Ocean acidifcation .

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

This is not add odds with the sat data. 1914 was probably an ENSO year. It is very hard to isolate cyclical changes from long term trends when measuring sea level. That is where the sats come in. They measure large areas, so the data is more correct - hopefully.

Ice is melting, no doubt about that, and somewhere the water has to go.

And it is a bad argument to compare one year with another. I mean 1924 sea level was 0.98m and in 2014 1.12m. To see a clear trend you would need the data for all years, not every decade and then plot it and calculate the curve. Might not even give a good result, as cyclic variations are so strong in coastal areas.

Note also that there has not been a measurement under 1.00m since 1944.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I expected this from you attacking the person not the science

Btw this is thread is about the fallacy of ocean acidification .

1#Define science
2#Reminder for you?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by 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.

actually the global temperature has been going down for 3 years now .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yer late, but no less smug.

Ironic. A better description of smug would be a layman drawing conclusions about the role of natural forces on warming that not even climate science has been able to settle on. Or the outright dismissal of theories attributing warming to solar influences which some astrophysicists (among others) adhere to. Or assuming that people who have legitimate questions about the extent of the human role in warming don't care enough to do anything about other important if not critical environmental issues. Or someone who feels so empowered by the "righteousness" of their own beliefs that they feel justified in impugning motives and denigrating "non-believers" with name-calling. It's actually way beyond smug, but calling it what it really is wouldn't be "nice."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by MartinR

This is not add odds with the sat data. 1914 was probably an ENSO year. It is very hard to isolate cyclical changes from long term trends when measuring sea level. That is where the sats come in. They measure large areas, so the data is more correct - hopefully.

Ice is melting, no doubt about that, and somewhere the water has to go.

And it is a bad argument to compare one year with another. I mean 1924 sea level was 0.98m and in 2014 1.12m. To see a clear trend you would need the data for all years, not every decade and then plot it and calculate the curve. Might not even give a good result, as cyclic variations are so strong in coastal areas.

Note also that there has not been a measurement under 1.00m since 1944.

Thanks for responding on the merits. It leads me to two questions/observations:

1. The sat data has only been in existence since when (1979?)?

2. I have no reason to question or challenge the reasons you give for the difficulties in coming up with clear trends when it comes to measuring sea level over time. But these same reasons seem at odds with the "certainty" we are constantly hearing about, whether it is coastal flooding events which have already occurred, or predictions of coming catastrophe (some of which have long passed). If it is so difficult to measure without satellites, and the satellites have only been taking measurements since 1979(??), then how can all the certainty about a long-term trend exacerbated by AGW be justified?

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by Exile

Thanks for responding on the merits. It leads me to two questions/observations:

1. The sat data has only been in existence since when (1979?)?

2. I have no reason to question or challenge the reasons you give for the difficulties in coming up with clear trends when it comes to measuring sea level over time. But these same reasons seem at odds with the "certainty" we are constantly hearing about, whether it is coastal flooding events which have already occurred, or predictions of coming catastrophe (some of which have long passed). If it is so difficult to measure without satellites, and the satellites have only been taking measurements since 1979(??), then how can all the certainty about a long-term trend exacerbated by AGW be justified?

Science does not deal in certainty, only probabilities. They may reach close to one, but can never reach it.

The trend is the same, wether you use satellite data or combined data from ALL coastal measurement stations. One station does not say anything. But there is clear uncertainty in the data, as we are measuring extremely small changes over time in an area where there are big cyclic changes.

The question is what to do with this. Let us say there is only a 20% chance that Global warming is really happening (I think it is more like 99%, but for arguments sake). Doing nothing means disaster. Stopping CO2 emissions means civilisation as we know it can go on.

If there would be a 20% chance a bridge might collapse during the next 10 years, should we repair it, or save the money?

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by MartinR

....
The question is what to do with this. Let us say there is only a 20% chance that Global warming is really happening (I think it is more like 99%, but for arguments sake). Doing nothing means disaster. Stopping CO2 emissions means civilisation as we know it can go on.

If there would be a 20% chance a bridge might collapse during the next 10 years, should we repair it, or save the money?

Good one. Before repairing the bridge, we assess the cost of repairs compared to building a new one. And there are no uncertainty as to how to build or repair a bridge.

The amount of warming that is attributable to humans is unknown simply because the role of CO2, the only factor that can be pinned on humans is also dubious at best and most likely completely fake.

More interesting is how everyone jumps blindly on the assumption that it is "anthropogenic" CO2 that causes warming, yet no one utters even a guess at how much will be achieve by spending quadrillions on fake solutions.

How many trillions per 1/2 degree of reduction of average temperatures?
Guess to answer?
Who decides the "correct" temperature? Obama? AlGore? DiCaprio?

Answer ... CO2 has only marginal influence on temperatures since the biggest greenhouse gas is water. The influence of the 0.0012% of the atmosphere produced by humans if reduced to half would be very close to zero and to achieve that we will need to migrate to another planet.

i suggest all the greenies and morally superior to take the first step.
i stay back and watch for the warming and send you a telegram when it is back to ... what? 18C good enough? 15C? perhaps?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by MartinR

Science does not deal in certainty, only probabilities. They may reach close to one, but can never reach it.

Generally true for much of science, but when it comes to policy decisions the degree of certainty/probability is necessary for evaluating the respective costs & benefits of taking various actions -- or not. Here, the probabilities that need to be evaluated don't just stop at whether AGW exists, but must include the extent of the human role, whether humans can mitigate to an appreciable degree, the likelihood of success, and what economic, social, and other costs are likely to be incurred to achieve such mitigation. Advocates like to analogize the level of probability to the undisputed link between smoking and cancer or heart disease, but we would no longer be debating if this was an apt analogy to AGW.

