An excellent entry into interesting and high quality articles on the net can be found at Arts & Letters Daily. I found an interview of physicist Freeman Dyson. In the interview, the writer is trying to understand how someone of Dyson’s stature could be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Basically, Dyson is skeptical of the models used and is skeptical of the assumption that the pre-industrial climate is automatically a valid baseline climate. Dyson accepts that there may be more desirable climate scenarios and that climate change is not automatically bad.
What is lost in most of the public discussion is the history of climate over the past million or so years. The fossil and geological record does not support the assumption that the global climate is static. We’re presently 10 or 12 thousand years past the latest glaciation episode in a series of glaciation episodes. As I recall, the interglacial periods in North America have averaged something like 10-15 thousand years.
What happens to atmospheric CO2 levels as the temperature rises or falls? Does rising atmospheric CO2 lead to a temperature rise or is it a result of a temperature rise? I have not encountered an adequate explanation taking into account the temperature sensitivity of carbonate equilibrium.
CO2 is not an inert substance. It reacts strongly with water to form carbonate. Obviously CO2 will get absorbed by the biosphere. Do the atmospheric models take the various carbon sinks into account? Perhaps a reader knows.
Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas and is certainly more abundant than CO2. It must account for some aspect of atmospheric temperature change. Do cloud aerosols and sea spray absorb significant CO2? It’s kinda complex.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
“Do the atmospheric models take the various carbon sinks into account?”
Most models account for geological, biological and chemical carbon sinks. If they didn’t then the CO2 mixing ratio forecasts generated based on current emissions would be completely unbelievable.
I agree that a proper discussion of past climate variability and the geologic-time-scale factors that contribute to climate change are glossed over in the public debate. Scientists, however, do not ignore these facts. Causes and consequences of past climate events are topics of current research. Check out Nature Geosciences for some example research articles.
The number of variables accounted for in climate models is staggering and while they may not always accurately predict all of the calculated variables, they are not anywhere near as infantile as the author of this piece suggests.
Hi Bob,
“The number of variables accounted for in climate models is staggering and while they may not always accurately predict all of the calculated variables, they are not anywhere near as infantile as the author of this piece suggests.”
I had no intent of suggesting infantilism. But please notice that while you asserted that “Scientists, however, do not ignore these facts”, you only succeeded in dressing me down rather than saying something salient about CO2 equilibrium.
I remain undecided on the magnitude of anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
Good luck on your blog siesta. In the latest atlantic, there was an interesting article that discussed geo-engineering with regards to climate change. the author said that geo-engineering was cheaper than cutting carbon through emissions restrictions, but more dangerous. It’s interesting to me that the danger of the engineering solution was overplayed but the danger from destroying the economy was underplayed. I wish somebody could explain how carbon could be cut without destroying the manufacturing and power infrastructure because as I see it now it isn’t possible.
I’m not entirely convinced that CO2 emissions will have significant leverage in climate change if the whole system is shifting due to natural inputs. CO2 is a contributor as far as energy absorption goes, but I haven’t seen the data/analysis that shows that it is the driver.
While the absolute influence of anthropogenic CO2 is sketchy at present, the result of energy conservation and reduced consumption generally is a good thing irrespective of the validity of the CO2 theory. I believe that the actions necessary to reduce CO2 emissions amount to good ecological engineering anyway. I can hear Malthus knocking quietly.
Gaussling: “energy conservation and reduced consumption generally is a good thing irrespective of the validity of the CO2 theory. I believe that the actions necessary to reduce CO2 emissions amount to good ecological engineering anyway.”
I couldn’t agree more, I think that most AGW skeptics out there would agree with you. But this whole debate revolves around a new global Cap&Trade tax system designed to reduce C02 emissions. If the theory is invalid, it’s illogical to introduce this mechanism even if it is good ecological engineering.
How certain are scientists of the procession towards “Catastrophic Global Warming” I understand that this involves positive feedback loops that are sketchy at best. Isn’t a valid skeptic argument one such as this: “We haven’t proven the feedback loops yet so we don’t know if there will really be catastrophic G.W.” ? Seems that skepticism is a logical position for a scientist to take on “Catastrophic” global warming.
You’re right about skepticism. It is to be expected in a healthy scientific community. I have not been following the discussion very closely because it is still early in the game and because the data seems noisy.
The whole argument about global warming needs to be deconvoluted into background climate change and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for the sake of clear understanding.
Earlier this year I saw a chart at “Watts Up With That” that appeared to show that the period of time in which temperature records began coincides with an extended dip in mean temperatures. Thus, the starting temperature is low and a natural warming trend may have coincided with industrialization and a corresponding increase in CO2 levels. The point is that global temps and climate variations occur naturally and you must demonstrate that a proposed AGW is not part of a natural excursion in climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/