Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This is simply another in a series of threads perpetuated by folks with no expertise or knowledge pandering to political bias.

Thought this one was worth repeating. There have been a few posters over the years -- from both sides of the debate and often somewhere in-between -- whose posts suggest genuine expertise & knowledge, but they have been few & far between and often don't hang around. Easy to spot actually -- they can actually do their own analysis and explain things in their own words. This is in contrast to those who simply produce links to their own preferred, cherry-picked "science," cite charts & graphs that try and make themselves look "scientific," and then berate posters & scientists who don't agree with them. And then they wonder why others don't find what they have to say very convincing or even credible.

Originally Posted by Marc1

The lure of the lights calling for "virtue" and the common good, the podium to cry look at me, look at me, are too much for many. Far too many.

All too consistent with the very predictable nature of humankind. It starts with people looking for ways to make themselves feel relevant, leads to the irresistibly good feelings that come from convincing themselves they occupy the moral high ground, and end with actually believing they do in fact know what's best for others. It's too bad since some of the underlying science is worth pursuing.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What other problems? List'em. The same idiots who deny CC have done squat on those problems too. CC's just the favourite target.

Speaking of and (as usual) right on cue. Hopefully you're not seriously questioning what other environmental problems exist, are you? And of course you have no idea what people you know nothing about have done or not done when it comes to these other environmental issues. You just think it might be useful to stereotype them because they're not as invested in the political . . . errrr . . . I mean CC "cause" to the extent you are. Yet you call such people "idiots?" That is silly, among other things. Unless you're just trying to get another thread closed again -- then it's probably quite effective. Believing that you're the arbiter of what others should or shouldn't be discussing only highlights the problem Marc1 identified above, and explains why your "cause" hasn't attracted more adherents. You and others are just trying to demonstrate the "certainty" of the science in an effort to justify the skeptics' refusal to sign up. That's why you call such people "idiots" & "deniers," not because such labels are honestly justified.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Hopefully you're not seriously questioning what other environmental problems exist, are you?

Yer late, but no less smug.

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by newhaul

like this ?
https://youtu.be/9mjOmsqIibk

Thank you for that interview of Daniel Fitzhenry by Andrew Bolt.
I am always surprised how those who have worked in the field and can show the most expertise, are the most modest and always shy away from grandiloquence and virtue signalling.
May be it is worth posting the core of Mr Fitzhenry point, a professional in his field of Hydrographic Surveying that makes the charts we all use to navigate.

One of the many fake and purposely catastrophizing prediction that did not eventuate and never will, is the 9m sea level rising complete with the statue of liberty half submerged.
When it sells tickets to the movies and may be a few newspapers, it is not reality.

This is reality:

Daniel Fitzhenry – Hydrographic Surveyor
581 Singleton Road, Laughtondale NSW 2775 Australia
Phone 02 4566 4576 Mobile 0419 876 222
Email: fitzynet@bigpond.net.au ABN 11 216 559131

Capt. Daniel Fitzhenry – CPHS1 Hydrographic Surveyor - Registered Surveyor – Dip. Environmental Studies (Macq.)
Steven Fitzhenry – B.Eng. (Civil) Sydney – MIE Aust. – Maritime Civil & Structural Engineer – Project Manager
Capt. Adam Fitzhenry – B. Eng. Honours (Civil) Syd, MBA AGSM – Maritime Civil & Structural Engineer – Oceanographer
Ellie Fitzhenry – B.Sc (Sydney) – Marine Biology & Ecology – Marine Science
Capt. Paul McGaw – ROV Operations Manager – Electrical & Mechanical Engineer
Tracey Hay – B.A (Macq) – Project Coordinator – IT, Statistics & Research Manager

Rising Sea Levels – The Climate Debate

The seas and oceans to the east of Australia forms the largest body of water on Earth. This broadly connected vast body of water presents a genuine sea level. The Sydney Fort Denison Recording Station provides stable, accurate and genuine mean sea level data. The following table shows mean sea levels at
10 year intervals and these levels are related to Chart Datum which is at the lowest spring tide level.

100 YEARS OF MEAN SEA LEVELS AT FORT DENISON, SYDNEY:
1914 – 1.11 metres
1924 – 0.98 metres
1934 – 0.98 metres
1944 – 0.97 metres
1954 – 1.00 metres
1964 – 1.09 metres
1974 – 1.09 metres
1984 – 1.02 metres
1994 – 1.04 metres
2004 – 1.08 metres
2014 – 1.12 metres
2019 – 1.05 metres

Accordingly, the mean sea level at Sydney in 2019 is 6 centimetres lower than the mean sea level at Sydney in 1914 when the Bureau Of Meteorology commenced recording Mean Sea Level.

High Sea Levels during Storm, Cyclone & Low Pressure Events.

Ill-informed commentators have asserted that sea levels may permanently rise by 1 to 2 metres in the next 100 years. 100 years of records on the largest water body on Earth indicates that this is incorrect.

