GEOENGINEER?: The strand of Chaetoceros atlanticus pictured here can help pull CO2 from the atmosphere and bury it in the sea, given enough iron to bloom.
Image: Courtesy of Marina Montresor, SZN / Alfred Wegener Institute
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Fertilizing the ocean with iron could help reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, according to newly released findings of a research cruise. Why? In a word, diatoms.
A hunger for iron rules the microscopic sea life of the Southern Ocean surrounding ice-covered Antarctica. Cut off from most continental dirt and dust, the plankton, diatoms and other life that make up the broad bottom of the food chain there can't get enough iron to grow. And that's why some scientists think that artificially fertilizing such waters with the metal could promote blooms that suck CO2 out of the air. Then, when these microscopic creatures die, they would sink to the bottom of the ocean and take the carbon with them.
Such blooms occur naturally, of course, so the first part of the hypothesis is not controversial. What remained questionable until now is whether such blooms in fact sequestered much carbon or if it was being quickly recycled back into the atmosphere. The problem for scientists is that oceanic waters tend to mix, which makes monitoring and delineating an experiment in the ocean challenging.
The solution, devised by biological oceanographer Victor Smetacek of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany and his colleagues, was to use an eddy. Such swirling currents can be remarkably self-contained. In fact, the new research to be published in Nature on July 19 shows that less than 10 percent of the eddy's waters mixed with the surrounding ocean. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
With such ideal conditions, the group dissolved seven metric tons of iron sulfate in acidic seawater and spewed the solution into the ship's propeller wash starting on February 13, 2004, covering a circular patch in the eddy of some 167 square kilometers. That's the equivalent of adding 0.01 gram of iron per square meter, levels similar to those found in the wake of a melting iceberg. They then monitored the fate of the patch off and on for five weeks, while also adding supplemental iron fertilizer after two weeks to keep concentrations high enough to promote growth.
As expected, microscopic sea life bloomed. Chaetoceros atlanticus, Corethron pennatum, Thalassiothrix antarcticus and nine other species of diatoms grew in abundance, boosting the amounts of chlorophyll, organic carbon and other signs of life in the waters to depths of as much as 100 meters beneath the surface.
By the middle of the third week after the researchers stopped adding iron, the bloom began to die. So many diatoms died, in fact, that they overwhelmed any natural systems for decay and fell in large numbers below 500 meters in depth. At least half of the total bloom biomass sank below 3,000 meters, according to the scientists' calculations. Fresh diatom cell corpses littered the seafloor as well, and the research team believes that much of the bloom ended at the bottom as a layer of fluff. "Since the aggregates sank so rapidly and the water column was more or less 'empty' on day 50, they must have settled out," Smetacek argues. "Layers of fluff have been reported from various regions, including the Southern Ocean."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
103 Comments
Add CommentWhy do we assume less carbon is better? This is just as asinine as the huge scientific gestapo majority who once insisted the Earth must be flat, and discredited all evidence that didn't support their theory. There is a lot of money to be made here, that's the real story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, if you think with logic for only a moment, and review the actual facts.... 70%+ of the Earths crust has a coal/oil/methane lens somewhere below the surface. That was all a huge amount of vegetation at one time. If you want to grow giant plants quickly, you must provide high doses of CO2 in a greenhouse. We are STARVING for CO2 on this planet because it all got buried in a flood and locked away.
Do the Earth and humanity a huge favor, and please burn fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Liberate the CO2 and so we can grow more food and avoid starvation.
This is not a joke, this is not being contrarian, this is just simple facts with logic.
Sewing the oceans with iron?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy God. If you swallow iron, you know where you will wind up? In the emergency room.
They are talking about putting a substance concentrated to toxic levels into our oceans. Why? Because of their faith in *models* - and that's what AGW is based on now: math.
I am incredibly suspect in any science based on models. Models are art. They are not science. They are just constructs based on assumptions and, at best, they can teach. But only a fool takes the results of a model as equal the result in the real world. Models, no matter how realistic they look, are not reality.
Put it another way... A model railroad is a great way to learn about railroads and how to manage them. But if something happens in a model railroad, you are a damn fool to take it on faith that it will necessarily happen in a real railroad.
Seeding the oceans with iron?
God help us if they are wrong.
Why do we assume less c02 is better? Well because pretty much all the world's scientific organizations, and for that matter governments agree that increased c02 is linked to higher temperatures. It is supported by hundreds of lines of evidence including rock boreholes by which you can measure past temperatures. Increased c02 also leads ocean acidification thanks to the uptake of atmospheric c02, which we've been pumping into the atmosphere for the last 150 years, which in turn leads to a decline in coral reefs - areas rich in marine life. Regarding your comment on the flat -earth theory - I think that applies more to the jokesters/contrarians/ or oil industry shills like you that would rather continue going toward the cliff (in the fog). Its been known since Eratosthenes' time in over two thousand years ago that the earth is round. BTW, way to Godwin in the first post, must be a record.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't need models, there is plenty of other evidence. When a Volcano erupted in the Aleutians a couple of years ago, and large amount of iron-rich ash came down in the north east pacific - it resulted in a large phyto-plankton bloom and that in turn caused a zooplankton bloom. It is also possible that it led to the huge salmon run that British Columbia had the following year (29million as opposed to the usual 3million).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is also a study of whales in the antarctic, causing phytoplankton blooms with their iron-rich feces (due to feeding on krill shrimp). Google it.
"This is just as asinine as the huge scientific gestapo majority who once insisted the Earth must be flat, and discredited all evidence that didn't support their theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUhhhh the flat earth was never a "theory" and nobody with education thought the earth was flat since the ancient Greeks.
Suppressing evidence? Your thinking of religion for the helio (sun) centric universe model.
Government recently has been involved in sea-level rise evidence suppression as well.
The carbon cycle is a mechanism of nature that was found through careful scientific observation over time.
With corn set to top over 8 bucks a bushel after this years drought how do you figure MORE heat will allow more food? We are NOT lacking in Carbon or Oxygen. If your looking for bottleneck elements look at phosphorus.
That huge amount of vegetation that made those trapped carbon reserves were produced over a huge amount of time.
We've burnt much of it in about a century.
Your facts are flawed which invalidates your "logic".
"They are talking about putting a substance concentrated to toxic levels into our oceans."
Did you read the article?
It specifically mentions the levels are about what an iceberg leaves in its melt-wake.
I'm not sure we can access enough iron to toxify the oceans.
"I am incredibly suspect in any science based on models. Models are art. They are not science."
So you don't like the AGW because of "math" but you don't like models because they are "art".
You must have a heck of a train set because the switches and junctions I use in TT seem to translate well to the real world. I understand that my knowledge of TT (comp game) doesn't mean I would be capable of running a real-world railroad but the signals and track layout aren't different and if the train takes the right branch in the game-world and I set the same situation in the real-world then I doubt the result is up to a coin flip.
Seeding iron in mineral poor waters shows how serious the problem is and at least someone is trying to figure out something to do about it rather that griping about things they obviously seem to have avoided bothering to research at all before expressing their opinions.
That god helps those who help themselves from what I'm told not those who obstruct the ones trying to help.
A great example of the sheep following the sheep. In fact the government can be wrong, and usually is. The majority of scientists can also be wrong, and have been on many occasions. They only get funded to research what the current popular belief is, so that is what they do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese boreholes you refer to only reveal very recent history, a few thousand years. Our temperature and atmospheric concentrations of specific elements oscillate up and down in that time. However, the boreholes do not take into account what Earth was like previously.
Why do you think global warming is bad? Because the media told you it was. That's it. If the whole Earth returned to what it was when there was lots of CO2 available, a giant Brazilian style rainforest, that would be ideal.
Please consider that the government and their leagues of paid scientists and the media have a mandate, it's usually about money, and it may not be the right one for Mother Earth, although it will usually be dressed up to appear so, and to take in the gullible sheep.
Consider the facts. The facts support higher CO2 being good, but it's not popular to mention that.
"Consider the facts. The facts support higher CO2 being good, but it's not popular to mention that."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so.
Perhaps your saying that some level of higher CO2 is preferable to conditions like the little ice age but your not talking about the climate change that science is speaking of. The levels of increase in the first is orders of magnitude different from the second. Why do I think higher CO2 is bad? Look at Venus. Our sister is quite the greenhouse. Ergo maned exploration looks to Mars.
Do you have something against weather forecasts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps scientist and engineers should just toss-out their computers, calculators, slide rules etc. Would it make you feel better if we substituted the word "simulation" for "model" so there is no confusion with fashion, art or collectable toys. Engineering is full of models. It is not absolute precise reality, but take a look around; this modern civilization was not built with just trial and error and lucky guesses.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57474937/46-square-mile-glacier-breaks-off-in-greenland/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt took a couple of thousand years for mankind to create all this extra CO2. There is no easy fix. It is the result of using up millions of years worth of sequestered carbon. Trying to clean up the mess by playing God with another element is a fools quest and will take a lot more then just 'half a tanker of iron'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImmediately mud slinging on if CO2 is good or bad. Grow up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis well written, if short, article shows CO2 sequestration into the oceans is possible on a small scale IF conditions are right. It also points out this is nothing like enough to combat Human CO2 production in even ideal conditions.
This is a tiny part of the solution, not to be dismissed, but never to be relied upon to solve Global Warming (It's happening, just accept it). It alleviates some symptoms but cannot be a cure.
Messing with nature tends to have unintended consequenses, all these experiments are doing is checking the likely spin-offs if we ever need to get desperate enough to attempt these first-aid measures.
cpbandit wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If the whole Earth returned to what it was when there was lots of CO2 available, a giant Brazilian style rainforest, that would be ideal."
Styfling heat and humidity year-round, constant presence of parasites and pathogens? Not for me, thanks.
The facts are that CO2 for the last 400,000 year varies between about 250 parts per million (ppm) and 350 ppm. 380 ppm is not a magnitude greater. 3500 ppm would be a magnitude greater. Not even close. Most people that understand Science start by understanding math.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you bothered to check the data, you would find that when CO2 concentration are around 350 ppm it usually means a coming Ice Age. Not GB.
Data, Climate Scientists, Other Scientists, Lay People. Proper Science. Note: got the order from a paper. But have always understood it to be the correct order. GB Scientist never give you A. Good Data or B. Complete Data. 400,000 years it just to long of a period for them to consider.
Thank You!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"this modern civilization was not built with just trial and error and lucky guesses."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. The modern world was built on VALIDATED working models. Unvalidated erroneous models have only been responsible for disasters and suffering. Climate models are light years away from any kind of validation and have shown NO skill at predictions. They too will cause disaster and suffering if implemented into policy. Any Engineer, worth his salt, is keenly aware of this truth. GK
So I take it you blow off all weather predictions as bologna. Those hurricane and tornado warnings are all a bunch of lies right. Everyone should just go out and enjoy the day, regardless of the tornado and hurricane warnings posted by the weather service.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeather models are validated out to 3-5 days. After 10 days... not so much. Years..? Forget about it. Climate model validation... zero. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most bottle-necking plant limiting nutrient on this Earth is carbon, not Phosphorus like you suggest. Not sure where you heard that rumor. Please look at the facts, they are easily available. You may have got confused by the fact that Phosphorus may be the first "mined" fertilizer product to run low based on known reserves. But anyone with a hydroponics greenhouse knows that there are 14 essential elements needed to grow a basic plant, and 27 elements required for full nutrition in all plant types. Compressed CO2 is what was used to supplement the crop of the most prolific world record corn yielder. Our atmosphere does not have enough CO2 to support any more vegetation than we currently are trying to grow. Save the rain forests, save our biodiversity, save our food supply, release carbon to the atmosphere....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso how come there were huge trees in the Jurassic period when there was less CO2 - the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not correlate to the amount of trees or plants growing and their size... the more CO2 there is the more plants will grow but that doesnt mean that the plants will start absorbing MORE CO2 than they usually do...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn nature theres a cycle of iceages - high CO2 to low CO2 periods which scientists know about...the problem is the exaggeration at which the CO2 lvl has risen due to human behaviour.
