Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Recall: The answer is really simple - it changes the pH of the water, reduces the ability of marine organisms that build shells from calcium carbonate (and even kills them!) and so the fraction of the CO2 that is stored biologically reduces.

ETA: This is something that even me (a non-marine biologist) can understand!

Consider:...

this

Coccolithophores have long been thought to respond to increased ocean acidity, caused by increasing CO2 levels, by becoming less calcified. In 2008, Iglesias-Rodriguez et al. were surprised to learn that in fact the opposite can happen in at least some circumstances, with the model species E. huxleyi becoming 40% heavier and more abundant in waters of higher CO2 concentration.[2]

Also recall that CO₂ levels have been considerably higher (more than ten times) than today. tWikipedia article on forams

The Foraminifera ("hole bearers", or forams for short), comprises a class of amoeboid protists, sometimes regarded as a phylum. They are among the most common marine plankton species. Forams have reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net.[1] They typically produce a test, or shell, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure.[2] These shells are made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or agglutinated sediment particles. About 275,000 species are recognized, both living and fossil.

A sidebar note indicates that they've been around since the Cambrian. Those chalk beds were laid down when the atmosphere (and therefore oceans) contained more CO₂ than today.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

A timely article on this issue:...
(deleted)

We agree. That argument (mirror image) applies to AGW theorists and statists. "(W)when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner."

 

[CapelDodger]

Dyson didn't he stated that he doesn't like the prediction models based on his understanding 30 years ago:
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

"What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse.

So they say, ‘We represent cloudiness by a parameter,’ but I call it a fudge factor.

I don't think "they" say so at all. Modellers will say that they average cloud behaviour across cells and the method works perfectly adequately. Dyson no doubt thinks "they" say this but he's been paddling in the shallow end recently.

" So then you have a formula, which tells you if you have so much cloudiness and so much humidity, and so much temperature, and so much pressure, what will be the result..."

So it does. It's not actually a formula but Dyson's still in that 70's sci-fi zone that he first shone in. He really never was as clever as he thinks he is.

"But if you are using it for a different climate, when you have twice as much carbon dioxide, there is no guarantee that that’s right. There is no way to test it."

Dyson himself doesn't suggest that CO₂ has an effect on cloudiness. He's rambling. Clouds depend on temperatures and humidity, which in turn depend on climate. Climate is what the CO₂ influences and there's no good reason to think that water will behave any differently in the future just because it's in a warmer atmosphere.

Of course the truth is that clouds haven't prevented warming as certain motivated thinkers predicted they would twenty years ago so we can safely move that file down from the Forlorn Hope to the Written-Off shelf.

 

[Reality Check]

Consider:...

Considered ... it is an inane reply to my post.
The answer is really simple - the storage of CO2 in the ocean changes the pH of the water, reduces the ability of marine organisms that build shells from calcium carbonate (and even kills them!) and so the fraction of the CO2 that is stored biologically reduces.

This is ocean acidification: Ocean acidification: global warming's evil twin
Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
and a tutorial on ocean acidification: OA not OK part 1

P.S. The actual Wikipedia article on forams!

The Foraminifera ("hole bearers", or forams for short), comprises a class of amoeboid protists, sometimes regarded as a phylum. They are among the most common marine plankton species. Forams have reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net.[1] They typically produce a test, or shell, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure.[2] These shells are made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or agglutinated sediment particles. About 275,000 species are recognized, both living and fossil. They are usually less than 1 mm in size, but some are much larger, the largest species reaching up to 20 cm.[3]

ETA
Malcolm Kirkpatrick, you may be ignorant of a little thing called evolution and the role it has in making animals such as Foraminifera adapt to environmental changes such as the gradual change in CO2 levels in the Cambian over millions of years.

