The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

Status
Not open for further replies.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765684#post7765684 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeltwayBandit
If Wegman's assertions are to be believed, you won't read any anti-AGW in the peer reviewed literature because the gatekeepers won't let any through. He is not the only one to make that assertion with regards to the climate science community.
Well, would someone post SOMETHING that isn't from some half-baked website or an Exxon funded think tank? I mean, you can say that some things are suppressed by ego-crazed scientists, but you have to back up your statements with more than conspiracy theories. You people really need to realize what you are suggesting. You're suggesting that ALL results refuting AGW are being suppressed by ALL scientific journals. Not ONE study has made it passed the impenetrable gate-keepers? Come on, give me something to work with. I'm giving you a engraved invitation to prove me wrong.

Seriously, is this what you are saying? I just want to be sure that I have this right.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765739#post7765739 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
Click the link I Posted , there you will find twenty or so listed on that main page.
"The 7th International CO2 Conference Web Site: All Stories"
Its just about everything you need to make up your on opinion."
Look at the Data itself.
The NOAA data and Mr. Keeling works on how different Stations located through out the world compare.
Its not easy reading, like a few clever sound bites from Al Gore.......
Its real data and charts .
I went through about 5 papers and slide shows, and not one suggested the ocean is a net source of CO2, just like I thought. If I'm overlooking something, you need to show me exactly what you are looking at, not just say "look at the data, Al Gore groupie".
 
Hippie, please read this:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

And before you call it propaganda, check on the qualifications of the authors:

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
 
Umm.. Dr. Wegman is the Chair of the NAS panel for Applied Statistics. Sorry but your attempt at dismissal via ad hominem won't work. Dr. Wegman has impeccable credentials and his very highly regarded in the statistics field. And, before you try to argue that he isn't a climatologist allow me to point out he was analyzing Dr. Mann's use of statistics not his skill as a climatologist.
 
Picked this up on another thread that was addressing the recent 40% electric increase for Edison customers.

Its exactly what I was talking about, you soon won't have a choice but to become an environmentalist, the high prices will make you conserve like never before. Down here we all do it because the costs are so high.

I can see MCary holding that last incandescent bulb on the planet in his hands just like Charlton Heston with his Gun:)



<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7774832#post7774832 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SkinyChinaMan
ahhh.. this is crazy.. I also just got my SCE bill for my small shop (I don't even run chillers, and only run AC during the day and turn off when i leave) $1656.17! that is more then my gross last week!

*sigh - what to do.. what to do?
 
I'm sorry but a lot of those people on that letter listed by MCary are really random and are not climatologists by profession. Here's some examples:

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

The powerhouse of science, Cave Junction Oregon.

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.


This guy studies "social" anthropology.


Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.


This is a professional engineer. Not a scientist.


Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.


I've never heard of the university of Guelph. He studies economics and he's not tenured either. He couldn't even write a legit letter of rec for someone.

Just because you have a PhD and sign your name to some letter doesn't make you an expert on the climate.
 
Nice edit physics. Cave Junction's a one horse town so no one with any brains can live there. Oh I forgot, only people in California actually think.

Come on Mike, you can't do any better? Don't you know your fighting a losing battle? Even beyond the scientific method. These guys keep quoting "global warming is REAL". YES!! AGW is an UNCERTAINTY! Give up hippies.

Oh sorry, I'm not peer reviewed, don't even know why I'm typing this.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7767363#post7767363 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

I guess these guys don't matter either.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7775986#post7775986 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
Nice edit physics. Cave Junction's a one horse town so no one with any brains can live there. Oh I forgot, only people in California actually think.

