Plausable but irrelevant
"Tiny changes in the earth's cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees...."
It's not really an argument, because we would still have the major issue of sea water acidification to deal with, and that my friends is caused by carbon emissions.
The oceans are not acidic, and never have been.
The oceans are not becoming acidic.
The pH value appears changes, but nothing like acidification is taking place.
So, folks, just keep swimming in the ocean, you won't dissolve, and neither will the shellfish
You've earned your name
Except slightly warmer (2C) air doesn't acidify anything.
Coral reefs thrive in warmer temperatures:
Corals rebound from bleaching in a few years:
Oceans report cobbled together by eco PRs:
10x CO2 level doesn't harm sea life:
You can always spot the Moonbat readers, they foam at the mouth telling us the world is ending. Then the facts come out.
In my marine aquarium, if the pH changes just a couple of points, the coral growth is retarded, if it stays that way for long the corals die.
nag nag nag nag - ok here's a title
the screamed about changes to the sea are somewhat less (by an order of magnitude) then normal aquarium ph indicators can resolve.
The oceans are alkaline. They will remain alkaline even if we continue burn fuel to make cheap energy.
And you are aware of course that rain is naturally acidic ?
re: You've earned your name → #
I can also post links I guess that will tell you Jim Morrison is alive, God created the world in seven days, sex with children is really quite OK and that men never landed on the mood. The list is endless.
The evidence for the anthropological effect on CO2 level is absolutely insurmountable. CO2 levels can be measured in Antarctic ice over thousands of years, To argue against it and call it an 'hypothesis' like the article writer did is no different than the creationists calling Darwin's work a 'theory' in some hope of debasing it by using terms that most non scientific people do not understand.
There are other factors. There have been regional warm ups and even cool downs over the time we are able to measure, no one disputes that. Ccosmic rays, sun spots etc. do play their role as well, no one disputes that. The influence that mankind has, is however the one part we can control, should we wish to.
This is not political correctness, the scientist in question is simply pointing out that some people will be quick to misuse such research so 'be careful'.
The acidification isn't caused by the warming, but by dissolved CO2. Anything sea organism that makes calcium carbonate shells or skeletal structures exposed to the seawater is vulnerable to the excess acidity as it leaches calcium from their shells.
Yes, but thats not the point.
There is no argument against the increase of CO2 emissions caused by man. But that is one thing and another is to be 100% sure that THAT will cause "climate change". Remember how this started as "global warming"? It started as such because the consensus was that the increased CO2 emissions would cause (and were causing) the average temperature of the planet to increase, or so the models showed. Thing is the models where wrong, avg temp is nor increasing, so now they are spinning it as "well, is not really that we are getting hotter, is just that THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING".
Earths climate is always changing, the Egyptians new a much more greener land that today just to cite an important local variation in human recorded history, and it will keep changing. we will get another ice age and another very warm age but it is very unlikely that will be in our lifetime or that of the next few generations. The sea level will go up and down, rain will stop in some places and start in others, is inevitable. We should focus our energy (pun bloody intended) in developing the food production techniques that will allow humanity as the global culture that is today to survive.
pls explain 1000 - 1200 warm period
Whilst "The evidence for the anthropological effect on CO2 level is absolutely insurmountable" is perhaps true - That this is the holy grail to explain climate change (particularly the warming brigade) is clearly nonsense.
See title and explain using current IPCC models......
..except we should be at the end of the current ice age and moving into a temperate age. That should be happening... well... now. As in this very minute. Or maybe this year. Or next. Or the year after or in the next ten years, or a hundred, or perhaps a thousand. It's not that exact a science.
Go look it up: There are plenty of text books out there that will give you the details. What's more: We (well, environmental scientists at least) have been predicting this for... well... since the Victorians. It's not new, it's old news, so no one really cares.
"The evidence for the anthropological effect on CO2 level is absolutely insurmountable. "
If that was true, there wouldn't be a problem. CO2 and temperatures are now out of phase and the climate sensitivity is hugely contentious.
Banding insults like "creationists" about doesn't really help your cause.
When your aquarium water ph changes, it is usually caused by too much nutrients dissolved in it. Massive nutrient and chemical runoff from cities and modern agriculture are the cause of problems for coral reefs, not some cow farting. Blame co2, pay co2 taxes to UN and coral reefs and shelled organisms will still be in trouble. World dominating chemical agrar companies are quit tight with global government. NO plans to stop destroying the oceans and the vital soil on land. The chemical substances put in almost every product consumed or used by humans in any way come from these companies.
