I looked up “acidification” on Wikipedia and found a link to “soil acidification.” I wonder what why those soil scientists are trying to scare everyone with such an alarmist term?
Comment on Open thread by Joseph
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo
Ask “me”. He’s the one who pointed it out.
If Tol doesn’t have it removed…
Even Michael Mann faux gold medalist removed his.
I posted congrats to Richard in the climate audit thread you were commenting on.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo
‘nother one on a different university page
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/economics/people/peoplelists/person/289812
“shared winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007″
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo
he tweeted that he isn’t a Nobelist
“I did not win the Nobel Peace Prize http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf … but who believes the IPCC anymore these days?”
so maybe he just needs to be told to look at his university pages
↧
Comment on Open thread by mosomoso
Why would they talk of soil acidification, I wonder? Mmmm…
Because some soil is acid, acidic or acidified….unlike the ocean?
Not that ocean pH, like temp, doesn’t go up and down. Weird claims from models aside…surface sea mildly basic, blurry average around 8.1? Varying maybe 0.3, from place to place and time to time?
I’m sure that, wherever and whenever the pH is down rather than up, our climatariat will be right on the case. It’s what they do.
Have no fear. If they start to get higher readings from somewhere, I promise not to write a book called Our Caustic Oceans.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo
I apologize for my remark about Tol.
I guess that he doesn’t know what the university pages say.
↧
Comment on Open thread by rmdobservations
Ivan,
I was alarmed by this news until I read this article on Real Climate which discusses the scale of the measurements:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/how-much-methane-came-out-of-that-hole-in-siberia/
Rose
↧
Comment on Open thread by angech
JCH heat is the cause of the positive AMO , not the AMO causing heat. Why that area, who knows. Cold is the cause of the Antarctic record extents again why is it so cold down South, no one knows.
The ONI is only part of the equation, If the Antarctic and Arctic freeze up even more for the rest of the year we could equally see a result of 2014 not making the top 10.
Currently I think it is 5th or 6th on most scales and unlikely to move up to challenge 1st place and slightly more likely to drop down a couple of notches.
The pause thickens.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by knr
Excellent, has in Plate tectonics, the cause of stomach ulcers, the acceptance and promotion of eugenics and the consensus view that vaccination where worthless and that miasma theory explained epidemics ?
Pick an area of science and you will find that ‘consensus’ can be well held and much supported and still find to be dead wrong over time . Of course for some climate ‘science’ is more of a religion where errors are ‘impossible’ therefore no matter how much actual evdainced undermines the ‘consensus’ ,so blind and unquestioning is seen as it can never be wrong.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Nick Stokes
<i>AK | August 16, 2014 at 11:04 am </i>
OK, thanks for doing that. So your claim is
<i>"specifically alleges this investigation ‘exonerated’ him when Mann was outside its remit."</i>
and I look at your quote and say where? It seems like a straightforward statement of the facts.
So OK, I've heard this before, and so I suspect you will say, following Steve Mc, the lie is <i>"concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”"</i>
But that doesn't specifically mention Mann at all. It simply says "the scientists". So your claim is just dishonest. Since it isn't specific, it's a matter of interpretation as to what 'scientists' are referred to. The previous reference to something involving scientists is earlier in the para:
<i>"assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice"</i>
So the natural interpretation to other than a dishonest person looking for "lies" is that the statement refers to CRU scientists. And that is just how the judge interpreted it. She <a href="http://dcslapplaw.com/files/2013/07/Mann_National_review_opinion.pdf" rel="nofollow"> paraphrased it thus:</a>
<i>“The investigators concluded that the “’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,””</i> (p 2)
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by climatereason
Nick
Look forward to your reply to my 5.42 that demonstrates the global accuracy for a year round historic global temperature of dendro.
I have taken considerable efforts to understand this subject but can not see that it can do what is claimed, other than detecting the moisture in the immediate micro climate and general age of the tree through its rings
tonyb
↧
Comment on Open thread by wrhoward
David Appell: “The ocean is acidifying. So why not use that term?”
This is a perfectly appropriate usage.
“Acidification” simply means an increase in [H+]. You all remember from high school chemistry that the pH scale is defined as -log10[H+]
So an decrease in pH from one level to another, at any point along the scale, is “acidification.”
It’s a bit like saying “the ocean is cooling.” This may describe a trend or process, not a state. The ocean may go from 28C to 25C, so it has “cooled.” But is it “cold?” Depends what you define as “cold.”
This is a common problem – confusing a process (addition of acid) with a threshold “state” (pH of 7).
The ocean, even under the most extreme estimates of future emissions trajectories, is highly unlikely to reach a pH of less than 7. It will acidify, but not be “acid,” if that makes sense to you.
But many of the biological and geochemical shifts we anticipate are likely to kick in at well above that pH of 7. This is one of important insights of the work of experiments like those of Chris Langdon, Jean-Pierre Gatusso, Jelle Bijma, and others.
Again I have to stress describing phenomena, and understanding the underlying processes is not the same as making the value judgement that they’re “good” or “bad,” much less “catastrophic.” I think a lot of commentary gets hung up on words like “catastrophic”, “dangerous”, “threat.”
