Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It may not be a cataclysmic turning point in the climate crisis, but global warming has officially come for your fish tacos. According to a new study*, published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, higher ocean temperatures are causing the mercury content of certain fish to increase.
Emissions of mercury have declined over time, which should theoretically result in a decrease in its levels in seafood. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, especially when it comes to big ‘predatory’ fish,

* * *

The bottom line may be: The authors are blaming (fish) overeating on global warming.

And maybe rightly so . . . or not. But with the extreme politicization of the CC issue, there are strong incentives in place for research whose purpose is to produce evidence that links added CO2 with negative impacts, or warming with negative impacts, or both. And little research being devoted to proving the contrary. Now bring in the human tendencies discussed above about believing the truth of what we are repeatedly being told, the attraction of seeking out confirmation of our own predispositions and biases, and the predictable incentive for the media to produce alarmism, and you have a commensurate level of group think & fear.

You don't necessarily have to discount the integrity of the prevailing science, impugn the motives of scientists, or believe in socialist conspiracies to recognize the potential for distortion and misleading information. This imbalance in the research being done only undercuts the credibility of the prevailing science, no matter how many articles, charts & graphs are produced.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Back in the early 1960 s there was a widespread highly publicized scare that Swordfish would kill you because they were "contaminated" with Mercury. Later, maybe 15 years later, it was published that Swordfish always had mercury in them. meanwhile I kept on eating broiled swordfish steaks at my favorite little Georgetown restaurant. "The Potomac ." Right by Key Bridge.

Originally Posted by GordMay

All fish have some mercury. When small fish with low mercury levels get eaten by bigger fish, the amount of mercury biomagnifies. For this reason, long-lived fish and top-level predators like swordfish and shark often have the highest mercury levels.
You can’t see, smell, or taste mercury contamination in fish. Cooking has no effect on it, and you can’t avoid it by cutting off the skin, trimming fat, or other parts of the fish.

Health Canada has identified certain fish as being of more concern when it comes to mercury in fish, including tuna, shark, swordfish, marlin, orange roughy and escolar.

According to the NRDC, king mackerel, marlin, orange roughy, shark, swordfish, tilefish, ahi tuna, and bigeye tuna all contain high levels of mercury.

I wasn't aware that mercury was naturally occurring in the environment either, and had assumed it was all the result of man-made industrial processes. Huh, I wonder what gave me that idea? Any idea on proportions?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... This imbalance in the research being done only undercuts the credibility of the prevailing science, no matter how many articles, charts & graphs are produced.

In his article article, "The Relativity of Wrong."
Asminov wrote,
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

“The Relativity of Wrong” ~ by Isaac Asimov
➥ https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScie...ityofWrong.htm

***

False balance is the media phenomenon of presenting two sides of an argument equally, in disregard of the merit or evidence on a subject (a form of argument to moderation). Journalists use false balance, when comparing two sides of a story (especially in science) by making it appear that both sides of the “debate” have equivalent authority and evidence supporting it.
The application of the fallacy leads to major problems:
Firstly, it can lead to equal exposure an argument despite it’s lack of merit or relevance.
Secondly, it can lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in-between the two opposing sides (appeal to moderation), when it's very much possible that one side is completely wrong.
Avoiding the balance fallacy requires objective criteria for assessing arguments, and cannot rely on just giving all arguments equal exposure for the sake of equality (often mistaken for fairness).

The environmental debate has provided perhaps the most egregious examples of why balance is failing journalism and the public. In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence linking humans to global warming, news media eager to provide balance to the debate continue to challenge this notion.
Like everyone, journalists have every right to challenge scientific knowledge. But simply challenging it, or presenting dubious assertions for the sake of balance can skew the debate – against public interest. Journalists should aim for truth over neutrality. Much of the media gets itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth.
Journalists should aim for truth over neutrality. Much of the media gets itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth.

See also: “BLINDED BY SCIENCE: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality” ~ by Chris Mooney
➥ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/in.../#.XVF1bUcpDIU

Have I previously shared this opinion? If so, I apologise for the redundancy.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by newhaul

this article or variations of it have been published for a couple of years .

It is just a writers opinion and not based on any actual study that can be specifically referenced.

Threshold phenomena in the marine carbon cycle

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/han...=1&isAllowed=y

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/30/14813.short

https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont.../e1700906.full

[GordMay]

I don't know why we bother discussing a subject that was decisively "solved" about 40 years ago.

Campaigning in September 1980, Ronald Reagan said: "Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.''
~ Ronald Reagan, September 10, 1980.

A month later, he denied what he had said:
"I know Teddy Kennedy had fun at the Democratic convention when he said that I said that trees and vegetation caused 80% of the air pollution in this country. ... Well now, he was a little wrong about what I said. I didn't say 80%. I said 92%—93%, pardon me. And I didn’t say air pollution, I said oxides of nitrogen. Growing and decaying vegetation in this land are responsible for 93% of the oxides of nitrogen. ... If we are totally successful and can eliminate all the manmade oxides of nitrogen, we’ll still have 93% as much as we have in the air today."
~ Ronald Reagan, Oct. 9, 1980.

