Study finds acidic conditions interfere with neurotransmitter functionality in marine mollusks. "Antipredator behaviour was fully restored by treatment with gabazine, a GABA antagonist of some invertebrate nervous systems, indicating potential interference of neurotransmitter receptor function by elevated-CO2, as previously observed in marine fishes." Source.
Common climate zombie myth gets the 'tripple tap': "No warming since 1998"
1st tap) Starting at an unusually hot year like 1998 biases the results.
2nd tap) Although it typically goes unmentioned in order to be more misleading, the claim only used surface temperatures that make up 10% of the record. There has been no pause in the oceans where 90% of the record exists.
3rd tap) Cowtan and Way 2013 study confirms HadCRU is underestimating warming due to lack of coverage. Met Office weighs in: "The new paper suggests that the global average warming trend from 1997 to 2012 could be up to 2.5 times greater than the trend using HadCRUT4 alone." Source.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Pure water is about 7 ph and 8.2 is more basic. So, if over a century it drops from just under 8.2 down to 8.1 it is still in the basic range.
Nobody can rightfully say the oceans as a whole are acidic
I'm not saying a pH of 8.2 or 8.1 is an acid.
Think of it like a seesaw. 8.1 is more acidic than 8.2.
The international climate-change industry is gathering in Warsaw this week for one of those massive international get-togethers they love so much. Once again, the impression you get is that, for many countries, global warming mainly represents another chance to demand money.
In the days before economic problems pushed environmental issues down the international agenda, countries with some of the worst emissions records on the planet demanded compensation from wealthier countries, on the basis that industrial powers caused most of the damage. Despite producing almost a quarter of the world’s emissions, and cloaking its own cities in smog so deadly it has sent cancer rates soaring, China insisted it deserved an exemption from any reduction measures, because its drive to develop its economy took precedent. It actually managed to win considerable international sympathy for this view, especially from other countries that wanted an excuse to skip the restrictions being demanded of richer economies.
Economic pressures since 2008 have weakened the climate change lobby, but they’re back in Warsaw, still looking for money, and with a different angle to press. The idea now is that climate change is making storms more damaging than they used to be, adding to the cost and once again raising the cry for compensation. The devastation wrought by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines is giving a boost to demands for a formal international mechanism to deliver payments for losses and damage from extreme weather, on top of the usual outpouring of aid.
Yeb Sano, the Philippines representative to the Warsaw talks, delivered an emotional speech at the opening of the conference, vowing to go without food in solidarity with the typhoons thousands of victims.
“In solidarity with my countrymen who are struggling to find food back home, I will now commence a voluntary fasting for the climate, this means I will voluntarily refrain from eating food during this Cop, until a meaningful outcome is in sight.” “What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness, the climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness right here in Warsaw,” he said.
Once again, despite China’s place at the top of the emissions tables and the visible impact its reliance on coal-generated power is having on its air, it’s the West that’s being blamed. The U.S., it is pointed out, was able to allot $60 billion to deal with damage from Hurricane Sandy, while the Philippines is largely dependent on foreign help. And while Canadian aid is approaching $40 million and the U.S.has promised Manila $37 million in assistance so far, Beijing initially pledged a miserly $100,000. Yet Juan Hoffmaister, lead negotiator for a group of developing countries that span Africa, Latin America and China, said a failure to set up a climate fund for “loss and damage” will show that western countries don’t take climate change seriously.
“We can’t only rely on ad-hoc humanitarian aid given the reality that major climate-related disasters are becoming the new normal,” he said.
The group, which numbers 78 countries in all, is backed by another block of countries known as the Alliance of Small Island States, which have similar demands.
Not surprisingly, the demand for a compensation fund isn’t being greeted warmly. Numerous reports indicate a U.S. representative told a London gathering recently that it isn’t going to happen.
“The fiscal reality of the United States and other developed countries is not going to allow it,” said Todd D. Stern, the State Department’s envoy on climate issues. “This is not just a matter of the recent financial crisis. It is structural, based on the huge obligations we face from aging populations and other pressing needs for infrastructure, education, health care and the like. We must and will strive to keep increasing our climate finance, but it is important that all of us see the world as it is.”