That’s a discussion that I think should be separated from “what’s happening and what’s causing it?”
↧
Comment on Open thread by angech
Rob could do this better but
We were on track for an El Nino this year, 3 consecutive overlapping 3 month series >0.5 but it fizzled. So no El Niño this year at the moment.
The odds on an El Niño occurring starting in the next 4 months at 50% is a bit of a swizz by the bureau of meteorology.
The ONI is currently 0.25 degrees above the mean. The Bureau of Meteorology converts that into a 50% chance of an El Niño in the next 4 months. We have had 5 such levels in the last 5 years and none of them turned into an El Niño.
The April 2010 level was in an El Niño that was settling down.
We have had 15 or 16 -0.25 events in that time which would predict a 50% chance of a La Niña in the following 4 months and only had 2.
The Bureau seriously needs to adjust its algorithm as the odds 2 out of 20 strongly suggest it is only a 10 % chance of developing an El Niño at 0.25 positive anomaly but that is alarmism and the need to over report risk to make a living for you.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by mosomoso
“Acidification” simply means an increase in [H+].”
Of course it does. Just drop a spoonful of bicarb into a vat of hydrochloric and you’ve acidified it.
“Acidification” is also an example of “science communication”. Science communicators study ocean acidification. Scientists (remember those old guys?) study ocean pH.
↧
Comment on Open thread by wrhoward
mosomoso “Long term study of ocean pH – free of the computer based religious hysteria called, mystifyingly, climate science – would be mighty handy”
Here are three recent studies that come to mind just off the top of my head.
You’re welcome.
Dore, J. E., R. Lukas, D. W. Sadler, M. J. Church, and D. M. Karl (2009), Physical and biogeochemical modulation of ocean acidification in the central North Pacific, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30), 12235-12240, doi:10.1073/pnas.0906044106.
“We document a significant long-term decreasing trend of -0.0019 ± 0.0002 y-1 in surface pH, which is indistinguishable from the rate of acidification expected from equilibration with the atmosphere. Superimposed upon this trend is a strong seasonal pH cycle driven by temperature, mixing, and net photosynthetic CO assimilation. We also observe substantial interannual variability in surface pH, influenced by climate-induced fluctuations in upper ocean stability.”
Olafsson, J., S. R. Olafsdottir, A. Benoit-Cattin, M. Danielsen, T. S. Arnarson, and T. Takahashi (2009), Rate of Iceland Sea acidification from time series measurements, Biogeosciences, 6(3), 2661–2668
“surface pH in winter decreases at a rate of 0.0024 yr−1, which is 50% faster than average yearly rates at two subtropical time series stations, BATS and ESTOC.”
Midorikawa, T., H. Y. Inoue, M. Ishii, D. Sasano, N. Kosugi, G. Hashida, S.-i. Nakaoka, and T. Suzuki (2012), Decreasing pH trend estimated from 35-year time series of carbonate parameters in the Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean in summer, Deep Sea Res. Part I, 61, 131-139, doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2011.12.003.
“mean rates of pH decrease over the 35-year period were 0.0011 to 0.0013 yr−1 in the zones north of the Polar Front and were larger in the polar zone (0.0020 yr−1)”
↧
Comment on Open thread by mosomoso
Yes, I knew a few people were taking an interest in ocean pH, some even for reasons of scientific curiosity. Let’s hope that Publish-or-Perish and the dictates of the climatariat don’t hold them back. I dare say after many decades of observation they’ll know a little bit. Of course, in the Age of Hockeystick, they’ll have to be careful what they observe.
↧
Comment on Open thread by wrhoward
mosomoso “Just drop a spoonful of bicarb into a vat of hydrochloric and you’ve acidified it.”
The bicarb would tend to neutralise the acid, not “acidify” it. “bicarb” or bicarbonate ( HCO3- ) is what known as “amphoprotic.” Can accept or donate a proton.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Nick Stokes
<i>climatereason | August 17, 2014 at 5:19 am |
"Look forward to your reply to my 5.42"</i>
Sorry, Tony, I referred you to the literature. Dendroclimatology is a major scientific enterprise with many papers and textbooks. If those can't convince you, I doubt that my limited expertise will succeed.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Brandon Shollenberger
thisisnotgoodtogo, no problem. I had the same reaction as you when I saw that page. I then looked for a quote from Richard Tol so I had something more direct to pin on him. When I didn’t find one, I started to reconsider. I then saw a couple comments from him (including that one on Twitter) where he seemed to go against the interpretation Michael Mann had used. That made me uncertain how to interpret things so I decided to ask.
To be clear though, I don’t think Tol can get off scot-free. When searching for quotes from him, I’ve seen him reference that same CV, even in direct response to people who had quoted the line in question. He may not have written the line, but I think he deserves some criticism for it. Either he’s aware of it and hasn’t tried to correct it, or he’s ambivalent enough to the matter to remain ignorant.
Willful ignorance may be better than outright dishonesty, but that doesn’t make it a good trait.
↧
Comment on Open thread by wrhoward
Going back to Murry Salby. Did he ever publish that idea about the carbon cycle?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
