Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
turbobloke said:
PRTVR said:
mybrainhurts said:
It's not just woman's hour...
Quite, if you want to see the state of UK education take a look at today's politics show on BBC 2, they had a professor dropping dry ice into water with a litmus marker in it, amazingly it turned red, turning the water acidic, no mention of turning the sea less alkaline, nope shell fish were going to dissolve, if this is the standard of our professors we are doomed.For one thing, this global warming malarkey should be increasing SST and carbon dioxide solubility decreases with increasing temperature. Cold water absorbs CO2 whereas warm water releases CO2. If only the prof knew, and could figure out the implications. Likewise the BBC.
In terms of corals and to put it in simple terms that any prof can understand, coral growth makes the surrounding water less alkaline as the corals suck alkaline carbonate ions out of the water to build their skeletons.
This means that growing corals turn the water around them less alkaline / more acidic without suffering damage - as published in the peer-reviewed literature by Andersson et al using actual observations 2007 to 2012, as featured several times in this thread. It's a sign of healthy, growing coral.
A similar effect pertains to shell organisms, which are seen to build thicker shells as ocean chemistry changes to less alkaline conditions. This is Cohen et al iirc, also as posted several times in PH climate threads.
With H/T to Diderot, emails probably not intended to see the light of day once again give the game away.
Snips from a post by Diderot on NOAA FoIA results said:
Here’s what NOAA scientists had to say, privately, in an exchange about the draft content of an article for the New York Times' editor:
"It’s very interesting, but in order to work for us it needs to be geared more toward the general reader. Can the authors give us more specific, descriptive images about how acidification has already affected the oceans? Is the situation akin to the acid rain phenomenon that hit North America? What can be done to counteract the problem?"
Dr Busch, who works for NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program and Northwest Fisheries Science Center at Seattle, responded:
"Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of Ocean Acidification or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now. If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!"
"It’s very interesting, but in order to work for us it needs to be geared more toward the general reader. Can the authors give us more specific, descriptive images about how acidification has already affected the oceans? Is the situation akin to the acid rain phenomenon that hit North America? What can be done to counteract the problem?"
Dr Busch, who works for NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program and Northwest Fisheries Science Center at Seattle, responded:
"Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of Ocean Acidification or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now. If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!"
No areas affected. Well, some positively affected, with coral growth and organisms with thicker shells, but apart from that...
Link to short video
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37768862
I like the way it's listed under politics, at least they got that part right.
PRTVR said:
turbobloke said:
PRTVR said:
mybrainhurts said:
It's not just woman's hour...
Quite, if you want to see the state of UK education take a look at today's politics show on BBC 2, they had a professor dropping dry ice into water with a litmus marker in it, amazingly it turned red, turning the water acidic, no mention of turning the sea less alkaline, nope shell fish were going to dissolve, if this is the standard of our professors we are doomed.For one thing, this global warming malarkey should be increasing SST and carbon dioxide solubility decreases with increasing temperature. Cold water absorbs CO2 whereas warm water releases CO2. If only the prof knew, and could figure out the implications. Likewise the BBC.
In terms of corals and to put it in simple terms that any prof can understand, coral growth makes the surrounding water less alkaline as the corals suck alkaline carbonate ions out of the water to build their skeletons.
This means that growing corals turn the water around them less alkaline / more acidic without suffering damage - as published in the peer-reviewed literature by Andersson et al using actual observations 2007 to 2012, as featured several times in this thread. It's a sign of healthy, growing coral.
A similar effect pertains to shell organisms, which are seen to build thicker shells as ocean chemistry changes to less alkaline conditions. This is Cohen et al iirc, also as posted several times in PH climate threads.
With H/T to Diderot, emails probably not intended to see the light of day once again give the game away.
Snips from a post by Diderot on NOAA FoIA results said:
Here’s what NOAA scientists had to say, privately, in an exchange about the draft content of an article for the New York Times' editor:
"It’s very interesting, but in order to work for us it needs to be geared more toward the general reader. Can the authors give us more specific, descriptive images about how acidification has already affected the oceans? Is the situation akin to the acid rain phenomenon that hit North America? What can be done to counteract the problem?"
Dr Busch, who works for NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program and Northwest Fisheries Science Center at Seattle, responded:
"Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of Ocean Acidification or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now. If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!"
"It’s very interesting, but in order to work for us it needs to be geared more toward the general reader. Can the authors give us more specific, descriptive images about how acidification has already affected the oceans? Is the situation akin to the acid rain phenomenon that hit North America? What can be done to counteract the problem?"
Dr Busch, who works for NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program and Northwest Fisheries Science Center at Seattle, responded:
"Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of Ocean Acidification or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now. If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!"
No areas affected. Well, some positively affected, with coral growth and organisms with thicker shells, but apart from that...
The first is that they genuinely thought they were demonstrating something relevant, not least as they'd already swallowed the junkscience around ocean chemistry. This represents ignorance on two fronts, basic science by looking at dissolving carbon dioxide rather than degassing carbon dioxide within a partition equilibrium, and a lack of basic awareness of the literature.
The other is that the science was indeed known, the prof had read Andersson, Cohen, Anthoni and the rest, and was simply ramping The Cause for The Team. The BBC would consider it to be tactically advisable to book a talking head like that.
How many Joe and Jo Publics out there read the scientific literature? They're more likely to be impressed by creds and 'believe'.
I watched it too and felt the Prof was set up a little.
When asked the implications, he mumbled his answer, like he
knew that others were making a mountain out of a molehill.