Almost all of this ends up in the oceans along with wasted soil nutrients and human manure. Just have a look at chinas eatern coast. Algeas like other plants thrive on co2, but it is still the runoff nutrients and chemicals that are the real cause behind the excess growth of algea -- the algea then deprive the sea of oxygen, and there you have it = Deadzone in the sea . Just like in your aquarium. A lot of people get cause and consequences mixed up these days. Seems like co2 tax promoting agents are desperate to claim this so called "sea accidification" as a last stand to bring in massive taxations of the human breath.
re: Posted Monday 18th July 2011 14:23 GMT
I think that's a misunderstanding of terminology. "Acidification" isn't crazy melting, Wizard of Oz stuff. It's a change in ph.
Terminator because of the bit at the end of Terminator 2.
During the meanwhile ...
As we enter a Maunder Minimum, shall I book tickets for a Frost Fair on the Thames in 2030ish? Or is the concept so politically adrift as to be ... well, "ignored" would be a good word ;-)
Re: During the meanwhile ...
If you're so confident of cooling, as a few people seem to be, why not get into various futures that would appreciate if cooling were to occur? Put your money where your mouth is!
Because the warmists would pull the same sorts of political strings
to bust those investments that the SEC pulled when they deemed silver to have exceeded it's "proper" trading range vis-a-vie gold.
We are not entering a Maunder Minimum. Lewis Page says so, but the scientists he refers to do not say that. It's wild speculation.
Whist the original person predicting the solar minimum which may or may not be happening at the moment was an astrologer, and probably doesn't qualify as a 'boffin' by the registers stringent policies, at least his theories cover more of "observable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable, reproducible" than modern climate science.
as an amateur astronomer, with a long log of sunspot counts, I am seeing a very quiet sun in the last few years. The last minimum was very deep, and much too long, the current maximum is occasionally throwing up fireworks, but I have also seen some very quiet periods, unlike anything I got in the late 1970s, early 1980s when I started observing.
The current low activity may be a glitch, but it seems to be part of a trend. We may well be in for a prolonged period of low activity, which could be similar to the Maunder minimum.
Pity for those who invest heavily in a hydrogen alpha filter for their scope if it is true, because the fireworks they will get to see with this expensive kit may be less than hoped for.
Re: Because the warmists would pull the same sorts of political strings
"to bust those investments that the SEC pulled when they deemed silver to have exceeded it's "proper" trading range vis-a-vie gold."
Absolute nonsense! You're saying that the SEC and "warmists" would kick out instruments across the breadth of the financial spectrum. Just pick some kind of commodity future that would benefit from a warmer planet, or just go into insurance and take bets on catastrophic weather events caused by climate change that you won't think will become more frequent or more severe (but where you'll probably be able to increase the cost of coverage because everybody is anticipating that they will be both of those things). No-one is going to gut either of these things because it would undermine the financial sector completely.
All this "warmist" conspiracy stuff is nonsense, especially when measured up against the established financial practices that supposedly regulate the economy and that have had fierce scrutiny in recent times and yet withstood such scrutiny. You could argue that policy-makers and regulators are showing a soft touch, but this only makes the "SEC and warmists seized my assets" outcome even more remote.
Erm, Hockey Stick.......
Does "Hockey Stick" indicate a new Reg measurement value? Temperature over time in hockey sticks?
Are CERN taking on any others? Sheep in a vaccum perhaps?
Here's one Graph
And here is another,
They look similar but you shouldn't draw any conclusions. Because politically, it's inadvisable to say that they are similar and I'm certainly telling the press that you can't say ANYTHING about the two similar graphs stacked one on top of the other..
Actually, I work both sides ... A large portion of my portfolio is in GSHP technology ;-)
But I honestly think that human-caused global warming is a mass-media induced hysteria at best, and mass hubris at worst. I could be wrong. It's been known to happen. I'm only human.
their money is politically sourced, entering into such a politically controversial arena would certainly be a but stupid, if not suicidal.
After all, it is not as if their research has much to sell is it ?
Could be good not to draw conclusions
Can we really afford to be wrong on this? the risks of assuming one factor is outweighs other factors at this stage are too high in my opinion. better safe than sorry
But more importantly
there's two other reasons why not to draw conclusions:
1. Staying away from the political fracus should prevent the desire for CERN funding reviews by those holding the purse strings.
2. Scientists still don't have nearly enough information to draw any significant conclusion on the causality of climate change, which seems like if they don't want to "jump the gun" on the current results fearing a) that the current situation with human influence has been overstated; b) that additional research may come along to contradict or further shift the current climate change theories.
Setting aside any argument for or against human climate impact, I think the latter is just as scary from a scientific standpoint. The whole debate seems to be more like research performed using a Magic 8-ball, where every time they look into the situation then they get a different result. Certainly makes things seem less scientific, though the general populous doesn't see all the details (nor would most of us want to).
You've got that wrong
It's not that they want people to consider this evidence over all other evidence - it's that they want people to consider it at all. The IPCC sure don't!
@Greg J Preece
"It's not that they want people to consider this evidence over all other evidence - it's that they want people to consider it at all."
With respect to 'evidence' - you do understand that there is no question of suppression of data at all here, don't you ?
Can we really afford to be wrong on this?
Yeah. It would awful if we made the world a better place, for no reason at all.
Your idea of "a better place" isn't one shared by most normal people.
We prefer to be richer, not poorer. We prefer a modern scientific civilisation, not a medieval superstitious one. We prefer a consumer driven society, in spite of all the crap it produces. We prefer freedom to pointless regulation and carbon controls.
Now be a good lad, strum, and go and rub two sticks together: there's a fire needs a'lightin' !
On the far side of things.
In other words this could be part of the Project Blue beam effiort.
Basically what this is about if true is the beams in this article is to create clouds so that a 3D image of religious picture or image can be generated along side with ELF waves enter the persons mind thus making him/her think they are hearing voices. Project Blue Beam per the nut house jobbers say this is going to be done to start off the new world order and all nation boundaries will be destroyed and the only country allowed to live will be Israel.
I googled Project Blue Beam and now I'm stuck spending the next two hours reading the 'educate yourself' website. I'll probably spend the next two days laughing incessantly, randomly throughout the day, freaking out my co-workers and finally spending months purging the useless data from my brain.
Thanks for nothing. For the love of God, next time, post a warning! :)
that educate-yourself website (thankfully I can speed-read so I didn't have to waste too much of my life), there are a few things I'd like to add:
1) That site is THE archetypal epitome of "tinfoil-hat-wearing-nutjob". Seriously. Actually, not seriously, go and read it for some real belly laughs.
2) It states that one of the first goals of the "antichrist" and the NWO is to eliminate Christian and Islamic belief systems. All I can say to that is, if only the NWO *was* real and they really did have anti-religion mechanisms to wipe out or deprogram all the religious nutjobs - speed the fucking day!
3) The site goes on and on about mind-control rays and telepathic devices (where's your tinfoil hats guys?) being from technology that existed back in the 70s and 80s, that has now been refined to such a level that it's available to the mind-controlling NWO shits right now. OK then - if the technology exists now, and has for a while, why all the need for "preparation?"
Why haven't the Evil Illuminati Overlords(tm) just switched the fucking thing on and zombified the entire planet already, no muss, no fuss? Could that be because (shocker!) it DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST?!?
Thanks for pointing me to that Blue Beam stuff. I haven't had a good belly laugh for quite some time. For those who have some time to waste and want to have a good giggle, you can find it here:
re: Consensus science
When I go to hospital I want my treatment to be based on consensus science.
It's not an insult, or a bad thing, quite the reverse actually.
I prefer expert science myself
When I go to the hospital I want my treatment to be based upon the opinion of the best specialist expert I can get.
I don't care if said expert disagrees with my GP (general doctor), hospital junior doctors, nurses, registrars etc.
The consultant specialising in the condition I have is far more likely to be correct even if their diagnoses is different to the other less specialized doctors.
re: Consensus science
Lets hope you have nothing caused by miasma, witchcraft, demonic possession or something that requires you be pumped full of mercury to cure. While consensus can often be readily arrived at, being right can take a little more work and is often not nearly as popular. 1000 fools do not a wise man make.
Like bleeding you with leeches? That was the consensus for many things around 200 years ago.
I prescribe a course of....
and if that dont work, then trepanning will fix it
the only thing that is still worth about science is disagreement. now, currently, this has become almost a vanishing phenomenon especially with political-scientific-industrial complex "stratagem" abounding. as politics encroaches on science, the number of people like you, who post wrong analogies, will grow.
@AC - Consensus science
Try for some learning :-
Ya never know....
Strangely, the leeches thing turned out to have a few useful actual applications... ;)
Leaches are still used in medicine
They are used when reattaching limbs to restore blood-flow.
But no, that is an archaic treatment... much better to sell more prostetics.
I hear leeches are making a comeback for certain kinds of illnesses.
And no, I don't mean the two-legged variety that inhabit Whitehall or DC.
Ok, you're in hospital with, say, cancer - do you believe the Oncologists - Doctors specialising in cancer treatment - or some self appointed guy from the internet who maybe has a vaguely medical PHd?
Your wife is giving birth and there are complications do you get a gynecologist or geriatrician?
Of course, you go with the specialist and the specialists are working from consensus.
You can mock and talk about leeches all you want, but that was actually the best knowledge at the time, the alternatives were just as bad, if not worse. The consensus changes as new knowledge is obtained and understood - this is the scientific process - at any point in time the consensus is the best option you have.
no you don't unless
consensus science is bad science if the consensus shuts down investigation and innovation.
consensus science in the 50s said organ transplants were impossible. Hell; consensus 'science' in some parts of the world said transplants between different races were impossible (and where was the first successful heart transplant done ? oh yes; where the consensus science said that it could not work.)
Look up Lysenko science for a modern day example of politics driving consensus science.
However if the people in the consensus do not shut down questions and research that would break the consensus then it is probably a good thing.
There in lies the rub. To be valid science; consensus science demands skeptics.
I need that like a hole in the head...
...erm, wait a minute...
You do realize that they are still used today, because they're so very good at what they do. The only changes in the last 200 years relate to when, where and why they're used.
Consensus science doesn't demand skeptics
It demands innovation. You might have skepticism which leads you to your final destination, but more likely (if you look back through the annals), it's not pure skepticism that has driven scientists to discover that consensus was wrong, but new ideas drawn from observation. The problem here is that most people who disagree with the consensus on this topic have made their minds up. I recently asked a creationist which parts of the evidence for evolution they found compelling. The mark of a bigot is that they find all the evidence a joke, or easily refuted. They can spend five minutes online, grab something and paste it. Usually something that appears very obvious, and that scientists shouldn't have missed, and then the only next step available is to suggest that the scientists did see it but suppressed it for some reason. A bigot doesn't find any of his beliefs even slightly questioned by evidence, a skeptic has a specific problem with some of the evidence which leads on to the formulation of new ideas to describe the rest of it. So I guess there are two real questions - which of the evidence for AGW do you find compelling? And what published hypotheses have the scientific skeptics put forward to explain the evidence given for AGW?
Those who shout loudest
Who on earth actually downvoted this?! Its been well established that in a large group concensus typically follows those who are the most dominant, influential or loudest. In fact so strong is the social desire of conformity that in many cases individuals will act against what they know to be true in order to conform. A so called skeptic can, and often is, someone who both knows better and has the confidence and independence to speak out against the majority knowing full well they will be shouted down.
Some people should learn more about human nature then perhaps take the time to re evaluate the ideas they align themselves with. Believe me, coming to your OWN conclusions takes a hell of a lot more work than people believe.
RE: Consensus science
The main difference, between say, medicine and climate change is that we have lots and lots of evidence to back up the consensus regarding medical treatment and no [real] evidence to back up the consensus regarding the effects of climate change.
If you break your leg you know that the consensus (setting, immobilising the break, physiotherapy etc) has been arrived at through a great deal of trial and error - we don't blood-let any more because we can see it won't make the bone mend any quicker and we don't sacrifice a chicken to ward off infection.
But with climate change, we don't have enough evidence to say X will definitely happen unless we do Y and stop doing Z - because the things we are talking about (I'm talking about warmaggedon here, not just a few hot summers or a bit more snow in January than expected) have not happened.
Put it this way, if you had a condition completely new to medical science, with no historic precedent how eager would you be to let them amputate both your arms on the basis that a consensus of doctors agreed it was probably best for you to lose your arms? Personally I would want to keep my arms until they had a better idea of what was going on.