Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Next
Comments 96051 to 96100:
-
Ron Crouch at 08:51 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#149 Then Pielke truly contradicts himself if you will as he states in Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005. "Unless action is taken to address the growing concentration of people and properties in coastal areas where hurricanes strike, damage will increase, and by a great deal, as more and wealthier people increasingly inhabit these coastal locations." So by his own admission, damage will increase, and by a great deal, and if damage increases, then so does the trend. -
Meet The Denominator
john byatt - Well said. Rob Honeycutt - While I would agree that this contribution did act as a honeytrap, and brought PopTech online to flail about on his list of contradictory, poorly reviewed papers, I have to say that as a frequent visitor and occasional posting contributor to this site; it's not worth the hassle. The signal to noise ratio is far too low for my tastes - I would prefer that in the future similar posts be either more clearly targeted and more informative regarding individuals promoting "skeptic" views without support, or alternatively avoid calling such individuals out, and describing the weight of evidence and consensus without insulting particular people. Either way works - but the current topic is riding down the middle - calling out particular people without sufficient exposing of their faults. It's an enjoyable post, but again; the noise level here has been far too high. -
dana1981 at 08:12 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
I should also point out that Monckton has it backwards. As noted in the article, 'y' and 'z' are things like ocean acidification, other pollutants, dependence on foreign oil, etc. We basically get the advantage of addressing these other problems for free through carbon pricing. -
john byatt at 07:47 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." Through the Looking Glass. -
john byatt at 07:43 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
""When I use a word,"poptech said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said poptech "which is to be master - that's all." Through the Looking Glass. -
dana1981 at 07:33 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
For the sake of clarity I've revised the text in question to read "less than or equal to" instead of just "equal to". -
muoncounter at 07:32 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#146: "Here is a challenge... " Albatross, Since this should be about climate change science vs. Poptech science, I'd add one more item to your challenge: Count the number of non-scientific papers. Note that his definition of peer-reviewed starts with "scientific or scholarly writing or research" which should preclude such titles as: -- Ecological Science as a Creation Story -- Climate Policy: Quo Vadis? -- The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security -- An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers (from Iron and Steel Technology) Note too that many papers are behind paywalls. Without access (some don't even have accessible abstracts), who can say if the inclusion of a paper is really justified? -
JMurphy at 07:31 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Albatross, having read many threads on this little list, on many websites over the last year or so, I think you may find that the vast majority of the papers have already been looked at and shown to be not what anyone in the real world would take to be 'AGW Alarm' - whatever that actually means. Examples are Greenfyre and here (both of which have other links), and THE GUARDIAN, for a start. Once you start searching into Poptech and his little list, you see that he pops up everywhere, posting scores of the same old stuff. It makes me wonder whether he has time to do anything else all day ! Anyway, perhaps the best thing to do with such people is to not give them the legitimacy they are looking for - one's attention. Ignore him and he will wither away - all rational people can see his little list for the numbers game it attempts to be (albeit not very many numbers, especially after taking into account that none of them would conform to any definition of 'AGW Alarm' in the real world), and it is going the way (into obscurity) that all such desperate lists or petitions go. If it wasn't for all those who are going to his site to find out which papers he claims back-up his own beliefs, he would probably have very little traffic at all. Perhaps someone can get hold of the list and post it elsewhere, so we can all look at it without increasing his traffic ? -
dana1981 at 07:30 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
BillyJoe - you're quoting a different part than I'm referring to, which is this:It follows that adaptation to the consequences of “global warming” will get easier and cheaper the longer we wait: for then we will only have to adapt to the probably few and minor consequences that will eventually occur, and not until they occur, and only where and to the extent that they occur.
