What Do We Think About Climate Change

If the shoe fits

I also liked the attempted isolationism in the phrase
"my purported reason for climate change"
as if I am alone in the world of science

try 97% of the scientific communities data and study for the last however many years come to the same conclusions concerning the observed rapid climate change

the data is reproducible
the physics are well known
what few variables may yet to be described are surely to fall in step with the historical data stream as the over all reaction of the system to change is plane for all to see and copacetic within numerous data sets

sorry you dont like the term deniers but its the accepted term for the few who deny that its taking place or that its not caused by man

no way I can ameliorate all the various sensitivities involved so I just lay it out there and let the cards fall where they may
all in good fun

B

 

Ocean Acidification it’s the new gospel at the Church Of Climatlogy as the followers of Michael Mann desert him for a new messiah.
The oceans are dissolving!
Take a breath, no, they’re not.

“OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” – THE EXTREMISTS’ FALLBACK SCARE
First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years, and cooling for 9, so they hastily renamed it “climate change”. Then they noticed the climate was changing no more than it ever had, so they tried “energy security”, and even named a Congressional Bill after it. Then they noticed that most Western nations already had bountiful energy security, in the form of vast, untapped domestic supplies of oil, gas, coal, or all three, so they switched to “ocean acidification”.
This is the new phantasmagoric for the tired, old scare whipped up by the NRDC and the environmental extremist movement for their own profit at our expense. The world’s corals, they tell us, will be eaten away by the acidified ocean within not more than ten years hence. Shellfish will be no more, their calcified carapaces and exoskeletons dissolved by the carbonic acid caused by our burning of fossil fuels. The oceans will die. Sound familiar?

by John O'Sullivan on January 8, 2010
http://www.climategate.com/oceans-are-not-dissovling-from-ocean-acidification

7 comments

In late 2009, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released a shabby but mercifully short 21-minute film entitled Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification. The NRDC discusses the upcoming “megadisaster” facing our oceans, “ocean acidification.” However, the film has been quickly proven to be nothing more than a rehash of earlier shock-horror mocumentaries where, as usual, the villain of the story is poor old industrial man. Featuring Sigourney Weaver as its narrator, the NRDC film focuses on the views of a handful of self-interested scientists, a commercial fisherman, and two employees of the NRDC. If you haven’t seen it, here it is below:

http://toryardvaark.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/climategate-ocean-acidification-the-new-alarmist-lie/

Now the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)–a DC think tank–has has debunked this latest junk science. The level-headed folk over at SPPI offer a thorough report in a science-based critique. The SPPI paper is entitled Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification – A New Propaganda Film by the National Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test of Real World Data.

The NRDC film tries hard to persuade us that mankind has “altered the course of nature” by poisoning the oceans. They say CO2 dissolves into the surface of the world’s oceans causing a chemical reaction, and lowering the pH status of the waters. These scientists want us to swallow the tale that this phenomenon is reducing marine calcification rates. They want to leave us scared that if left unchecked, sea water will become so corrosive that it “will cause sea shells to dissolve” and drive coral reefs to extinction “within 20 to 30 years.” It’s just another crock by the climate change alarmists.

The SPPI report, written by Dr. Craig D. Idso for SPPI, reveals that an equally strong, if not more persuasive, case can be made that the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will actually benefit calcifying marine life. As such, the NRDC’s portrayal of CO2-induced ocean acidification as a megadisaster-in-the-making is seen, at best, to be a one-sided distortion of the truth or, at worst, a blatant attempt to deceive the public and their elected representatives.

According to Dr. Idso, “Surely, the NRDC and the scientists portrayed in their film should have been aware of at least one of the numerous peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic–or even a problematic–view of the effect of ocean acidification on calcifying marine organisms; and they should have shared that information with the public. If by some slim chance they were not aware, they should be called to task for not investing the time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for the biosphere and public policy making. And if they did know the results of the studies we have discussed, no one should ever believe a single word they may utter or write in the future.”

“Typically, the NRDC chose to present an extreme one-sided, propagandised view of ocean acidification in their film,” says SPPI president, Robert Ferguson. “The part of the story that they clearly don’t want the public and policy makers to know was just released in our newest review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature,” added Ferguson.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf

Possibly related posts:

1. Oceans love carbon dioxide, say sea scientists
2. Climate claims fail science test
3. Now get John Costella’s climategate email commentary in a PDF “book”
4. Oceangate: sea levels proven to have fallen for past six years

 

PS.....