THe coals and tar and other organic molecules formed from the decomposition of animals found under ground took millions of years to form and was thus not a single event of a 'flood' as you say so - this is simple logic and primary science.
MODELS:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisXFunc_CaRteR said, "I am incredibly suspect in any science based on models."
Newton's law of universal gravitation is just a model:
F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2
We have found that G is very stable and universal as a constant; therefore, it is a very good model -- so much so that it became a "law" -- but it is still a model.
But Einstein obviously found that this "law" does break down when m1 and/or m2 are very large and when r is very small. Therefore, it is not completely "universal." Newtons Law does not work for GPS.
MODELS (continued):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisG. Karst then goes on to say, "The modern world was built on VALIDATED working models."
Who validates the models??? Humans. Validation can also be erroneous, essentially making your point about "erroneous models" circular. As humans we can only use our knowledge and interpretation of the world (through models -- abstract, mathematical, etc) the best we can within a level of confidence which is also subjective.
When we let out emotions interfer with our judgement, that is what we should be concerned about. Science is hindered by politics and faith.
I found it interesting that XFunc_CaRteR said, "God help us if they are wrong." That seems to imply he injects faith and/or fate into how the world unfolds. For many people, does science also help them know how the world will unfold? It seems not if they have no confidence in science. Maybe the Earth will fly into the Sun tomorrow.
Your prayers will be answered. All the carbon-based fuel will be burned as rapidly as possible and the conditions of the Carboniferous age will be re-established.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not being contrary; just simple facts with logic.
Don't worry, nothing will be done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that there is an untoward experiment in the line of seeding seas with Iron: the quite a few ships sunk during wars, specially the II WW, specially in the Pacific basin. Does anybody have data on this, or it takes too much time for a sunken ship to release a noticeable amount of Iron in its surroundings? The german fleet in Stampa Bay is an older case of the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIron is toxic only in very large doses. The amounts of iron used here are small trace amounts anyway. This is why cast iron pans are not a problem even though they corrode to some degree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure to fail if you don't try.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Seeding the oceans with iron?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod help us if they are wrong."
God will be amused that having been given dominion over the Earth you fail to adequately manage it because you are afraid to make decisions. Imagine what would have happened if God had delayed creation because He was afraid it would not be "perfect."
IRON TOXICITY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that some of the commenters did not read/understand that the theory was to add iron to iron-deficient waters only.
The Southern Ocean around antartica is iron-deficient because it lacks the run-off of continental dirt and dust. I don't think the intent is raise iron concentrations to "unnatural" levels.
That being said, I am not claiming there's no chance of toxicity. For example, see Charles Trick, et. al.:
"Iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas"
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/24/0910579107
In your post #5 you said: "Uhhhh the flat earth was never a "theory" and nobody with education thought the earth was flat since the ancient Greeks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuppressing evidence? Your thinking of religion for the helio (sun) centric universe model."
Where did you study your scientific history? 1. Both were theories (and accepted truths) by the existing scientific communities for centuries after the Greeks.
2. Sure, it was some time ago when we figured out that those theories/truths were wrong but nontheless they were the 'accepted scientific facts of the majority of the scientists of their era' - just like Human Caused Global Warming is claimed to be. But those historic scientists were wrong and maybe - just maybe - our scientists could be too.
I think that what some of us are saying is that there is no proof that Climate Change is human caused - just inference based on models which have yet to be 100% accurate in predicting the future (1 example: model's predictions of increased huricane #'s a few years ago due to CC have yet to materialize).
Majority opinions do not make science theories fact. Reproducable experiments and accurate predictions based on fact based models do.
I understand that you are passionate about CC because you truly believe you are right and want to save us all - even us non-believers. But, please, don't loose site of the fact that you might, just might, be wrong about the extent of the human causal component as scientists in the past have been wrong about other "true" things.
I applaud the experiment but am fearful of our lack of complete enough understanding of the ecosystem to suggest going further at this time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDumping iron here to create the blooms strikes me a little like adding rabbits to Australia. Sure you can say: "but we know so much more now". But do we really? I wish I knew...
See the "God Complex" TED lecture for insight into the hubris of those who think they fully understand how to affect only desired changes on chaotic & massively complex systems.
Maybe we should build more nuclear plants and desalination plants to irrigate the deserts of the world. All the growing of food will lower the cost to feed the billions and really reduce the C02 as it becomes plant material.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSilly humans need to study the carbon cycle for it is the circle of life?
Cramer asks: Who validates the models???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must ask the correct question. It matters not "WHO" validates a model... but "WHAT" validates a model?
The easiest answer is reality validates a model. If a tuned model can run backwards and forward in time, it is accepted as verified and validated. When parameters are projected into the future are matched by independent MEASURED parameters (ie temperatures)... you will have a very different model then our present GCM. GK
First of all, 10 mg of Fe per square meter is a very low concentration. If you assume a mixed depth of 100 meters, as stated for the bloom depth, this is 10 mg per 100,000 liters or an end concentration of 1E-04 mg/liter or 0.1 ppb! By contrast, when you take your morning vitamin or eat your breakfast cereal, your body will increase your iron content by more than this. Rising CO2 will do a lot more than increase the surface temp of the earth a little. As the positive feed-backs from melting ice near the poles and methane releases from tundra and clathrates in the polar oceans proceed, we can expect an exponentially changing temperature, fully melted polar caps, and a 200 foot rise in sea level. How do you expect to pay for the 100's of trillions of dollars of lost infrastructure when all the coastal regions of the world are inundated? Where will all the billions of people go who live there now? Is this the world you want to pass on to your grandchildren? This cataclysm may well prove to be over the tipping point within their lifetimes, and largely unstoppable. The present generation needs to make the necessary changes in our energy production NOW, not when all these things are obvious to the average joe and we have no options. That's why we build models and use them, rather than waiting for the earth to validate the model with a cataclysm! Models are built by engineers and scientists every day to understand how complex systems work. This is no different other than the complexity and the lack of true kinetic information, but the end results are clear. God help us if the deniers are wrong, because nothing else may be able to help!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is that the world has not warmed the last 10 to 15 years in either no carbon dioxide levels have increased. It is not warmed because, as many people have demonstrated, the climate move in cycles and come at the moment we are on the crest of a wave. All the evidence from research on sunspots and sunspots affect tells us that we're heading for a cooling cycle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHistory tells us that warming is good and cooling is bad. Expect dangerous cooling.
All climate models based on computers have proved to be spectacularly wrong. Why people still believe them–or ever believed them–is a mystery.
The increasingly unscientific Scientific American continues to ignore hard evidence of how the climate changes. It is an absolute scandal.
Karst, so you're trying to tell me that there is no human component in model validation. Guess WHAT? WHO decides WHAT. WHO decides "reality." WHO decides confidence. And WHO also errors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimatologists are confident enough in their models to know that climate change is real and CO2 is causing it. You are simply having a problem with WHO because you don't like WHAT. And you don't like WHAT because another WHO (politicians and the Koch brothers who finance them) is telling you WHAT to believe.
WHAT you believe is that WHO is lying about what is MEASURED and then you call it Climategate. No human connection, right? WHO does not matter, only WHAT? Is that your position? WHAT a joke.
Is that enough Abbott and Costello for you?
Cramer says:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Climatologists are confident enough in their models to know that climate change is real and CO2 is causing it."
Then they should demonstrate this confidence by publishing their model validation data. They haven't because there is none. The few comparisons I have seen comparing output to measurements were abject failures. Please show the model which projects rising CO2 levels and a flat 15 yr pause in warming. This divergence alone should invalidate any faith based confidence in climate models.
This is from the recent IAC recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies:
"conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value."
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/
Couple this with recent water vapor studies that failed to confirm the main mechanism for GHG water amplification, and one must ask if your confidence is merely faith.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/new-paper-weather-and-climate-analyses-using-improved-global-water-vapor-observations-by-vonder-haar-et-al-2012/
Have a close look at the graph there, strongly indicating we will not be cooking in our own juices soon, due to H2O vapor. Without increasing water vapor CAGW is impossible.
Of course non of this means anything to you because you are faith based... praise be to gaia and his prophet Gore. GK
Anyone, interested in making a validation themselves can do so with this graph. The only valid trend is "C". This is the projection if we halted all CO2 emissions. Considering we significantly increased CO2 emissions... Another clear failure of CO2 to induce unusual warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hansen.gif
Sorry, that didn't reproduce well. Try the main article - you will have to hit the translate button to read the German in English.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://diekaltesonne.de/?p=4006
It is a very good German site. GK
A good explanation of the problem for those that believe that climate change is happening and is human caused: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reply to plasmajet (in reply to XFunc_CaRteR)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne way to express it would be "The power of science lies in its ability to predict.". A quotation I am unsure the author of. However, it points out that 'model predictions' are the basic tool used to show that ANY science IS valid.
There is no getting away from modelling, be it calculating the position and velocity of a ballistic object or studying the planets climate. And so far, it has validated the science of AGW theory.
The objections to 'models' are not validated.
I do find this article very interesting, not only for sequestration but as a way to make the polar oceans more productive (thus driving the entire food chain).
But what is the emissions balance in producing the iron sulphate in an appropriate form? THAT never seems to be stated.
In reply to (KiwiBuzz) "The fact is that the world has not warmed the last 10 to 15 years in either no carbon dioxide levels have increased."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse assumption. You claim that because AIR mass has not warmed (about 5% of the total surface mass) the SURFACE has not warmed. This is somewhat silly. The amount of surface heat in the air depends a lot on how much is moved into deeper ocean and they have detected this as the locating of the 'missing heat'. You can see this effect if you relate the 'ENSO cycles' with air temperatures, as each ENSO cycle exposes cooler or warmer ocean waters to the air.
But when calcium carbonate is precipitated from sea water CO2 is actually released from the sea water (in the short term (geologically) - ie decades) because the solubility of CO2 is decreased.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, true but sea levels will be higher - possibly 100m at least if the ice caps melt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"what is the emissions balance in producing the iron sulphate in an appropriate form? THAT never seems to be stated." It would be trivial, iron is simply a needed trace element, only a tiny amount is needed to produce a diatom bloom if silica ions are present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny you neglected to mention any of that in your original post. In fact you neglected to say anything to that respect when you said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Climate models are light years away from any kind of validation and have shown NO skill at predictions."
No skills at prediction. That does not give any kind of reference and simply broad strokes them all. Not only that but then you called into question the legitimacy of those who make those models by stating:
"Any Engineer, worth his salt, is keenly aware of this truth."
But you continue in your broad stroke assumptions, I'm sure they'll serve you well.
Zexks:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReply ==> response ==> reply
That's how a thread works. Except for your usage, of the word 'neglected', I can't find any fault, in your comment. Was there something specific you wanted me to expand on? GK
You're data mining. And so was Jan-Erik Solheim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolheim rolling 5-year average temperature data is lower than the data from NASA and other sources. You need real temperature data. His data appears lower than HadCRUT3 which was replaced by HadCRUT4 due to its cool bias (I'm just doing an visual comparison of side-by-side graphs not an overlay). Maybe he only used temperature data from lower latitudes (I couldn't find his data source, but I don't read German). Northern latitudes have warmed much more.
Why would you compare the confidence of climatologists from a quarter century ago to today? Yes, we've come a a long way in a quarter century. Hansen's 1988 study is what help boost research funding -- not as much research back then.
There are other factors besides CO2. Why would you expect temperature and CO2 to go in lock step in some sort of near perfect linear function? There were errors in Hansen's quarter century old model.
Please check the NASA data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
You can't really make a case that there was a "flat 15 yr pause in warming."
When looking at the NASA data, pay most attention to the 5-yr moving averages. They are much different than Solheim's 5-yr moving avg -- so much so, that I doubt he even used a 5-yr moving avg. Sonheim's data looks more like a 1-yr moving avg of monthly or quarterly data. And was that suppose to be an example of a model validation? Autsch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAS data sets go, Giss is surely the worst. Way too much fudging of previous data and historical revision for any determination. However you seem to ignore the monthly GMT graph which is basically flat. I am not interested in arguing whether the trend is slightly up or slightly down. Flat is good enough for the girls I go out with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
Personally, I do not think we are completely done with this warming pulse... yet... but examining solar charts and considering double dip La Ninas, I am beginning to think cooling is imminent soon. What with the 4 billion extra mouths to feed (since our last cooling) do for food, with declining yields. It doesn't appear CO2 has the ability to save us, being relatively benign. May gaia help us all! GK
I see an upward trend in your GISS Fig.C.gif. It appears to be approximately 0.15 C per decade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you are correct. It looks flat IF you only look at the peaks and troughs. Is it wise to only look at the outliers and ignore the rest of the data? I guess people see what they want to see -- good thing for linear regressions and running averages.
CO2 is benign? Are you suggesting it is not a greenhouse gas? This discussion was simply about models and our ability to measure and predict what is happening. There might be factors missing. That debate does have some rationality to it. However, saying that CO2 is benign is debating well established physics. It's like arguing that apples don't fall to ground when they become detached from the tree.
Yes, cooling could be possible, especially if the thermohaline circulation shuts down. Yes, the Holocene has lasted a long time (12k yrs) as compared to the other warming epochs in the last 3 million years. Whatever brought those other warm periods to an end could also bring the Holocene to an end. Or maybe we completely screwed it up with our CO2 emissions -- because CO2 is NOT benign.
It isn't CO2 that is bad; a world with more energy would be great after we learn how to use the energy, but that is a process that will take hundreds of years; meanwhile change will be occurring much faster than human adaption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe word "bad" was never used. The word used was benign. Do you care to rephrase what you said using the word benign? Are you saying CO2 is benign?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, beneficial or harmful occurs only in a context. More CO2 is good if you want to grow corn in Northern Alberta, not so good if you live in a big city on the seacoast.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf humans were capable of rapid effective adjustment, climate change, or managing it though technological means, would not be a problem at all.
Increased CO2 does not significantly effect plant growth. i.e. 400 or 500 ppm is not significantly better for plant growth than the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. It is not the rate limiting step. It is not fertilizer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not a zero sum game.
Unfortunately, humans are not capable of "rapid effective adjustment," so there is no point to your statement. We only have our "context." Unfortunately, we can not choose other contexts for Earth and human adaptability.
I may have misunderstood your northern Alberta statement. Yes, it would be warmer there allowing plants to grow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot thinking of the world in a global context reeks of surviorship bias. I guess you are from northern Alberta and view yourself or your descendents as the surviors (those that will benefit from global warming). It's like saying the world survived WWII, so WWII is not a bad thing. No, 30 million people did not survive WWII. WWII was not a benign event. The human race will survive global warming. The SURVIVORS will adapt, but what about the suffering of those who do not survive and the living standards of the survivors? Maybe northern Alberta will be inundated with refugees a be overrun by a high crime rate.
But who cares if people of Bangladesh suffer, just as long as you make a profit by moving to northern Alberta.
I do not have anymore time for a metaphysical discussion.
I suppose there were a few fist fights on the deck of the Titanic, too. Obviously, effective action should be taken to prevent global warming; effective action should be take to mitigate its effects; and we should all mourn the loss of all casualties. It's OK to start now...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this33. delspace wrote
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquote:
we can expect an exponentially changing temperature, fully melted polar caps, and a 200 foot rise in sea level. How do you expect to pay for the 100's of trillions of dollars of lost infrastructure when all the coastal regions of the world are inundated? Where will all the billions of people go who live there now? Is this the world you want to pass on to your grandchildren? ...
endquote.
Please try and get a grip.
Do a simple check on wikipedia to see that dire projections for complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet (which is on land) call for it to take a couple of _thousand_ years and result in sea level rise of about twenty five feet. The arctic ice cap itself floats on the water which means it displaces much more volume of water than the volume above the surface. Consequently when it melts it will _lower_ sea level.
The Antarctic ice cap consists of two parts. The western Antarctic ice cap is the one that is identified as shrinking. It floats on the sea and will have the effect of lowering sea levels when it shrinks. The land based eastern Antartic ice cap is mostly on land and is consequently actually increasing in size and depth due to increased snow fall.
I have been hearing these predictions of imminent calamitous sea level rise for the last thirty years.
I actually live by the sea and have seen only a negligible rise. It is difficult to be sure if there has been any rise actually since it can vary by as much as sixteen feet on a daily basis (even more when it is stormy).
Accurate records of local levels are hard to come by for anything over fifty years ago. It is hard to suss out any rise because natural variations caused by el nino/la nina, seasonal effects and variations in outflow from the massive rivers in the region.
But as someone who looks at sea levels everyday I'm not worried about my granddaughter drowning because of global warming.
northernguy wrote, "Consequently when it melts it will _lower_ sea level."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot true. The melting of the Arctic polar ice cap will not lower sea level. It will have little effect. Ice melting in water has no effect on the water level (Archimedes' principle). However, due the difference of salinity between the arctic ice and water, it will slightly raise sea level. The ice is less salty than the water mostly due to snow pack. Sea water is denser than fresh water, therefore it will take more ice that is less salty to displace it.
But then there will less reflected solar radiation resulting in warmer oceans with lower density resulting in sea level rise. There will also be changes in ocean currents.
The lose of the arctic polar ice cap will result in higher sea level.