Basically Monckton is saying that adapting to consequence 'x' would be more efficient than reducing carbon, which might prevent consequence 'x' but also 'y' and 'z', while we might not even want or need to prevent 'y' or 'z'. So in Monckton world, adapting to 'x' is overall orders of magnitude cheaper than preventing 'x, y, z'. But this only holds true if adapting to 'x' has the same cost as preventing 'x', which it does not. My statement that you quote is talking about just the costs of preventing 'x' vs. adapting to 'x'. Monckton's entire argument refers to preventing 'x, y, z' vs. adapting to 'x'. Clear as mud, right? To make a long story short, the two statements are not equal, they're just referring to slightly different things. -
scaddenp at 07:28 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
To simply ignore the effects of solar, because it doesn't correlate well in the last 30 years seems unwise....particularly as it was solar irradiation fluctuations that took us in and out of the little Ice Ages.. Mozart, with this and other questions, you are inquiring about what is called attribution. You would do well do look at the IPCC WG1 Chp9 for the science in review. However, to get some idea about relative effects consider that solar change from pre-industrial is estimated at 0.12W/m2 whereas CO2 alone is estimated at 1.66W/m2 let alone other man-made gases. Also LIA has volcanic effects. Furthermore, while there was an LIA in Southern Hemisphere, it would appear to be not as cold. The mountain glacier features look very different.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] fixed open html link tag. -
scaddenp at 07:19 AM on 14 February 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
GISS record years are just artifacts due to homogenization and unjustified interpolation. Again, "Skeptical" Science does cherry picking and pickes the only dataset which shows any warming on this ENSO-neutral interval which is 1998-2010. As far as I can see, every statement in here is incorrect. If you are going to make a claim like this, then please present data to support it. This appears to be channelling of some pseudo-skeptic site (like other of your posts). Tell me, how many articles on such site would we have to refute before you realized that you were being suckered and stopped reading it? I'm curious. -
Henry justice at 07:00 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
Well, a 2 degree increase temperature change is very important for the corn growers of America. From the farmers, I understand that most of the entire corn crop of the U.S. would be lost. Too hot to pollinate. We would then be buying most of the corn from the Canadians. -
BillyJoe at 06:51 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Monckton: "Every serious economic analysis...has demonstrated that the costs of waiting and adapting to any adverse consequences that may arise from “global warming”...would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective than any Canute-like attempt to prevent any further “global warming” by taxing and regulating CO2 emissions." Dana: "Here Monckton is implicitly assuming that the cost of preventing consequences will be equal to the cost of adapting to consequences." How does "orders of magnitude cheaper" become "equal to"? -
JMurphy at 06:45 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech wrote : "It simply has to do with whether a paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic's arguments against AGW Alarm." Why does it appear so difficult for you to understand the simple fact that, as Pielke Jr has already told you (no, not in a private correspondence or email - why would he bother wasting his time telling you privately what he has told you publically ?), your little list supports only your definition of what a 'skeptic' is and what 'AGW Alarm' means. The list means nothing outside of that, apart from a number that the more credulous of so-called skeptics can use to try to claim that it is a lot. Try to see things as they are in the real world and in other people's minds. Try to come outside your bubble and understand that, just because you think you can self-determine what a particular word means, doesn't mean that it has any validation to anyone else. Try it. Poptech wrote : "I am entitled to the context of the words I use. What is amazing is you believe that a word with multiple definitions, that I use in my own context, must not mean what I say but what you want." I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. Is it that you determine the meaning of words and can use any meaning of any particular word (that has more than one meaning) as you see fit, and that everyone else in the real world then has to try to work out which meaning you are using in any particular moment ? That the context you have in your head (which is usually hidden from everyone else) should be evident to everyone else in the real world ? Hm, I have news for you - if you play with words and try to claim that their meaning is determined by yourself, you are being shifty, insincere, shallow and untrustworthy. Sorry. Poptech wrote : "Do you support Dr. Pielke's position on hurricanes? "My analysis of a long-term data set of hurricane losses in the United States shows no upward trend..." Roger Pielke Jr." As usual, we have the Poptech shuffle, where nothing is as it seems and words are used to suit the Poptech agenda. The rest of that quote (from 2005) is : ...once the data are normalized to remove the effects of societal changes. That was a response to a K. Emanuel paper, to which Emanuel also responded, but to which Pielke didn't again respond. Ultimately, Pielke's paper is not against 'AGW Alarm' (except in Poptech's version of 'AGW Alarm'), and Emanuel's response took into account Pielke's claims. No 'AGW Alarm' here...only in Poptech's world. -
