wasted on carbon sink projects and not reforestation (one of mother nature's carbon sinks) and many more projects that are costing us (tax payers) money and impacting our pockets. I'd like to get away from fossil fuels, if possible, to prevent scenarios like Mexico City, London, Calcutta, etc... pockets of pollution. But I have been unable to understand why the focus is on the air and not the soil, forests, etc... Where, if this was a true problem, the solution would lie, in my opinion.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[LCruiser]

SomptingGuy -

Irrational analogy. Convection moderates the atmosphere - CO2 effects are gone within a hundred meters or so of the surface. A more appropriate analogy is to ask what the temperature of the water does when it's boiling if the heat is turned up a fraction. Convection increases, that's all.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Irrational? I don't think so.

unotec reckons that if meteorologists can't predict whether it'll rain or not in London at the weekend, how can anyone predict long term changes in global climate.

My point is that local weather prediction is impossible beyond a few days (based on turbulence), global averages (based on conservation priciples) aren't.

(Personal view: I disagree with the global warming guys in general, but I think that using the falibility of weather prediction as an argument are misguided)

- Steve

 

[LCruiser]

The classic argument on that is that weather is an initial value problem whereas climate is a boundary condition problem. However, that's a shortsighted view because I don't think anyone really thinks regional climates were the same as now during the onset of the Holocene at the time the average global temperature was the same as now.

I think it's more like predicting rainfall patterns for one minute vs. predicting rainfall patterns for a whole day.

 

[SomptingGuy]

For those with an hour or two to kill, check out this Telegraph article and the (mostly articulate) readers' comments piling up (it was one a minute just now). There's not a lot of science in it (a few links here and there) but the politics is spot on.

GW believers may need to take blood pressure pills before reading.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/10/do1004.xml

- Steve

 

[Ataloss]

ElectricPete,
To answer your question "why is it that this subject has not been revisted by Jaworowski in peer-reviewed literature since 1994", in an article about Jaworowski and his research:


"Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."


The article is here:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6&p=1

(yes, it's just a newspaper article, from an ongoing series called "The Deniers" so it is going to be slanted towards the "GW is a farse" side of things). The article also discusses discrepancies he found in comparing the concentrations of cesium in ice core samples versus surrounding non-ice measurements after the chernobyl accident.

I have not looked for any other research into this, I was just trying to present another side to the argument, although, I admit, it would be much more effective to present several people's research rather than just one guys.

I also admit, this guy could be just an attention-whore, talking out of his butt about "this is not the way to get funding", and that his funding was refused because it could upset the GW applecart. It does come across like a huge conspiracy theory.

Bob

 

[josephv]

The point that was made several times now is that several authors in the National Post, The Daily Telegraph, and the Toronto Sun (which is considered by many to be a slightly better version of the National Inquirer) misquote, and misinterpret the scientific data that they refer to. And sometimes they make statements without referring to any research at all.

To be fair, all newspapers have their bias, that is why when we are having scientific discussions it is best to see the original source/research (i.e. the original scientific paper or journal that published the data).

 

[Ataloss]

Unotec,
Your argument doesn't hold much water because making an accurate prediction of the day to day weather for a week requires incredible amounts of precise and accurate data for a huge geographical area (local temperature, wind, humidity, cloud cover, solar inensity, and more data for the entire planet). This data is simply not available, nor is the computing power to make these predictions for every city or town on earth. The only data that meteorologists have to make their predictions is from the relatively few weather centers scattered around the country/world and from a few weather satellites. There is simply a lack of data. The long term predictions don't need to take into account all the local variables and can rely on broader, average measurements.

An analogy would be a patient with cancer. Left untreated, the doctors know the cancer is going to grow, spread throughout the body and eventually kill the patient, and can predict the death with a range of a couple of years. Can they predict that in three days the cancer will have grown by 0.3472 percent, or that in 22 days it may shrink by 0.122 percent before rebounding and growing again? No, but they can predict the long term trend.

Bob

 

[Unotec]

Well, I was trying to be a little sarcastic with my posting. However, it was forecasted a dry hot summer here. So far my biking has been down due to the mud in the mountains and what used to be a trail is now a river.
What has started nagging me is the fact that there has been a $2billion allocation of funds to start creating carbon sinks and scrubbers. Just last year a mayor logging project was approved for the area. I see that as an oxymoron. Trees are Mother Nature’s carbon sinks and scrubbers. Deforestation will cause erosion, which will pollute rivers and affect water quality etc... Now, once the soil is eroded, hardly any trees will grow there again. We are far from eliminating all forests this way. However I see this as a more realistic anthropogenic negative impact than the GHGE. Also remember that the principal greenhouse gas is water vapour. The way I see it, once we start irreversibly affecting the soil, water quality will be impacted and earth's capability of generating flora reduced. Now we will have less means to reduce CO2, but most importantly, the evaporation rate will be increased. This is where I see a real global warming problem. Down the road, a long ways, so long that GHGE activist would never get the $$$ the way they are now. I am just concerned on how much attention and resources are spent on the emmissions and not on the soil. Why has this resource been abandoned? It used to be a hot topic for a while


<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[LCruiser]

I don't think it's a "huge" conspiracy theory. I think most alarmists truly believe they are correct. The problem is that they have a very narrow view of the science which doesn't include things like e.g. convection (hot air rises). There is certainly some faction conspiring to make money off the scam, but who knows how big it is?

As Ataloss says, no one has refuted Jaworowski's science - it's the typical ad hominem attacks people revert to when they have nothing substantial to go on.

Just goes to show that it's more a religion than a science for some.

 

[LCruiser]

Ataloss - we don't even know if it's a cancer let alone if it's benign or malignent, or how big the benefit is (food growth) to it.

 

[jmw]

Good link from SomptingGuy and here is another from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml&page=1

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[rb1957]

following on unotec's post ... who wants to bet that if the current plans for carbon sinks and such actually have -ve results [and this means significant effects 'cause i believe that pretty much anything we do has a negligible effect compared with the main climate driver, the sun] and the "GW" continues, then it won't be because of the actions taken (ie, "sorry, we skrewed up and now we're skrewed") but "i told you we started too late; ah well, we had a good shot at trying to fix it, but now we're skrewed"

i think the only thing that saves us from ourselves (in this regard) is that humans have IMHO a negligible effect on the climate (regardless of what our ego's would like to think). but i accept the other points being made ...
we should be more responsible in our use of fuels,
we should be more respectfull of our environment.