Heeyyy. Now you're helping our side?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7767363#post7767363 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Hippie, please read this:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

And before you call it propaganda, check on the qualifications of the authors:
I read it, which will make it the second time, but it's still pretty weak. I don't have any real problem with it, but it doesn't prove anything. It's just an open letter sent by some supposedly reputable scientists mixed in with some crack-pots. The only real argument the article brings up is that climate models aren't perfect. That's true, but it's all we have, and they keep getting better and better. It's like the 10 day weather forcast on the evening news, they rely on multiple modeling programs and then they interpret them to forcast the most likely outcome. All of these global models predict SOME sort of warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but the amount of warming predicted is variable.

I did some pondering on the supposed 'ivory tower climate blockade', and I did some reading. I really couldn't find anything major, and I am certain that if good papers were getting rejected by Science, Nature, etc, that the authors would be putting these papers on the internet or being more vocal about the problem. I just can't find these papers, and I tried really hard. There really is no scientific rejection of AGW, it's only a question of how MUCH change there will be.

Here's an interesting article by the most hard-nosed environmental skeptic I can think of. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7776023#post7776023 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by physicslord
Heeyyy. Now you're helping our side?
LMAO

Come on Mike, you can't do any better? Don't you know your fighting a losing battle? Even beyond the scientific method. These guys keep quoting "global warming is REAL". YES!! AGW is an UNCERTAINTY! Give up hippies.
Give up, you're winning the argument, LMAO! Why are you relying on MCary to do all the work? I won't laugh at your arguments, I promise. You're OK, eckrynock.
 
In March of this year a widely reported story about CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa was discussed in CO2 Report Makes the Rounds. Since then, the data on which the report presumably was based have been posted at CDIAC.

Here is a graphic summary of annual averages of the CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa since 1960, including the data added for 2003.

<http://www.john-daly.com/press/co2ml407.gif>


Keeping in mind that the unit of measure is ppmv (parts per million by volume), it is clear that CO2 is a very small portion of the atmosphere. Among the so called greenhouse gases, it is a very distant second to H2O. And yet, some people portray CO2 as if it had almost mythical powers of dominating climate around the globe. A glance at some other measurements may help clarify the picture somewhat.

<http://www.john-daly.com/soi-msu2.gif>
(3 month averages of lower troposphere temperature variances and inverted SOI)


While the atmospheric parts per million of CO2 have continually increased during recent decades, atmospheric temperatures have risen, and fallen, uninfluenced by any notions that some people may have about the powers of CO2. Atmospheric temperatures respond to realities, not myths.

As for the amount of the increase of atmospheric CO2 from 2002 to 2003, it was approximately two and one half parts per million, 2.54/1000000.00 to be more precise. Here is a graphic summary of the annual increases since 1960:

<http://www.john-daly.com/press/co2rt407.gif>


As he did in March, Miceal O'Ronain has provided, in both tabular , and graphical , forms, nice compilations of year to year differences of monthly, and annual, averages of Mauna Loa CO2 measurements.
 
supposedly reputable scientists mixed in with some crack-pots

This statement clearly shows that your position is one of faith and no evidence is ever going to convince you that you might be wrong.

I read it, which will make it the second time, but it's still pretty weak. I don't have any real problem with it, but it doesn't prove anything.

I never set out from the beginning to prove anti-AGW, only that a healthy skepticism of AGW is legitmate and that the "Consensus of Scientists Argument" is meaningless. This article proves that.

I am not against environmental protections or "saving the planet". I'm against the smugness and elitism of people that really think they're doing something by buying a hybrid car and then hold judgment on you. People who obviously don't know what they're talking about but like to led around by the nose.

If your really concerned about the planet and want to make a meaningless gesture to show you care and are proactive then attack the most serious problem facing humans and the oceans. The cause of the most serious mass extinctions in Earth's history. Continental drift. The continents are moving toward one another to make another super continent like pangea. When they collide the volcanic activity and the huge land mass of the new continent will cause huge climate change and kill off as much as 90% of the land animals. We need to immediately take large stakes and drive them into the sea bed and tie the continents off with titanium cable so they can't move. Who's with me? We're dead in only 20-50 million years if something isn't done. Lets all do something meaningless darn it before we lose it all!