Albatross at 06:32 AM on 14 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
johnd @28, "perhaps you need to go back and carefully read my post that you were replying to, in particular the second last paragraph, and you will see that my post was in fact a response to your comment "Yes, something very different is going on alright." " First, if you are going to speak to a particular point/sentence, please quote it in your reply at the beginning as I have done here. Second, what you claim in the quote above is not strictly true. You took spent a long time taking issue with the start and end dates and made insinuations of scientific malpractice against the authors. You do later say this: "Therefore before one can conclude that something very different is going on, other than some short term aberrations, one needs to consider if the beginning and ending points of the study were firstly moved back, say a nominal one decade, and then secondly moved forward one decade, would the same conclusions be reached. " The trends are statistically significant, which means that there is enough data to extract a statistically robust/significant signal. I again challenge you to demonstrate that moving the start and/or end dates refutes their conclusions-- anything else on your part is hand waving, speculation and void of science. and again I remind you that this work does not stand alone, but forms part of a much larger coherent body of evidence which shows that rainfall extremes around the globe (including Oz) are increasing. And Rob painting @36 makes an excellent point when he says (well when the research has demonstrated): "I do hope you understand that rainfall totals can fall in a region yet extreme rainfall events can increase." And it still appears to me that you are criticizing a paper which you have not even bothered reading (in full). Have you read the paper johnd? -
Rob Painting at 06:25 AM on 14 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Guiganbresil - I did a little reading up and quickly came to the the conclusion that much (i.e. all I saw) of the hype was unwarranted Ah, so therein lies your problem. A little reading?. You're going to have to expend more energy I'm afraid. The global oceans are acidifying not just upwelling regions. Seriously, did you not think that scientists studying this problem gloss over the obvious?. You're asserting that upwelling itself is somehow increasing the acidity of coastal regions over the last couple of centuries. How does your novel mechanism work?. Citations?. Note how the scientific studies on climate show consilience?. For example: Continued fossil fuel burning leads to increases in atmospheric CO2 which in turn leads to more dissolved into the oceans via Henry's Law.
Notice the the relationship here?.
-
Albatross at 06:19 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Skepticalscience readers, Here is a challenge that I hope someone with more time than I will follow though on: 1) Find out how may papers on the list are also cited in the IPCC reports. 2) As I mentioned in my previous post, papers which have been overturned/refuted in the literature are also still on the list-- find all the papers which have been refuted. 3) Find all the papers which are inconsistent with each other or contradict each other (e.g., papers saying it was warmer during previous interglacials or MWP, and others claiming that equilibrium climate sensitivity is low). If the skeptics want to overthrow the theory of AGW they need to present a cohesive, consistent and coherent picture, not one that includes a wide myriad of logical fallacies, contradictions and refuted science. -
les at 06:12 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
140 Ron Thanks. So not really a "typical" example of anything. I guess the rest Of the list is equally dubious? So: what Dana said. 2/10 to Mr PopTech; amusing, but could try harder. -
Albatross at 06:08 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Oh dear, not the infamous list again. I'm sure that the creationists have compiled similar lists in a (futile) attempt to challenge the theory of evolution. One hardly knows where to begin with the issues. First, the title does not make sense. what does the author mean by "skepticism"? Scientists are by their very nature skeptical; and the author seems to be confusing "uncertainty" with the actual meaning of "scepticism". Why is "man-made" in quotation marks? That is usually done to imply that something is not real, when AGW is in fact an established theory, some might even go so far as to argue it is a "fact". And it is not sure what the term "alarm" is meant to convey, is it pejorative, or is it a claim that the impacts of AGW will not be "alarming"? Moreover, there is clearly a mismatch between the papers cited to support the title. There are also gross contradictions in the list-- some papers like G&T09 which essentially deny the existence of the greenhouse effect, others which deny it is warming, others which say it is warming but that that the warming is caused by natural cycles, others which claim that the warming is there but that is is nothing compared to the warming observe din previous interglacials, others which attribute the warming to the sun (an external driver)...I could not compile a more incoherent, contradictory potpourri of papers if I tried. There are also some beautiful examples of how the list has some serious issues and not to mention the numerous examples of own goals. An example of an own goal is citing a debunked paper like G&T09-- a fundamentally flawed paper which has been soundly refuted in the literature. Including such a fatally flawed paper (which is wrong) is not a reason to be sceptical of AGW, in fact it is a reason to be skeptical of the sub-par "science" undertaken by so-called "skeptics" contrarians and deniers of AGW. In fact, all those papers written by "skeptics" which have been overturned in the scientific literature (and there are quite a few) should be removed from the list. I could go on, but this really is like shooting fish in a barrel.... -
