The IPCC predicts 18-59 cm of sea level rise this century, not the multi-metre crap being spewed by Hansen and other eco-loons. Even the wildly bloated CU satellite interpretations indicate only a foot of rise by 2100.
People claiming otherwise are simply not telling the truth.
They are following advice and trying to be effective rather than honest. If Chicken Little had claimed a 1% chance the sky was falling no one would listen. There might be a 1% chance that human activity will cause catastrophic global climate change outside of natural climate variations. Natural sea level variation is greater than the worst case scenario of the Chicken Little Brigade.
You’re right. It is CRAZY what those liberal scientists come up with. I’m just surprised that the Koch Heads (Chuck and David) haven’t been able to buy off more of the scientific community. After all, the tobacco industry was able to buy off some of the scientists for more than 50 years, and some of the scientific community was bought off by the asbestos industry for 50 years as well.
Here’s another one of those “scientific reports”: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110605132433.htm
I hate it when those liberal scientists that make up 90 – 95% of the total scientific community use facts to support there case. I just HATE THAT.
We need to keep supporting the Koch Heads and the groups they support in order to combat the facts.
JC,
When you look at official, untouched Government records from 50-100 years ago, and/or reports and news articles, (even from flaming lib sources like the NYT), and there you see information which disproves CAGW, I have news for you: It isn’t the Kochs or anyone else creating that information. No one has a time machine. What we really DO have is a political agenda, just as you say, but from your side: To build a body of pseudoevidence of a problem that has never existed, and it’s in the multiBillions, not Millions. The money spent by realists is dwarfed by Government subsidies used to create the illusion of a crisis.
JC, I know you believe what the models say, but it’s all BS.
The lowest pH during the entire Eocene was ~7.4 – 8.1, and that is guessed from sediments. That’s well within the normal range.
Plus they are trying to reconstruct this using calcium found in sediments. Sediments are anoxic/suboxic, that are acidic and dissolve Ca carbonate.
I think you have wrong. I’m with you guys and the other Koch Heads. Really. You guys have the strategy of ignoring the facts, just like the tobacco industry did on smoking. In the tobacco industry it was known in the 1930’s that tobacco was bad for your health. But the strategy was to “stall”…ignore facts, misrepresent positions, etc. And it WORKED.
So I actually think you guys are executing on a very good strategy. Ignore the facts. I’m with you. My only question is why the Koch Heads haven’t bought more of the scientists, and keep them from presenting facts.
I’ll talk with Chuck and David and see if they can kick in some more money and keep those pesky facts out of the “lamestream media”.
What facts are wrong JC?
JC, tobacco and global warming to two very separate issues. Why do alarmists fail to understand the distinction?
As to your “facts”, other than blathering about having “facts”, why don’t you present a few and we can rationally discuss them. Or are you simply here to attempt at some laughable condescension? (I say laughable because I find most alarmists intellectually incapable of critical thinking or articulating their position properly…… delicious irony.)
Nice link…..meaning what? Ocean acidification is a lark. and easily shown as nonsense. More fun from your story, “The rate of release of carbon into the atmosphere today is nearly 10 times as fast as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55.9 million years ago, the best analog we have for current global warming, …..” I particularly like the .9 million part of the 55.9 million years. I’m glad they can come to such precision now. Are they sure it wasn’t 56.1 million years ago? Equating an obviously natural occurring event to something that is allegedly Anthropological seems a bit like apples and oranges comparisons, but whatever. They then run an ineffectual forward casting model and run backcasts? And think that reflects reality? More whatever. J C, thanks for sharing, it gets my day started just right. We should all hit panic mode ASAP!!!
More fun stuff you’ve offered….. a nice rant about the Koch brothers. lol, K, I’ll see your Koch brothers and raise you a Soros. Is your bought and paid for science better than our bought and paid for science? phhttt. Here’s an idea, use your own judgment and quit letting other people do your thinking for you.
James, that study fails big time.
Saturation of carbonates (buffer) is pH dependent, and so is Ca carbonate. You can’t compare them at different pH other than to say it’s still saturated.
All this hand waving about calcium skeletons, fails too. These animals that lay down calcium skeletons do so by internally regulating their pH. A lower pH they don’t have to work so hard.
Obviously when CO2 levels were in the multi-thousands ppm, we didn’t loose the plankton, we didn’t loose the coral reefs, diatoms did fine, photosynthesis went on about it’s business……
The biggest bear in the room is reef building corals. They did fine. They have several different symbiotic diatoms (zooxanthellae) and they are active predators of plankton. That blows the whole ocean acidification thing out the window. Diatoms did not die, corals did not die, photosynthesis did not stop, the oceans did not get too hot, plankton levels did not drop….
and the corals were nice enough to leave detailed records of the whole thing that everyone can look at…………….
Lat, thanks for articulating the thought much better than I could. Obviously, you’re much for studied on the subject than I am, but like you stated, the reefs did just fine. How does it stand to reason, now that CO2 is much less that a slight increase would be harmful? I just don’t know why the alarmists don’t drop these things that have been refuted? It’s like they refuse to acknowledge reality.
much more, …….not much for…….sigh
At any rate, remember when there used to be some alarmists that would swing by and actually state something pertinent? …………. me either, but I remember them being a wee bit more challenging than these drive-by offerings of sophistry.
Thanks for popping by J C, come back when you can hold an intelligible conversation!!!!
unfortunately, our lab work shows that corals grow faster with CO2 injection….
Problem is, carbonates buffer it almost immediately.
If there was a way to keep CO2 in solution, we could grow corals like greenhouse tomatoes……
If you want to have some real fun. Look at ocean sediments, anoxic/oxic interface, denitrification/nitrification, etc etc
and then try to figure out how these guys are getting calcium skeletons out of marine sediments…….
You’ve got one group of scientists (paleo) in way over their pay scale, they need to consult with a decent marine pathobiologist which they do not do…………
<>
You’re right. Why would those liberal scientists compare something that was obviously a “natural occurring event”, to an Anthropological event, where the rate of increase in CO2 during the Anthropological event was 10 times more than during the prior “natural occurring” event millions of years ago?
Yea…..that’s a tough one. I just can’t imagine why? It’s almost like those liberal scientists are saying the rate of increase in CO2 is 10 times worse than during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Its interesting that they/you would put a value judgment attached to atmospheric CO2. worse
I’ve not seen the compelling argument that more CO2 is worse. Would you be so kind as to point out where and how this case was made? Further, read Latitudes comments on the study.
The thing about alarmists is that they believe everything they see in print, as long as like minded ideologues deemed it worthy of being published.
Yes J C, you really believe they can determine the rate of CO2 emissions from exactly 55.9 million years ago…lol….stop man, next you’ll be telling me you can tell the earth’s historic temps by looking at tree rings.
lmao….. it is worse than we thought!!!!! 55.9 million years ago the rate of CO2 emissions were 10 times less than today!!!! Every body panic now!!!
Tell me genius, were there other GHG’s present during the PETM? Tell me also, the ice core samples, was that H2O always frozen in place or was there periods of thawing and re-freezing?
<>
That’s only because I’m a “country bumpkin.” I don’t have the intellect, insight, and the acumen that you have.
So in my very simple world….10 times the CO2 is certainly not a good thing. Now I know that Michele Bachmann thinks that CO2 is naturally occurring in nature, so ANY amount of CO2 is a good thing.
I’m an “oxygen guy.” But I guess you must be right, 10 times the CO2 is good, not bad. What was I thinking? Obviously I WASN’T thinking!
Just to make sure I get this COMPLETELY right (remember, I’m not smart like you, I am of very low intelligence):
1) 10 times the amount of CO2 now is “good”….not bad (stupid me).
2) That leads me to believe we should produce MORE CO2, so we should do more coal mining (dirty coal mining is better than “clean coal”…..although clean coal is like an “honest attorney”….nonexistent).
Are there other things that we should do as a society to keep all this good work that we’ve done over the last 150 years going in the same, good direction?
Maybe Chuck and David have some ideas how we can continue on our current path?
Yes, the PETM, when volcanoes caused warming, unlike today when they cause cooling. Or at least when they are needed as a reason that Hansens GCM is wrong.
ZZZZZzzzzz…..
You BASTARD!!!!! I am a gay Nazi, and I take a fence.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/searching-the-paleoclimate-record-for-estimated-correlations-temperature-co2-and-sea-level/
“Notice how the Cretaceous Period, 95 million years ago, is 2.0C to 3.0C higher than the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. The climate scientists are always talking about how unusual the PETM was but just a few million years earlier, temperatures were quite a bit higher. Dinosaurs even lived in Alaska at the time, and it was a little farther north in the period than it is now. The PETM event does not even look unusual enough in the record to spend much time on.”
From the paper linked to.
“Now I know that Michele Bachmann thinks that CO2 is naturally occurring in nature, so ANY amount of CO2 is a good thing.”
Do you think it is NOT a naturally occurring substance ?
“10 times the CO2 is certainly not a good thing”
==============================================
JC, it’s not 10 times the CO2.
They are trying to say the rate of increase is 10 times faster, even though they admit they really have no way of knowing. Mainly because most of the emissions back then were thought to be methane.
CO2 levels are still way below the levels they were then.
But they go on to have this disclaimer……………
Which gets them out of anything they claim.
“However, the researchers note in the current issue of Nature Geoscience, that the source of the carbon, the rate of emission and the total amount of carbon involved in this event during the PETM are poorly characterized”
I tried to help him with my question “Tell me genius, were there other GHG’s present during the PETM?”, but he’d rather feign intellectual deference rather than learn anything.
The problem with that is you have to know the subject…
..but then if you know the subject you would see “fail” from the get go
See:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/volcanoes-make-lots-of-co2-when-it-suits-the-argument/
JC,
If you reckon scientists are so easy to bribe, then we obviously cannot trust any govt funded ones.
lol, Aww, sorry JC, did I touch a nerve with my genius comment? You’d probably get engaged in more civil discussions if you try a different approach.
I notice you didn’t answer my questions nor was your response to my challenge for proofs that CO2 is harmful rational. But you forge ahead as if nothing was stated. Very nice, and you guys call us deniers……..
JC, think about it for a second……. the rate of emission is supposedly 10Xs……..ok, let’s reason that one to check if the study could hold any value. Now we can look at the posit one or two ways. By emissions rate, do they mean the total increase of atmospheric CO2 or simply the emission minus the sinks and other forms which decrease CO2? The latter doesn’t make sense because there’s no way to determine what was going on then, especially seeing that we can’t accurately account for the in and out of aCO2 presently. So, we’ll journey down the accumulated CO2 path.
Today, Mauna says we’ve got 393 ppm. Fifty years ago, it was about 318. http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/esrl-co2/from:1961.5
So, that’s a rate of 75ppm/50 years, or 1.5 ppm/year. They are positing that they know the increasing rate 55.9 million years ago was 0.15ppm/year. To steal from Pierre Bosquet, It is magnificent, but it isn’t science.
JC, does that seem rational or reasonable to you? I’m not even getting into the time distribution problems(ok, just briefly I touched on it)…… One doesn’t or rather shouldn’t compare 100 of thousands of years to a time period of 50 or less. Its ridiculous to attempt to do so. Obviously an average over 100,000 to a million years is going to see less extremes than a rate derived over a 50 year period of time. Or do you believe they pinpointed the 50 year time period exactly 55.9 millions of years ago? Either way, it is just the same sophistry we’re so used to seeing out of alarmists these days. Come back and bring us something we can sink our teeth into. This is mildly amusing at best.
James,
Actually, your back of the envelope calculation was very close. .3 Pg C comes out to .14 ppm!
From glancing at the abstract for the paper JC’s link was quoting, they say: “Our simulations show that the peak rate of carbon addition was probably in the range of 0.3–1.7Pg C/yr-1”
Really? They can zero in on the 55.9 mya time frame with such precision, but their range of values can be off ~5.7x. That’s quite a difference!
Oh, in case anyone was wondering (JC in particular), 1.7 Pg C = .8 ppm so it could just as easily be just a 1.75x accumulation difference.
Somehow it’s not quite as scary anymore. But I’m sure his moveon.org email didn’t include that little tidbit.
Thanks Robb, I wasn’t going to invest that much time on a study that was so obviously flawed in so many directions.
And yes, its a hoot, 55.9 ….. don’t forget the .9 mya because its probably important and way different than saying “about 56 mya”. It lends a tone of certitude. But then as you point out, the certitude kinda gets shot to heck when they throw 0.3–1.7Pg C/yr-1 at you.
I recently came across the following quotation from J Robert Oppenheimer in an old James Blish novel:-
We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.
Pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with climate science these days.
“increasing rate 55.9 million years ago was 0.15ppm/year.”
and in 20,000 years that would be an increase of 3000ppm for a grand total of close to 4000 ppm
“Rather than the 20,000 years of the PETM which is long enough for ecological systems to adapt, carbon is now being released into the atmosphere at a rate 10 times faster,” said Kump. “It is possible that this is faster than ecosystems can adapt.”
They are trying to say that everything adapted to levels of 4000 ppm CO2, which obviously didn’t make the oceans acidic, or cause calcium skeletons to dissolve, because we have plenty of corals, diatoms, plankton, etc from that period….
..and they found this out by looking at calcium skeletons in the sediments
So now we know that even at ~4000 ppm CO2, there was no ocean acidification………….
Biggest problem is they don’t have a clue what they are doing.
They are looking at sediments and have no way of guessing any of these things from sediments because of denitrification.
Excellent Lat! It is a hoot they prove they are FOS.
“………because we have plenty of corals, diatoms, plankton, etc from that period….”
“So now we know that even at ~4000 ppm CO2, there was no ocean acidification………….”
Money quote!!!!! ————>They are looking at sediments and have no way of guessing any of these things from sediments because of denitrification.
We should keep that study handy the next time someone comes to babble about how CO2 is killing our corals.
LOL I’m sure they didn’t mean to day that…
…but that’s exactly what they said
Scientists are not the brightest bulbs in the box.
We have this saying:
A scientist is someone without a clue, trying to get one.
Remember it was just a few years ago that all you heard was “Caribbean corals will be gone in 10 years” “Great Barrier Reef gone in 10 years” blah blah blah
Don’t hear any of that any more because the reefs have recovered….
They just moved on to the next disaster of the day……….
What’s sad is science has become this, and there’s people that actually need it.
“We should keep that study handy the next time someone comes to babble about how CO2 is killing our corals.”
=====================================================
I’ve always told you, our two brains work better in tandem…
You did the math, all I did was extend the line a little.
Here’s one you really do need to file away.
They keep saying that CO2 levels have not reached this level in 30 million years, blah blah
But 30 million years ago, when temperatures went down first and dragged CO2 levels down with it…
…the ocean crashed
That’s why we have diatomaceous earth mines/deposits now….
Again proof that higher CO2 levels support more ocean productivity, and when they fall, the ocean crashes.
all I did was extend the line a little…….. not true, you provided the details I only hinted at and turned the study’s perspective into something more closely resembling science, ie. evidence that increased CO2 wouldn’t be detrimental to corals as has been posited, but yes, we do have our moments.
You do realize, if the oceans had not crashed, we would not have diatomaceous earth deposits….
….and you would be missing one of your favorite toys
dynamite
LOL
We should have been a little more coy, now I don’t think JC will want to come here and play anymore.
Oh that’s ok….
one of these days he’ll grow up and look back on this fondly
He’s probably one of my pre-docs, sounds like it……….
IDK……… even when he grows up, he may still have a distaste from having his azz fed to him.
Here’s my problem with the likes of JC,
People like him come here with their arrogant tone & sarcastic remarks. They then link to an article with a scary headline and not only never bother to check the paper referenced in the article, they think we won’t go read the paper.
When called on their BS, there’s only the sound of crickets.
Yes, but, in a way, its beneficial. I believe many like JC are the ones that believe the stereo-typing and lies spread by the likes of Cook and Romm. ie that we are anti-science, nearly illiterate, quote Rush as our source of knowledge. They feel they can come over here and with their condescending attitude and properly expose us to his/her warped version of truth.
I’ve no doubt JC left here a bit beleaguered. He’s wondering what the hell????? No one quoted Rush, our reading comprehension was superior to his and our maths and science was superior to the article he linked.
🙂
Thanks for the humor guys!
lol, YW!!! 🙂 Its always a bonus when we can laugh at an alarmista’s expense.
We’ll be here all week………………….:-D
Every time I hear about Ocean acidification I remember this site:
Around seventy million years ago this part of Britain was submerged by a shallow sea. The sea bottom was made of a white mud formed from the fragments of coccoliths – the skeletons of tiny algae which floated in the surface waters of the sea. This mud was later to become the chalk. It is thought that the chalk was deposited very slowly, probably only half a millimetre a year – equivalent to about 180 coccoliths piled one on top of another. In spite of this, up to 500 metres of chalk were deposited in places. The coccoliths are too small to be seen without a powerful microscope but if you look carefully you will find fossils of some of the larger inhabitants of the chalk sea such as sponges, shells, ammonites and urchins.
From:
http://www.dover.gov.uk/museum/information_resources/articles__factsheets/white_cliffs.aspx
Mike, I’ll let you in on a secret….
Ocean acidification has never happened, even when CO2 levels were at their highest.
Know why? There’s one very obvious thing that would have given it away.
In order for acidification to happen you have to run out of buffer/carbonates.
When carbonates become limiting, denitrification stops.
..when denitrification stops, every thing in the ocean would be dead.
Lat, you should write a post on that. Either here or at mine, or both. Break it down in layman’s terms and show the process. I think it would be beneficial to show what is necessary for life in the marine environment. And to educate people on acidification, what changes CO2 into other carbon forms and how we can show the corals that thrived during periods of disproportionately more CO2 than today.
Just a thought……
I Knew that Ocean acidification is not possible. Where I grew up there are Gypsum mines for wall board. Guess how the Gypsum got there and when! Actually I learned about it in geology class in the late 60s along with field trips to observe sea life fossils in the middle of the desert. I also visited large areas of petrified forest that are now in a restricted area.
Thanks my biggest problem. Once I get going I don’t know how to break it down in layman’s terms.
I don’t speak layman very well.
You guys and posting on blogs like this help a lot with that, I’m learning.
Here’s one of my pre-docs, I coached them on this one…..
Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification
Paper’s a mess, because we don’t write comic books. We assume the audience is up to speed. As a result, it’s been used by both sides to prove global warming and to not prove global warming…
…sheesh
Paper’s behind a paywall…
Read this and you’ll get the jest of it.
http://nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/2009/12/variation-in-calcification-among.html
Dang Lat! The paper would be cool to have. Yes, I can see where both sides would use it, and yes, you’d have to start out a bit more remedial. But, typically, in these circles of climate blogosphere, most of the difficulty is in the vernacular used. All of us have different backgrounds and some words used hold slightly different meanings and connotations. At any rate, its doable. Though I see where I could be forced to interpret. And would have to ask some questions.
The blue mussel is interesting.
Also, the article doesn’t explain the graphs properly……. but the curved results for various species is …….oh hell, now I have more questions than answers……….firstly, what are the two echinoderms?
Now this I can do, answer questions in bits and pieces.
I’m not a good story teller, and blog posts have to be that way.
First, this is in the lab/aquarium.
Second, CO2 is fed until it uses up all the buffer, then the pH falls.
That’s how you lower pH with CO2.
No animal uses just calcium to build anything. They also need carbon. But carbon gets in the way of lowering pH with CO2.
..with me so far
In no case did calcification stop, it only slowed down.
The smart thing to think is calcification slowed down because carbon was limiting.
The one animal that had the most damage was the pencil urchin. Pencils use a 1 to 1 (Ca/carbonate) ratio. It was the carbonate that dissolved. Then down the scale from there, the more carbonate the more change.
This is where the internet is good and bad. It’s gets more of this stuff out there in people’s hands, but it also gets it out there to an audience that doesn’t understand it.
This was just a very simple experiment to show what would happen “if”. Does not consider the big picture.
We use words so different than the other fields it’s like a different language.
oxic suboxic aerobic anaerobic, come to mind. They mean something completely different to us.
and we assume that the audience has a basic understanding of ammonification nitrification denitrification
K lat, when I have more time, maybe I can revisit about this with you. But I’m pretty sure we could show, even to some of the more remedial readers that the acidification issue is a non-starter……that it shouldn’t even be brought up.
Cliff notes version:
Buffer is carbonates.
Denitrification is the largest consumer of carbon/buffer. It consumes and liberates.
To have acidification, means you’ve run out of buffer.
If you run out of buffer, denitrification stops.
Everything dies.
The reason I think about the Chalk Cliffs of Dover is that they represent all the calcium that is laying around the environment and keeping the oceans from becoming any less base.
And now, I’ll think of the same when discussing ocean acidification…….thanks.
Mike, it’s not the calcium, it’s the carbonate.
Carbonates are the buffer.
Chalk is calcium carbonate.