Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Discarded? Hardly. Funny that you mention ocean sequestration. "Land management" and ocean sequestration are two methods of biological sequestration.
Click to expand...

And you have been shown very conclusively that neither will work as easily as you have assumed.

But why do you think that it is funny to actually address your arguments?
 
Halsu said:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Yes. the atmosphere traps heat.
Click to expand...
Great, we have taken the first baby step!
Click to expand...

...some discussion snipped...

Halsu said:
Anyway, i assume you now agree with the baby steps two and three, that there is an energy balance that moves toward equilibrium, and that changing the parameters can change where that equilibrium lies?

In other words, you agree that there is a greenhouse effect as described by mainstream science and that changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect can change the temperature on earth?

Time for baby step four: do you agree that a change in the composition of gasses (like increasing CO2) in the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect?
Click to expand...

Malcolm, could you please confirm that you agree with baby steps 2-4, as described above (hint: Dyson does), or tell us if you disagree with something?
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Except I didn't say that and don't know what caused the Permian mass extinction.
Click to expand...
You implied that as I stated.
The topic of our exchange was the response of Foraminifera to the modern-day CO2 increases that are causing ocean acidification. This is happening over the time scale of decades.

So I cited the scientific literature about what happened to Foraminifera in the past when CO2 increased, i.e. Coral Reefs an Ocial Acidification (PDF)
Approximately 40% of Bentham 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 to make sure that I was not quote mining I included the rest of the paragraph
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).
​
Actually the possible causes of the Permian-Triassic extinction event are mostly the same as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum and its extinctions.
Both events happened at much longer scales than decades so that species should have had a greater chance of adapting tnan if these events had happened over decades.

Thus my question which you still have not answered, Malcolm Kirkpatrick:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Malcolm Kirkpatrick: Species of Foraminifera could not adapt to CO2 changes that took millions of years to happen.
What do you think will happen to Foraminifera when CO2 changes over decades?
Click to expand...
First asked 10 September 2012
 
Megalodon said:
The newly introduced CO2 doesn't precipitate as CaCO3. Also, forams do not form chalk deposits. They can be found in chalk deposits, but that is not the same... Overall, you continue to insist in being wrong, and are proving to be a waste of everyones' time.
Click to expand...
Readers may assess. The linked diagram of the oceanic carbon cycle has carbon from atmospheric CO2 ultimately precipitating in CaCO3

(Megalodon): "Can you guess what happens to the CO2 when it gets "stored" in the ocean?"
(Malcolm): "Foraminifera incorporate it into calcium carbonate and it precipitates and forms chalk."
Okay, "foraminifera and other plankton". I expected that people would understand foraimifera as representative organisms. The diagram still represents carbon and oxygen and calcium precipitating out.
 
Acleron said:
And you have been shown very conclusively that neither will work as easily as you have assumed. But why do you think that it is funny to actually address your arguments?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but "you're a liar" doesn't conclusively show anything except the intellectual bankruptcy of the other side of this argument.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Readers may assess. The linked diagram of the oceanic carbon cycle has carbon from atmospheric CO2 ultimately precipitating in CaCO3
Click to expand...
Readers can access that link and see that there are two separate processes
  • absorption/emission of CO2 and
  • precipitation/dissolution of CaCO3 within the seabed sediment.
Readers can access that link and see that there are no forams (or other sea life - not even coccolithophores which are the source of chalk!) in it.

Thus Megalodon's response to you still asserting that forams create chalk and inking to an inage that has nothing to do with forams.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Sorry, but "you're a liar" doesn't conclusively show anything except the intellectual bankruptcy of the other side of this argument.
Click to expand...

Well, if your statement is an obvious lie, like yours have repeatedly been shown to be, nothing else is really necessary.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
That was actually Freeman Dyson: "We can...coal and oil."
Click to expand...
A couple of things wrong with this citation, Malcolm Kirkpatrick.
Firstly linking to YouTube videos in the Science section of the forum is not a good idea generally. You should link to the scientific literature.

The main problem that you cannot link to the scientific literature from Dyson because he has never published anything on climate science :jaw-dropp!

What you are linking to is the personal opinion of a currently 89 year old man. He is commenting on something that he has admitted that he knows little about. It is at least wishful thinking or even his fantasies aout solutions to global warming.

This is the logical fallacy of argument from authority (or argument from old, well known scientific geezer :)) with the additional fallacy of not knowing that your "authority" is no authority!
 
Reality Check said:
A couple of things wrong with this citation, Malcolm Kirkpatrick.
Firstly linking to YouTube videos in the Science section of the forum is not a good idea generally. You should link to the scientific literature.1
The main problem that you cannot link to the scientific literature from Dyson because he has never published anything on climate science2...
This is the logical fallacy of argument from authority (or argument from old, well known scientific geezer :)) with the additional fallacy of not knowing that your "authority" is no authority!
Click to expand...
Freeman Dyson is very much an authority on physics, "basic", "fundamental" and other. The point of bringing Dyson (and Lubos Motl and Willie Soon) into this is they do not accept the conclusions that AGW believers assert. They may depart at different points from the argument, but their knowledge of physics does not compel their assent to the AGW conclusion.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Freeman Dyson is very much an authority on physics, "basic", "fundamental" and other.
Click to expand...