dana1981 at 06:03 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Ultimately the problem with lists like Poptech and the Oregon Petition is that they don't apply any filters. Poptech's response is that people can look at his list and evaluate the papers themselves. The problem is that when your list is 850 papers long, that becomes completely impractical. The length of the list is a detriment. If, for example, it filtered out garbage papers like those published in E&E, and categorized them by exactly what areas the papers are examining, it would be feasible to get something useful from the list. But as it is, it's just a list of every paper Poptech can find that he thinks are skeptical of AGW "alarm". It's pure quantity over quality, and the only thing anybody can get out of it is the number 850. And considering that the 850 includes garbage like EG Beck's paper, the number itself is utterly meaningless. So if all that can be gleaned from the list is the number 850, it's an entirely valid argument to point out that compared to the total number of scientific papers on the subject, 850 is a drop in the bucket. And it is. Poptech, you've clearly put a lot of time into compiling this list. I would suggest that your time would be better used applying some filters and organization than continuing to add quantity rather than quality. -
dhogaza at 05:58 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Nothing discredits poptech more thoroughly than dozens of posts by poptech himself. Nice honeytrap you've written, Rob! -
Ron Crouch at 05:38 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I represent that general population Philippe and I certainly don't swallow anything, I don't care what it is. It all deserves closer inspection. So I do as my mother taught me to do except I've changed the wording slightly to suit the modern age. I believe nothing of what I hear and only half of what I read. You could put fifteen pages of citations, appointments, etc. etc. to a persons name and I say, yeah, so what, the person is human and therefore fallible. I don't do science and these lists are meaningless to me, so I too have no reason to believe that anyone doing real science would care either. The world is no longer full of ignorant uneducated savages, yet there is always some predator waiting in the wings to prey upon sentiment. -
Ron Crouch at 05:08 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Yes Les Roger A. Pielke, Jr. is your man. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:55 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Rob, the general population will swallow just about anything anyway. The truth is that both the OISM list and PT list of papers are sad attempts at creating doubt about the general state of the scientific knowledge when there is no such doubt. Neither one of these things deserves any attention from one actually trying to understand the science. The only reason why they are attracting so much attention is because they are given such resonance by blogs and people in the press trying to spread doubt. Is there anyone out there doing science who gives a hoot about these stupid lists? Please... -
John Hartz at 04:52 AM on 14 February 2011Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Gareth: Kudos on a great article! Please make it more SkS user friendly by adding "Related Articles" and "Further Reading" tabs. -
John Hartz at 04:47 AM on 14 February 2011IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period
Dana; Kudos on a great article! Please make your post more SkS user friendly by adding "Related Articles" and "Recommneded Reading" tabs. -
les at 04:46 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Could some please help me regarding Do you support Dr. Pielke's position on hurricanes? I'm not families with him... Is this Policy wonk our man? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr. Who posted this? http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/02/quote-clarification.html If so, this can't possibly be a good example of an unambiguous anti or pro anythin person??? Thanks for clarrificstion. -
michael sweet at 04:24 AM on 14 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
guinganbresil: Although I like Sigourny Weaver as an actress, I do not value her scientific reputation. If you use the search box in the upper corner and search "ocean acidification" you will find about 20 threads on this site that will fill you in on this issue. I like here and here for starters. If you inform yourself about the science you will be able to put together an argument that others might listen to. When your primary scientific reference says that ocean acidification is a severe problem and you hand wave their conclusion off it is not a very good argument. These professionals have measured a change in pH in an important location for fisheries. This is a big problem. What data do you have that they are wrong? If this was not an important issue the PNAS would not publish their paper. An amateur saying professionals are obviously wrong does not get very far. -
muoncounter at 04:14 AM on 14 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
#3: "measurement of pH in coastal surface waters is essentially measuring the effect of wind patterns on upwelling, not the effect of rising atmospheric CO2." Rising atmospheric CO2 seems to be making an impact in more than just coastal waters:
See prior ocean acidification threads; here's one for starters.
