Posted on 03/05/2013 1:05:30 AM PST by neverdem
The manipulation behind Study of Ice Age Bolsters Carbon and Warming Link by Justin Gillis, New York Times, March 1, 2013
A NY Times science story (by Justin Gillis, March 1) illustrates some interesting points about science journalism - esp. in the contentious and politically charged issue of climate change. A scientific journal, in this case the renowned Science magazine, wants to gain publicity for its journal among the non-scientific readers of the NY Times. So it sends out a press release about a scientific paper it plans to publish. Of course, it has been 'peer-reviewed' to the satisfaction of the Science editor, but it has not yet been vetted by the scientific community.
Journalists who receive the press release think it will make an interesting story. It appears to involve some new features that contradict what has been discussed up till now. And Science has a generally good reputation. Specifically, the story claims that the deglaciation of 12,000 years ago, the major temperature increase marking the end of the most recent ice age and the beginning of the current warm Interglacial (termed The Holocene), involves also a striking increase in the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide. Investigators who wrote the paper seem to believe that the rise in carbon dioxide is coincident with the rise in temperature, as shown by their refined studies of ice cores from Antarctica.
This result has an important history. It starts with Al Gore announcing a correlation of several sudden temperature rises and carbon-dioxide increases during the recent ice age, as judged from analysis of Antarctic ice cores. He of course declares that this proves that CO2 has caused 20th-century warming. To his great embarrassment it was then later discovered that the increase in carbon dioxide actually follows the temperature increase by about 600-800...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
good read
Albert Goreon...Tennessee’s greatest embarrassment.
I still laugh at his most interesting fiasco.
When the US had the big lights out night, Gore’s home in Nashville was all aglow with huge lights that illuminate the trees at his Bretwood mansion.
Gore should get “Hypocrite of the Year” award.
Oh, by the way...Gore has a Tennessee farm that is listed as one of the largest polluters in Tennessee...Seems that he leased it out to a zinc mining company that pumps the tailings into a natural wildlife river.
The alarmists frequently release advance notice of articles in order to win public support for their cause. The public tends not to pay attention to later debunking. It’s a dishonest, cynical way of conducting “science.”
"If I am not mistaken, a cyclist has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride."
For this he is justifying a provision calling for a $25 tax on the sale of any bicycle costing more than $500, an action that would raise $1 million over the next 10 years.
Some pols should volunteer to stop breathing. The boob sounds like a RINO.
So just exactly how do these scientists explain the increasing levels of CO2, if temperatures were not rising ahead of the CO2 increase ? There were no coal plants back then. Perhaps Mastadon farts ? Then again, one can always blame it on those darn volcanoes. But unfortunately, land volcanoes are supposed to cause cooling. It appears that there can be no logical theorem that supports their latest theory.
What the nimrod does not realize, is that when a human body is transported around, you are also transporting the weight of the transportation vehicle. So in simple terms: Bike + Man = 250 lbs. Man + Car = 4,200 lbs. See the difference in the weight that needs to be moved around ? Bike + Man = 6 % the weight of Man + Car. So bikes need to be taxed at 6 % the rate that cars are taxed.
Same as they always have: temperature always precedes CO2, current "scientific paper" notwithstanding. However the next thing that happens is CO2 causes further warming. CO2 is a feedback just like dust (lower amounts of dust in the present climate compared to the ice age) and water vapor (more water vapor now compared to the ice age). None of these positive feedbacks are very strong, but together they move the climate to a warmer equilibrium. The climate doesn't continue to warm (runaway positive feedback) because 1. the positive feedbacks aren't very strong and 2. they start to get countered by negative feedback from weather.
The bottom line is that adding CO2 causes more warming although not a lot more warming because the other main feedback, water vapor, is mostly a cooling feedback in this climate. Likewise there won't be decreasing dust levels from present or future warming, so no positive feedback from that. The current rise in CO2 is not natural since the ocean is taking in CO2 not releasing it on a net basis. So there is no way that temperature is preceding CO2 at the moment. Had we not increased CO2 by 110 ppm (so far) the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age would have preceded a natural 5-10 ppm rise in CO2, so that much of the theory holds. But the rest of the rise is manmade.
Let me see if I grasp this in basic terms. Some slight warming (ie - a higher energetic state) causes additional releases of CO2 from the warmer oceans. The increase in green house effect from the additional CO2 cause more warming or an even higher energetic state. Now the runaway paradox is solved by the water vapor feedback cooling cycle. Okay. Got ya. So the main question now is why would the enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 not be made statistically insignificant by the cooling aspects of enhanced water vapor ?
thanks for the hogwash.
You are correct about that. The global average temperature changes 0.5C in a week and the whole change from CO2 so far is postulated to be about 0.5C. That means CO2 is insignificant. The ratio is even higher in the Arctic. The Arctic might have warmed 2-3C depending on whose model of Arctic Amplification you believe. But the Arctic just cooled 20C last month, then bounced back about 10C. Weather with its solar and terrestrial drivers is significant, CO2 is not.
See my latest post. Increasing CO2 causes warming although only a little at current levels. The first 20 ppm of CO2 causes so much warming that it keeps the world from staying frozen solid. The subsequent incremental amounts cause less and less warming.
One point of note that’s often neglected is that the “recent ice age” is not actually over. We are still in it.
Geologists define an ice age as when you have 24x7 ice at sea level anywhere.
Within an ice age, there are glaciations where the ice advances significantly.
Wooly mammoth time marked the end of the last glaciation within this ice age, not the end of the ice age itself.
The current ice age has been going on about 4 million years.
Within that time there have been 60 glaciations. That’s 60 times the ice has advance AND retreated across north america.
The link below is a nice reference.
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/
Belle Meade, not Brentwood.
For more on Ed Orcutt’s Global Warming madness, the Free Republic has picked up on it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2993669/posts
Thanks for the comment & link!
“Belle Meade, not Brentwood.”
_________________________________
Yes...I do not know why I said Brentwood...mental burp.
I know people in both areas and attended the hunt ball
a few times at the Belle Mead Country Club, but never knew anyone that associated with Gore, and do not know if he lived there then.
It was quite a few years ago.
Note also that the paper has certainly been "peer reviewed" by Science before being accepted for publication. But all this means is that the journal editor sent it to someone he chose and who will remain anonymous; and that this 'someone' gave him a favorable report. If the editor had wanted to, he could have sent the paper to another reviewer, perhaps to someone who would have been critical about the paper's conclusions. The public seems not to realize this discretionary power of a journal editor, and how little the label "peer review" really means.
If the public realized how thin "peer review" was they wouldn't respect "science" as much as they do. We're living in an age of scientism that would do Lyshenko proud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.