Thanks northernguy! I'm glad you are keeping an eye on sea levels from your backyard (like Sarah Palin). I guess someone has to do it. I will look forward to your periodic reports.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"CO2 is benign? Are you suggesting it is not a greenhouse gas?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course CO2 is one, of several, greenhouse gasses (GHG). Without our GHGs, we would be much colder. GHGs are therefore "benign".
Now, you are again making many incorrect statements, however, I can't keep sweeping up behind you. GK
59. Cramer in reply to northernguy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissneers that the fact that sea level isn't significantly rising where I live is somehow irrelevant as to whether the sea is or is not rising.
Thirty years ago those of us in our region were assured that within a hundred years there would be catastrophic consequences where we live if we didn't respond immediately to the perceived threat of anthropogenic global warming. One third of the way there and no discernible change.
If it is also true where Sarah Palin lived when she made that statement then it is relevant as well in relation to delspace's claim that the sea level rise would reach two hundred feet in my granddaughter's lifetime.
I guess if CO2 harmless to the climate, we might as well pump up its atmospheric concentration to 1000 ppm (1/10 of 1%). How about 5%. What a ludicrous statement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd like I said thanks, keep making your daily measurements with your yardstick. The Sarah Palin statement was about seeing Russia from her backyard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat was almost as funny as your melting ice lowers sea level statement.
"The equilibrium temperature rise would take many centuries to reach, and ranges from 1.5 to 3.9°C above the year 1990 levels for stabilization at 450 ppm and 3.5 to 8.7°C above the year 1990 levels for stabilization at 1,000 ppm." http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/048.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFred, you completely missed the point. Visit Venus where the atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. Let me know if greenhouse gases on Venus would be benign for the survival of any living organism. Temperature on Venus is about 900 F. Calling CO2 benign is ludicrous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say, "Fred, you completely missed the point. Visit Venus where the atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. Let me know if greenhouse gases on Venus would be benign for the survival of any living organism. Temperature on Venus is about 900 F. Calling CO2 benign is ludicrous."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA doubling or tripling of CO2 will not move us out of the sweet spot. One wonders if Venus will ever be a water-oxygen planet. Does a star like ours gradually cool to the point where that might be possible?
You either have no concept of relevance (your head is in the sand) or you like to use red herrings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich one is it? Do you expect the Sun (our star) to cool in the next few hundred years, few million years, or few billions years? Our star cooling is a much, much, much slower process than climate change, so it's irrelevant to this discussion. I brought up Vensus because there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature that some people do not believe exists (i.e. they believe CO2 is benign).
You're saying the our CO2 "sweet spot" is 200 to 1200 ppm. And you're also saying that 1200 ppm CO2 will have no significant impact on our climate or human civilization.
My guess is that you were NOT using a red herring.
"1200 ppm CO2 will have no significant impact on our climate or human civilization." Never said that; you're putting words in my mouth. Here's the deal: humans will burn every last ounce of carbon-based fuel in the next thousand years and release nearly all of its byproducts into the atmosphere. Nothing effective will be done to prevent that or mitigate it. There will be enormous environmental damage and great suffering for 10s of thousands of years. Remedies such as iron fertilization which might work to some extent will not be deployed in an effective manner until it is way too late nor will restrictions on emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm very sorry about that scenario. I do not support any part of it.
Is your name Fred or Sybil? You said, "A doubling or tripling of CO2 will not move us out of the sweet spot." You said this in response to my comment about CO2 not being benign (as if you disagreed). Tripling CO2 is about 1200 ppm. You now say there will be "enormous environmental damage and great suffering for 10s of thousands of years." Which is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid I say anything "effective will be done to prevent that or mitigate it?" No. So who are you preaching to? You replied to me.
More sweeping required:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCrammer says:
"400 or 500 ppm is not significantly better for plant growth than the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm."
CO2science.org have cataloged and indexed an impressive array of studies demonstrating large responses over a wide variety of plants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_McKibben_files/image005.jpg
CO2 has been much higher in the geologic past, when the biosphere teemed with life. The biosphere is currently starved of CO2, thus even a small increase has significant results.
There can be no doubt that increasing CO2 will cause Catastrophic Anthropogenic Regional Greening!
It is the sole reason greenhouses add 1000 ppm to their grow ops. GK
I stand corrected. See how easy that was? For some it's about learning; for others it's about closing their minds. And there are many closed minds lurking this forum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Visit Venus where the atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. Let me know if greenhouse gases on Venus would be benign for the survival of any living organism. Temperature on Venus is about 900 F. Calling CO2 benign is ludicrous."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVenus temperatures are mainly due to pressure. If one were to hover where Venusian atmospheric pressure was the same as Earths... One would find Earth temperatures and Venus - the same.
On Earth, no plant life, nor critter is possible, without 150 - 200 ppm CO2. You can't get much more benign than that. GK
I am not a botanist, so I gave you the last one (and I should not have). You're wrong about the temperature of Venus. Yes, pressure and temperature of a gas are directly proporational, but there more to it than that. If you were to substitute N2 for CO2 in the Venus atmosphere, the surface temperature would be approximately 75 C.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKnowing how wrong you are about Venus, I also decided to revisit the CO2 and plant growth problem. You are wrong there too. There have been many studies on this -- research it yourself.
Your definition of benign is also wrong. When a tumor is benign it means it is NOT HARMFUL to the body. There have been many cases of benign tumors growing to over a 100 lbs. For a trace element in the Earth's atmosphere to have such major effects on life on Earth for little changes in concentration, it is NOT benign. You just said it yourself -- if CO2 drops by 200 ppm (2/100 of 1% of the atmosphere), we are all dead. N2 is benign, CO2 is not.
