Global Warming: For Experts Only

I find the acidification argument thoroughly unconvincing for a simple reason. The ratio of water mass to CO2 mass is so high that no amount of CO2 available could change the ph of the oceans.
It's 1.4e18 (ocean mass) / 1.9e11 (50 years of emissions) = .73e7 or approximately 1 part in 10 million if ALL the CO2 we produce winds up in the oceans (of course that doesn't happen).
Acidification seems a misnomer, anyway, since the oceans are basic at 8.1, so lessening of basicness seems more appropriate, but it doesn't sound so scary , does it?

Surface PH is measurably changing in stations across the globe abet just a bit. It is about layers of water, not an even mix. A very minor difference in PH has a big effect on the amount of free aragonite used to make shells. Lab tests have shown that a lot of microscopic and larger animals can't tolerate the levels of 2100 on the current curve.

Sudden sharp changes don't allow for biological adaptation, not in 100 years.

More reading required but this is not one we want to get wrong.
 
the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect.

Ah, good. A climate model. Now we know for sure, because all climate models to date have been completely accurate.
or... I am I wrong here? Scientific models are infallible, aren't they? I have absolute faith in every thing that anyone who claims to be a scientist says, so ... fuck, I'm all confused now. Just tell me what to think, somebody.
 
Ah, good. A climate model. Now we know for sure, because all climate models to date have been completely accurate.
or... I am I wrong here? Scientific models are infallible, aren't they? I have absolute faith in every thing that anyone who claims to be a scientist says, so ... fuck, I'm all confused now. Just tell me what to think, somebody.


Well you could go by the opinions of politicians and internet experts. Or you could go by the opinion of actual experts.....

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Just to sample the above .....and reiterate that virtually no publishing climate scientist agrees with piezoe's tortured, impressive sounding but ultimately wrong opinion.

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
 
More evidence that piezoe works for a think tank.....

He said......"The consensus seems to be building that there is some warming occurring globally. But even that is undecided. Some portions of the Earth are clearly warming while others may be cooling."


Oh really... lol....classic climate misinformation. Like the kind some libertarian think tanks spew.

if anyone can still take piezoe's opinion seriously on this matter....after he says something like this.....I have some prime swampland to sell you.


1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px.jpg


Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.
 
More evidence that piezoe works for a think tank.....

He said......"The consensus seems to be building that there is some warming occurring globally. But even that is undecided. Some portions of the Earth are clearly warming while others may be cooling."


Oh really... lol....classic climate misinformation. Like the kind some libertarian think tanks spew.

if anyone can still take piezoe's opinion seriously on this matter....after he says something like this.....I have some prime swampland to sell you.


1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px.jpg


Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.
So, no data. Got it.
 
this whole article starts off with these words...
Its a model...

Every model is off because they don't model water vapor and clouds well.

--



So much fluff and bullshit in this post that it is difficult to shovel it all. Let's start with the first paragraph.

"There are many factors that must be taken into account. The truth is that CO2 is a relatively weak absorber of IR and it is present in only trace amounts. it operates in one phase only, the gas phase. Water vapor in all three phases is vastly more important than CO2 in moderating the Earth surface temperature. CO2 concentration is strongly correlated with atmospheric temperature suggesting that increasing CO2 may be responsible for increasing surface temperatures. However because the concentration of all gases dissolved in all liquids decreases with increasing temperature (Henry's Law), CO2 will be correlated with temperature regardless of whether CO2 is the dependent or the independent variable in the temperature - CO2 function. So to determine what the independent variable is one has to look at something beyond correlation."

In bold..
Well this is an interesting opinion but it flies in the face of what actual climate scientists (as opposed to whatever piehole is ) say. It is clear to them that CO2 is the chief regulator of earth's surface temperature.

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature
10.14.10


› View larger
A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

› View larger
Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISSWater vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
 
Piezoe, what is your take on CO2 contributing directly to ocean acidification? The chemistry is simple enough here and the sudden sharp rise not giving life the generations to adapt is also pretty straightforward.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/

"Although the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken 5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years. Ocean life survived the long, gradual change, but the current speed of acidification is very worrisome. Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 unit in this century alone and by as much as 0.7 unit beyond 2100. We are hurtling toward an ocean different than the earth has known for more than 25 million years."

An ocean that we depend on for a huge amount of our food. From just yesterday:

https://weather.com/science/environ...an-acidification-climate-change-red-king-crab

or the earlier report:
Please go to the first link given here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/#comments

This is a talk last year given by the brilliant atmospheric physicist Murry Salby who was fired by McQuarie Univ. in Australia, among other things. It is a slowed down presentation he gave at University College, London that can be understood by the educated layman. His position is my position on these matters. However I am more positive than he re the Paris climate accord. In principle he's right, but I believe there is much good to come from encouraging development of alternative energy sources, though like Salby I'm dismayed by the cost projections. But they are projections, and we know about the risks of extrapolation far into the future.

Salby's seminar he gave in Hamburg a couple years ago before his research data was seized in Australia was a far more academic and specialized presentation . I thought his phase studies quite brilliant.