“It has come to my attention, that air pollution is polluting the air!” ~ George W. Bush


There we have it: Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, and pollution causes pollution.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't know why we bother discussing a subject that was decisively "solved" about 40 years ago.

Campaigning in September 1980, Ronald Reagan said: "Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.''
~ Ronald Reagan, September 10, 1980.
.[/B]

technically he is correct in that statement.

The hydrocarbons do come from vegetation and not man made sources.
Think about it .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

technically he is correct in that statement...

I've thought about it, and will need you to explain to me/us how Reagan's facts and conclusion were correct.
I will agree that "W43" was technically correct, in his observation.

Oxygen and nitrogen gases do not react together at normal temperatures. In the presence of very high temperatures (combustion of gasoline, coal and oil, biomass, or naturally, from a lightning stroke), nitrogen and oxygen do react together to form nitric oxide.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I've thought about it, and will need you to explain to me/us how Reagan's facts and conclusion were correct.
I will agree that "W43" was technically correct, in his observation.

Oxygen and nitrogen gases do not react together at normal temperatures. In the presence of very high temperatures (combustion of gasoline, coal and oil, biomass, or naturally, from a lightning stroke), nitrogen and oxygen do react together to form nitric oxide.

that's all I'm saying on that one he was correct .
Where does oil or coal come from?
It all goes back to plants

nitric oxide is a natural product of cellular activity in the body

The body synthesizes nitric oxide from the amino acid L-arginine by means of the enzyme nitric oxide synthase. The main site of the molecule's synthesis is the inner layer of blood vessels, the endothelium, though the molecule is also produced by other types of cells.

[AllenRbrts]

https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2019-...ord-for-planet

Hottest month ever on record and record low extent of ice. Where is the ice age that newhaul predicts ? [emoji3]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In his article article, "The Relativity of Wrong."
Asminov wrote,
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

“The Relativity of Wrong” ~ by Isaac Asimov
➥ https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScie...ityofWrong.htm

***

False balance is the media phenomenon of presenting two sides of an argument equally, in disregard of the merit or evidence on a subject (a form of argument to moderation). Journalists use false balance, when comparing two sides of a story (especially in science) by making it appear that both sides of the “debate” have equivalent authority and evidence supporting it.
The application of the fallacy leads to major problems:
Firstly, it can lead to equal exposure an argument despite it’s lack of merit or relevance.
Secondly, it can lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in-between the two opposing sides (appeal to moderation), when it's very much possible that one side is completely wrong.
Avoiding the balance fallacy requires objective criteria for assessing arguments, and cannot rely on just giving all arguments equal exposure for the sake of equality (often mistaken for fairness).

The environmental debate has provided perhaps the most egregious examples of why balance is failing journalism and the public. In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence linking humans to global warming, news media eager to provide balance to the debate continue to challenge this notion.
Like everyone, journalists have every right to challenge scientific knowledge. But simply challenging it, or presenting dubious assertions for the sake of balance can skew the debate – against public interest. Journalists should aim for truth over neutrality. Much of the media gets itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth.
Journalists should aim for truth over neutrality. Much of the media gets itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth.

See also: “BLINDED BY SCIENCE: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality” ~ by Chris Mooney
➥ "Blinded by Science: How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality" - The Intersection : The Intersection

Have I previously shared this opinion? If so, I apologise for the redundancy.

Don't remember but worth a re-read in any event. Only the proponents of AGW seem to find it useful to analogize or compare the "certainty" of climate science with long-settled science that is well beyond any serious dispute, for example science that established that the earth is not flat, the laws of gravity, the health risks associated with smoking, etc. We hear these sorts of specious arguments all the time. When authors Asimov & Mooney come up with a similar proportion of relevant experts to dispute these long-settled scientific concepts as there exist when it comes to climate science, I suppose their theories may become more persuasive. Otherwise it's more akin to the CRAAP test, where partisan proponents of uncertain theories attempt to utilize ostensibly objective analysis to advance their own subjective preferences. Presenting science in such a manner as to make it appear objective does not make it so.

[Exile]

Another installment of . . . [drum roll] . . . the Climate Change Challenge:

Well, sorta. It's about events in Antarctica, but it was relayed to me by most immediate neighbor this morning. Does this then meet Reef's 1km test?

Well anyway, my neighbor was "alarmed" after hearing or reading some "news," that dutifully cited the "science" of course, claiming that ice covering Antarctica was melting at an increasingly rapid pace, and that if all the ice covering Antarctica melted it would raise sea level worldwide by 23 feet. When I asked what the report claimed the chances of this happening were, my neighbor said he didn't know.

