Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

The sheer mendacity of your post boggles the mind. You suggest the term of "acidification" is misleading because the oceans are slightly basic and in fact becoming more neutral, and imply that that's somehow a good thing. WTF???? Do you understand the difference between "acid" and "acidification", or are you just dishonest? You further suggest that a 0.2 change is pH is slight, and wouldn't make any difference anyway, ignoring the fact that pH is a logarithmic scale, and 0.2 represents about a 30% increase in acidity. The chemistry and its effect on shellfish are pretty well known, and you pretend as if it is still in doubt. It isn't.

As for sea level rise, it is well documented world wide. That the rate is increasing is also well documented. Some places are seeing more than others, the reasons for the difference are complex, some of it stems from differences in the earth's gravitational field as a function of location, some from the effects of water currents like the Gulf Stream. Long term, we will likely see large increases in sea level. Tens of meters. It will (hopefully) take hundreds of years, so we have time to adjust. However the social upheavals due to climate change are already being seen.

To pretend that it isn't happening, and we can safely ignore it, is ridiculous.

Again you make me laugh.

Just because some activists insist on calling the neutralization of a basic solution towards what will NEVER be an acidic solution...acidification....DOES NOT mean that it makes better sense to call it acidification...like calling a boy who wears dresses and cuts his penis off a girl. You can if you want to but there are better ways to describe the situation. Neutralization is a better word to describe it:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/ ... acidified/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(I know you won't read the link because you think "the science is settled")

so what bothers me is when "acidification" is chosen instead of the clearly more appropriate "neutralization." WHY? Activists insist on controlling the language in a way that obfuscates...acidification sure sounds a lot scarier that neutralization. And it is that implicit evidence of bias that makes it not sound like science.

Science seeks too use the most objective / neutral / unambiguous language possible so that the reader in not mislead. Modern environmental publishing seems to go for the exact opposite.

Yes 0.2 change in pH is significant but....As was posted / quoted NOAA suggests there may be a pH change of -0.1 .... with an uncertainty of 0.2! What does that mean to you?

I gained 3 lbs........ plus or minus 6 pounds!

Did I gain weight?

The article on oysters was interesting but the focus on a tragedy, the death of juvenile oysters, without any decent logic for attribution to CO2 was sad. If something bad happens you can ignore any other potential factors, blame CO2 and/or global warming and become a celebrated scientist no matter how weak the evidence for attribution is. If you have a paper that PROVES that CO2 is causing pH changes which kill shellfish post a link. Actual controlled experiments with pH changes that are in the range of ACTUAL MEASURED changes in ocean pH (or even "projected" changes) and show damage to shellfish

Want to know how to be a successful environmental scientist these days? Notice somthing "bad" that happens and figure out a way to blame CO2. No robust evidence required for the attribution.

....and as for sea level I have already posted graphs of sea level change which show no acceleration and other graphs which show much faster sea level rise earlier on the Holocene. YOU DID NOT RESPOND TO THEM....so I won't bother reposting them.

You really have a hard time accepting that SOME science is produced with significant confirmation bias and is therefore unreliable.....I am virtually certain you will never understand that elementary idea and will forever insist that climate science is "settled science" and all the scary things they predicted are just around the corner.


and your ending quote:

"However the social upheavals due to climate change are already being seen. "

Yeah like where? What changes in CLIMATE have risen above the normal dangers of living on this planet?

just because the uniformed masses are terrified by tornadoes (quite normal things on earth) and can be convinced that somehow the diabolical CO2 molecule is responsible for their destructive powers... doesn't make it true....what actual damage to humans has ALREADY (not "projected") occurred that can be proven to be due to CO2?

