Ken Caldeira provides a link below to a scientific paper on ocean warming. I have been discussing this paper at http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/133062-Ocean-Warming It appears there is some uncertainty regarding historical temperature measurements. The thread provides links to discussions, including at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/goos/meetings/2008/XBT/index.php My calculation from the data in the Levitus et al 2012 paper was that if the amount of extra heat we are putting into the ocean went into an Olympic swimming pool it would boil it in about two milliseconds. In the minute it takes the swimmers at the London Olympics to complete a 100 meter race, enough heat is added to the oceans to bring more than 20,000 Olympic swimming pools to boiling point. I would appreciate comment on whether this analogy makes sense and is accurate. Robert Tulip
________________________________ From: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> To: geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 6:18 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lovelock Backs Down More evidence that Lovelock is making too much of decadal scale trends in atmospheric temperature. Look at ocean temperature. Oceans represent most of the heat capacity in the climate system, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/scienceshot-no-letup-in-worlds.html On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Joshua Horton <[email protected]> wrote: "Maybe if he let it come to rest somewhere between catastrophism and complacency it would hang closer to the truth" - we'd all do well to follow this advice. > > >I hadn't appreciated the connection between Brand and Lovelock. Then I picked >up my copy of Brand's Whole Earth Discipline and there at the top of the front >flap, "This book is truly important and a joy to read - James Lovelock." >Regardless, I give this book a lot of credit for getting environmentalists to >take geoengineering seriously--Brand is very open to it and devotes an entire >chapter ("Planet Craft"). > >Josh Horton > > > >On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > >This reminds me of Nobel syndrome, where people who have high achievement and >expertise in one area then feel free to pontificate on all sorts of things >about which they know little. >> >> >>To be ready to throw out a century or more of physical climate system >>understanding because of decadal scale tends in the hottest decade on record >>seems to be as reckless as excessive catastrophism. >> >>In lovelock's case, the pendulum seems to swing too wildly Maybe if he let >>it come to rest somewhere between catastrophism and complacency it would hang >>closer to the truth. >> >>Ken Caldeira >>[email protected] >>+1 650 704 7212 >>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >> >> >>Sent from a limited-typing keyboard >> >>On Apr 27, 2012, at 17:50, david <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>According to Lovelock's long time friend Stewart Brand, Lovelock's "thinking" >>changed when he read Trenberth's "Tracking Earth's Energy", i.e. the >>Trenberth and Fasullo Perspectives piece in 16 April 2010 Science. As a >>result, Lovelock appears to have concluded that global warming has stopped >>and no one knows why. >>> >>> >>>According to Brand, Lovelock thinks climate scientists have become "overly >>>politicized". Lovelock complained in an email to Brand: "my name is now mud >>>in climate science circles for having dared to consort with sceptics". The >>>"sceptic" Lovelock decided to "consort" with is none other than Garth >>>Paltridge, author of "The Climate Caper". Those not familiar with the work >>>of Paltridge may not need to know more that the fact that In the >>>introduction to The Climate Caper, Paltridge explains that the scientists >>>involved with the IPCC are the worst thing that has happened to science in >>>the last several hundred years, because they are on a "religious crusade", >>>"manipulating" the climate issue "into the ultimate example of the >>>politically correct", acting as if "the science behind the issue", is >>>"irrelevant". Lord Monckton wrote the "Foreword" to the book. Lovelock >>>can't understand why climate scientists who formerly acted as if they took >>>him seriously now view him in a completely different way. >>> >>> >>>Brand's comments about Lovelock are in his online addition to his book >>>"Ecopragmatism", starting in the fifth paragraph. Brand wrote this in May >>>2010. Lovelock appears to be Brand's primary source on climate science. >>> >>> >>>I wrote a piece last year aimed at provoking Brand into a public debate >>>about how whacked out all this Lovelock gibberish is but Brand did not >>>respond. >>> >>>On Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:25:29 AM UTC-7, Josh Horton wrote: >>>Food for thought ... >>>> >>>> >>>>http://www.livescience.com/19875-gaia-lovelock-climate-change.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>'Gaia' Scientist Takes Back Climate Change Predictions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>A scientist and author, James Lovelock, who once predicted doomsdaylike >>>>fallout from climate change has backtracked, calling his own projections >>>>and those of others "alarmist." Even so, climate scientists stress >>>>Lovelock's backtracking doesn't negate the reality of climate change, and >>>>in fact, his past predictions highlight some overall misunderstanding about >>>>planetary warming. >>>>Lovelock, who introduced theGaia Hypothesis describing life on Earth as a >>>>vast self-regulating organism some 40 years ago, also stated that since >>>>2000, warming had not happened as expected. >>>>"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really >>>>happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world >>>>now," Lovelock told MSNBC.com in an interview. >>>>While warming may not have reached Lovelock's expectations, it is clearly >>>>happening. Global temperature data shows the world is heating up. The first >>>>decade of this century was the warmest on record for more than a century, >>>>part of a trend in increasing warmth over the past 50 years, according to >>>>the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Lovelock's >>>>hypothesis has played a prominent role in the environmental movement. >>>>In a conversation with MSNBC's Ian Johnston, Lovelock agreed that the level >>>>of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising, but >>>>contended that temperature has not increased as expected since 2000. >>>>This is a significant reversal for Lovelock. In a column written for the >>>>U.K. newspaper The Independent in 2006, he wrote, "before this century is >>>>over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that >>>>survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." >>>>Lovelock's views were not in line with mainstream climate science to begin >>>>with, Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University climate scientist, >>>>pointed out. >>>>"As I see it, Jim's views were at the alarmist end of the spectrum of >>>>scientific opinion, so frankly I see him largely as just coming back into >>>>the fold of mainstream thinking," Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience. >>>>"That having been said, he has made some statements which appear to reflect >>>>a misunderstanding of what the science has to say." [Busted: 10 Climate >>>>Change Myths] Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the independent >>>>National Center for AtmosphericResearch (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., went >>>>further: "The fact is he knows little or nothing about climate change." >>>>The past decade has seen a reduced rate of increase in warming. but it >>>>remains consistent with the overall warming trend, Trenberth said. >>>>Global temperatures fluctuate from year to year and over short time scales >>>>as a result of natural variability. These ups and downs can obscure the >>>>overall trend, particularly if someone is looking to generate a particular >>>>result, he said. "You can take a piece of that record and get the wrong >>>>view as to what is happening." >>>>Next year, Lovelock expects to release a new book. He said he believes his >>>>projections went too far in a previous book, "Revenge of Gaia" (Allen >>>>Lane/Penguin, 2006). Even so, Lovelock stressed that humanity should still >>>>try to curb its use of fossil fuels, according to MSNBC.com. >>>>You can follow LiveScience senior writer Wynne Parry on >>>>Twitter @Wynne_Parry. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and >>>>discoveries on Twitter @livescience and onFacebook. -- >>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>"geoengineering" group. >>>To view this discussion on the web visit >>>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/LbhPSCtemU0J. >>>To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>[email protected]. >>>For more options, visit this group at >>>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> >>-- >>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>"geoengineering" group. >>To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>[email protected]. >>For more options, visit this group at >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
