CO2 in Earth's Climate History

[John Russell]

Now this is what I call a lecture -- by a scientist. Well worth watching. I guarantee, like me, you'll learn a lot from it.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

Best wishes,

JR

[V Wood]

I agree.  Well worth the time.  Thanks John.

Best
V

---

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:56:28 +0000
From: j...@johnrussell.tv
To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Monbiot] CO2 in Earth's Climate History

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

[TM Printing Ltd]

On 19 Noll 2009, at 17:56, John Russell wrote:

Now this is what I call a lecture -- by a scientist. Well worth watching. I guarantee, like me, you'll learn a lot from it.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

Our friend Plimer would have a field day: Richard Alley starts by saying, "I'm not an atmospheric scientist, except by default". I've no idea what that means but it's a shot in the foot, isn't it? He also is constantly qualifying his statements with caution - I accept those cautions but the Plimers of this world will pick up on these 'uncertainties' by selectively, ignoring the context.

Nonetheless, a must-watch (and understand!) lecture. Not easy to follow the science to laymen like me but surely the so-called scientists who would oppose its contents could follow it easily? Surely, yes?

David

[Andy Williamson]

Thanks for posting that – just spent the last hour watching it and did indeed learn a lot. Great to be able to see something like that within days of it happening.

I wonder who could take that and add a commentary that explains it in words Telegraph and Daily Mail readers would understand?

While watching it, in the middle bit where he talks a bit about volcanic activity, and our good fortune that volcanoes around the planet aren’t in good enough communication with each other to get organised (‘cos if they did, they really would rule the world) I recalled this evening’s news which mentioned that a large eruption is looking imminent in the Philippines – see http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/20/philippines.volcano/ . I wonder how large that needs to be to affect current predictions – or whether this would be regarded as just part of the typical annual volcanic contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels?

Andy

[John Russell]

On your first point, Andy, I would be very wary of simplifying the scientific facts for a non-scientific audience. The problem is it then makes any statement very easy to discredit. Monbiot is very careful not be seen as a scientist, or even 'an interpreter of the science' -- he claims to be someone who does no more than commentate on what the scientists say, and its implications for humanity. At the end of the day you, me and the rest of the non-scientists have to trust what we're told (which is why Monbiot is so upset by the CRU email fiasco) or, if we're inclined, read the actual science ourselves and decide who sounds most plausible and who has gathered enough other scientists around them to create a consensus. It's the problem of climate science being so damn complicated. Let's leave the 'blindingly obvious' to idiots like Monckton.

Regarding volcanic activity: as I understand it the natural production of CO2 from volcanoes and the like, when averaged out, is reflected in the natural biological mechanisms which have evolved to deal with them in order to maintain the balance necessary for the continuation of life on Earth. As I'm sure you know, this mechanism is the basis for Lovelock's 'Gaia' theory. It's true though that single volcanic events can be large enough to have a global impact; probably the most famous being Krakatoa which depressed the world's temperatures and suppressed crop growth for several years after its eruption of 1883.

The current view is that man's carbon emissions are running at more than 100 times volcanic emissions. The actual figures for carbon emitted into the atmosphere every year are, volcanoes 130-230 million tonnes (Gerlach, 1999, 1992); humans, 22 billion tonnes [ ( Marland, et al., 1998).  Carbon is not quite the same as CO2 but it's near enough to make the point: we don't have to worry about volcanoes -- well, unless you build your house too close to one.

Note that deniers often claim that human emissions are a tenth -- or a small fraction -- of those from volcanic activity. This is because they confuse 'billions' and 'millions' (it's easy to do if you're in a sceptical frame of mind).

Best wishes,

JR


Andy Williamson wrote:

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2577 - Release Date: 12/20/09 07:35:00