Ocean acidifcation .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I suppose you're implying a reference to:
“Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations” ~ by Paul S. Kench et al.
“... Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1).
Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

If accurate, how do Kench's observations negate Climate Change/Global Warming/Ocean Acidification?

If accurate indeed.

Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1).

Another case of everything happening twice as fast as everywhere else. At a guess, Kench probably A) didn't factor the "remote" aka "satellite" orbit degradation into his calculations or B) Forgot to include the effects of subsidence caused, most likely, by depletion of natural underground aquifers.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

Are you saying that the majority of climate scientists out there are lying about their studies and research in order to keep their jobs?

They're not lying. It's just that there job requires them to discover new knowledge to remain employed. Run out of new knowledge to discover, they're out of a job. Just try and get a job these days as a paid explorer, for example.



One point to note is that there are an awful lot of, what I'd call, junk research papers that are produced by non climate scientists adding to the noise.

[JC Reefer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ok here is the fact of it the scientists have to operate within certain rules written at the start of the studies called terms of reference. Which tells them what they can and can't do or look at .

The IPCC's terms say to only look for man causes ignore all natural forcings.



So they obviously found man made warming ( to be taxed) .



As to what's in it for them well follow the money a bit ..their poster child Michael Mann. He is a multi millionaire. Bet if you check you will find several if not many others that got their PhD by writing their doctoral thesis about MMGW they are guaranteed to get accepted and published .



Go against the IPCC and you will likely get sued out of existence.

Interesting most of the climate science professionals that are against the MMGW are mostly retired individuals.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Not trying to be polarizing but I do want to understand a different point of view.

I understand that there is money at stake via taxes and whatnot. I get that the IPCC has rules.

Are you saying that the climate publications have an agenda and that researchers know not to go against them else they risk their careers?

So the other side of the climate debate is not as well known (scientifically less accepted) because it is less funded?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Not trying to be polarizing but I do want to understand a different point of view.

I understand that there is money at stake via taxes and whatnot. I get that the IPCC has rules.

Are you saying that the climate publications have an agenda and that researchers know not to go against them else they risk their careers?

So the other side of the climate debate is not as well known (scientifically less accepted) because it is less funded?

I wouldn't say necessarily less well funded the government funds both sides but the ones that are against the MMGW side are far less likely to get published .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

due to one of the cornerstones of the MMGW is sea level rise and if that is not happening it calls into question all science that is associated .

But sea level rise IS happening, as the author notes.
Perhaps that fact should call into question all science that is associated with climate denial (in all it's sundry forms).


“Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations” ~ by Paul S. Kench et al.
“... Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1).
Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

[S/V Illusion]

Don’t recall if I said this previously but... it’s entertaining watching liberal arts majors argue climate science.

The other prevalent humor here is when someone starts his post with the words “ according to ———-“.

Credibility is in short supply here but I suspect that too will be ignored by the usual characters.

[JC Reefer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I wouldn't say necessarily less well funded the government funds both sides but the ones that are against the MMGW side are far less likely to get published .

Why would publications avoid research that would prove or suggest that global warming is not Man made.

What is in it for the publications?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Don’t recall if I said this previously but... it’s entertaining watching liberal arts majors argue climate science.

The other prevalent humor here is when someone starts his post with the words “ according to ———-“.

Credibility is in short supply here but I suspect that too will be ignored by the usual characters.

It is equally entertaining watching someone who posted a paper undergoing peer-review as an undergraduate text in climate science.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I wouldn't say necessarily less well funded the government funds both sides but the ones that are against the MMGW side are far less likely to get published .

Valentina Zharkova, to whom you often refer and whom you seem to respect, was published in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

As to what's in it for them well follow the money a bit ..their poster child Michael Mann. He is a multi millionaire.

So which story is true? Yours or PSI's?

https://principia-scientific.org/mic...pers-collapse/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ok here is the fact of it the scientists have to operate within certain rules written at the start of the studies called terms of reference. Which tells them what they can and can't do or look at .
The IPCC's terms say to only look for man causes ignore all natural forcings.

So why does the IPCC publish Chapter 8 of AR5 Anthropogenic and Natural
Radiative Forcing.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...er08_FINAL.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Go against the IPCC and you will likely get sued out of existence.

Name one person who has been sued by the IPCC.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

Why would publications avoid research that would prove or suggest that global warming is not Man made.

What is in it for the publications?

They do not. Valentina Zharkova, one of newhaul's favourites, has been published in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

For some reason he is ignoring her conclusions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

I’m curious to understand the logic. Why would a climate scientist push global warming and source it to humans if they didn’t see evidence in their studies?

I’d think most climate scientists are aligned with the theory (hypothesis maybe) that the globe is warming and that human created green house gases are to blame. Probably a simplification but the point stands.

What is in it for the climate scientists?

A more responsible answer is that climate scientists themselves for the most part aren't "pushing" GW, but many other interests outside the science are on behalf of their own personal, political, or financial agendas. And scientists do "see evidence in their studies," many of which are important & worthwhile. And most scientists source at least "some" measure of warming to humans because of the undisputedly steep rise in CO2, and most people agree that reducing emissions is a good idea. But there are majority & minority views which differ on how consequential the increase in CO2 is to overall warming. Not whether the additional CO2 is capable of causing warming, an undisputed scientific fact which has been known for a century or more, but how much the additional CO2 is directly causing warming as opposed to so-called "natural" (non man-made) forces, including long-term warming trends since the last major ice age, solar output, the role of water vapor in cloud formation/precipitation, and others which you won't find on most Google searches. Scientific opinions run the spectrum of CO2 causing all the warming to it being inconsequential. The "official" IPCC view is that it is a "significant" cause of the warming, implying there's at least a portion that can likely be ascribed to natural forces (got it this time L-E? ).