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

And an even better post on variation of pH through the earth's oceans and purported anthropogenic pH changes near hawaii(-0.023 in 15 years).....even though from surface to depth the range is 0.5 pH units!!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/ ... acid-test/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cheers

[rogman]

Figures you'd post something by that paid blogger as "fact". Do you actually understand that he doesn't do science? Look, here's a real source:
http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112117

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Figures you'd post something by that paid blogger as "fact". Do you actually understand that he doesn't do science? Look, here's a real source:
http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112117

So....you REFUSE to read the counter-narrative because you claim somehow it is not "science"..which somehow justifies IGNORING the argument...sounds like a path to enlightenment to me! And you link to a classic activist website which is a "real source"

As I have repeated endlessly no one can change your mind if you put your fingers in your ears and scream liar liar liar when someone offers a counter-narrative.

In contrast I am setting aside the time to look at your post and analyze what is says...already found this classic:

"Nonetheless, on timescales of several thousands of years, dissolution of carbonate sediments in both shallow coastal waters and, most importantly, the deep ocean will act as the ultimate sink of anthropogenic CO2, by providing the antacid or buffer for the world ocean"

A lot to look at there and much of it is reportage of data. but much more about model projections with scary outcomes.

Definitely lots of apparent bias in the presentation.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

High-frequency dynamics of ocean pH: a multi-ecosystem comparison.
Hofmann GE1, Smith JE, Johnson KS, Send U, Levin LA, Micheli F, Paytan A, Price NN, Peterson B, Takeshita Y, Matson PG, Crook ED, Kroeker KJ, Gambi MC, Rivest EB, Frieder CA, Yu PC, Martz TR.

The effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is quasi-predictable at best. While perturbation studies, in the form of incubations under elevated pCO(2), reveal sensitivities and responses of individual species, one missing link in the OA story results from a chronic lack of pH data specific to a given species' natural habitat. Here, we present a compilation of continuous, high-resolution time series of upper ocean pH, collected using autonomous sensors, over a variety of ecosystems ranging from polar to tropical, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef. These observations reveal a continuum of month-long pH variability with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The nature of the observed variability was also highly site-dependent, with characteristic diel, semi-diurnal, and stochastic patterns of varying amplitudes. These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO(2), often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100. Our data provide a first step toward crystallizing the biophysical link between environmental history of pH exposure and physiological resilience of marine organisms to fluctuations in seawater CO(2). Knowledge of this spatial and temporal variation in seawater chemistry allows us to improve the design of OA experiments: we can test organisms with a priori expectations of their tolerance guardrails, based on their natural range of exposure. Such hypothesis-testing will provide a deeper understanding of the effects of OA. Both intuitively simple to understand and powerfully informative, these and similar comparative time series can help guide management efforts to identify areas of marine habitat that can serve as refugia to acidification as well as areas that are particularly vulnerable to future ocean change.


There has been(according to NOAA) a 0.1 decrease in pH over the last century...OMG what will we do?

How much variability is NATURAL in marine ecosystems? (be sure to look for 0.1 on the scales)....
The data says during a measured month at various locations....

pone.0028983.g002.jpg (215 KiB) Viewed 1416 times

Interesting.....

is that more that 0.1 ?

[rogman]

You're right, I don't bother with anything Anthony Watts has to say, for the same reason I don't bother checking a stopped clock. Sure it's right twice a day, but ultimately I have to double check it, so why bother? You seem to think his blog deserves serious consideration. It doesn't. It's not confirmation bias on my part, but rather what he writes is driven by an agenda: his blog exists because he gets paid by groups like the Heritage Foundation. They are interested in page clicks, promoting an agenda, and the truth tends to be a casualty. When I do look at it, it is to see what rubbish he is currently promoting, so I know what arguments his acolytes will be pushing.

That the ocean is becoming more acidic due to C02 uptake is a fact. You may obsess about the absolute value being above 7 (thus it is slightly basic), but that is irrelevant; a reasonably educated person wouldn't fall for that dubious attempt at spin. If Anthony Watts is pushing that nonsense, bully for him; I know enough about the ocean to know BS when I hear it.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

The Sgt. has some real reading comprehension issues. Saying it is based on just feelings or no methodology is completely false. (Prove it!)