I meant "trace gas" not "trace element."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy your twisting of definitions, oxygen is not benign because if you take it away... everything dies. Perhaps that is why you want to eliminate CO2... because it is mostly oxygen. Critical thinking is difficult for some.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI gave citations for CO2's beneficial properties. You have returned with your own say so. It may have some value to you, but most see it as more dis-information. Keep changing your mind. Sooner or later you will hit the scientific method. GK
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're the one that was claiming CO2 to be benign, not I. I never claimed CO2 was not benefitial -- I said it was not benign. Things that are benign are usually not benefitial. Is the English language your first language -- maybe that's your problem? Science is also not your strong suit -- maybe you should try another hobby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican Heritage Dictionary:
be·nign
1- Of a kind and gentle disposition.
2- Showing gentleness and mildness.
3- Tending to exert a beneficial influence; favorable:
a policy with benign consequences for the economy.
4- Having little or no detrimental effect; harmless:
a chemical additive that is environmentally benign.
5- Medicine. Of no danger to health; not recurrent or
progressive; not malignant: a benign tumor.
You have chosen #5 as your definition. What a silly choice for a climate atmospheric gas question. Try on #3 definition, to get on the same climate page.
Regarding Venus: Here is data regarding “equivalent pressure range” as Earth’s atmosphere - Venus’s atmospheric temperature is very close to 1.176x that of Earth (in K deg).
This is EXACTLY what it should be if the distance from the sun was the ONLY DRIVER of global atmospheric temperature. The actual data profiles may be examined here:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
I just don't see you providing any evidence, about any of your "say so" facts. GK
I admire the people here like cramer, steadfastly defending the science of GW against those who criticize it, and I think what they do is necessary. On the other hand I see them as falling into the same trap every time a new article about GW appears on SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I see it, the goal of all these GW deniers is simply to pretend that there is an actual debate going on. They keep posting nonsense just to fill up the comment sections with what looks like debate. They know nothing about the science, and start the whole "debate" over from scratch after every article, to cause those who don't know the science very well to doubt its validity.
They use the prestige of SA to make it look like some scientists disagree with GW and then claim that the rest of the scientists are either criminally stupid at evaluating the actual data produced in their own field of expertise, or involved in a vast conspiracy to get grant money. Never mind that any scientist shown to have faked data to get grant money, would never get a grant again and would lose both job and reputation, never to work in academia again.
I am sure some of the deniers posting here do it for pay and are perfectly aware that GW could cause global havoc, but are willing to risk contributing to the destruction of civilization for the security of an income, probably a very high income, such as the Koch brothers can afford to pay. There are right wing consultant firms that have been hired to do that, and I am sure that someday some of those consultants will turn out to be whistleblowers and blow the lid off the denier industry.
Other deniers do it out of religious fervor, believing that God would not permit humans to destroy the Earth, even though humans used agriculture to turn the Fertile Crescent, the Gobi Desert, and Northern Africa into desert. It was science and the government that prevented the Dust Bowl from turning the American Midwest into another desert in the 1930's, by finding out how it was happening, and implementing techniques to preserve the soil.
I keep getting the impression that deniers are like octopi. They basically squirt a cloud of ink into the conversation and then disappear, only to reappear in the next article that has to do with GW. They will say anything to disagree with the science, and make it look like there is some problem with the data, or the model, or the motivations, or the integrity, or the consequences, or whatever they can make up. And then just disappear.
6 paragraphs of rhetoric and not a single fact. This is why there appears to be so many skeptics. People are just tired of AGW exaggerated and baseless claims. Blather doesn't trump facts. It is a hard lesson to learn, but the religion of catastrophic climate change, cannot succeed until it does. Conforming to it's ideology will harm all science fields and hurt any efforts to mitigate natural change. A completely open "green mind" is no mind, at all. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 70 some comments in this conversation demonstrate that facts will make no impression on you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand I will retract my opinion if you will answer one question, which no denier has ever responded to in my experience. What do you think is the probability that you are wrong about the seriousness of GW? Is there maybe a 50% probability that Al Gore is right even though he may be making money on speeches? Maybe only 10%? How about 1%? Dick Cheney once said, if the probability of a terrorist attack on the US is only 1% we have to act as if it is 100%. Is GW more or less likely than a terrorist attack?
In different words, the question could be,how much are you willing to bet that GW is not a problem? Are you willing to bet $5? How about $1000? How about your house? The lives of your children? The United States? All of modern civilization?
You are asking for me to engage in meaningless rhetoric like you. OK - Here is rhetoric:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am convinced that CO2 benefits the biosphere (which includes us). I am convinced that focusing on minor CO2 is diverting funds and efforts to understand causative climate cycles and it is vitally important that a validated climate model be developed (if it is at all possible). Since the present model, based on CO2->H2O positive feedback AGW, is all but falsified... how would you want me to answer??
I don't know how often I have to say it but GW is a pleasant walk in the park. Cooling is the danger, that we must always be ready for. 7 billion mouths cannot be fed unless the climate remains warm, wet and CO2 fertilized.
So the answer you seek is that the GORE CAGW is not worth anything and poses no threat. Global runaway heating has never been a problem. Cold has been Man's constant enemy, bringing starvation and all the diseases which kill the malnourished. I am certain of this fact and so should you.
What am I willing to bet? ALL! My Great Grand Children will make their own bets, just like my great grandfather did. You are trying to make decisions for people, who are a figment of your imagination, based on modality which is a figment of someone else imagination. WOW!
Now, do you really think rhetoric advances the scientific discussion?? It will be my last indulgence until you reply with something substantive. GK
I'm impressed. You actually answered the question: "What am I willing to bet? ALL! My Great Grand Children will make their own bets, just like my great grandfather did."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand you to be saying that you are so convinced of the truth of your position that you believe there is zero possibility that you are wrong. Not even a 1% chance. And yet every post you have made here shows profound ignorance of the subject. Actually, that kind of makes sense.
By the way, it is not true that your great grandchildren will make their own bets. We are making the bet right here and now, for the next few thousands of years. You are actually betting the lives of your grandchildren that you are right. If they actually do survive, there will be no going back for them. By the time they get to do anything our lack of action may remove all the good options.