There have always been short period storm and low pressure rises in sea levels. The highest recorded sea level at Sydney occurred during the 1974 low pressure storm. The sea level rose to 30 cm above high spring tide level for one day. During recorded history there has been no indication whatsoever of a 100 to 200 cm permanent rise in sea level.

There will always be short period storm, cyclone and low pressure rises in sea levels in close proximity to cyclone and storm centres. These storm centre rises in sea levels are not permanent.

Ocean swells and storm waves can exceed 16 metres during major storm surge events. It is these massive waves that have caused significant damage to coastal and island communities in the past.

It is certain that huge storm event waves will occur in the future and will cause significant damage to the island and low lying communities. Coastline and flood zone protection is the sane answer to storm event damage.

It is polite and essential that the world population should avoid incorrect climate nonsense. We need to divert the alarmist energy to caring for the planet. Cease polluting the oceans. Prevent development of flood prone land and threatened coastal zones that have been, and will always be, subject to flooding.

PS
What is acidifcation?

[Marc1]

But of course not everyone agrees with the professionals.

Opinions like this sell more and collect more and scare more.
Keep them scared they say ...

Even if world manages to limit global warming to 2°C — the target number for current climate negotiations — sea levels may still rise at least 6 meters (20 feet) above their current heights, radically reshaping the world’s coastline and affecting millions in the process.

That finding comes from a new paper published on Thursday in Science that shows how high sea levels rose the last time carbon dioxide levels were this high.

That was about 3 million years ago, when the globe was about 3-5°F warmer on average, the Arctic 14.4°F warmer, megasharks swam the oceans, and sea levels stood at least 20 feet above their current heights

Much more nonsense down here
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...east-6-meters/

PS

The arrogance of the language used is breathtaking ...

Even if world manages to limit global warming to 2°C — the target number for current climate negotiations —

So listen up ... we actually have a knob that can be turned in order to adjust the climate. We do! All we are doing is negotiating to agree on how much we will turn it down! Seriously?

I am still waiting on one person with a smidgeon of climatology knowledge that can point me to any serious evidence that reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (if it was even possible by any significant amount) will change temperatures and most importantly by how much and at what cost.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Marc1

But of course not everyone agrees with the professionals.

Opinions like this sell more and collect more and scare more.
Keep them scared they say ...



Much more nonsense down here
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...east-6-meters/

two points
1) the title says it all
Sea level could and I stress the COULD rise (trigger word to cover their butts when it doesn't happen.


2) if sea level rise was actually a legitimate issue banks would not loan for these resorts and fancy hotels to be built on the beaches . ( would be bad banking business )

next is the change the models forecast for alkalinity change it is less than the error margin .

[toddster8]

God, I can’t believe I’m wading into this cra... conversation. I remember sitting in the library in 1992 or so, reading the “hockey stick” paper in Science and literally getting sick in the stomach, seeing exactly where the politicals would talk weather into a new religion. Or two.

However, banks lending money to anyone to build on any beach seems incredibly stupid in any case. Unless the proposition pencils out when you consider than anything built on a beach must be regarded as disposable. It’s within the realm of possibility that a sufficiently profitable enterprise could have disposable premises.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So you ignore guys like James Hansen and Michael Mann?


Where does this leave the Hockey Stick after a CRAPP (sic) test???

The hockey stick has been replicated over 36 times by different researchers using different methodologies and different data sets. It has withstood the CRAAP test.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The hockey stick has been replicated over 36 times by different researchers using different methodologies and different data sets. It has withstood the CRAAP test.

doesn't matter it is still incorrect due to the base data being wrong .

Flip the data exactly 180° and it would match actual unedited observations.
Craap in craap out. Nothing fancy there .

And we are cooling .
Which will increase the co2 capacity of the oceans . Thereby increasing the carbonic acid in the water slightly reducing the ph about .05 or so .

[toddster8]

Again, I acknowledge that that this is wasted breath (typing.)
At the time, the “hockey stick” graph was incorrect. A scientific “whopper” so to speak. Measured values and extrapolated values should not have been plotted as a single line. (Plotting it as two or three lines would have been correct.)

Any actual scientist saw this at a glance, so it’s not like it mislead the people who count. Er... the people who’s job it was to do something about it, that is.

It was a hypothesis presented as a fact. But over the last 25 years, thousands of scientists have been working on tests for the hypothesis. So far, it is holding up.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The hockey stick has been replicated over 36 times by different researchers using different methodologies and different data sets. It has withstood the CRAAP test.

So that means you're happy to listen to what non climate scientists have to say as long as they aren't puppeteers? How do you know some of those whom you revere that aren't, in fact, climate scientists don't puppeteer in their spare time? It's not like those you accuse of being puppeteers actually state that they're professional puppeteers on their collective resumes.