See also McNeil and Matear 2008
Southern Ocean acidification via anthropogenic CO2 uptake is expected to be detrimental to multiple calcifying plankton species by lowering the concentration of carbonate ion (CO32−) to levels where calcium carbonate (both aragonite and calcite) shells begin to dissolve.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:09 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I think people too often dismiss the impact that PopTech's 850 papers site has. People locate that site and swallow the premise hook, line and sinker. The general audience doesn't think about it. That's why this simple method of applying the denominator is important. It's an easy concept to grasp and puts such numbers in proper perspective. This method of applying the denominator is a great way for the general public to apply true skepticism. -
Ron Crouch at 04:01 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
In case you haven't heard I'm no scientist, nor do I have any affiliation with any research into the matter Poptech. But I do read a lot. Now I'm going to be very generous and whittle the searches I've made on Google Scholar and limit it to 35,200. That would give you a representative figure of 2.4%. That gives your argument far less validity than the IPCC claim of 95% certainty in my eyes. That means to me that there are a further 2.6% that are undecided or abstain from leaning one way or the other. A 95% certainty is good enough odds for this average Joe. So if you think that the average person these days is gullible enough to buy your nonsense, think again. Learn to be constructive or get out of the kitchen. -
Paul D at 03:58 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: "No, I am only obsessed with correcting misinformation about my work." What work? From what I see, you are leeching. -
Stu at 03:58 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
'Stu, "We get it. Poptech has attempted to justify the unjustifiable and has not succeeded."' ^ I didn't say that. "That is not peer-reviewed." What's your point? I never claimed that it was. FWIW, its reference material is: http://www.springerlink.com/content/36w570322514n204/ I said: "Face it: your list contains bad science as measured by the objective position of whether it is demonstrably correct or not." You said: "Incorrect." Wow, crushing argument. Let's leave aside the fact that you've previously acknowledged that there are some papers in the list that, if correct, mean that others in the list are incorrect (i.e, that you have refuted yourself). The above statement seems to suggest that you are in agreement with C&K when they say: "Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate." which is a demonstrably false statement because they neglected the time over which those emissions happened. And if you can't see that, there's no helping you. "Do you support Dr. Pielke's position on hurricanes?" Sure, I think he's right. Data is data. But he was also right when he said: 'the title of your post is: "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category' So perhaps it's more about your sloppiness than anything else ;-) -
Newcomers, Start Here
stephenwv - The ice cores are taken from glacial and continental ice sheets, as floating ice doesn't tend to have been consistently present for tens or hundreds of thousands of years; a requirement when establishing a time-line. See the wiki Ice core page, also for related published work see the NOAA page on this. Ice cores trap tiny bubbles (I considered a Don Ho reference here...) of atmospheric gases as they form and compact (compact due to accumulating snow on top of them). Depending on the rate of snow accumulation at that spot the bubbles represent a few 10's to perhaps 100's of years sample (depending on the core site). Analysis of relative oxygen isotopes indicate local temperatures, amounts of CO2 show atmospheric concentrations, beryllium-10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity, which can be used as a solar activity proxy, dust is an indicator of volcanic activity, and so on. Note, however, that whatever gases melting ice releases (a very very small amount) is of the relative concentrations from when it formed. That means the CO2 concentration in such released melts is lower in CO2 (190-290ppm) than in the present atmosphere (395ppm). -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:48 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... "Fascinating how everyone avoids the Pielke question." If you are going to use one statement from one scientist in one paper as a method to validate your entire invalid list, yes, we have reason to avoid the question. -
dana1981 at 03:38 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Eric in comment 117 made a good point. The problem with the Poptech list is that as designed, it's essentially worthless. Nobody has the time to look through 850 papers, so all that can be gleamed from the list is the number 850. But aside from the subjectivity of the list ("alarm"), it also contains known garbage like E&E papers, including EG Beck's nonsense. That a a paper is "peer-reviewed" by some definition of the word doesn't necessarily mean there is any worth to it. Now, if the list were at least categorized as in Eric's suggestion, something useful could come out of it. We could skip over the Beck-style garbage and look just at papers about hurricanes, for example. But just as a list, all Poptech gives us is an utterly meaningless number, which is exactly how "skeptics" use the list - as nothing more than a number. So Rob's treatment of the list as such in The Denominator is perfectly valid. You can complain about his methods, and we can complain about Poptech's. Bottom line, Poptech's list doesn't tell us anything worthwhile. I also urge everyone to remember the list purports to contain skepticism of AGW alarm, not AGW. Some comments are making this mistake. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:37 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I have to say, I find PopTech to be a fascinating individual. The metal contortionism he's willing to go through to defend an ultimately indefensible position is nothing short of astounding. -
stephenwv at 03:13 AM on 14 February 2011It's a natural cycle
Certainly forcing produce multiple reactions. 2 reactions that I have not seen integrated into the CO2 mix, are the absorption of CO2 due to increased acidification, which seems to be accelerating. Coral and shells dissolve more rapidly as acidification increases, which allows for increased CO2 absorption. Also CO2 release into the atmosphere, from the ocean, decreases as the thermohaline circulation slows due to continued warming. There have been precious few, if any studies done on these CO2 reducing reactions, and incorporated into the CO2/AGW puzzle. This is one of the few references I have found to either. Harvard Magazine - Nov 2002 - The Ocean Carbon CycleModerator Response: See the post "PMEL Carbon Program." -
guinganbresil at 03:13 AM on 14 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
When I first heard about 'Ocean Acidification' I did a little reading up and quickly came to the the conclusion that much (i.e. all I saw) of the hype was unwarranted. I found that the pH of the ocean water starts dropping (see Fig 3.) when you descend past the biologically active layer (~pH 8.1), and reaches a minimum of around pH 7.6 at around 800 meters. I did not see this important fact mentioned on the PMEL website. Near the coasts, this deep water upwells and mixes with the surface water, lowering its pH and bringing vital nutrients to the surface. The rate of upwelling is a function of the direction of coastal winds. So, in other words, measurement of pH in coastal surface waters is essentially measuring the effect of wind patterns on upwelling, not the effect of rising atmospheric CO2.
As far as the impact of surface pH on ocean organisms, I found that the most alarming research (thin shells etc.) was done in areas of known upwelling. It is clear that living organisms will spread and populate the very edges of their tolerance - shellfish will live in low pH water that dissolves their shells IF there are sufficient nutrients to support them. Finding examples of critters at the edge of their tolerance is just a matter of selecting the right critter and the right locale.
I am concerned that the PMEL website is showing a lack of objectivity when it repeatedly focuses on anthropogenic nature of ocean carbon cycle changes (in the mission statements) when there are large natural variations that should also be studied to gain a true understanding of the ocean dynamics.