As promised, I take back my opinion. I have no idea if you are sincere, being paid to post nonsense or speaking out of religious fervor. It is obvious from your posts that you know nothing about GW or science and either make up your "facts" or get them from debunked denier web sites. I mean, how hard can it be to google the temperature of Venus?
As for posting anything "substantive," that just gives you more opportunities to criticize the details while pretending that you know something. I'm sure you are really having a good laugh when cramer goes to such efforts to correct your science, when what you really want is to keep him dancing to your tune. You'll just post more stuff that he will rush to correct. All giving the appearance of a "scientific debate". Woooooooo! What fun!!! Look at all the real scientists rushing to debate me on this prestigious web site!!! That must mean there is a real debate about GW!!!
No thanks. I'm not dancing.
No, I chose defintion #4:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving little or no detrimental effect; harmless:
A CHEMICAL ADDITIVE THAT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY BENIGN.
Most Americans (btw, this is SciAm) use this meaning because benign is mostly used in describing tumors (benign or cancerous). Could a tumor be beneficial? We don't typically hear of people talking about benign economic policies.
Your datasync reference is meaningless. It provides a temperature and pressure profile of the Venus atmosphere. It says nothing about why that equilibrium exists. Wouldn't it be nice if it was as simple as only being about pressure? And if we apply Gay-Lussac's law, the temperature of Venus should be over 25,000 C.
Maybe you should do some studying:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103500965709
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bullock/Homedocs/GSRP94.pdf
"...IF the distance from the sun was the ONLY DRIVER"
The albedo of Venus is over twice that of Earth's, so maybe you should think again.
By the way, here's webster's definition for gay. I would say most people use DEFINITION #4. Hmmmm??? You mean they don't always put the most popular definition first?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 a: happily excited : merry <in a gay mood> b: keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>
2 a: bright, lively <gay sunny meadows> b: brilliant in color
3: given to social pleasures; also: licentious
4 a: homosexual <gay men> b: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>
Greenmind, I really have spent little effort debating trash because Karst has said very little of scientific value. He mainly uses red herring semantic arguments, such as what the definition of benign is and continues to talk in circles based on semantic confusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe situation seems clear to me. Sound science demonstrates increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, slightly increasing global temperatures and the probability of a considerable increase in temperature in the next few centuries, increasing water vapor in the atmosphere and increasing precipitation during that period, and increased energy and unpredictable activity in the hydrological cycle. But above all, science demonstrates great difficulty by both the public and decision makers in recognizing these facts and in determining and implementing either effective action in preventing or adapting to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNumber 4 works, and is on point also. However, that is not what you chose. You chose #5, reflecting idiocity. Changing you story, after posting, doesn't fly. Now you are trying to divert the discussion into defining gay. LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreenmind - read the thread. All of my comments (as above) have been correcting Cramer's misinformation. But readers already know that. They can read and understand. You just read and speak rhetoric, just like him. If you are not a Cramer clone, posting under a different name, that is. I think we are done here. GK
Karst, I already gave my definition of benign as "NOT HARMFUL" in comment 73. I did not refer to an online dictionary as you did. "NOT HARMFUL" is closest to "HARMLESS" (AmHer defintion #4).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is obvious that you can not adequately defend any of your "scientific" positions on CO2 and climate, so you continous divert this dialogue to semantics (the definition of benign) which has nothing to do with CO2, greenhouse gases, and climate. This is called a red herring argument and is fallacious.
I will always be steps ahead of you. I defined gay to head off what I presumed to be your next argument that the best definiton is the one that is listed first. This was my tactical error. I should have waited for you to make that argument. I was hoping to get this semantic garbage out of the way, so we could debate the science. It obvious you will keep playing these games because you have no real defense of your positions.
I have no more time for your games. Greenmind is correct--all you are trying to do is muddy the waters with confusion and fallacious arguments. You must be paid to do this.
Cramer said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Greenmind, I really have spent little effort debating trash because Karst has said very little of scientific value. He mainly uses red herring semantic arguments, such as what the definition of benign is and continues to talk in circles based on semantic confusion."
I agree, except that I would call what he posts trash. Let me point out that you have been trading posts with them for over a week, with no discernible effect on their state of knowledge. (I'm not talking about Fred Bauder. I think that is a genuine misunderstanding.)
I think that the reason Karst and cpbandit use red herrings and semantic quibbling is to to give poorly-informed onlookers the illusion that there is a real debate here. I step back and look at all the many articles over the years in which the deniers have done the same thing over and over. They are usually the first ones to post after any article that even hints at GW, such as the first two posts to this article. They post nonsense, and then many intelligent and well-informed people, often professional scientists, spend hours, days and weeks correcting them, which is exactly what the deniers want. They want it to look like there is a debate. The only thing they would like better is for the intelligent people to get exhausted and stop posting at all.
The deniers seem to have a lot more stamina than anyone else. This discussion has already lasted more than a week, and not a single denier has ever admitted that he or she was wrong in any respect. Not even the temperature of Venus. I wish the climate were as incapable of change as they are. But learning is not their goal, obfuscation is. They seem to invade the comments section, squirt a lot of ink like an octopus or a squid, and then vanish without having ever admitted to being in error.
I wish I had a solution to the problem. Maybe calling a "squid alert" whenever someone posts denier obfuscation.
Hi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi. I'm a foreign reader of scientificamerican. Could you tell me what the "spewed" actually means in the title "Controversial Spewed Iron Experiment Succeeds as Carbon Sink"? Thank you very much. I'd appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this100 tonnes of Iron (III) Sulfate seeding in july, 2012, off Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada) produced both an algal bloom in August 2012, and a magnitude 7.7 Earthquake on the Queen Charlotte Fault on October 27, 2102. This is roughly the same location as the illegal Haida Gwaii Salmon Restoration Corp. and Blue CO2 Ferric Sulfate dump. It would seem this Iron Sulfate stuff is to tectonic plates as graphite is to car door locks, namely slippery grease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter make that 2012, not 2102 in last comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Spewed" is an expression of bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you think a few tons of iron sulphate caused an earthquack?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this