 

there is the simple fact that the PH of the worlds oceans have altered in just a few short years from 8.179 to 8.104

not much denying that

then there is the simple fact that the rate of change is virtually instantaneous in comparison to previous changes and that the rate of change is increasing ever faster as the years go by and we continue to allow the corporate oligarchy to prevent meaningful change

also it must be considered that in the few years that these man made changes are taking place there is simply not enough time for the evolutionary process to work its magic.

therefore all the previous arguments attempting to "deny" the simple truth about impending extinctions due to ocean acidification are rendered moot

cheers
B

 

In the cover your *** department, the World Meterological Organization issued a report that virtually says all tropical storms are the result of AGW. The report says that the number of storms will decrease (wonder if they cleared that with Al Gore) but will increase in strength. The changes however are so small as to be statically insignificant and are based primarily on theory and computer models. Chris Landsea issued the ***** of the year statement for the NOAA. The wind speed will rise 2-11% and the number of storms will decrease 6-34%. Will they admit they are wrong if there is a 12% increase in wind speed and a decrease of 5%. Of course not, they will claim that is withing statistical and measurement accuracy variation. I am probably more accurate with that prediction than they are with theirs. With numbers like that they have guaranteed that they will be laughed at.

Quote from the report......

Tropical cyclones and climate change
Thomas R. Knutson , John L. McBbride , Johnny Chan , Kerry Emanuel , Greg Holland , Chris Landsea , Isaac Held , James P. Kossin , A. K. Srivastava & Masato Sugi

AbstractWhether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100|[nbsp]|km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies


In other words, they don't know what natural variation is, despite 6 decades of observational data, but they know (maybe) that any variation from what they don't know will be caused by AGW. Their parents should seek refunds from the schools that gave these guys diplomas.

 

I heard the Vatican is looking to the AGW community for help in restructuring the dogma of the Church. Seems they admire the inflexibility of the KoolAid club members in their ability to combine myopia with junk science along with their rufusal to admit error or doubt.

Ad hominem attacks have been the first weapon to be used by the alarmists every time one of their studies goes down the toilet. Boston is notorious for screaming about profits and oil companies to the point of nausea and his ignorance of how business works in the real world is only exceeded by questionable ethics in the way he cherry picks studies and statements to fit his views as if the truth will be changed by the way he presents the issues. And just to clarify.....................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

First i would like to point out that the term moved from Global Warming to Climate Change after a campaign by Oil and Gas companies to cast doubt on the science. Ocean acidification is happening, it is simple measurements of pH that prove this. Scientists don't have some secret anti-world agenda that will make them HUGE amounts of money, they are doing their jobs and reporting their findings. Who has more to lose: an oil exec making $500 million a year or a scientist making $80 thousand a year? it just doesn't make sense to say that scientists are out to make money while the multi-billion dollar oil industry is just playing nice.

 

I think you will find that making sense has little or nothing to do with the disinformation campaign being mimed by some members here

today on myth-busters

 

Isnt global warming just the planet in one of its cycles just like it has done before?
How was oil created, via this process, acidification of the oceans etc

Now what happens if we add a couple of giant volcano's erupting to the big picture?

Re OZ railfall, yes the main farming and catchment areas have had 15+years of lower than average rainfall.
Reservoirs that had 10 years capacity have run very low and many people are on water restrictions
BUT
The north of the country has had 15 years ( tropical part) of higher than average rainfall?

 

thats another myth that needs busting

 

Thanks, Boston for implying that the shoe of the holocaust denier fits me. That makes you a bit of a character assassin doesn't it?
Forgive him, Father, for he knows not what he does.

 

The weather is definitely changing snow storms,Floods,droughts,and all appear to be excessive.
More hurricane more everything looks like something is different???

 

Past cycles didn't happen when civilsation and population pressures made us so vulnerable. The consequences to humanity were huge back then, but tiny compared to the effect they will have today.

 

nobody is lumping you in with the holocaust deniers Hoyt
lets keep it real

cheers
B

its a term that has been used for the "climate change" deniers
for a long long time

and good point Brent
today we have upwards of 7 billion mouths to feed
yet we are loosing cropland at an astounding pace
running out of both fossil fuels and fossil water and fast
and what is it
1 out of 10 rivers dont make it to the ocean anymore during at least a few months of the year
and the ones that do tend to be carrying so much dissolved salts like selenium that they are unfit for irrigation or drinking water
kinda like the Colorado river

less than 10% the worlds population hold 90% of the worlds wealth
20% the worlds population consume 80% of its resources
1/4 the worlds population still lives as it did 1000 years ago with no power no running water and no sanitation
1/2 the worlds population still survives by subsistence farming
3/4 the worlds population lives on land less than a few feet above sea level and in areas that will be effected by rising oceans
we are more vulnerable today than ever to a quickly changing environment

 

We would have more cropland if the Federal Government would quit seizing it and turning it into parks. Quit building on the fertile floodplains. Quit building levees in an effort to preserve monuments to human stupidity, then there would be more arable land.

Sorry I'm so testy today, just feeling a bit tarred.