Guest Post by Steven Goddard part 1 is here
Ice cores clearly demonstrate the close relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, as seen below.
This relationship has been well understood by geologists for longer than Al Gore has been alive.
As ocean temperatures rise, the solubility of CO2 in seawater declines. Thus increasing ocean temperature moves CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, and decreasing ocean temperatures move CO2 out of the atmosphere and back into the ocean. As you can see in the graph below, a 10C shift in temperature causes about 30% reduction in dissolved CO2. Closely corresponding to what we see in the measured ice core graph above.
Ice ages are driven by orbital cycles of the earth, and as ocean temperatures change, atmospheric CO2 levels respond – in accordance with the laws of chemistry. The relationships are uncontroversial.
Unfortunately, some educators besides Al Gore have taken liberties with the ice core data. Children’s global warming author Laurie David published the incorrect graph below, which shows that CO2 levels changed prior to the temperature levels. The graph misleads children into believing that ice ages are driven by changing CO2 levels, rather than the other way around. It is difficult to understand how this error could have happened accidentally.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/graph1.gif
This week is National Engineering Week in the US, when elementary school children are encouraged to learn math and science. Don’t they deserve and need accurate information? Are Laurie David’s book and Al Gore’s movie acceptable in a science classroom?
Whether or not you believe that the burning of fossil fuels significantly affects the earth’s temperature, the ice core data offers no evidence to support that – no matter how big the graph is.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steven Goddard
I was being sarcastic. I want to know what is happening to the NSIDC Antarctic ice chart. I don’t believe the chart is factual.
RH (08:42:42) :
Ice cores are taken over land, especially in Greenland and Antarctica. North Polar ice moves around and drains from the Arctic Ocean and so is way too young for building up a good history. Cores are take where there is deep ice cover, whcih implies high altitude, which implies little if amy melting. (And they are taken at sites with little if any melting to get a complete record.)
—-
“Error” in Steven’s text:
“some educators besides Al Gore:” Al Gore is a politician, not an educator. Sheesh. We finally get Steven to realize that Al isn’t a scientist and now this. 🙂
This is a very nice presentation from Dr. David Archibald: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbAe_g41Zl4
Without knowing the answer, will the solubility of carbon dioxide in water at a given temperature be significantly affected by a doubling or trebling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or is the kinetics of the process not significantly affected by that?
And how about a ten-fold increase?
RH,
The NSIDC satellite is broken.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/
Ric,
Al Gore is an educator. His movie is shown in schools throughout the world. He is also a Nobel prize winner and inventor of the Internet. His scientific reputation is so distinguished that he is allowed to make keynote speeches at AAAS meetings, and before Congress.
While Vice-President, Al Gore also worked hard to make sure that all private encryption keys were available to the US government, so that the US government could spy on all Internet activity.
Steven Goddard
Thanks for the info on the satellite. I had noticed though that corrections were made to the Arctic graph after it took a dive. I wonder why NSIDC can’t make similar adjustments to the Antarctic graph, or just remove it from the website.
the graph tells us nothing about how recent increases in CO2 will affect temperature
‘Basic Physics’ tells us that increased CO2 will absorb more IR. Your ‘Basic Geology’ argument tells us that increasing ocean temperatures will lead to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (it’s not quite as simple as that, of course, since you’ve ignored the potential of changes in the biological pump). That increased CO2 will, of course, absorb more IR. What’s going to happen when more IR is absorbed? The graph (when correctly labelled!) is an indication of the extent of temperature change in response to small initial changes in solar forcing, with CO2 change showing as a feedback. Whether or not you accept the basic physics of IR absorption is, of course, up to you.
Can I take it that you’re not bothered by Fretwell’s statement that the melting of the ice sheets would not raise sea level? That’s ok for telling to children?
RH,
Apparently that aren’t aware of it because Anthony hasn’t blogged specifically about the Antarctica image.
OK, sarcasm off.
Assuming the sharp linear drop is due to the same issues identified for their Arctic graph, there is no excuse for NSIDC to be having this image still available on the web. I’m reluctant to speculate about the efforts NSIDC are undertaking to fix the data and its online presentation to the public but the fact that this image is still there does not reflect well upon those efforts.
Ray (09:57:50) :
This is a very nice presentation from Dr. David Archibald: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbAe_g41Zl4
Yet another alarmist [cold this time]. There is no good evidence that the cycle length has anything to do with temperature or that solar cycle 23 will be more longer than it already is:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
OT, but related to Antarctic temperatures: AGW supporters make a big deal about their fear that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will break off due to rising temperatures and will slide into the oceans, “drowning” tens of millions of people (or at least their home countries).
Now, I know that ice can exist in several forms, depending on temperature & pressure conditions. Are the high pressure conditions at the bottom of the Antarctic Ice Sheet sufficient to create ice six or ice seven, which melt at much much higher temperatures that 0 C?
Phase Diagram, etc
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/jupiter/images/Ice_phase_diagram_b_gif_image.html
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ice_vii.html
The above was in reply to RH (08:42:42) :
I need a primer in html.
Steven Goddard (10:09:04) :
Ric,
Al Gore is an educator. His movie is shown in schools throughout the world. He is also a Nobel prize winner and inventor of the Internet. His scientific reputation is so distinguished that he is allowed to make keynote speeches at AAAS meetings, and before Congress.
While Vice-President, Al Gore also worked hard to make sure that all private encryption keys were available to the US government, so that the US government could spy on all Internet activity.
Steven Goddard (10:09:04) :
> His scientific reputation is so distinguished that he is allowed to make keynote speeches at AAAS meetings, and before Congress.
(and other impressive list of accomplishments omitted.)
Ah yes, guess I had a brain hiccup there. It won’t happen again. In fact, I feel inspired to sit at his feet and learn how to design an energy efficient home.I shall gaze upon him as I would an all-knowing Big Brother. 🙂
I am ashamed to say that I have never looked at science texts used in my son’s school. He is in third grade at a fairly conservative private school so I have never thought it would be a problem.
I wonder, if a kid goes to a school that teaches climate alarmism, what standard is applied to their laboratory reports. Do they still need to write them up so as to be reproducible or are they peer reviewed.
This whole matter, CAGW alarmism and the influence of politics on science will be an interesting study in years to come.
Ric,
I thought god Gore is supposed to be worshipped and receive tithes and offerings. How else will he continue his carboniferous life style that you, of course, must sacrifice for his maintenance.
So where does the ‘acidification’ of the oceans come from?
Are the oceans actually becoming more acidic through absorbing CO2? A warming ocean should become less acidic, of course, because it’s losing dissolved CO2.
The oceans haven’t been warming lately, of course. But I’m trying to understand if ocean acidification is another AGW ocean myth or is it based on actual, recorded measurement? It seems contradictory to basic science shown in the post.
Oops. I meant AGW ‘urban’ myth, not AGW ‘ocean’ myth.
Notwithstanding my strong belief that the ocean is a huge and wonderful buffer for CO2, I must note that the ocean was not 10C colder during the ice ages; the average temperature today is closer to 3C.
I seem to recall Al being made a professor at Columbia in 2001. (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/01/gore.html)
That does qualify him as an educator, does it not? I’m a part-time professor at the local community college, so I’m equally qualified for that title, BTW. (Shudder)
Simon Evans
To comfort you I can certainly say I would be even less likely to use Fretwell’s book than Laurie David’s. My goal would be to teach science not junk from either side.
Saddly because of political correctness and funding issues the pro AGW junk is very abundant in the actual school systems.
Fretwell should have said that melting of ice that is already floating like in the arctic ocean will not raise sea level. His statement as quoted is a worse error than the one cited in the original article.
deadwood (08:59:21) :
Religious and political indoctrination of children is not new. It has proven over time to be very successful.
Which is why more children’s books need to be published with the truth.
I noticed that the International Climate Science Coalition has released a rebuttal recently for “little skeptics.” lol… (pdf reader required).
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/documents/not_scared_anymore_mr_gore.pdf
Not sure if someone has an answer to this Q… ?
Many alarmists are claiming that increased CO2 will cause acidification of the oceans and dissolve coral reefs. The basis of their claim is related to increased carbonic acid caused by more dissolved CO2 in the oceans.
My point here is that if the oceans release CO2 as they warm then how can levels of carbonic acid rise ? Would we expect to see increased ph levels and not reduced under our cuerrent scenario ?
John Galt (12:19:17) :
So where does the ‘acidification’ of the oceans come from?
Are the oceans actually becoming more acidic through absorbing CO2? A warming ocean should become less acidic, of course, because it’s losing dissolved CO2.
The oceans haven’t been warming lately, of course. But I’m trying to understand if ocean acidification is another AGW ocean myth or is it based on actual, recorded measurement? It seems contradictory to basic science shown in the post.
Well, that’s one of the problems with the “basic science shown in the post”. If the ocean is saturated then warming it would net release CO2, but if it is not, as remains the case, then increasing atmospheric CO2 will still be buffered by ocean uptake even though it has warmed over the same period of increase. Soon enough the ocean’s capacity to buffer will be used up and further warming would lead to net outgassing.
The issue of ocean acidification arises from the pace of CO2 uptake, such that pH declines before the carbonate buffer can balance it (which eventually it would do, but after thousands of years). However, that’s been extensively discussed on another thread, and I’m sure S.G. continues to think that ocean mixing to depth is effectively immediate. Yes, acidification is based on “actual, recorded measurement”, IMV though not in SG’s, but again I’d best refer you to discussion of that here (all 701 comments of it!):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/