More excusable is your ignorance of the effect of sudden changes in CO2 on Foraminifera.
Coral Reefs an Ocial Acidification (PDF)

Calcareous benthic foraminifera are important contributors to reef sediments, sometimes producing the bulk of carbonate sands in shallower environments (Hohenegger, 2006; Figure 1E).
Data from previous ocean acidification events identified in the geologic record (e.g., deep-sea sediment cores) indicate that calcifying benthic foraminifera are vulnerable to ocean acidification.
Approximately 40% of benthic foraminifera species went extinct at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (55 million years ago), which included a strong ocean acidification event (Zachos et al., 2005; Kump et al., 2009), and calcifying foraminifera went extinct at the Permian-Triassic boundary (around 250 million years ago) although the agglutinated forms did not (Knoll et al., 2007). Note that these extinction events also coincided with elevated temperatures and hypoxia, so it is difficult to discern which environmental change was the smoking gun. However, experiments that exposed both calcareous and noncalcareous benthic foraminifera to high CO2 levels confirm that calcareous species are indeed sensitive to high CO2 perturbations while noncalcareous species are not (Bernhard et al., 2009).

(my emphasis added)

 

[Mikemcc]

Remember, we're on a nostalgia trip. It's still the 80's and all the stuff that hasn't happened over the last twenty years can still be predicted. It can all still be about models, not outcomes. The cataract on Lindzen's Iris has yet to become evident. No trials of ocean fertilisation have yet been performed so it can still be presented as a fantasticallly cheap magic bullet. Dallas is on TV and the Arctic sea-ice has just emerged from the shower all hale and hearty; it was all a terrible dream ...

There has been a least one small trial with mixed results.

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_rel..._atmospheric_carbon_dioxide/?cHash=1c5720d7a1

 

[CapelDodger]

We agree. That argument (mirror image) applies to AGW theorists and statists. "(W)when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner."

I don't. I don't have a worldview that can be threatened by scientific evidence.

In the specific case of AGW, I formed my opinion thirty years ago as to its reality based on science, but its extent and rapidity was wide open (I was very much on the conservative side). Twenty years ago the emerging evidence had left me less conservative but didn't challenge my opinion. Ten years later I was getting really surprised, but still not challenged. Now I'm getting used to it. And oddly enough I've been called an alarmist all that time. Go figure.

I've even been called a liberal, but one develops a thick skin on JREF Forums.

 

[BenBurch]

But even if that were the case, why would people dismiss the cheap fix? That suggests that the ostensible problem is not the real problem. This makes skeptics suspicious.

Any cheap fix that works will be embraced.

There are none.

 

[CapelDodger]

There has been a least one small trial with mixed results.

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_rel..._atmospheric_carbon_dioxide/?cHash=1c5720d7a1

There have been half a dozen or so, none of which have been nearly as promising as when the idea was dreamed up. The cheap and simple fix turns out not be either.

Dyson's head is still in the 70's, of course, before all this nasty reality rained on the technophile parade. This is a guy who thinks a Dyson Sphere is a righteous way to treat a solar system, so his concern for this one planet or the polar-bears on it is not likely to be great. He's happy to write off billions of human beings because the species will survive, made stronger and more advanced by the challenge; the individual counts for nothing (except certain exceptional ground-breaking individuals such as, well, Freeman Dyson).

 

[CapelDodger]

Consider:...Also recall that CO₂ levels have been considerably higher (more than ten times) than today. tWikipedia article on foramsA sidebar note indicates that they've been around since the Cambrian. Those chalk beds were laid down when the atmosphere (and therefore oceans) contained more CO₂ than today.

And the forams (the whole biosphere, in fact) were evolved to prosper in that environment. Now they're evolved to prosper in the pre-industrial environment. They weren't (and aren't) evolved to prosper in rapidly changing acidity, which is what's happening today. In geological terms, instantaneously.

 

[Krikkiter]

As you're no doubt aware, the deniosphere is in an uproar over that, which must be a wonderful distraction from all the nasty climate stuff that just keeps making a bad year worse. It'll be such a relief for them when Arctic sea-ice bottoms out and a record rate of re-freeze (and hence recovery) can be predicted. And corn and soya crops are in, so the bad news can become old news in a week and then become not as bad as alarmists predicted. There may even be snow somewhere.

Lewandowsky's paper itself scores a 9.8 on the Well D'uh Scale, as does the response from all the prima donnas who will be mortified if they weren't thought worth contacting. So after the knee-jerk "he lied about contacting five sceptic sites" they got into competitive discovery of the contact - with McIntyre leading the field, you have to give him credit for smarts. It's a poor field but he's well out in front of it.

Comment 19 here http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/ccc2.html#235, from hengistmcstone, is wonderful.

I must admit that I'm not really up to speed on the denier responses so any extra information regarding that paper is interesting to me. Have there been any credible or thorough, genuine responses (apart from blogs, forum posts or YouTube comments)? Probably a silly question...

 

[BenBurch]

And the forams (the whole biosphere, in fact) were evolved to prosper in that environment. Now they're evolved to prosper in the pre-industrial environment. They weren't (and aren't) evolved to prosper in rapidly changing acidity, which is what's happening today. In geological terms, instantaneously.

Oyster farms are already failing.

 

[Krikkiter]

We agree. That argument (mirror image) applies to AGW theorists and statists. "(W)when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner."

My understanding is that scientists who let a worldview influence their work have little credibility so in my opinion there is a problem with your logic here.

 

[Corsair 115]

We agree. That argument (mirror image) applies to AGW theorists and statists. "(W)when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner."

Only if you can show that there is as much empirical evidence demonstrating the non-existence of AGW as there is empirical evidence demonstrating its existence. Do you care to show that?

In regards to the bolded, the politics is irrelevant insofar as the empirical evidence is concerned unless you have solid proof data demonstrating climate change is being deliberately fudged for political reasons. Do you have such proof? If you don't then your claims on that point can be dismissed outright.

 

[Megalodon]

You know this how?

He sort of knows me for some time here. Some things get known. I prefer the term ocean scientist myself.

If so, he should be able to explain this:

What's there to explain? Forams exist, they form shells, of different types. So? You were talking about chalk deposits, which are predominantly formed by coccoliths.

...and this

Yes, one experiment reported increase in calcification. Most show a decrease in calcification. That's biology for you, the same exact group can make two identical experiments and come out with different results. However, my position stands: from what we know, with enough acidification, coccoliths will stop producing shells.

Recall: "Can you guess what happens to the CO2 when it gets "stored" in the ocean?"
Dissolved CO2 is biologically sequestered. In a talk at the University of Hawaii, Richard Alley argued against the strategy of CO₂ mitigation through oceanic biological sequestration with oceanic fertilization and precipitation (by, e.g., forams and other organisms with calcite shells) on the grounds that it would give us only 200 years. That's a long time to find a better solution.

I very much doubt that Prof. Alley stressed what I bolded. The strategy of ocean fertilization does not, in any shape or form, depend on the sequestration of CO2 by calcifying organisms.

The whole strategy is based on the existence of eddies of high-nutrient, low chlorophyll waters. When those waters are fertilized by iron, a lerge bloom of phytoplankton occurs. This will normally be diatoms. as the bloom dies out it starts aggregating, and creating large, heavier particles that will settle to the ocean floor. Since this is done in the open ocean, if all of the settled carbon gets remineralized, it will still take some 2000 years to come in contact with the atmosphere again. However, most of the bloom will be consumed in the upper layer of the ocean, meaning that on average in the next 200 years that water will be in contact with the atmosphere. Those are the 200 years we're buying.
More normal objections relate to the accumulation of high-carbon loads in a small area, creating anoxic patches that can originate substantial amounts of methane. If that methane bubbles up and is above the level that can be by free-living methanotrophs, we are replacing one GHG withanother, more potent one.
My personal view is that if we let the whale population recover, their role as iron concentrators and ocean fertilizers will not have to be outsourced. We will observe higher ocean productivities, and the ocean will start taking up much more carbon that at the present. There will be no chalk deposits in 100M years, though.

Oh, and moderators:...

There's a report button, if you want to call the mods.

What happened to "Address the argument, not the arguer"?

I will refrain from further superfluous comments. I will however thank you if you start paying attention to what I write, instead of creating strawmen.

 

[Megalodon]

And of course, unlike many others, Prof. Alley would be aware that promoting the growth of calcifying organisms would just exacerbate the ocean acidification problem. You see, calcifying organisms remove carbonates from the water, not carbonic acid. This removes alkalinity from the upper layers, further decreasing the pH and reducing the ocean's ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Malcolm,

you started a raid on the field of marine biology which boils up to "CO2 dissolved in the oceans gets eventually sequestered by biological action" -provided the "βιος" (ζωή) doesn't get killed in the attempt- which resembles to "every war comes eventually to an end and then peace reigns" so "what's the problem with war?". You are not original at all in this as you started mentioning its derivatives: "in every a war, a truce looks like peace" (the ocean fertilization hope, which is resource costly while its meagre benefits cease instantly the moment one stops doing it, because of its promise which is similar to sequestering carbon in a bunch of flies by constantly throwing rotten meat). I'm sure we are to see from you more on this old theme.

Dunno what "this" refers to. Alec Cowen's posts remain.

They remain for a reason: They address obvious blunders in your posts and your general bad attitude towards the subject and your fellow posters. You preferred to imagine they are 100% sarcasm, a gratuitous one if you were to choose, but sadly you have no awareness on your narrow and shallow knowledge about many disciplines your are using in your arguments so you dive in a way you instantly hit the rock bottom.

I suppose you don't look in the mirror and see your lumps, and that would be consequence of a narcissistic approach. For instance, on one hand you put Megalodon to the test in his specialization just because you don't know a iota in his field, while you constantly misspell the names of your "enemies", which is many things, mainly magical thinking.

I also suppose that your elastic use of wording allows you mixing up "addressing the arguer instead of addressing the argument" with "addressing the arguer being a part of the argument" and "having your opinion strongly contested and your arguments and foundations harshly dismissed"

Nonetheless, I still think you are the 1,000,000th smartest person among all people who live a thousand miles around your home.

And this one would be suspected as sarcasm.

 

[aleCcowaN]

...

...In 2008, Iglesias-Rodriguez et al. were surprised to learn that in fact the opposite can happen in at least some circumstances, ...

...

An example of a redaction prone to wishful thinking that is so common in Wikipedia articles that can be related to AGW. Neither they were surprised (they conducted experiments departing from field evidence from the deep ocean implying an increase of coccolith mass over the past 220 years) nor any conclusion -nor reasonable expectation- can be gotten about other potential circumstances of something to happen because it is known it happens under some circumstances (good leads for investigation, promising as they are, don't entail the assumption of a positive result)

The redaction of that wiki paragraph that you cherry-picked is one that includes a deal of highly skilled induced inference (most probably honest wishful thinking of a skilled person), which is anyway not a part of the field of biology but a dialectical artefact socially aimed. The paragraph says a group of researchers departed from some solid clues and found evidence of one stated general expectation in the field to be wrong in one case. Its redaction is more the kind of "they were looking for something and, surprise! they found the contrary (a breakthrough? the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?)" and "look, there is certainly more on that!".

If you don't get it yet, it's the verbal version of Uri Geller bending a spoon ... don't forget that "8 out of 10 cats prefer A-Mouse", they prefer it to what? grated cabbage? caviar? Jimmy Carr? It's just in your feverish imagination that they prefer that to other brands of cat food.

Induced inference permeates everything.

@Megalodon

Would you be so kind as to edit that wiki article and write what Iglesias-Rodríguez et al really concluded?

 

[Dancing David]

Go back and read the thread, and you would know, too.

If forams could deal with the problem in anything like the time frame required, the problem would already be dealt with.

The fact that CO2 keeps rising says that they cannot.

Because they multiply very fast under conditions favorable to them.

So, obviously increased CO2 is not the thing that determines their fecundity.

Is it iron deficiency? The ph?

 

[Dancing David]

But even if that were the case, why would people dismiss the cheap fix? That suggests that the ostensible problem is not the real problem. This makes skeptics suspicious.

Which versions of the cheap fix do you refer to, there are many. And where does the funding come from?

 

[Megalodon]

An example of a redaction prone to wishful thinking that is so common in Wikipedia articles that can be related to AGW. Neither they were surprised (they conducted experiments departing from field evidence from the deep ocean implying an increase of coccolith mass over the past 220 years) nor any conclusion -nor reasonable expectation- can be gotten about other potential circumstances of something to happen because it is known it happens under some circumstances (good leads for investigation, promising as they are, don't entail the assumption of a positive result)

Also interesting is that in the field of ocean acidification 750 ppm is not considered anymore to be a very high CO2 value. It's almost a given that we will reach it sometime this century. My own experiments have been done at 380 and 1100 ppm, which everybody is fearing will be reached by the end of the century.

Would you be so kind as to edit that wiki article and write what Iglesias-Rodríguez et al really concluded?

Sorry, I don't do wiki.