Posted on 04/04/2007 5:41:57 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
I'm confident you'll have one. ;^)
...In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world..."
FWIW, here’s how I look at this stuff:
1) Is the individual making the claims from a discipline other than climate science? If so, your level of skepticism should go up - not because valid criticism cannot originate elsewhere, but because *over and over* we have seen people from other specialties make dramatic claims bases on critiques that have already been raised and addressed in the past (often, several times).
2) Was the question raised in the context of a published, peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal, or is it presented in an op-ed piece or similar setting? If the latter your level of skepticism should be high – not because peer review is perfect, but because passing peer-review is a good filter for errors of the sort above.
3) Does the author make claims such as: “Most people in discipline X are skeptical of climate modeling”? If so, that’s another red flag. For starters most people I discipline X won’t have looked closely at the problem at all, while whatever disciple X may be, if it’s relevant to climate forecasting there are highly competent members of disciple X already preset on the relevant IPCC working group who are intimately familiar with GW issues - and while it’s possible it's highly unlikely that they have overlooked basic issues within their discipline related to climate modeling.
IMO the bottom line here is that if someone does discover a “smoking gun” which fundamentally undermines current modeling assumptions it will be published - pronto – in peer reviewed form, and that person will go on to scientific fame (and adoration from the AWG skeptics).
And that if such a bombshell is going to be dropped, *that’s* where you should look for it, not in the popular press.
Thanks!
Great Article!
I’ll start worrying about global warming when we have a large selection of English Wines to choose from, just like in the Medieval Period. Until then we’re still in our little ice age, which is fine because the wife and I don’t like hot weather much. :-)
Cheers,
CSG
Looks like another academic has escaped the "consensus" corral!
Do you still have this paper?
I never did have this paper, but I emailed Dr. Essenhigh and he sent me this newer paper from 2006 that appeared in the journal Energy and Fuels.
That’s it. Thanks!
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.