He is, but he isn't an authority on climate science, and he doesn't disagree with climate scientists about the physics underpinning AGW. So the question remains, why bring him up as an authority?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
The point of bringing Dyson (and Lubos Motl and Willie Soon) into this is they do not accept the conclusions that AGW believers assert.
Click to expand...

Dyson, as has been shown, does not dispute the conclusions that climate scientists assert. Please stop lying about him.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
They may depart at different points from the argument, but their knowledge of physics does not compel their assent to the AGW conclusion.
Click to expand...

As has been repeatedly shown, Dyson's denialism has nothing to do with physics. Please stop lying.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Freeman Dyson is very much an authority on physics, "basic", "fundamental" and other. The point of bringing Dyson (and Lubos Motl and Willie Soon) into this is they do not accept the conclusions that AGW believers assert. They may depart at different points from the argument, but their knowledge of physics does not compel their assent to the AGW conclusion.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, but that's because the science that they are disputing is not the science that they specialise in. Dyson did some very innovative research into fundamental physics, he has done no research into how climate research works, he just questioned the models after having what he admits is a quick and cursory overview of them. That is, their modelling of clouds and particle pollution. Admitting he doesn't know how this will affect the outcomes amounts to little more than that.

The scientists who build the models are well aware of the model limitations, and are using new generation computing power to build models with more realistic simulations of clouds. I don't think this will change their conclusions much, it will just narrow the error levels of their estimates of climate sensitivity. IMHO this will probably be about 3C.

Even if they are unsure about particle pollution, the important difference between particles and CO2 is that the increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere is more or less permantent on our time scale, particle pollution is only very short term. The particle pollution reduces very quickly as soon as we stop putting it up there.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Freeman Dyson is very much an authority on physics, "basic", "fundamental" and other.
Click to expand...
And once again - no one disagrees with ths.
And once again - this is still the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

The point is that it is not correct to cite Dyson opinions on climate science because that is all they are - opinions based on little actual study of climate science. He is commenting on something that he has admitted that he knows little about. It is at least wishful thinking or even his fantasies about solutions to global warming.

Citing Luboš Motl is another case of argument from authority.

Citing Willie Soon is another case of argument from authority. You may also be unaware about how dubious Willie Soon's opinions about climate science are
We know that there are some scientists do not accept the conclusions that most climate scientists accept based on the strong evidence for these conclusions.

We know that there are some things in climate science that some scientists accept and other scientists do not accept. That is how science works!

ETA
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
The point of bringing Dyson (and Lubos Motl and Willie Soon) into this is they do not accept the conclusions that AGW believers assert.
Click to expand...

Another point is that stating that Dyson "does not accept the conclusions that AGW believers assert" is a lie about Dyson and AGW believers
  1. Dyson has the opinion that AGW conclusions are correct. He has the idea that these conclusions cam be magically fixed just because he hopes that the technology to fix them can be created, e.g. genetically engineering of plants to sequester CO2.
  2. AGW believers do not "assert" the conclusions.
    Global warming is a measured effect. The evidence is that we have caused it, thus AGW. The consequences ("conclusions") of AGW are "basic physics :)" (actually really complex physics but reliably modeled) and have been already seen, e.g. How global warming is driving mass coral bleaching.
    AGW believers state what the evidence shows.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Readers can access that link and see that there are two separate processes
  • absorption/emission of CO2 and
  • precipitation/dissolution of CaCO3 within the seabed sediment.
Readers can access that link and see that there are no forams (or other sea life - not even coccolithophores which are the source of chalk!) in it.
Click to expand...
True. The mechanism is unspecified. CaCO3 in ocean sediment, like coal underground, is biological in origin.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Freeman Dyson is very much an authority on physics, "basic", "fundamental" and other. The point of bringing Dyson (and Lubos Motl and Willie Soon) into this is they do not accept the conclusions that AGW believers assert. They may depart at different points from the argument, but their knowledge of physics does not compel their assent to the AGW conclusion.
Click to expand...

We got you love Dyson. The problem is what this Dyson person is renowned about. The couple of links -I believe- you referred (one of them ended up in Abandon All Hope) are not extremely flattering, as they make him look as a sort of Isaac Asimov without the knack to literature.

But I was sure that your effort to use Dyson as a protective shield was something that hasn't to do with his virtues, so I looked for some basic information about him and I found him interesting and very far indeed from the climate field and its backing disciplines in what they complement in a direct way. That's why you follow the "basic" thingy up to the point of spamming. Your repetitive argument is "I, like Dyson, think about (insert a copy or Dysons) and not only he is right but, as he know *basic* physics he has the *fundamental* truth on his side, then (non sequitur), all conclusions on AGW derived form that basic physics are wrong", or, in other words, "he is the master of the basics, then (non sequitur), he is right about everything that departs from those basics".

You have added almost nothing to that. Almost only adjectives and some nouns, none related to AGW but all used by you about AGW: "intelectual bankrupcy" (your words), " uncomfortable relation between beliefs one way or another about arctic sea ice and beliefs about progressive income taxes" (your words), "I tried to educate you" (your words), "the conspiracy theory that is at the root of AGW defense ... basically the same irrationality we see with twoofers and holocaust deniers" (your words and stylization), an more. Zero science there. It just looks like a defamation campaign. Oh, wait! It is! One without even bothering in the use of a plausible disguise of science.

Malcolm, why don't you stick to science and answer the dozen question you were asked while following your own arguments, and the problems you yourself brought up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom