Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[LongQ]

hairykrishna said:

It also seems pretty reasonable to expect that this is going to cause problems for some sea life (and not others).

Surely that has always been the case throughout geological time as we understand it

Change has been a constant factor yet the seas and oceans are not empty.

It seems very likely that in that period some changes have been almost instantaneous - far faster than the multi-decadal or multi-millenial periods that are suggested in the current worry memes.

Constant and static environments seem unlikely - if they existed and were normal states there would have been little evolution other than as the result of some sort of abrupt change of state.

[hairykrishna]

LongQ said:

Surely that has always been the case throughout geological time as we understand it

Change has been a constant factor yet the seas and oceans are not empty.

It seems very likely that in that period some changes have been almost instantaneous - far faster than the multi-decadal or multi-millenial periods that are suggested in the current worry memes.

Constant and static environments seem unlikely - if they existed and were normal states there would have been little evolution other than as the result of some sort of abrupt change of state.

As I understand it the shift in the average pH is happening extremely fast, relatively speaking. Faster that it appears to have done in the previous 300 million years. I think it's safe to say that nobody really knows exactly what a rapid change in ocean chemistry will do but there are reasons to believe it will cause problems.

[PRTVR]

hairykrishna said:

LongQ said:

Surely that has always been the case throughout geological time as we understand it

Change has been a constant factor yet the seas and oceans are not empty.

It seems very likely that in that period some changes have been almost instantaneous - far faster than the multi-decadal or multi-millenial periods that are suggested in the current worry memes.

Constant and static environments seem unlikely - if they existed and were normal states there would have been little evolution other than as the result of some sort of abrupt change of state.

As I understand it the shift in the average pH is happening extremely fast, relatively speaking. Faster that it appears to have done in the previous 300 million years. I think it's safe to say that nobody really knows exactly what a rapid change in ocean chemistry will do but there are reasons to believe it will cause problems.

Where have I heard that before ?, the change is faster than previous, the change will cause problems, the same old scare tactics with a different slant, all still trying to demonize a insignificant trace gas.

[Variomatic]

CR6ZZ said:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but there are plenty who believe you are quite wrong. Some light reading for you, and, if you wish to explore more thoroughly, there is a comprehensive list of references at the end...

http://www.igbp.net/download/18.30566fc6142425d6c9...

Most, if not all, studies predicting doom for the oceans ae based on either lab experiments, where there's good evidence that the real world doesn't abide by lab rules (which isn't unusual) or modelling studies.

There's a considerable problem with modelling studies which you don't need to be a modeller to see (although I did devote about a year of my life to studying modelling and AI as part of my degree)

Back in the old days, when people learnt their tables and calculators weren't allowed in a mathc class, let alone an exam, there was a fundamental and very simple check that we were all taught - does your answer look believable?

It didn't guarantee the right answer, but it was remarkably good at weeding out wrong ones. You did not have to be a gifted mathematician to use it. If you were, say, calculating the volume of a household bucket and you came up with 150000 litres you could see that you'd done something wrong without going back to see what.

The models have, and still are, consistently getting obviously wrong answers - which is part of why doom keeps getting delayed for another few decades.

In this case, having an observed (and projected) trend which is a couple of orders of magnitude less than normal monthly variation does not make "DOOM!!!!!!" a believable answer from the models!

[LongQ]

hairykrishna said:

LongQ said:

Surely that has always been the case throughout geological time as we understand it

Change has been a constant factor yet the seas and oceans are not empty.

It seems very likely that in that period some changes have been almost instantaneous - far faster than the multi-decadal or multi-millenial periods that are suggested in the current worry memes.

Constant and static environments seem unlikely - if they existed and were normal states there would have been little evolution other than as the result of some sort of abrupt change of state.

As I understand it the shift in the average pH is happening extremely fast, relatively speaking. Faster that it appears to have done in the previous 300 million years. I think it's safe to say that nobody really knows exactly what a rapid change in ocean chemistry will do but there are reasons to believe it will cause problems.

I find it very difficult to accept that anyone could possibly know that they are even close to presenting real "facts" and interpreting the implications for the present when comparing a 300 Million year assessment to a decade or so or measurements in the current era.

Obfuscation is always assisted by a large, impressive but really rather meaningless, number when pushing an agenda.

As is often said - "If you are going to tell lies you may as well make them big ones."

Such are the methods adopted by advertising and PR exercises and we are conditioned to accept them without question.

That post-modern science seems intent on adopting the same approach is disappointing.

A few weeks ago I was chatting to a senior medical chap of my acquaintance, a top expert in his highly specialised. Just a very general chat and somehow we touched on medical research. (I think it was because of the recent 'news' that maybe fats and cholesterols and stuff had been slightly less demonised but sugar is now the new mass killer and it came up or discussion as we contemplated whether to have a cup of coffee.)

He volunteered the view that there were too many papers being published in medical science that were driven by the perceived need to publish something to keep funding sources flowing. Anything will do even if only vaguely plausible.

I get the impression that if the area of 'expertise' can be narrowed far enough, as with CC for example, there are few people that could claim enough 'knowledge' of the research to qualify as thorough assessors of the work. Or, to put it another way, they may well be more than competent to suggest that something looks wrong but can be derided for not having enough expertise or involvement in such a 'special' subject. So the research goes unquestioned by the world outside its little bubble. That is enough to protect it whilst the small group involved stick together.

After some years they will retire. A new group or groups, spotting an opportunity, will appear and impress their own ideas into the research field. Whether they are a continuity or a direction change will most likely depend on how much 'mileage' can be made from extension of the current meme compared to adopting a somewhat different opinion.

This is not something new to science. However the adoption of the the temporarily dominant ideas to support very long term and globally widespread policy decisions does seem to be new. It seems to me that it is not at all certain that we, humanity, have, as yet, enough skill to make that work - leaving aside the discussion about whether such a development is even desirable.

I wonder if anyone is doing any Scientific Research into that aspect of One World philosophies and governance? We seem to hear much more about "Diversity" - a claimed beneficial state that would appear to be the opposite of way social change is being directed. That suggests a rather schizophrenic period may be ahead with unknown consequences to follow.

[Jinx]

hairykrishna said:

As I understand it the shift in the average pH is happening extremely fast, relatively speaking. Faster that it appears to have done in the previous 300 million years. I think it's safe to say that nobody really knows exactly what a rapid change in ocean chemistry will do but there are reasons to believe it will cause problems.

Doesn't appear to have a significant effect near rivers where PH can vary daily by large amounts........

[CR6ZZ]

Variomatic said:

CR6ZZ said:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but there are plenty who believe you are quite wrong. Some light reading for you, and, if you wish to explore more thoroughly, there is a comprehensive list of references at the end...

http://www.igbp.net/download/18.30566fc6142425d6c9...

Most, if not all, studies predicting doom for the oceans ae based on either lab experiments, where there's good evidence that the real world doesn't abide by lab rules (which isn't unusual) or modelling studies.

And you base this gem on what? Have you read the literature? You seem to imply that if a study is conducted in the lab it cannot be trusted. As a marine biologist I can attest to the difficulty of doing experiments in situ. However, it is not impossible and there have been hundreds of studies conducted in the 'field'. Pretty much all of these corroborate lab findings and vice versa.

[mondeoman]

Apparently it's all our fault...

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/globa...

[Variomatic]

mondeoman said:

Apparently it's all our fault...

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/globa...

That'd be the paper that starts with an assumption that the measurement error in the entire temperature record is +/- 0.03K , a full order of magnitude smaller than the actual datasets claim.

Not to mention an assumption that CO2 emissions are a valid proxy for all other anthropogenic effects (both warming and cooling).

[mondeoman]

This little lot got thrown back at me...

"Yeah, the guy writing that opinion is http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Christopher_Monckton,_... who you will notice cropping up from time to time in the 'debate' as the only person really still taking the oil money apart from that other climate science denier. He's also a birther, which places him roughly on par with Donald Trump, another leading scientist.

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, SMOM (born 14 F...See More


The fun thing is his rebuttal is nothing of the sort, and instead tries to *draw into doubt* the figures, which is preaching to the choir and concentrates on the idea that the dataset is polluted and should be corrected, but corrections are sign of complicity in a conspiracy; similar to the fact that our president is apparently a secret Kenyan, and a company he runs manufactures a drug that can reduce viral load in HIV patients. He's a huckster, nothing more, nothing less."

I gave up at that point.

[Variomatic]

mondeoman said:

This little lot got thrown back at me...

"[more of the usual ad-hom stuff]"

I gave up at that point.

Yeah, when you're dealing with conspiracy theorists and nut-jobs sometimes you just have to walk away. Even a new glaciation covering the NH would "only be regional" in their minds!

But don't worry, when all that heat they keep predicting finally arrives they'll roast really well under their tinfoil "it's all Big Oil" hats

[109er]

Have you seen this report, by the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC),

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fracking-coul...

That should throw a spanner into the protesters 'works' as it were.

[kiteless]

1350+ Papers That Support AGW Realists

Peer-reviewed (not by The Team), and with links.

Willie Soon said:

I really appreciate your important effort in compiling the list.

[mybrainhurts]

Blimey. Busy, busy. That's going to unsettle some people...

[AA999]

BBC doom mongering again..... this time suggesting that increased CO2 levels adversly affect crop growths which then lead to mass killing in the populations....or words to that implication.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2730...


Not entirely sure how the evidence stacks up on this one, but generally I was along the lines that the biosphere likes the evil planet destruction gas of CO2, not a reduction of it.

[Variomatic]

AA999 said:

Not entirely sure how the evidence stacks up on this one, but generally I was along the lines that the biosphere likes the evil planet destruction gas of CO2, not a reduction of it.

The evidence stacks up like this:

Temps haven't risen for nearly 2 decades - need aother scare
Recent "extreme weather" is demonstrably no more extreme, nor frequent, than historical weather - need another scare
Global and antarctic sea ice are consistently well above average, and arctic looks like it might be about to start recovering. meanwhile, the polar bears are doing well thanks - need another scare
Sea level rise is slowing, and actually couldn't reach the absurd levels of some predictions anyway because physics won't allow it - need another scare
Looks like all those atolls that were going t0 drown may not be going to after all - need another scare
New paper says crops might become less nutritious in 36 years time - that'll give us time to find another scare

[hairykrishna]

The thing that appears to change is zinc and iron concentrations, not overall growth, although I haven’t read the full paper yet.

Not sure why I've bothered posting that given that you've immediately assumed that a comprehensive analysis of experimental studies, published in Nature, is both incorrect and/or scaremongering.

[hidetheelephants]

hairykrishna said:

The thing that appears to change is zinc and iron concentrations, not overall growth, although I haven’t read the full paper yet.

Not sure why I've bothered posting that given that you've immediately assumed that a comprehensive analysis of experimental studies, published in Nature, is both incorrect and/or scaremongering.

I'd be more impressed if those researchers spent their time doing useful things like developing grains that will be more nutricious with elevated CO2 rather than needless bolstering of the 'OMG carbons!' argument.

[Brother D]

I wonder if this has been previously accounted for in temperature records? http://m.phys.org/_news319353385.html

[rovermorris999]

Brother D said:

I wonder if this has been previously accounted for in temperature records? http://m.phys.org/_news319353385.html

I doubt it. It wouldn't be seen as 'helpful' research.