Which means you're either unrolling typical ad-hominem nonsense in the absence of having a valid counter argument or you're otherwise simply contradicting yourself. Which is it?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by toddster8

Again, I acknowledge that that this is wasted breath (typing.)
At the time, the “hockey stick” graph was incorrect. A scientific “whopper” so to speak. Measured values and extrapolated values should not have been plotted as a single line. (Plotting it as two or three lines would have been correct.)

Any actual scientist saw this at a glance, so it’s not like it mislead the people who count. Er... the people who’s job it was to do something about it, that is.

It was a hypothesis presented as a fact. But over the last 25 years, thousands of scientists have been working on tests for the hypothesis. So far, it is holding up.

it all goes back to the Kyoto protocol and the IPCC's original and still in force terms of reference . Which is To ignore anything climate related that doesn't have an anthropogenic source that can be pointed to .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The hockey stick has been replicated over 36 times by different researchers using different methodologies and different data sets. It has withstood the CRAAP test.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So that means you're happy to listen to what non climate scientists have to say as long as they aren't puppeteers? How do you know some of those whom you revere that aren't, in fact, climate scientists don't puppeteer in their spare time? It's not like those you accuse of being puppeteers actually state that they're professional puppeteers on their collective resumes.

Which means you're either unrolling typical ad-hominem nonsense in the absence of having a valid counter argument or you're otherwise simply contradicting yourself. Which is it?

Even a modicum of objectivity is impossible when it's one's own personal 'CRAAP test.'

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by toddster8

Again, I acknowledge that that this is wasted breath (typing.)
At the time, the “hockey stick” graph was incorrect. A scientific “whopper” so to speak. Measured values and extrapolated values should not have been plotted as a single line. (Plotting it as two or three lines would have been correct.)

Any actual scientist saw this at a glance, so it’s not like it mislead the people who count. Er... the people who’s job it was to do something about it, that is.

It was a hypothesis presented as a fact. But over the last 25 years, thousands of scientists have been working on tests for the hypothesis. So far, it is holding up.

It's everybody's job on the planet to do "something about it". Problem is if you keep parroting that the sky is falling when it's still sitting up there just fine, sooner or later great slabs of "everybody's" are going to switch off and start falling off the bandwagon. Personally, I switched from accepting carbon dioxide based global warming theory as a given around 2004 and it was the hockey stick and it's stink that was the final straw for me. And once the revelation starts to dawn that there's people in the inner circle that are doing nothing more than arriving at predetermined conclusions (hence why it's always "worse then we thought") under the guise of unbiased independent research then this can send one down the rabbit hole of skepticism from which there is little chance they'll ever return back to the fold.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Marc1

* * *

Rising Sea Levels – The Climate Debate

The seas and oceans to the east of Australia forms the largest body of water on Earth. This broadly connected vast body of water presents a genuine sea level. The Sydney Fort Denison Recording Station provides stable, accurate and genuine mean sea level data. The following table shows mean sea levels at
10 year intervals and these levels are related to Chart Datum which is at the lowest spring tide level.

100 YEARS OF MEAN SEA LEVELS AT FORT DENISON, SYDNEY:
1914 – 1.11 metres
1924 – 0.98 metres
1934 – 0.98 metres
1944 – 0.97 metres
1954 – 1.00 metres
1964 – 1.09 metres
1974 – 1.09 metres
1984 – 1.02 metres
1994 – 1.04 metres
2004 – 1.08 metres
2014 – 1.12 metres
2019 – 1.05 metres

Accordingly, the mean sea level at Sydney in 2019 is 6 centimetres lower than the mean sea level at Sydney in 1914 when the Bureau Of Meteorology commenced recording Mean Sea Level.

This is unbelievable. The world's largest body of water, and seemingly at odds with the sat data. If this was a serious & informed debate about the actual science, we'd quickly be seeing posts trying to explain the discrepancy rationally (regional variations?). After all, sea level rise is, along with ocean "acidification," a cornerstone of AGW theory. Instead, these findings will more likely be ignored, or the meteorologist reporting the data will be attacked personally. Another "puppeteer" perhaps? It should no longer be mysterious why so much of the scientific skepticism is coming from outside the field of climate science itself.

[MartinR]

The Wei et al paper is published in a low impact journal, and only uses data from one place. They give an example of seasonal variations and say that this needs to be accounted for in modelling. Seasonal variations have very little to do with long term trends. And long term, the ocean pH will be reduced, which the authors also write. While seasonal variations probably will not affect coral, as they can make up for calcium losses during low pH season in high pH season, a long term reduction in pH will probably have effects, as the periods for recovery get shorter.

They also explain why there is this seasonal variety in pH. This is caused by upwelling in this place.

There is actually no doubt the average temperature on earth is rising, global measurements have been done for a long time now. They are readily available. This does not necessarily mean that all places on earth will get warmer, as weather patterns will change. Also a global rise in sea level does not necessarily mean that sea levels will rise everywhere.