Could you explain further what you mean? There are feedbacks that are not fully accounted for, but generally these are all positive feedbacks.

If you mean that the IPCC synthesis report for 2007 is inaccurate due to political pressure, mainly from China, I agree with you.

I know one climatologist personally, and from what he says, the IPCC report was not even discussed in much depth in Bali, because it was woefully understating the reality.

Even though the IPCC Third Assessment Report (WG1- 2001) was much more conservative than AR4 last year, the real situation is much worse.

PJ I didn't say you can't draw a line around it. I even conceded that you could. It's the conclusion you draw from that which doesn't hold water.

Not only is it senseless to claim that because you are a small part of a big problem and a small part of a big solution that you might as well not bother, but in Australia's case the implications of our choice are far stronger than for any other group of 20 million people, because we are a welathy western country with the highest per cpaita emissions. Refusing to particpate in the global solution will have a far greater impact that our population alone would suggest.

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:11pm:


Its total emissions that count - not per captia of a small country, if man made global warming really is a problem. Trying to slash our high per capita emissions will have huge consequences for our economy and quality of life and is not the easy fix you seem to make out.  

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:52pm:


No it won't be equally small. We are a small part of the world economy, just we are a small part of the world's emissions. But to slash our emissions won't be a small cost to us as a nation.

How do you propose we do it? All you seem to be proposing is a tax on carbon. That won't magically reduce our emissions. Deep cuts are a huge ask and I don't think renewables are up to it. Clean coal or nuclear might but really requires governments to mandate the technology and large capital investments.

Regarding CO2 and ocean pH I found this blog which raises some interesting points:


1). This confirms that the alarmists are feeling the heat badly. First, the woeful rebutall by Environmental Defense and Michael Oppenheimer to the Senate Report and now this. They know they are losing the scientific debate badly nowadays, so they are openly admitting that a change in tactics is required. Nothing like changing the rules of the debate when you find yourself being clobbered.

2). It remains that since 1850, the total of human emissions (even including those from land use changes) consists of about 500 billion metric tons of carbon. According to the models, about 45% of that has remained in the air, the rest going 50/50 to the oceans and land. So this means that approximately 138 billion metric tons of carbon have gone into the ocean. According to the models.

Now, the ocean's reservoir of carbon stands at around 40,000 billion metric tons, the vast majority of which is dissolved in the lower depths, where pressure and coldness promotes absorption of far more CO2. Warmer surface waters tend more easily to release it.


So here are two things to consider.

A). Assume that the preindustrial surface ocean contained 1030 minus 138, or 892 billion metric tons. Following that proportion, the present surface ocean would seemingly be 15% more rich in CO2. Given that the ocean is a complex buffer solution, resisting pH changes, can a 15% increase of CO2 actually bring about the 0.1 pH change that is claimed? This question goes to the heart of the issue. (By the way, a 0.1 pH change represents a 26% increase of hydrogen ions.)

B). If it turns out that a 15% increase cannot bring about such a change, yet the 0.1 pH change is true, then consider thermohaline currents. To me it seems very reasonable to suppose that a warming ocean would circulate heat to the lower depths and thus release some of the CO2 dissolved there. This would rise up into the surface waters and necessarily influence the pH. It is entirely possible, then, that to the extent pH changes ARE real, they originate not from the sky but from the ocean below.

Just as Gore and others have the CO2/Temperature relationship backwards, prevailing assumptions about ocean acidification may be backwards too.

3). The most recent posting at CO2Science.org on this suggests that the extra CO2 stimulates biological growth in the upper ocean, which in turn is known to increase pH. So, maybe there is a biological negative feedback that helps stabilize ocean pH values?

4). According to Anthoni, whom I've cited before:

The most important limiting factor in aquatic ecosystem is the dearth of hydrogen ions (H+), which has also been overlooked. The more acidic the water, the higher biological productivity becomes, and the denser the amount of life. In the sea this is borne out by the observed fact that highly productive upwelling areas are more acidic. In other words, acidic seas are a good thing.

Bottom line, this is a confusing topic. But it does seem safe to say that how organisms use the pH that's available to them is not to be found or predicted in chemical calculations alone. I think Marc is right on target, then, that the ocean acidification issue should not be given a free pass. My own observations lead me to suspect that the present model of CO2 distribution is flat wrong. For instance, if the preindustrial ocean had nearly the same carbon content as the present one, fine, let's grant it around 40,000 GtC. But then the preindustrial atmosphere weighed 590 GtC compared to our 815. The partial pressure exerted by that preindustrial atmosphere being much less, the ability of the ocean to hold onto CO2 would have to have been correspondingly less too - in which case its carbon content could NOT have been 40,000 GtC. In short, the preindustrial ocean should have been degassing CO2 in response to the relative vacuum above it.

But if on the other hand we say, no, the preindustrial ocean was colder, so it held onto CO2 better - then we admit that the present ocean, being warmer, should be discharging CO2. And this point ties into Lance Endersbee's analysis, which shows atmospheric CO2 rising as a function of ocean temperature. But where, anywhere within the IPCC model, does it attribute rising atmospheric CO2 levels to a warming ocean? Nowhere. In fact it makes the ocean a passive sink rather than an active source. As a sink, yes, it should be getting more acidic. But as a source - CO2 upwelling from warming reservoirs below - surface waters would ALSO become more acidic. That's my point.

Do you actually understand what is being said here, or are you just cutting and pasting?

You've cut and pasted quite a lot of details. Would you understand enough if I were to rebutt every point made, or would I be wasting my time because you don't understand the science?

You also neglected to show the source:

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/01/greenies-getting-rattled-now.html

The most amusing part of the commentary was this:

"Just as Gore and others have the CO2/Temperature relationship backwards, prevailing assumptions about ocean acidification may be backwards too."

Gore as in Al Gore? The famous politician? He isn't even a climate scientist, he's basically a messenger. In fact I very much doubt if Al Gore understands very much of what he says.

Point 2 is totally misleading. The "models" that it refer to is a single diagram taken from the IPCC   Working Group I report in 2001. It isn't actually a model, it's a simple diagram showing a snapshot of the global carbon fluxes in 2001. He then assumes that this model has been valid since 1850!

Point 4 is almost as entertaining as his Al Gore Remark. First he makes an assumption that the carbon content of the oceans in 1850 was 40,000 Gigatons, then later he states that this assumption (which he made himself) could not possibly be correct. What's he trying to say here?

The purpose of his post is basically to muddy the waters. Of course the actual mechanism for ocean pH reduction is complex, but the root cause for all the mechanisms proposed by all the workers cited is a combination of increased CO2 emissions, reduction of carbon sinks and some increase in temperature.   

Do you actually understand what is being said here, or are you just cutting and pasting?

You've cut and pasted quite a lot of details. Would you understand enough if I were to rebutt every point made, or would I be wasting my time because you don't understand the science?

Now thats not very nice. I thought you said you wanted to discuss the issues in a reasonable non-adversarial way? What's actually wrong with cutting and pasting? I'm not a published climate scientist and I suspect neither are you. We have to refer to the work of others. 

You also neglected to show the source:

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/01/greenies-getting-rattled-now.html

I said it was a blog.

The most amusing part of the commentary was this:

"Just as Gore and others have the CO2/Temperature relationship backwards, prevailing assumptions about ocean acidification may be backwards too."

Gore as in Al Gore? The famous politician? He isn't even a climate scientist, he's basically a messenger. In fact I very much doubt if Al Gore understands very much of what he says.

Actually he studied environmental science at uni, he barely scraped through with a pass I heard. In any case what is wrong with countering/ questioning his claims? Given that he is at the forefront of the global warming campaign its quite an admission to say he doesn't understand much of what he says!

Point 2 is totally misleading. The "models" that it refer to is a single diagram taken from the IPCC   Working Group I report in 2001. It isn't actually a model, it's a simple diagram showing a snapshot of the global carbon fluxes in 2001. He then assumes that this model has been valid since 1850!

Point 4 is almost as entertaining as his Al Gore Remark. First he makes an assumption that the carbon content of the oceans in 1850 was 40,000 Gigatons, then later he states that this assumption (which he made himself) could not possibly be correct. What's he trying to say here?

The purpose of his post is basically to muddy the waters. Of course the actual mechanism for ocean pH reduction is complex, but the root cause for all the mechanisms proposed by all the workers cited is a combination of increased CO2 emissions, reduction of carbon sinks and some increase in temperature.  

He said that increase in temperature migh be a cause of lower ocean PH. That doesn't mean that the increase in temperature is man made. The other points highlight the complexities and possible negative feedbacks. You call this 'muddying the waters'.