And I am certain (A competent scientist almost never says “I am certain” …just so you know.) he did not read the separate sections of the IPCC report where each section reports confidence on a particular subject and provides explanations (methodology) of how they assigned a confidence level. (I have looked at big chunks of it actually. Apart from an occasional reference to MODEL FITNESS there seem to be no mathematical algorithms for expression of confidence… and certainly not a summative algorithm to attribute “anthropogenic cause.” I have hunted pretty obsessively for this both in the primary literature and in comments from BOTH sides on this argument. I can link you to many sites which make the claim that there is no mathematical operation used to get the 95% or the 50%.....these are to my knowledge unrebutted. You can rebut that argument by simply showing me the page where the IPCC generates the number 95%. )


But, then again he didn't even know about the document Rogman posted,(Yes I did and I stated that in my original response and in a later post….can you read???) why would she know the details of a 1000's pages document.

The Sgt. would have you believe scientists just point to a value in a table based on how they feel. BS. The assessment must include supporting evidence for the assessment. (Again you assert this…please link to the reference you have for this….how do they get 95% (not 94 0r 96)?

The page Rogman linked to IS the page that shows how they get their numbers which is…

“The Official Covert Your Climate Feelings Into Numbers Rubric”

…which is of course silly…which is what the entirety of the IPCC Summary Reports have always been… silly.)


And more BS about CO2 enrichment without providing a wider context. In study after study on this subject CO2 enrichment reaches limits due to availability of other nutrients, reaches limits due to plant acclimatization, water availability (which climate effects), and changes in carbohydrate/protein ratios in enriched crops mean the nutritional value of crops is lower, there imbalances in the competitive advantages for some plant species that disrupt ecological systems, etc. (The planet seems to be “greening” so whatever other factors you claim will offset the clear benefits of CO2 (in some circumstances ) ARE NOT doing a good job making things turn out the scary way you seem tom hope they will. Atmospheric CO2 is elevated, the earth is getting greener…I guess you must be right?????? Oh yeah but the food with not be nutritive!! Forgot about that.

Environmental science seems to be chock full of jackweeds (not like molecular biology and physical chemistry where there are still lots of good scientists.) )


And of course he ignores the fact that CO2 is the driver of disruptive climate change. And despite the increase in plant productivity CO2 levels continue to rise and the climate continues to change.

And of course he can't help insulting my profession and my competence. I'll just take that as projection. (If I were projecting I would think you were sane and humble….)

What makes me a scientist and him a false expert, is that he cherry-picks his evidence and does not provide a wider context for interpreting a single study. This is a basic skill we teach our science students. It is a skill he sorely lacks. (Cherry-picking???? That is the funny phrase that “BELIEVERS” use when they are shown a piece of data which DOES NOT fit their hypothesis. They think that if you find some evidence that disproves their theory all they have to do is declare it “cherry-picking” and it shall be dismissed.

Guess what jackweed? That is one of the ways you shout to the world that you are not a competent scientist! (seem like an activist academic who teaches what he has been told to be true as literal truth) What you call cherry-picking is really just exhaustive inclusion of data, what real science does.

To my reckoning climate/environmental science are the only fields where you can hide /discard / distort / ignore data because it DOESN’T fit your hypothesis and still get published. When someone points to legitimate data that contradicts your hypothesis you get to scream “cherry-picking” and your mindless disciples all decide they MUST IGNORE the data.

Look up Briffa & Mann and the Yamal larch data. The bedwetters hid the data which disproved their theory. When the “deniers” found the excluded data and showed the impact on temperature reconstructions the “climate scientists” should have been deeply shamed, maybe fired. Instead they blustered that including the complete data set was somehow cherry-picking.

Think of the scene in the wizard of Oz where Toto pulls back the curtain. “Ignore the man behind the curtain” screams the great and powerful Oz. “Ignore the Yamal larches (or Antarctic ice or homogenization issues or hurricane drought or warming pause or etc.) that is cherry-picking!!”