That kind of straight talk is commendable, making clear that demands for a multi-billion damage bank, to be financed by a handful of countries for the benefit of dozens of others, is a non-starter. The U.S. may dwarf the financial resources of other countries, but it remains a struggling giant, tied down with a limp economy, high unemployment and trillion-dollar deficits. Europe, the next most likely contributor, is still dealing with rescue packages for Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Other than perhaps Germany, it’s not clear which of the EU economies environmentalists think are flush enough with cash to bankroll such a venture.
The impact of climate change deserves to be dealt with in a serious and realistic manner. Instead we get grandiose summits peopled by delegates who prefer casting blame while championing accords that won’t be followed and demanding money that’s unlikely to be paid.
In future, a bit more pragmatism might go a lot further.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Agreed, but if pure water is 7 we have a long way to go on this
Arn
It doesn't work like that. There isn't some magical switch that gets flipped when the oceanic pH hits less than 7 that all of a sudden causes problems for life there. The entire transition to a more acidic ocean itself is threatening life there.
At the rate of current CO2 emissions reef building is expected to cease by 2100. Source. (Page 16)
We don't "have a long way to go" - we're already there.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: WRONG - it is more neutral.
WRONG - it's not called neutral it's called indifferent. /s
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-19-2013).]
Acidic and basic are two extremes that describe a chemical property chemicals. Mixing acids and bases can cancel out or neutralize their extreme effects. A substance that is neither acidic nor basic is neutral.
The pH scale measures how acidic or basic a substance is. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic. A pH greater than 7 is basic.
The pH scale is logarithmic and as a result, each whole pH value below 7 is ten times more acidic than the next higher value. For example, pH 4 is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 6. The same holds true for pH values above 7, each of which is ten times more alkaline (another way to say basic) than the next lower whole value. For example, pH 10 is ten times more alkaline than pH 9 and 100 times (10 times 10) more alkaline than pH 8.
Pure water is neutral. But when chemicals are mixed with water, the mixture can become either acidic or basic. Examples of acidic substances are vinegar and lemon juice. Lye, milk of magnesia, and ammonia are examples of basic substances.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 11-19-2013).]
"Coral Coring — Not all USGS science happens on the land...we also like to go for a swim every now and then! Here we see one of scientists, Christopher Reich, as he core drills coral to collect cores for paleoclimate analyses off the coast of Florida. Credit: Don Hickey, USGS." Source.
Common climate zombie myth gets the 'tripple tap': "No warming since 1998"
1st tap) Starting at an unusually hot year like 1998 biases the results.
2nd tap) Although it typically goes unmentioned in order to be more misleading, the claim only used surface temperatures that make up 10% of the record. There has been no pause in the oceans where 90% of the record exists.
3rd tap) Cowtan and Way 2013 study confirms HadCRU is underestimating warming due to lack of coverage. Met Office weighs in: "The new paper suggests that the global average warming trend from 1997 to 2012 could be up to 2.5 times greater than the trend using HadCRUT4 alone."
There has been some discussion of Cowtan and Way 2013 take on HadCRUT4 at Lucia’s, Judy Curry’s, Nick Stokes and elsewhere. HadCRUt4 has run cooler than other datasets (including UAH satellite) in recent years. Cowtan and Way observe that HadCRU does not estimate temperature in many Arctic gridcells. Because Arctic temperatures have risen more than low-latitude temperatures, they state that recent HadCRU temperatures are biased low. (Since GISS extrapolates into the Arctic, it is less affected by this bias.) In the context of IPCC SOD FIgure 1.5 (or similar comparison of models and observations), CW13 is slightly warmer than HadCRUT4 but the difference is small relative to the discrepancy between models and observations; the CW13 variation is also outside the Figure 1.5 envelope.
Figure 1. Cowtan and Way 2013 hybrid plotted onto IPCC AR5SOD Figure 1.5 Next, here is a simple plot showing the difference between the CW13 hybrid and HadCRUT 4. Up to the end of 2005, there was a zero trend between the two; the difference has arisen entirely since 2005.