Mike
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7778923#post7778923 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
This statement clearly shows that your position is one of faith and no evidence is ever going to convince you that you might be wrong.



I never set out from the beginning to prove anti-AGW, only that a healthy skepticism of AGW is legitmate and that the "Consensus of Scientists Argument" is meaningless. This article proves that.

I am not against environmental protections or "saving the planet". I'm against the smugness and elitism of people that really think they're doing something by buying a hybrid car and then hold judgment on you. People who obviously don't know what they're talking about but like to led around by the nose.

If your really concerned about the planet and want to make a meaningless gesture to show you care and are proactive then attack the most serious problem facing humans and the oceans. The cause of the most serious mass extinctions in Earth's history. Continental drift. The continents are moving toward one another to make another super continent like pangea. When they collide the volcanic activity and the huge land mass of the new continent will cause huge climate change and kill off as much as 90% of the land animals. We need to immediately take large stakes and drive them into the sea bed and tie the continents off with titanium cable so they can't move. Who's with me? We're dead in only 20-50 million years if something isn't done. Lets all do something meaningless darn it before we lose it all!

Mike
Come on, one guy was from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. I'm sorry, but that "Institute of Science" is a pile of horse puckey.

You are correct about a bit of skepticism being healthy, it is healthy, but YOUR smugness is just as bad as mine, so don't fool yourself.

Continental drift, LMAO, you have NO concept of time or evolution, do you? You're trying to use continental drift to support your argument? Give me a break.

Here's what it comes down to, and this is all from what you've said throughout this thread. You feel intimidated by 'environmentalists' because they get some sort of satisfaction from actually doing something for what they believe in, namely the environment. And because you're insecure, you feel that they're judging you for your lack of inaction. Go cry to a therapist and quit using your problems to try and bring down others. You're a bully, and that's all there is to it. :p
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7777547#post7777547 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
Keeping in mind that the unit of measure is ppmv (parts per million by volume), it is clear that CO2 is a very small portion of the atmosphere. Among the so called greenhouse gases, it is a very distant second to H2O. And yet, some people portray CO2 as if it had almost mythical powers of dominating climate around the globe. A glance at some other measurements may help clarify the picture somewhat.
Water vapor has a major impact on the globe, but here is why CO2 is so important. Water vapor is temperature dependent, so what happens when you drop the temp to below freezing? The amount of water vapor drops to near zero. What happens to the CO2 when the temp drops below the freezing point of water? Nothing, it still FORCES the warming of the planet. That is why CO2 is so important, because it forces the temperature, it isn't solely a function of temp like water.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7777098#post7777098 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aj_999
This is a scary video I watched about a month ago about global warming and an alleged cover up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_5040000/newsid_5048300/bb_rm_5048330.stm
I think some of you might find it interesting.
Very nice. I read about the NASA scintist being censored a while ago. So, how does this fit into how the 'omnipresent knowledge archons' (I got carried away there with the dictionary) censor anti-AGW scientists?
 
Continental drift, LMAO, you have NO concept of time or evolution, do you? You're trying to use continental drift to support your argument? Give me a break.

Irony, humor, light hearted banter. I know you don't get alot of that in Minnesota so its okay. Just slow down and don't skim the posts. Read the whole thing.

I am not intimidated by anything. "Environmentalist's" don't do things because they "care" about the environment. Otherwise they wouldn't have to talk about themselves so much. A truely charitable person doesn't brag everytime they do something good. These guys, and it sounds like your included, want to think they're better than everyone and hold judgment on the "others" who just won't "get it". They are ideologs without reason. They think that wilderness is always better than development, that oil is always bad, that business is always bad, that animals deserve more consideration than humans, that tree should never be cut down, that anything nuclear is unsafe, that all new fossil fuel exploration should be stopped. etc etc etc. Extreme positions without common sense or middle ground. And they cling to anything that supports their position without scrutiny. People to be ignored.



Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top