Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on RICO! by Punksta

0
0
<blockquote>first investigate possible wrongdoings of other “nonprofit” organizations such as The Institute of Global Environment & Society, Inc.</blockquote> The Government, The IPCC, etc.

Comment on RICO! by Punksta

0
0

the idea is to try to give science a place at the podium and not be compromised by any corrupted science coming from the side of the special interests that deserves no place in front of Congress.

Mainly though, the corrupted, vested interest science coming from stooge government climate ‘scientists’ like Mann and friends.

Comment on RICO! by Punksta

0
0

So are the Exxon projections as laughably awry as those of today’s consensus climate ‘scientists’ ?

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Scottish Sceptic

0
0

Why not talk about:

“Ocean drying” the dangerous way sunshine is drying the oceans?

Comment on RICO! by Punksta

0
0

They realized very early that if the seriousness of the effect on climate became more widely known …

It would be diffcult indeed for anyone back then to “know” what the Exxon scientists themselves, then, and climate ‘scientists’ to this day, still do not know.

As the Exxon execs doubtless realised, the real operative concept is not “know”, but “believe”. With its huge resources and in-built bias, the danger was always that government would inevitably skew skew its own science in its own favour to foster belief in alarmism, regardless of the underlying truth.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Alan Longhurst

0
0

All
Please note a typo, just pointed out by a colleague. Surface pH at Hawaii feel by 0.04 – not 0.4 as stated – units between 1988 and 2001.

Regrets….

Alan

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Coldish

0
0

Longhurst writes in section 10.3: ‘..where water circulation is relatively limited on the reef top of the Great Barrier Reef, “CO2 in the water is depleted by photosynthesis during the hours of daylight, while the O2 content rises to as much as 250% saturation and the pH rises to 8.9. At night, photosynthesis ceases, O2 may fall to as low as 18% saturation and the pH drops to 7.8”.’ The “…” marks suggest he is quoting someone else – but I don’t see a citation. Should there be one?

Comment on RICO! by beththeserf

0
0

Thought fer Today.

Ahem …

‘Let us dismiss those that dismiss
the function of feedback in science
fer they are not honest.’

No place fer censor-shipand gate-keeping,
only critical evaluation, revaluation and
and reformation of statements depending
on feedback data. Feed – back!


Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by semczyszakarkadiusz

0
0

@Ordvic
by: Effect of ocean warming and acidification on a plankton community in the NW Mediterranean Sea (Maugendre, 2015):
“There were no statistically significant effects of ocean warming and acidification, whether in isolation or combined, on the concentrations of nutrients, particulate organic matter, chl a and most of the photosynthetic pigments.”
“Rates of gross primary production followed the general decreasing trend of chl a concentrations and were significantly higher under elevated temperature, an effect exacerbated when combined to elevated p CO 2 level.”

I have yet, merely, (at the end – summary) quote by Professor J-P Gattuso
2010.:
“Although changes in the carbonate chemistry are well known, the biological and biogeochemical consequences are much less well constrained for several reasons. First, very few processes and organisms have been investigated so far (research in this area only began in the late 1990s). Second, most experiments were carried out in the short-term (hours to weeks), effectively neglecting potential acclimation and adaptation by organisms. Third, the interaction between pCO 2 and other parameters poised to change, such as temperature , concentration of nutrients and light, are essentially UNKNOWN. […]“
“It is not anticipated that oceanic primary production will be directly affected by these changes in carbonate chemistry because most primary producers use carbon concentrating mechanisms that rely on CO 2. Note, however, that primary production of some species is likely to be stimulated. […]”
“Note, however, that some calcifiers either do not show any response to increasing pCO 2 or exhibit a bell-shaped response curve with an optimum rate of calcification at pCO 2 values close to current ones and rates that decrease at pCO 2 values below and above the current values.”
2015.:
“WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR OCEAN ECOSYSTEMS?
The interaction of multiple drivers can amplify or alleviate each other’s effects. It is likely that marine organisms will experience a combination of warming, acidification and declining oxygen concentrations as well as regionally specific local stressors. This makes it difficult to predict the responses of individual species to multiple drivers, and species interactions make ecosystem- based projections challenging.”

(…)

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by coldish1

0
0

From my limited knowledge of ocean chemistry I had understood that surface ocean waters are generally depleted in ΣCO2 – total CO2 in all its dissolved forms – as compared with deeper levels of the oceans. This depletion is attributed to the photosynthetic activity of oceanic plankton (floating organisms). When these die their organic remains sink and are oxidised at deeper levels (>1km or so). This constant depletion of ΣCO2 in surface waters must be balanced by a net inflow of atmospheric CO2, otherwise the plankton would starve. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere humans are indirectly raising the generally depleted ΣCO2 content of surface ocean waters and thus making more CO2 available for photosynthesis. What in Dr Longhurst’s view is the net effect of these processes?

Comment on Heterodox Academy by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@cr: craig: Very unconvincing. Case dismissed. Next non problem please.

Not so much unconvincing, Tony, as delusional.