Figure 2. Delta between CW Hybrid (basis 1961-1990) and HadCRUT4. In their online commentary, Cowtan and Way praise Hansen for being the first person to report the effect of missing Arctic data on global temperature. However, no material discrepancy had arisen between their index and the HadCRUT4 index as of 2005 so that Hansen was, according to Cowtan and Way’s own data, observing a discrepancy that had not yet arisen, making their following praise to Hansen seem somewhat premature: Probably the first mention of an underestimation of recent warming due to poor Arctic coverage comes from Hansen in 2006, who sought to explain why the NASA temperature data showed 2005 as being a record breaking warm year, in contrast to the Met Office temperature record. That there are continuing defects in HadCRU methodology should hardly come as a surprise to CA readers. Attempts to reconcile and/or explain discrepancies between HadCRU and GISS also seem worthwhile to me. Nor do efforts to apply kriging seem misplaced to me in principle. On the contrary, for someone with experience in ore reserves, it seems entirely natural e.g. see for example, some of Jeff Id’s discussion of Antarctica. I notice that their methodology results in changes to the Central England gridcell. While I don’t object to the use of kriging or similar methods to estimate values in missing gridcells, I don’t see any benefit to altering values in known gridcells, if that’s what’s happening here. (I haven’t parsed their methods and don’t plan to do so at this time.) Co-author Way was an active participant at the secret SKS forum, where he actively fomented conspiracy theory allegations. Uniquely among participants in the secret SKS forum, he conceded that Climate Audit was frequently correct in its observations (“The fact of the matter is that a lot of the points he [McIntyre] brings up are valid”) and urged care in contradicting Climate Audit (“I wouldn’t want to go up against that group, between them there is a lot of statistical power to manipulate and make the data say what it needs to say.”) Update: Here is annotation of IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 11.12 comparing observations to CMIP5 4.5, with both HadCRU4 outside envelope.
Bart Verheggen compared CMIP5 RCP8.5 to observations, saying that “recent observations are at the low side of the CMIP5 model range”.
However, my own calculations using RCP8.5 show that observations are outside the envelope. Verheggen’s calculations are not consistent with similar calculations by others (including IPCC) and I presume that he’s made an error somewhere.
Originally posted by fierobear: Good god, debunking flyinfieros stuff is a full time job.
This doesn't debunk anything. He actually agrees with the primary finding of the study in the opening paragraph.
Thanks for yet another example as to why your posts should be viewed with suspicion by default.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Analysis here
In the opening paragraph he agrees HadCRU is running cooler than other datasets: "HadCRUt4 has run cooler than other datasets (including UAH satellite) in recent years."
Further in the 'analysis' after some speculation on their method he makes the following admission: "I haven’t parsed their methods and don’t plan to do so at this time."
He hasn't even looked at their method? Some analysis...
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Seems like a completely unbiased website. What could their motives be...??
The "America's Power" campaign is a project of ACCCE: "The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE, formerly ABEC or Americans for Balanced Energy Choices) is a U.S. non-profit advocacy group representing major American coal producers, utility companies, and railroads."
There has been some controversy over their tactics: "Additionally, ACCCE faced a Congressional investigation when it was discovered that a lobbying firm hired by ACCCE had sent forged letters to lawmakers. The letters, purporting to come from a variety of minority-focused non-profit groups, were in fact forged by a lobbying firm hired by ACCCE."
"ACCCE disavowed the tactic and blamed the forgeries on their subcontractor,[6] who in turn blamed a temporary worker, acting alone." Source.
Good god, debunking flyinfieros stuff is a full time job.
Analysis here
I really hope you are better at your actual job than your poor attempts at debunking FlyingFiero's, the guy's been handing you and Arn your asses for pages now.
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”
“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.
To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.
Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.
Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.
Looks like the 97% of scientists consensus is another LIE, and the "skeptical science" folks are amongst the liars
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
Written by the HEARTLAND INSTITUTES James Taylor.
quote
Incompetence or deception by Taylor? You tell me. Either way, this is the kind of shoddy, non-academic discourse we get from bogus ideological think tanks like Heartland. They should be embarrassed.
"U.S. diplomats were specifically instructed by the Obama administration to oppose any attempts to create an independent fund for climate reparations from rich countries to poor countries."
The Obama administration.. imagine that.
You are now leaving Climate Science County and entering Climate Politics City. Enjoy your stay.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-20-2013).]
"U.S. diplomats were specifically instructed by the Obama administration to oppose any attempts to create an independent fund for climate reparations from rich countries to poor countries."
The Obama administration.. imagine that.
You are now leaving Climate Science County and entering Climate Politics City. Enjoy your stay here.
Let's not forget to point out FieroBears support of the Obama Administrations position!!!
"U.S. diplomats were specifically instructed by the Obama administration to oppose any attempts to create an independent fund for climate reparations from rich countries to poor countries."
The Obama administration.. imagine that.
You are now leaving Climate Science County and entering Climate Politics City. Enjoy your stay.
That article looks like it was written by a 13 year old, but more importantly, CFact is funded by Exxon and run by a guy with no credentials - a degree in Arts.
It doesn't surprise me that you have no comment on your source McIntyre agreeing that "No warming since 1998" is now officially a myth.
Your continuous attempts to disguise politics and drag them into a discussion of scientific evidence is becoming a boisterous display of vanity. It only shows your desperation, your lack of empathy for the common man, and disrespect for forum members you constantly lie to.
You're wearing that charlatan badge loud and proud.
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I wear [fierobear's] disdain proudly; it's a badge of honor.
It brings a smile to my face sometimes but I feel like it's not exactly virtuous to take joy in it. I'd much prefer an open minded discussion where egos don't get the best of grown men. The scientific mind in me gets interested in the psychology of it all though. I giggle at the thought of someone earning their PhD on the denial put on display in this thread alone.
You deny there is no anthrologenic global warming. You deny that the Arctic ice field is in fact healthy, You deny that there are fewer violent weather events in North America. You deny that the Antarctic ice cap is growing. You are the denier.
You also claim to be some sort of authority of your own creation and I have yet to see your qualifications
It brings a smile to my face sometimes but I feel like it's not exactly virtuous to take joy in it. I'd much prefer an open minded discussion where egos don't get the best of grown men. The scientific mind in me gets interested in the psychology of it all though. I giggle at the thought of someone earning their PhD on the denial put on display in this thread alone.
You and Marvin are so busy patting each other on the ass of your trolling up the thread, you should just get a room.
You deny there is no anthrologenic global warming. You deny that the Arctic ice field is in fact healthy, You deny that there are fewer violent weather events in North America. You deny that the Antarctic ice cap is growing. You are the denier.
You also claim to be some sort of authority of your own creation and I have yet to see your qualifications
Arn
Warming has slowed down for 16 years by using an unusually hot year as a starting point. Not a very strong argument to say "no anthropogenic warming". Besides Arn, I've talked about why 16 years is too small of a window multiple times and you have yet to address the criticism.
The arctic ice field is almost 2 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 norm for surface area - that's not exactly high praise for the ice field and this totally ignores ice volume AND land based ice mass. 1981-2010 weren't years known for their cold weather and the ice fields are in significantly worse shape now.
The antarctic ice cap is not growing, at best its stagnant with modest gains on the east side offset by losses on the west side. I just posted on this above.
Repeating what has already been said without addressing the criticism does nothing for your argument.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You deny there is no anthrologenic global warming.
You deny you can't explain the warming in the last 50 years. This page is 81 pages of deniers like you insisting the warming except CO2 despite none of your claims materializing any evidence.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You deny that the Arctic ice field is in fact healthy,
Wrong. You deny the Arctic has been declining for 30 years. You're peddling an improvement over the worst year on record as "healthy".
"Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator. The region’s sea ice extent—defined by NSIDC as the total area covered by at least 15 percent of ice—has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years.
“No single year’s turnaround can erase that,” said NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos. “Let’s not lose sight of the fact that 2013 is a very low extent year, despite the increase from last September.”" Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You deny that there are fewer violent weather events in North America.
Wrong. Weather is not climate. Climate extremes are increasing. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You deny that the Antarctic ice cap is growing.
No I don't. The interesting question is: why is ice growing when temperatures are still increasing? There's a couple of leading theories out there.
Originally posted by fierobear: As usual, you make no contribution to this thread.
His open minded position and knowledge of actual science is leaps and bounds ahead of anything you've posted. You're stuck waging a guerilla political war because you've lost the war of facts. Science is clearly not on your side.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You and Marvin are so busy patting each other on the ass of your trolling up the thread, you should just get a room.
We would but you'd probably form a conspiracy theory over it.