Stay tuned for another episode of the CC Challenge coming to a neighborhood near you.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

https://www.noaa.gov/news/july-2019-...ord-for-planet

Hottest month ever on record and record low extent of ice. Where is the ice age that newhaul predicts ? [emoji3]

where have you been we have already hashed this lie out several times .

It was the 4th warmest. July.

July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record « Roy Spencer, PhD

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Another installment of . . . [drum roll] . . . the Climate Change Challenge:

Well, sorta. It's about events in Antarctica, but it was relayed to me by most immediate neighbor this morning. Does this then meet Reef's 1km test?

Well anyway, my neighbor was "alarmed" after hearing or reading some "news," that dutifully cited the "science" of course, claiming that ice covering Antarctica was melting at an increasingly rapid pace, and that if all the ice covering Antarctica melted it would raise sea level worldwide by 23 feet. When I asked what the report claimed the chances of this happening were, my neighbor said he didn't know.

Stay tuned for another episode of the CC Challenge coming to a neighborhood near you.

funny you always hear about the melt but never about the snow accumulating .

Thp and Greenland for instance they said it had a melt of from 11 to 12 Gt of ice ( actually just the snow that fell last winter not actual ice for the most part.)

last February the 14th had 11 Gt of fresh snowfall. And on the 16th they had an additional 12.5Gt . But you will never hear that on the msm .

Or how about the approx 2,000 Gt that falls in Antarctica annually.

https://www.bel-antar2018.be/en/2018...in-antarctica/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... Well anyway, my neighbor was "alarmed" after hearing or reading some "news," that dutifully cited the "science" of course, claiming that ice covering Antarctica was melting at an increasingly rapid pace, and that if all the ice covering Antarctica melted it would raise sea level worldwide by 23 feet. When I asked what the report claimed the chances of this happening were, my neighbor said he didn't know...

The Yale Environment 360 article:
“Polar Warning: Even Antarctica’s Coldest Region Is Starting to Melt” ~ by Nicola Jones
➥ https://e360.yale.edu/features/polar...arting-to-melt

Includes the statement:
“The Antarctic contains about 90 percent of the planet’s ice, enough to raise global sea levels 200 feet.”
It does NOT predict any such thing, at any level of probability.

East Antarctica: The East Antarctica ice sheet is so large (it contains four-fifths of all the ice on Earth) that it might seem unmeltable. It survived earlier warm periods intact. But even this behemoth is unlikely to survive a return to an Eocene Climate.
West Antarctica: Like the Greenland ice sheet, the West Antarctic one was apparently much smaller during earlier warm periods. It's vulnerable because most of it sits on bedrock that's below sea level. The warming ocean is melting the floating ice sheet itself from below, causing it to collapse. Since 1992 it has averaged a net loss of 65 million metric tons of ice a year.

From the linked Yale article: “... One recent paper*, again with DeConto as co-author, estimates that by 2070, if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked and the world warms by 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees F), the Antarctic will be contributing some 5 millimeters (.2 inches) to sea level rise a year — that’s more than 15 times its average contribution to sea level over the past 25 years.

“Choosing the future of Antarctica” ~ S. R. Rintoul, R. M. DeConto et al.
* ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0173-4

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by Exile

Don't remember but worth a re-read in any event. Only the proponents of AGW seem to find it useful to analogize or compare the "certainty" of climate science with long-settled science that is well beyond any serious dispute, for example science that established that the earth is not flat, the laws of gravity, the health risks associated with smoking, etc. We hear these sorts of specious arguments all the time. When authors Asimov & Mooney come up with a similar proportion of relevant experts to dispute these long-settled scientific concepts as there exist when it comes to climate science, I suppose their theories may become more persuasive. Otherwise it's more akin to the CRAAP test, where partisan proponents of uncertain theories attempt to utilize ostensibly objective analysis to advance their own subjective preferences. Presenting science in such a manner as to make it appear objective does not make it so.

Considering that the global warming fraud, rebaptised climate change is but a method to confiscate taxpayers money for personal gain, the propaganda method for advancing the fraud must be based on capturing the emotions of the public in any way shape or form.

So it is relatively easy to manipulate emotions. Each individual walks about with baggage and values that will decide and select what they want to believe and what they discard. Negative and pessimistic views are far more likely to be accepted than the opposite. "Proving" that the world is going to end in a short period of time due to human activity is being indoctrinated by lefty teachers into primary school kids that are now suffering from widespread depression about their own future.

The left who has adopted and is the main force behind the global warming fraud, has as objective the destruction of capitalism and uses AGW as a tool.

The best part of this state of affairs is that the fraud was invented and benefits exclusively the mega rich, yet they use the left and the greens, the idle and those in search of a cause, their delusions and their blind enthusiasm for the destruction of capitalism, as foot soldiers for their own elitist purposes.

We live in interesting times.