Loehle and Scafetta published “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data” in The Open Atmospheric Journal, 2011, 5, 74-86. Although they included 20-year and 60-year cycles in their model, which aren’t particularly controversial, the part of their model with the most relevance to temperature in 2100 was their representation of global warming as being piecewise linear with two pieces, with the break between the pieces being at 1942.

L&S’s rationale for linearity of the second piece was that climate after 1942 was increasing as the log of CO2, which they claimed was increasing at 1% per year between 1942 and 2100.

CO2 data from Law Dome up to 1960, the measurements at Mauna Loa since 1960, and the business-as-usual scenario of RCP8.5 from 2015 to 2100, together show that CO2 growth is not remotely like 1% per year except for a moment somewhere around 2050. Well before that it is increasing at much less than 1% a year, while well after it is much more. L&S’s piecewise linear model is based on a wildly inaccurate claim about increasing CO2 since 1942.

It is the warmists, esp the extreme ones, who don’t seem able to articulate the arguments against their views and simply state that anyone opposed to them must be paid by big oil, since there is in their mind no other explanation for the opposition.

On the contrary there is a very simple explanation: “their views”, in particular those of Loehle and Scafetta, are easily shown to be based on complete nonsense. Nothing to do with big oil.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by cerescokid

0
0

Thank you for your excellent book. It has been very informative.

I find it refreshing that someone with extensive knowledge about a subject, such as you obviously have demonstrated in this post, actually recognizes the unknowns. While not uncommon in other scientific fields, it seems to be a rarity in climate science.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Don Monfort

0
0

Maybe Langhorn’s opinion is way more informed than your own, Steven. He may have reasons to doubt, of which you are unaware. And doubting is not making a judgement. It’s just doubting. If you want to call it a judgement, suspending judgement is also a judgement. You seem to be stalking this guy, Steven. Why you mad at him?

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Geoff Sherrington

0
0

Re Dip my toe
You can impute several meanings to this, depending on your preconceptions.
Out of respect for the seniority of the author, who covers a wide range of topics, I can see a possibility that the sub-field has a large number of papers with a few of them being core. Read the core and you get the main gist.
A lot of scientists work this way, perhaps all of them.
Nothing to see here.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Geoff Sherrington

0
0

Steven,
You think that filling in cells with imaginary numbers in temperature sets a la Cowtan and Way is different somehow in logic?
Should not one suspend belief when no measurement exist?


Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by nhill

0
0

In Chapter 11 “Detection and Attribution”, Longhurst states:

The evidence concerning changing conditions in the past at decadal to millennial scales assures us that even if anthropogenic effects prove to be negligible, we can have great confidence that the climate of the 21st century will not resemble those of the 19th or 20th centuries. (pg 235)

I completely agree with this statement. We could bulldoze every single coal-burning power station today, and we could extract and sequester every anthropogenic molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere, but the climate will still change. There seems to be an implication that if humans would just stop emitting CO2 that the climate would somehow settle back into its “natural, static state” (i.e., the handle of the hockey stick). The sea level, the global temperature and general weather patterns are going to change no matter what we do. So there is a need to make policy to address adaptation. On the other hand, mitigation policies seem to be based on the assumption that “CO2 is climate and climate is CO2.” I’m not against mitigation, we should not be releasing CO2 if it is going to exacerbate or make worse the change that would occur anyway. But most mitigation seems to be based on a CO2 control-knob phantasy.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by john321s

0
0

Longhurst is very well acquainted with the complex conditions that exist in the real world, as opposed to the simplistic academic preconceptions of geophysical amateurs. That’s what makes him dangerous to BEST’s entire enterprise.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by AK

0
0
<blockquote>Notwithstanding whether or not co2 is causing harm It would be interesting to know just what damage we are doing with our basic policy of virtually everything we produce eventually ending up in the oceans via the river , from sewage to plastics, mineral waste to factory effluent with the third world now taking our place as we somewhat clean up our act to some extent.</blockquote>Set a problem to solve a problem: if we assume there are good reasons for the <b>net</b> human "emissions" (actually "flux") to go to zero, that means any long-term (century/millennium scale) sequestration of carbon is a <b>positive externality.</b> So why not gather all our waste up in big containers, with enough rocks to make it stay on the bottom, and dump it into some ocean trench with a good rate of sedimentation. It might be more expensive, especially at first, but each ton of carbon so sequestered counteracts a ton of fossil carbon burned and dumped into the system. There are probably <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/05/embracing-uncertainty-in-climate-change-policy/#comment-722926" rel="nofollow">ways</a> to handle the financial end.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by PA

0
0

We have doubled the CO2 emissions since 1977.

The current annual CO2 increase is around 2.1 PPM/Y instead of 1.7 PPM/Y.

If increasing emissions had a significant effect on the CO2 increase it would be about 3.4 PPM/Y.

500 PPM of atmospheric CO2 seems to be the practical limit before we run out of fuel, since the absorption is steadily increasing.

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Mark Silbert

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images