Real theories can explain ALL the data. )


"not sure why I still bother" He can stop bothering posting misleading and false information, I will continue to teach the real science to 800 students a year.(That is indeed a pity. )

And this week we have the CEO of Exxon announcing that climate change is a serious issue with serious risks. But why would anyone believe an anti-capitalist commie like the CEO of Exxon?
(Energy companies make more money because of the climate alarmist scare. Like insurance companies. But I am sure the logic for this would escape you so….why bother?)
https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-says-cl ... .qqnm9iwwn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also in the Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/30d8dc2e-95f ... f38d484582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry it took so long to respond...sorta like shovelling manure...don't really want to do it but it's got to get done.

Keep hoping some day you will have a better understanding about what science really is and the world will be a better place.... pity about those kids though. I keep trying for their sake...whenever I just want to give up on explaining science to you I think of those poor kids suffering hours of political indoctrination and getting so confused about the world is...I think of their innocent faces, 800 a year?

My God! The horror of that! It keeps me going.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

You're right, I don't bother with anything Anthony Watts has to say, for the same reason I don't bother checking a stopped clock. Sure it's right twice a day, but ultimately I have to double check it, so why bother? You seem to think his blog deserves serious consideration. It doesn't. It's not confirmation bias on my part, but rather what he writes is driven by an agenda: his blog exists because he gets paid by groups like the Heritage Foundation. They are interested in page clicks, promoting an agenda, and the truth tends to be a casualty. When I do look at it, it is to see what rubbish he is currently promoting, so I know what arguments his acolytes will be pushing.

That the ocean is becoming more acidic due to C02 uptake is a fact. You may obsess about the absolute value being above 7 (thus it is slightly basic), but that is irrelevant; a reasonably educated person wouldn't fall for that dubious attempt at spin. If Anthony Watts is pushing that nonsense, bully for him; I know enough about the ocean to know BS when I hear it.

Funny guy.

Actually proud to declare that you WILL NOT consider counter-narratives!

Bet that's how you got so dang good at thankin'.

ANd what about the paper excerpted on natural pH variability for various pacific sites? That was peer-reviewed and NOT from a “denialist blog”…

So…. WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THAT?????

[KBL Ed]

It's gonna snow in October. SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING!

[Streamtracker]

So much Sgt. BS and not enough time to answer all of it.

Regarding the ocean acidification posts by the Sgt.

1) He is trying to distract you with the small values ploy.

A 0.1 increase does not sound like much, but since the pH scale is logarithmic this is a 30% increase. If yearly average temps are 60F in an area and they increase by 30%, the average temp will be 80F. That's not a trivial change and neither is a 0.1 pH change. To put it into perspective, the rate of change that got us to 30% decrease in pH is 100x faster than anything seen in the paleontological record over the last 20 million years. Biological systems can change when given enough time, but when the rates of change are fast systems are less likely to adapt. (I am sure he will dispute the paleo record, although when it suites him he will cite it, as he did when he posted the misleading comments about retreating glaciers).

2) Is a 0.1 pH increase a disaster? No one is suggesting it is and no credible ocean scientist is saying it will not have some negative impacts. But NOAA also predicts a 300% increase by centuries end if we maintain a moderate growth projection for atmospheric CO2 levels. That will most certainly change ocean systems - it is not an experiment I want to try. It is definitely not a risk I will take with my daughter's ands my future grandchildren's future.

3) He is trying to distract you with the variability ploy.

pH levels in the ocean are patchy in both time and space. Decreases in ocean pH are also patchy. This is not surprising and has been known for quite a long time. The paper he cited just looks at the variability at a finer scale both spatially and temporally. But the Sgt. presents this as it were some great revelation that casts doubt on the science. Surface temperatures are also patchy in space and time. Nature is patchy - so what.

One way mobile organisms maintain homoeostasis in various internal states, including those related to water pH, is by moving out of unfavorable conditions and into more favorable conditions. In addition, if you have populations that occur along a gradient of pH levels, parts of the population will be in less favorable and some in more favorable conditions. Survival, growth, and reproductive rates are higher in favorable conditions for pH sensitive organisms ( This is basic physiology - think trout and the impacts of acid r*in caused stream acidification. Lots of other examples too from fresh and salt water systems).

As ocean acidity increases (pH decreases) there are fewer patches in time and space that are in the favorable range and more patches in the less favorable range for low pH sensitive organisms. This means animals that can move will have fewer favorable patches to move into and those that are sedentary are more likely to be within the range of variability that is less favorable. As pH decreases temporal variability in the patches will swing around an average that is lower in pH. (Using a temperature analogy - if yearly temps fluctuate across arrange of 10 to 110 degrees and you increases average temps by 5 degrees, then the variability fluctuates around 15 to 125 - for some animals the amount of time above temp threshold will have negative effects. Pikas in the Rocky Mtns are a good example. It can also mean some animals/plants are more likely to make it through the winter - think northern spread of ticks and woolly adelgid.)

For pH this means organisms will spend more time in unfavorable conditions. Many organisms can tolerate brief periods outside their comfort range and then recover. But if things are outside the comfort range for too long it begins to impact survival, growth, and reproduction. On the flip side, some organisms will do better, think jellyfish and salps.

One more point about patchiness. There are areas in the ocean that are naturally acidic, where there is bubbling of CO2 from the ocean floor. In those areas, the pH is considerably lower than outside of those patches.

Variability is just fluctuations around a mean. if the mean increases the lower and upper bound of variability will increase. It certainly is not doubt creating issue that the Sgt. tries to make it into.

4) This is the Sgt's MO. He cherry picks information and never provides a broader context and he exaggerates the importance of the out of context material he posts.

This paper on ocean pH variability does not in any way state that ocean acidification is not an issue. Rather it gives a more detailed picture of variability and will help predict how change will occur both spatially and temporally as CO2 levels continue to increase. It will also help design better experiments on the impact of acidification on calcareous and other pH sensitive organisms. This is how science progresses.

5) In 2008 a group of leading ocean acidification scientists gathered for a meeting on ocean acidification. One of the outcomes of that meeting was the Monaco Declaration. We have more knowledge about this issue eight years later, but their main points are very important: https://www.iaea.org/nael/docrel/MonacoDeclaration.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

5) it is incredible how smart the Sgt. is that he finds errors in the work of thousands of scientists with training in dozens of specialized disciplines. He truly is a genius. It is also incredible that he thinks science is broken. He stated that in broad areas of research the process does not work. He cites replication of science, which he clearly does not understand (its not simply repeating the exact same research - it is rather an iterative process where science progresses by increasing confidence our understanding natural patterns and processes). Here is great piece on why science is not broken and goes beyond the high school version of how replication is applied in science: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sci ... ken/#part1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am sure he will cherry pick some statement in that piece and place it out of the context of the article's message. It's what he does. I also expect him to reply in a big bold font. It's also what he does.

Science is not broken, but the Sgt's view of it sure is.

6) I thank the Sgt. for this opportunity for me to put down my thoughts about ocean acidity variability. It will make a great addition to my lecture on the subject.

7) No time to deal with his misleading posts about glacial retreat - he claimed it's just the continuation of retreat since the ice age - but as usual he is just out right wrong or grossly misleading. Maybe in a future comment.

[Bubba]

From the NY Times

Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year

By JUSTIN GILLISJAN. 18, 2017


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/scie ... d=53674587" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Coydog]

From the NY Times

Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year

By JUSTIN GILLISJAN. 18, 2017


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/scie ... d=53674587" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hottest year in the UAH satellite record as well. My bet with SEB that this decade will be hotter than the previous is now well in my favor. Of course, if the Donald can get elected president, anything is possible.

[freeski]

Many of the government sponsored "scientists" aren't going to have funding/jobs in another month. It will be interesting to see how this will effect the numbers. Three years of increasing record warmth doesn't pass the smell test.

[RustyK]

All I know is that I saw a flower blooming this morning as I left for work. Purple and small.

Said to myself. Something is wrong again with January. Geez.

[f.a.s.t.]

All I know is that I saw a flower blooming this morning as I left for work. Purple and small.

Said to myself. Something is wrong again with January. Geez.

Probably a viola, nothing unusual-they bloom around my house all year long next to my foundation. It's really a weed, hard to get rid of.