Notice his snide remark midway into his London talk about the many shark species in Australia, not all of them in the ocean! His initial remarks in the next youtube presentation that immediately follows the London talk comes after he returned to Australia. He shows how resilient he has been considering what he has been subjected to. The other guy that is absolutely brilliant as far as I'm concerned is Ferenc Miskolczi , the Hungarian physicist who was run off by Hansen's GISS when they tried to suppress publication of his paper that concludes feedback is negative; not positive. That of course is something believers in Hansen's Hypothesis can not abide, as the Hypothesis , to be correct, depends on feedback being positive.

If you look the scientists that are well qualified to question Hansen's Hypothesis up on Google,
you will find that they have all been subjected to relentless attack. It's part of the smear campaign waged against any scientist who questions the validity Hansen's Hypothesis. The more prominent the scientist, and the greater the gravitas of their work, the more vicious the attacks. Quite something to observe. It was exactly the same with the Lysenko affair in Soviet Russia. There were folks trying to get Miskolczi removed from Wiki. They may have succeeded. They can't get Salby removed however, his reputation is too well established for that. He wrote the leading text in atmospheric physics.
 
Please go to the first link given here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/#comments

This is a talk last year given by the brilliant atmospheric physicist Murry Salby who was fired by McQuarie Univ. in Australia, among other things. It is a slowed down presentation he gave at University College, London that can be understood by the educated layman. His position is my position on these matters. However I am more positive than he re the Paris climate accord. In principle he's right, but I believe there is much good to come from encouraging development of alternative energy sources, though like Salby I'm dismayed by the cost projections. But they are projections, and we know about the risks of extrapolation far into the future.

Salby's seminar he gave in Hamburg a couple years ago before his research data was seized in Australia was a far more academic and specialized presentation . I thought his phase studies quite brilliant.

Notice his snide remark midway into his London talk about the many shark species in Australia, not all of them in the ocean! His initial remarks in the next youtube presentation that immediately follows the London talk comes after he returned to Australia. He shows how resilient he has been considering what he has been subjected to. The other guy that is absolutely brilliant as far as I'm concerned is Ferenc Miskolczi , the Hungarian physicist who was run off by Hansen's GISS when they tried to suppress publication of his paper that concludes feedback is negative; not positive. That of course is something believers in Hansen's Hypothesis can not abide, as the Hypothesis , to be correct, depends on feedback being positive.

If you look the scientists that are well qualified to question Hansen's Hypothesis up on Google,
you will find that they have all been subjected to relentless attack. It's part of the smear campaign waged against any scientist who questions the validity Hansen's Hypothesis. The more prominent the scientist, and the greater the gravitas of their work, the more vicious the attacks. Quite something to observe. It was exactly the same with the Lysenko affair in Soviet Russia. There were folks trying to get Miskolczi removed from Wiki. They may have succeeded. They can't get Salby removed however, his reputation is too well established for that. He wrote the leading text in atmospheric physics.

A problem in the world Piezoe is one person says black and another will say white. Humanity is in danger of being killed on a zebra crossing.

Bias creeps in, some see a picture from quite nebulous data and some need their face shoved in it. We have a system of peer review and such that produces fabulous results in every kind of science but in this one, the one that crass lobbiests are paying a fortune to confound, we have doubt.

I remember as a kid massive deforestation in Europe caused by coal i.e. acid rain. I'm also aware of the incredible effort it took to get governments to agree to legislate against coal despite the fact it was obviously, literally, choking people and turning pine forests brown.

I think in part we have some issue with the media hyping some aspects of climate change. I think a lot of the passionate deniers are paid scumbags or serious Dunning-Kruger effect examples.

Man made climate change is real, too many qualified & honest people agree. Some guy in a trailer might think he knows better or it is a vast conspiracy but .. have you met a flat-Earther? :)

We need to be wary of the great ocean liner effect, by the time we see trouble, absolute proof, it will be too late to turn. We need to predict the trend and get in early. Thankfully smog has led to lower car & factory emissions and Chinese cities are being choked right now. These are not global climate change, they are local but one fix works for both. Again, as you said and I have said we need to get off fossils anyway.

GWB pointed to a link before for a guy called Cliff Mass. He puts it fairly well however when do we act?
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Cliff-Mass-Climate-change-is-real-but-12236265.php
 
Piehole said above

"If you look the scientists that are well qualified to question Hansen's Hypothesis up on Google,
you will find that they have all been subjected to relentless attack. It's part of the smear campaign waged against any scientist who questions the validity Hansen's Hypothesis."

No they are attacked because they are wrong. Period. And, there is no such as "Hansen's Hypothesis". It's called climate science. But by ad-homing the argument he is trying to diminish the validity. Classic climate misinformation paid scumbag tactics.

Salby is an industry-paid whore and fool that thinks the CO2 rise is natural and Curry is an attention whore that also, while not quite wrong, doesn't really say much. In addition Curry does not dispute that man is causing the warming.

Curious that piehole would choose the 1% of industry whores and fools, instead of the 99% that agree that man is causing the warming.

Salby was fired for fraud, not because of his laughable "science".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top