-
muoncounter at 02:53 AM on 14 February 2011Ocean acidification isn't serious
#56: "increased absorption of CO2 resulting from the dissolving of the calcitrate" Try searching "carbonate compensation depth climate change" in Google Scholar; 8000+ results.Moderator Response: Stephenwv, in the Search field on this page, type PMEL Carbon Cycle. -
Bibliovermis at 02:44 AM on 14 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
#114 It is correct to state that the Vostok ice core samples were not created directly from salty ocean water. The Vostok station is located in the center of the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, hundreds of miles from the ocean. I apologize for not providing any supporting links as this is being tapped out from my phone, which does not support copy & paste. -
Stu at 02:31 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"What is "bad" science is subjective." This is about as untrue as a statement can get. Science that is demonstrably incorrect is bad science. That's entirely objective. Right here is a brief blog post (with references), perhaps one you've seen before, that describes concisely why Khilyuk & Chilingar (2006) is wrong, by my objective definition above. Face it: your list contains bad science as measured by the objective position of whether it is demonstrably correct or not. -
RickG at 02:30 AM on 14 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
stephenev, The ice cores are from glaciers not frozen seawater. -
stephenwv at 02:26 AM on 14 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
#112 Prior to finding the reference of CO2 in ice core samples I had only heard there was no CO2 in ice. Recently I read that when ocean water freezes, there are pockets of unfrozen water that is trapped. This is supposed to allow concentrations of salt to form as the remaining water freezes. This suggests that the small amounts of CO2 present in the water would also be trapped. Do you have a link that would address any of this and the miniscule amounts involved that you state exist in the core samples. Am I correct that these ice core samples are not created directly from salty ocean water? -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 02:13 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Is it time to close off this thread? Poptech has been given enough rope and has used it well to hang himself several times over. We get it. Poptech has attempted to justify the unjustifiable and has not succeeded. Rob's post was worthwhile, drawing out Poptech to demonstrate just how worthless his list is (as demonstrated by the fact that almost no-one uses it anymore in trying to convince people to their odd beliefs). And no-one from the Oregon Petition fraud has even bothered to comment. Probably because the fraud has already been well and truly exposed for what it is. -
Stu at 02:10 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Mod, an unsnipped duplicate version of my post is still here. Did I accidentally re-submit it? Anyway, the snip makes it look like I've been very naughty. Readers, try and guess what word I used ;-)Moderator Response: [DB] It was only 1 word (the toe went over the line). Very naughty & the whole comment would've been disappeared. :) -
stephenwv at 02:03 AM on 14 February 2011Ocean acidification isn't serious
I am unable to find studies that address the increased absorption of CO2 resulting from the dissolving of the calcitrate in shells and coral due to increased acidification. Funding for such CO2 absorbing studies must not be available. Here is one of the only references I can find. Harvard Magazine - The Ocean Carbon Cycle - Nov 2002 -
muoncounter at 02:00 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#116: "an instance serving for illustration" If you had included the last word in that sentence ('specimen') in your cut and paste, you would have the correct context. What you provided was neither an instance nor a specimen, but an illustration. You made it up to make a point, something the deniersphere seems to do quite frequently. If you cite 'illustration' as 'example,' it is evident that you draw no distinction between fact and fiction. Further commentary is pointless. -
RickG at 02:00 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech reminds me of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. -
Stu at 01:58 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"What is considered a "legitimate concern" is subjective. This is the problem with many of the arguments here, they are in the context of the author's personal opinion which may not relate to someone else." Granted*, but by your definition a paper that concludes 'in a certain region crop yields fall in warmer years' is alarmist - even if it's based on observations rather than projecitons. But how can it be alarmist if it merely states this and makes no policy recommendations? *By the way, in my opinion your opinion is ( - tiny snip- ).Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Let's take the high road, Stu. There are ways to say what you said that do not violate the Comments Policy.
Prev 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Next