With the lack of warming, it looks like they are trying to make
CO2 come across as being evil whatever the context.
When asked the implications, he mumbled his answer, like he
knew that others were making a mountain out of a molehill.
With the lack of warming, it looks like they are trying to make
CO2 come across as being evil whatever the context.
turbobloke said:
How many Joe and Jo Publics out there read the scientific literature? They're more likely to be impressed by creds and 'believe'.
Sadly as it always has been, how many times has the scientific consensus been used as a reply on these thread's as an answer to a question.In considertaion of the Heathrow decision, I'd thought I'd throw this into the ring:-
March 26, 2010
26.3.2010 (Greenpeace and Heathrow coalition press release)
Councils, green groups and residents celebrate victory and call on Government
to scrap third runway
The Government’s Heathrow policy is in tatters this morning after the High Court
ruled that ministers’ decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway
does not hold any weight. The judge dismissed the Government’s claims to the
contrary as ‘untenable in law and common sense’.
If the Government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now
go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
The implications of today’s ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for
airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003
Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country
– is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
March 26, 2010
26.3.2010 (Greenpeace and Heathrow coalition press release)
Councils, green groups and residents celebrate victory and call on Government
to scrap third runway
The Government’s Heathrow policy is in tatters this morning after the High Court
ruled that ministers’ decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway
does not hold any weight. The judge dismissed the Government’s claims to the
contrary as ‘untenable in law and common sense’.
If the Government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now
go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
The implications of today’s ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for
airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003
Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country
– is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
PRTVR said:
Quite, if you want to see the state of UK education take a look at today's politics show on BBC 2, they had a professor dropping dry ice into water with a litmus marker in it, amazingly it turned red, turning the water acidic, no mention of turning the sea less alkaline, nope shell fish were going to dissolve, if this is the standard of our professors we are doomed.
Equivalent to what ppmv CO2 in air is dropping lump of dry ice into a small amount of water, 99999?robinessex said:
In considertaion of the Heathrow decision, I'd thought I'd throw this into the ring:-
March 26, 2010
26.3.2010 (Greenpeace and Heathrow coalition press release)
Councils, green groups and residents celebrate victory and call on Government
to scrap third runway
The Government’s Heathrow policy is in tatters this morning after the High Court
ruled that ministers’ decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway
does not hold any weight. The judge dismissed the Government’s claims to the
contrary as ‘untenable in law and common sense’.
If the Government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now
go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
The implications of today’s ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for
airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003
Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country
– is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
In which case we might be able to use the same argument to stop the folly of HST2 !March 26, 2010
26.3.2010 (Greenpeace and Heathrow coalition press release)
Councils, green groups and residents celebrate victory and call on Government
to scrap third runway
The Government’s Heathrow policy is in tatters this morning after the High Court
ruled that ministers’ decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway
does not hold any weight. The judge dismissed the Government’s claims to the
contrary as ‘untenable in law and common sense’.
If the Government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now
go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
The implications of today’s ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for
airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003
Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country
– is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
motco said:
According to Daily Wail the Met Office says we're in for a long cold winter... 
To save anyone a click, and avoid driving yet more traffic to the monster that is the Mail online, it's just a worthless clickbait article by the Daily Mail that bears no relation to what the Met actually said.durbster said:
motco said:
According to Daily Wail the Met Office says we're in for a long cold winter...
To save anyone a click, and avoid driving yet more traffic to the monster that is the Mail online, it's just a worthless clickbait article by the Daily Mail that bears no relation to what the Met actually said.A bit of US politics for you...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441302/hilla...
Invest in candle futures.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441302/hilla...
Invest in candle futures.
rovermorris999 said:
A bit of US politics for you...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441302/hilla...
Invest in candle futures.
Also, buy Damart http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441302/hilla...
Invest in candle futures.
motco said:
According to Daily Wail the Met Office says we're in for a long cold winter...
Oh good so mild like the last two or so then....Wonky science...and no mention of global warming
http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2016/10/bergstro...
“If fewer than 10-40% of negative results are being published, we have a serious problem — yet reputed journals like ‘Cell,’ ‘Nature,’ and ‘Science’ never publish negative results,” Bergstrom said.
http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2016/10/bergstro...
“If fewer than 10-40% of negative results are being published, we have a serious problem — yet reputed journals like ‘Cell,’ ‘Nature,’ and ‘Science’ never publish negative results,” Bergstrom said.
Edited by Kawasicki on Wednesday 26th October 22:12
WWF are at it again. We are at a tipping point for a mass extinction apparently. This is due to land development, hunting, and the one that's getting all the attention, climate change. The latter was mentioned alone in two local radio news bulletins before other factors finally got a mention, and (of course) the listener was left to make their own inference regarding man-made climate change - which isn't causally visible in global data - and natural climate change, which species must adapt to or become extinct via a pathway which is a natural one for evolution to take...something else that was omitted.
powerstroke said:
motco said:
According to Daily Wail the Met Office says we're in for a long cold winter...
Oh good so mild like the last two or so then....turbobloke said:
WWF are at it again. We are at a tipping point for a mass extinction apparently. This is due to land development, hunting, and the one that's getting all the attention, climate change. The latter was mentioned alone in two local radio news bulletins before other factors finally got a mention, and (of course) the listener was left to make their own inference regarding man-made climate change - which isn't causally visible in global data - and natural climate change, which species must adapt to or become extinct via a pathway which is a natural one for evolution to take...something else that was omitted.
Population growth, farming and hunting are the real culprits. Perhaps the green-minded men should cut their balls off.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff