The Oceans pH Level Is Falling
- Thread starter RobbyG
- Start date
- Status
dreaminmel
New member
Well if you take everything literally then it would seem silly, however, if you remember he's a comedian and pay attention to the point he makes on humanity then you'll understand the meaning he was trying to drive home. 
eckrynock
Premium Member
Oh, so pay attention to the humanity stuff but not the rest of it? Weak!
And yes, Carlin's a comedian so maybe we should laugh and move on. Somebody here said he's the only one they believe in. Is Carlin peer-reviewed, Hippie?
Anyways, Carlin's stance sounds a lot like Mike's and mine. The planet's fine, what do humans possibly think they can do to it? You guys say humans are producing CO2 and we're going to destroy the planet. Carlin says humans are a tiny blip on the Earth's radar soon to be eradicated. How do those arguments line up?
And yes, Carlin's a comedian so maybe we should laugh and move on. Somebody here said he's the only one they believe in. Is Carlin peer-reviewed, Hippie?
Anyways, Carlin's stance sounds a lot like Mike's and mine. The planet's fine, what do humans possibly think they can do to it? You guys say humans are producing CO2 and we're going to destroy the planet. Carlin says humans are a tiny blip on the Earth's radar soon to be eradicated. How do those arguments line up?
facewedgie
New member
didnt you get angry when you thought people were attacking what you believe?
anyways, it was a joke, he is a comedian...
RichConley
New member
I've never heard the fishing theory before. Honestly, it takes care of almost all the things that didnt line up with the whole industrial revolution thing.
It also makes me think of other animal type sources. While theyre are a lot of cattle in the US, theres nowhere near what there were buffalo back a couple centuries ago. Anybody know what period it was when the buffalo were hunted basically to extinction? I'd be curious to see if there were any small spikes there.
It also makes me think of other animal type sources. While theyre are a lot of cattle in the US, theres nowhere near what there were buffalo back a couple centuries ago. Anybody know what period it was when the buffalo were hunted basically to extinction? I'd be curious to see if there were any small spikes there.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
I didn't say he's the only one I believe in, it was Nabber. Anyway, lighten up, man, it was supposed to be funny.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
I found the 'fishing theory' article that I think kalkbreath was referring to.
http://www.fisherycrisis.com/strangelove.html
It's not peer reviewed, kind of an independent project.
One problem I have with it (and I just skimmed it) is that the author is trying to make the claim that the ocean is a net producer of CO2. That simply isn't true. However, maybe if the ocean isn't as LARGE of a sink today as it was in the past because of overfishing, then I suppose it's possible that it could be contributing to increased atmospheric CO2 levels. The planet was, pre-industrialization, a stable place. CO2 was produced, then it was absorbed, and this was very balanced. If we diminished the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2, then the CO2 produced by other biological processes, which would normally go into the ocean, now has no choice but to go into the atmosphere. That doesn't mean the ocean is a source of CO2, it just isn't doing what it used to.
http://www.fisherycrisis.com/strangelove.html
It's not peer reviewed, kind of an independent project.
One problem I have with it (and I just skimmed it) is that the author is trying to make the claim that the ocean is a net producer of CO2. That simply isn't true. However, maybe if the ocean isn't as LARGE of a sink today as it was in the past because of overfishing, then I suppose it's possible that it could be contributing to increased atmospheric CO2 levels. The planet was, pre-industrialization, a stable place. CO2 was produced, then it was absorbed, and this was very balanced. If we diminished the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2, then the CO2 produced by other biological processes, which would normally go into the ocean, now has no choice but to go into the atmosphere. That doesn't mean the ocean is a source of CO2, it just isn't doing what it used to.
ckuhndog77
New member
After reading about 70% of this thread the other day, I saw this article and thought it should be added here as more info. for the debate. Hope it's not a duplicate
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07142006_1990.htm
The Wall Street Journal editorial:
Hockey Stick Hokum
July 14, 2006; Page A12
It is routine these days to read in newspapers or hear -- almost anywhere the subject of climate change comes up -- that the 1990s were the "warmest decade in a millennium" and that 1998 was the warmest year in the last 1,000.
This assertion has become so accepted that it is often recited without qualification, and even without giving a source for the "fact." But a report soon to be released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee by three independent statisticians underlines yet again just how shaky this "consensus" view is, and how recent its vintage.
The claim originates from a 1999 paper by paleoclimatologist Michael Mann. Prior to Mr. Mann's work, the accepted view, as embodied in the U.N.'s 1990 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was that the world had undergone a warming period in the Middle Ages, followed by a mid-millennium cold spell and a subsequent warming period -- the current one. That consensus, as shown in the first of the two IPCC-provided graphs nearby, held that the Medieval warm period was considerably warmer than the present day.
Mr. Mann's 1999 paper eliminated the Medieval warm period from the history books, with the result being the bottom graph you see here. It's a man-made global-warming evangelist's dream, with a nice, steady temperature oscillation that persists for centuries followed by a dramatic climb over the past century. In 2001, the IPCC replaced the first graph with the second in its third report on climate change, and since then it has cropped up all over the place. Al Gore uses it in his movie.
The trouble is that there's no reason to believe that Mr. Mann, or his "hockey stick" graph of global temperature changes, is right. Questions were raised about Mr. Mann's paper almost as soon as it was published. In 2003, two Canadians, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre, published an article in a peer-reviewed journal showing that Mr. Mann's methodology could produce hockey sticks from even random, trendless data.
The report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, due to be released today, backs up and reinforces that conclusion. The three researchers -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University -- are not climatologists; they're statisticians. Their task was to look at Mr. Mann's methods from a statistical perspective and assess their validity. Their conclusion is that Mr. Mann's papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, Professor Wegman's report upholds the finding of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr. Mann's methodology is biased toward producing "hockey stick" shaped graphs.
Mr. Wegman and his co-authors are careful to point out that doubts about temperatures in the early part of the millennium do not call into question more-recent temperature increases. But as you can see looking at these two charts, it's all about context. In the first, the present falls easily within a range of natural historical variation. The bottom chart looks alarming and discontinuous with the past, which is why global-warming alarmists have adopted it so eagerly.
In addition to debunking the hockey stick, Mr. Wegman goes a step further in his report, attempting to answer why Mr. Mann's mistakes were not exposed by his fellow climatologists. Instead, it fell to two outsiders, Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick, to uncover the errors.
Mr. Wegman brings to bear a technique called social-network analysis to examine the community of climate researchers. His conclusion is that the coterie of most frequently published climatologists is so insular and close-knit that no effective independent review of the work of Mr. Mann is likely. "As analyzed in our social network," Mr. Wegman writes, "there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis." He continues: "However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."
In other words, climate research often more closely resembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge. And Mr. Wegman's social-network graphs suggest that Mr. Mann himself -- and his hockey stick -- is at the center of that network.
Mr. Wegman's report was initially requested by the House Energy Committee because some lawmakers were concerned that major decisions about our economy could be made on the basis of the dubious research embodied in the hockey stick. Some of the more partisan scientists and journalists howled that this was an attempt at intimidation. But as Mr. Wegman's paper shows, Congress was right to worry; his conclusions make "consensus" look more like group-think. And the dismissive reaction of the climate-research establishment to the McIntyre-McKitrick critique of the hockey stick confirms that impression.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07142006_1990.htm
The Wall Street Journal editorial:
Hockey Stick Hokum
July 14, 2006; Page A12
It is routine these days to read in newspapers or hear -- almost anywhere the subject of climate change comes up -- that the 1990s were the "warmest decade in a millennium" and that 1998 was the warmest year in the last 1,000.
This assertion has become so accepted that it is often recited without qualification, and even without giving a source for the "fact." But a report soon to be released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee by three independent statisticians underlines yet again just how shaky this "consensus" view is, and how recent its vintage.
The claim originates from a 1999 paper by paleoclimatologist Michael Mann. Prior to Mr. Mann's work, the accepted view, as embodied in the U.N.'s 1990 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was that the world had undergone a warming period in the Middle Ages, followed by a mid-millennium cold spell and a subsequent warming period -- the current one. That consensus, as shown in the first of the two IPCC-provided graphs nearby, held that the Medieval warm period was considerably warmer than the present day.
Mr. Mann's 1999 paper eliminated the Medieval warm period from the history books, with the result being the bottom graph you see here. It's a man-made global-warming evangelist's dream, with a nice, steady temperature oscillation that persists for centuries followed by a dramatic climb over the past century. In 2001, the IPCC replaced the first graph with the second in its third report on climate change, and since then it has cropped up all over the place. Al Gore uses it in his movie.
The trouble is that there's no reason to believe that Mr. Mann, or his "hockey stick" graph of global temperature changes, is right. Questions were raised about Mr. Mann's paper almost as soon as it was published. In 2003, two Canadians, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre, published an article in a peer-reviewed journal showing that Mr. Mann's methodology could produce hockey sticks from even random, trendless data.
The report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, due to be released today, backs up and reinforces that conclusion. The three researchers -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University -- are not climatologists; they're statisticians. Their task was to look at Mr. Mann's methods from a statistical perspective and assess their validity. Their conclusion is that Mr. Mann's papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, Professor Wegman's report upholds the finding of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr. Mann's methodology is biased toward producing "hockey stick" shaped graphs.
Mr. Wegman and his co-authors are careful to point out that doubts about temperatures in the early part of the millennium do not call into question more-recent temperature increases. But as you can see looking at these two charts, it's all about context. In the first, the present falls easily within a range of natural historical variation. The bottom chart looks alarming and discontinuous with the past, which is why global-warming alarmists have adopted it so eagerly.
In addition to debunking the hockey stick, Mr. Wegman goes a step further in his report, attempting to answer why Mr. Mann's mistakes were not exposed by his fellow climatologists. Instead, it fell to two outsiders, Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick, to uncover the errors.
Mr. Wegman brings to bear a technique called social-network analysis to examine the community of climate researchers. His conclusion is that the coterie of most frequently published climatologists is so insular and close-knit that no effective independent review of the work of Mr. Mann is likely. "As analyzed in our social network," Mr. Wegman writes, "there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis." He continues: "However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."
In other words, climate research often more closely resembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge. And Mr. Wegman's social-network graphs suggest that Mr. Mann himself -- and his hockey stick -- is at the center of that network.
Mr. Wegman's report was initially requested by the House Energy Committee because some lawmakers were concerned that major decisions about our economy could be made on the basis of the dubious research embodied in the hockey stick. Some of the more partisan scientists and journalists howled that this was an attempt at intimidation. But as Mr. Wegman's paper shows, Congress was right to worry; his conclusions make "consensus" look more like group-think. And the dismissive reaction of the climate-research establishment to the McIntyre-McKitrick critique of the hockey stick confirms that impression.
Hippie, you just make stuff up right? The Earth has never been a stable place when looked at in terms of 100,000 year intervals but incredibly stable when looked at in 100 year intervals.
Craig, EXACTLY, perfect article, thanks for posting it. Its says what I've been saying this whole thread. Data is being fixed to fit an agenda. Any questioning of that fix makes you a polluter, in the pockets of big oil, or worst of all, a republican.
Of course Hippie will point out that it was from the Wall Street Journal, a conservative rag, pro-business and therfore blatant propaganda so everything in it must be false and reading past the first couple of lines or researching the point made in it is fruitless. It should be dismissed out of hand.
Mike
Although it is an EDITORIAL, not a fact report. 
Yes, it is an editorial, but is the information in the editorial factual? That is the question. Has the graph been examined by statisticans David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University or not? Were thier findings accurate or not? Were thier finding reported correctly in the editorial or not?
Mike
Mike
Were thier findings accurate or not?
I don't know. Were they? I expect there are few if any statisticians on Reef Central capable of answering such a question, especially without reading the actual analysis instead of an editorial presenting a short blurb about it.
I don't know. Were they? I expect there are few if any statisticians on Reef Central capable of answering such a question, especially without reading the actual analysis instead of an editorial presenting a short blurb about it.
RobbyG
Active member
One of the shows last night on the science channel was saying that recent flow measurements of the Ocean Conveyor have shown that it has slowed to a crawl, one guy was saying that if the Arctic thaw does not stop soon, in another possible 10-20 years the conveyor will stop moving.
Interesting to note that England has been very concerned about the Arctic thaw, even showing serious displeasure with the USA lack of interest in Global warming. The show on science channel showed a map of countries that would be hardest hit by the Global Conveyor stopping and England was one of the one's hit worst. The UK seems to Bath in the warm water from the Caribbean and without it they will see a big freeze.
Interesting to note that England has been very concerned about the Arctic thaw, even showing serious displeasure with the USA lack of interest in Global warming. The show on science channel showed a map of countries that would be hardest hit by the Global Conveyor stopping and England was one of the one's hit worst. The UK seems to Bath in the warm water from the Caribbean and without it they will see a big freeze.
RobbyG
Active member
No Hippie is somewhat Right! The Global Warming show on NGC last night showed that Ice Layers examined from the South pole show the earths climate has been at it's most stable for the last 10,000 years. It has been ultra stable during that period. compared to times before that where many mini ice ages where started because of Volcanic activity.
Interesting side note, they said that the cooling effect of Volcanoes is not really caused by the Ash blocking the sun but more by the Sulpher Gas being thrown up into the air and mixing with water vapour. It seems like H20 + Sulpher create water particles that are ultra reflective like little mirror droplets, these reflect the suns energy back out into space.
Interesting side note, they said that the cooling effect of Volcanoes is not really caused by the Ash blocking the sun but more by the Sulpher Gas being thrown up into the air and mixing with water vapour. It seems like H20 + Sulpher create water particles that are ultra reflective like little mirror droplets, these reflect the suns energy back out into space.
physicslord
New member
eckrynock:
Your avatar is distracting. Kinda like Kalkbreath's.
What the heck are those characters from?
Your avatar is distracting. Kinda like Kalkbreath's.
What the heck are those characters from?
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
I thought you were done with this thread because it was getting too hard to understand, MCary? It must have dumbed down enough for you to jump in again.
My comment on stability was directed more towards the CO2 levels than temp. But, since you brought it up, the warming trend is bothersome, as it may be accelerating. Accelerating being the key word, so you might want to look that definition up in the dictionary if you are unsure what it means.
The editorial posted earlier is fine, just don't overlook this very important sentence: "Mr. Wegman and his co-authors are careful to point out that doubts about temperatures in the early part of the millennium do not call into question more-recent temperature increases."
BeltwayBandit
Member
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Here is the full report that the WSJ article was based on. It is pretty brutal on Dr. Mann and the "hockey stick"
Here is the full report that the WSJ article was based on. It is pretty brutal on Dr. Mann and the "hockey stick"
- Status
Similar threads