As for the scientists themselves, there is much more energy, money and resources into trying to uncover additional evidence to provide more certainty to the mainstream AGW theory. This is to be expected since we've been told that AGW is in fact a serious potential threat, and the science remains unsettled. So most of the grant money is going towards the pro-AGW (if you will) position, so it's much easier for scientists to obtain grants that have hypotheses which seek to help prove AGW than not. But with certain exceptions, this has been at the expense of scientists who have their doubts and seek to prove that humans are not responsible for warming, or at least not to the degree that those in the opposing camp believe it to be. So there's an imbalance between the amount of research that's being done, and then of course the numbers of papers & articles being produced, and it's even become difficult for scientists who question the mainstream theory to get their work peer-reviewed. Also due to this imbalance and the ease in which grants can be obtained, some of the research has been criticized as unduly alarmist and, in the case of olfactory sensibilities of fish (), downright wasteful & silly. But generally speaking, I think most fair-minded people can fairly distinguish between research that is worthwhile or not, as opposed to articles designed to scare people into becoming "believers," a/k/a as propaganda often written by partisan non-scientists.

Last but certainly not least, there's arisen an entire media industry that dutifully follows, reports, and sells copy based on this science, most of which is geared towards proving only one side of what is legitimately contested scientific debate. And finally the politicians have figured out how to capitalize on it, some making it a big campaign issue, and more recently even adopted as the official platform of a major US political party. The skeptics have responded in kind, and some of them have started to speak out about the various ways their scientific opinions have been suppressed. Some on the skeptic side have even likened it to being McCathyesque, and contrary to the age-old scientific tradition of open, transparent, and free exchanges of ideas.

So to cut to the chase, you probably state it fairly when you say that "most climate scientists are aligned with the theory (hypothesis maybe) that the globe is warming and that human created greenhouse gases are to blame." The problem is not that this is untrue, but that there are other reasons why much of this alignment doesn't necessarily have much to do with the merits/demerits of the science itself. There are still plenty of scientists who refute the dominant theory, and more still who don't refute it but question whether there's much of a threat. But you're not going to hear anything about any of them from mainstream media sources, politicians using the science to scare people into voting for them, or from our very own internet posters who try and marginalize contrary opinions by, among other things, calling legitimate skeptics cretins, deniers, bloviators, imbeciles, or lazy & incompetent.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

A more responsible answer is that climate scientists themselves for the most part aren't "pushing" GW, but many other interests outside the science are on behalf of their own personal, political, or financial agendas. And scientists do "see evidence in their studies," many of which are important & worthwhile. And most scientists source at least "some" measure of warming to humans because of the undisputedly steep rise in CO2, and most people agree that reducing emissions is a good idea. But there are majority & minority views which differ on how consequential the increase in CO2 is to overall warming. Not whether the additional CO2 is capable of causing warming, an undisputed scientific fact which has been known for a century or more, but how much the additional CO2 is directly causing warming as opposed to so-called "natural" (non man-made) forces, including long-term warming trends since the last major ice age, solar output, the role of water vapor in cloud formation/precipitation, and others which you won't find on most Google searches. Scientific opinions run the spectrum of CO2 causing all the warming to it being inconsequential. The "official" IPCC view is that it is a "significant" cause of the warming, implying there's at least a portion that can likely be ascribed to natural forces (got it this time L-E? ).

As for the scientists themselves, there is much more energy, money and resources into trying to uncover additional evidence to provide more certainty to the mainstream AGW theory. This is to be expected since we've been told that AGW is in fact a serious potential threat, and the science remains unsettled. So most of the grant money is going towards the pro-AGW (if you will) position, so it's much easier for scientists to obtain grants that have hypotheses which seek to help prove AGW than not. But with certain exceptions, this has been at the expense of scientists who have their doubts and seek to prove that humans are not responsible for warming, or at least not to the degree that those in the opposing camp believe it to be. So there's an imbalance between the amount of research that's being done, and then of course the numbers of papers & articles being produced, and it's even become difficult for scientists who question the mainstream theory to get their work peer-reviewed. Also due to this imbalance and the ease in which grants can be obtained, some of the research has been criticized as unduly alarmist and, in the case of olfactory sensibilities of fish (), downright wasteful & silly. But generally speaking, I think most fair-minded people can fairly distinguish between research that is worthwhile or not, as opposed to articles designed to scare people into becoming "believers," a/k/a as propaganda often written by partisan non-scientists.

Last but certainly not least, there's arisen an entire media industry that dutifully follows, reports, and sells copy based on this science, most of which is geared towards proving only one side of what is legitimately contested scientific debate. And finally the politicians have figured out how to capitalize on it, some making it a big campaign issue, and more recently even adopted as the official platform of a major US political party. The skeptics have responded in kind, and some of them have started to speak out about the various ways their scientific opinions have been suppressed. Some on the skeptic side have even likened it to being McCathyesque, and contrary to the age-old scientific tradition of open, transparent, and free exchanges of ideas.

So to cut to the chase, you probably state it fairly when you say that "most climate scientists are aligned with the theory (hypothesis maybe) that the globe is warming and that human created greenhouse gases are to blame." The problem is not that this is untrue, but that there are other reasons why much of this alignment doesn't necessarily have much to do with the merits/demerits of the science itself. There are still plenty of scientists who refute the dominant theory, and more still who don't refute it but question whether there's much of a threat. But you're not going to hear anything about any of them from mainstream media sources, politicians using the science to scare people into voting for them, or from our very own internet posters who try and marginalize contrary opinions by, among other things, calling legitimate skeptics cretins, deniers, bloviators, imbeciles, or lazy & incompetent.

A long winded piece of BS.