Re: [asa] The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide

It is good to see that Janice is doing some research but unfortunately
she seems to be relying on sites which are far out of the mainstream.
What should have been a warning is the fact that the conclusion is
contradicted by countless scientists and factual findings.

The problem is that superficially, the argument sounds solid. CO2
lagged ocean warming and thus CO2 could not possibly be responsible.

However, the answer is actually not that hard to find and the claim
that CO2 does not affect global temperatures is plainly wrong.

After all countless scientists would not have ignored this fact so
what is really going on here? A simple search of the internet reveals
the rest of the story

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html

<quote>A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fuctuations
recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that
yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a
very tight correlation. But what it is not correct, is to say the
temperature rose and then 800 years later the CO2 rose. These warming
periods lasted for 5000 to 10000 years (the coolings lasted ~100kyrs)
so for the majority of that time (~90%) temperature and CO2 rose
together. This means that this wonderful archive of climatological
evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause while also revealing
it can be an effect.</quote>

Or perhaps the excellent website at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

<quote>
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and
media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it.
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to
rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature
during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming
periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000
years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag
shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of
the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact
have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core
data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So
CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have
caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.
Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the
Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long
been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic
ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the
probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this.
Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding
ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800
years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its
heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So
CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like
the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a
loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an
amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along
with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full
glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much
about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue
about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about
the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through
natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean
during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
</quote>

So one should be careful which 'experts' one quotes since it seems as
Christians that we should be concerned about supporting poor science
lest we run afoul of St Augustine's fair warnings.
It's unfortunate that our colleague and fellow Christian Janice has
fallen victim to this and I hope the additional data will help her
reconsider her position.

Now I was hoping that this was an incident but it seems that Janice
has decided to careless spam ASA with more 'research' such as

<quote>
Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the
St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems
from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the
international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable
to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial
activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
</quote>

As I have shown in other postings, the solar contribution, while real
is much smaller than the anthropogenic component.

Janice should do well to familiarize herself with the science before
falling victim of 'scientific arguments' which at closer scrutiny only
reveal ignorance.
Certainly as a Christian I'd say we have the duty to ensure that the
science we support is correct.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:23:04 -0800