The trend is the same, wether you use satellite data or combined data from ALL coastal measurement stations. One station does not say anything. But there is clear uncertainty in the data, as we are measuring extremely small changes over time in an area where there are big cyclic changes.

I don't understand what you mean by your last statement, i.e. "measuring extremely small changes over time in an area where there are big cyclic changes." But leaving that aside, isn't it believed that the long-term trend has been at least modest sea level rise since the last major ice age? If so, then the science would need to show a significant increase in the rate of sea level rise which corresponds to the increase in CO2. How can sat data accomplish this if it's only been available the past several decades? Do rates of change from ALL the coastal stations you say are required offset the decrease from 100 years of measurements from the Denison station?

The question is what to do with this. Let us say there is only a 20% chance that Global warming is really happening (I think it is more like 99%, but for arguments sake). Doing nothing means disaster. Stopping CO2 emissions means civilisation as we know it can go on.

Doesn't matter what you or I think. There has to be a reasonable degree of certainty (or probability if you prefer) from the science as a whole. Again, not just of a human role, but a human role of significant proportion that mitigating that role will prevent a disaster. But there's much less consensus within the science of the "disaster" you speak of, or that civilization as we know it will stop if we don't put a halt to CO2 emissions. You're advocating a rather extreme, alarmist view that doesn't have as much support in the science as, say, our ability to adapt to far less draconian predictions.

If there would be a 20% chance a bridge might collapse during the next 10 years, should we repair it, or save the money?

Repair (or replace) it. But using this as an analogy to the probabilities surrounding catastrophic CC is speculative. The costs to fixing your bridge, moreover, may be high but are unlikely to pose the same level of threat to the well-being of the affected communities. I don't see how this is even comparable to the upheaval that would be caused by drastically reducing if not eliminating fossil fuel consumption. The respective harms & benefits to human civilization of taking action or not must be weighed, and that weighing can only be accomplished with a sufficient level of scientific certainty. Such uncertainty simply does not exist when weighing the costs, risks & benefits of repairing a bridge.

[Marc1]

And when it comes to predictions by the expert oracles and assorted magician of the non science of anticlimactic climatological pseudo quackery, who can forget Tim Flannery?

if using hieromancy or Pyro-osteomancy I am not sure but this is the tripe that governments around the world follow and pay for. Correction that we pay for.

Tim Flannery, former Climate Commissioner of Australia from 2011-2013 earned $180,000 per year for a three-day working week to make predictions and decisions that affected billions upon billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money.

AFTER being rightly sacked by the Abbott government in 2013, Flannery began his own go-fund-me version of the Climate Commission, the Climate Council, which continues the propagandised rollout of catastrophic climate predictions and unreliable-energy pipe dreams.

NEVER far from the government teat, Flannery is regularly wheeled out by Australia’s government run media monolith their ABC, appearing as resident climate ‘expert’ whenever a catastrophic weather event hits the news cycle, or simply to inject a dose of hysteria into the conversation when climate alarm is waning.
TIM FLANNERY – Curriculum Vitae
*

FLOODS and DROUGHT
In 2004 Flannery said:

“I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis. It’s whole primary production is in dire straits and the eastern states are only 30 years behind.”

We are “one of the most physically vulnerable people on the Earth,” and “southern Australia is going to be impacted very severely and very detrimentally by global climate change.” We are going to experience “conditions not seen in 40 million years.”

In 2007 he said:

“…That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.”

“The one-in-1000-years drought is, in fact, Australia’s manifestation of the global fingerprint of drought caused by climate change.”

In May 2007 he warned that:

“Brisbane and Adelaide – home to a combined total of three million people – could run out of water by year’s end;”

and that the country was facing

“the most extreme and the most dangerous situation arising from climate change facing any country in the world right now.”

In June 2007 he said:

“Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. Similar losses have been experienced in eastern Australia, and although the science is less certain it is probable that global warming is behind these losses too. But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain …

In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

In 2008 he warned again that:

“The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”

AND then the rains came, as they always do in the land of “droughts and flooding rains“…

BY December 2008 Adelaide’s reservoirs were 75% full, Perth’s 40%, Sydney’s 63%, and Brisbane’s reservoir’s were 46% full.

BY 2009 dams for Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney were filled to overflowing.

PRESENTLY Adelaide’s reservoirs are 57%, Perth’s 39%, Melbourne’s 64%, Sydney’s 77%, and Brisbane’s reservoir’s are 83% full.

And there is more here, if you have the stomach to read it

https://climatism.blog/2018/03/12/ti...te-falsehoods/

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by Marc1

More interesting is how everyone jumps blindly on the assumption that it is "anthropogenic" CO2 that causes warming, yet no one utters even a guess at how much will be achieve by spending quadrillions on fake solutions.

How many trillions per 1/2 degree of reduction of average temperatures?

The cost will be zero. This is basic economy. Sooner or later we have to replace fossil fuels, otherwise we will run out.

Also, probably the real cost will be zero also. Maybe even positive for the national economy and also the private economy. The nations that are addressing this issue and have significantly reduced their emissions do not seem to suffer. I mean Switzerland and Sweden and Denmark are not exactly dying. California is not the poorest state in the US.

[stevensuf]

How can global warming cause droughts? If the oceans heat up, surely there should be more rain, thus less droughts? On average.......

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by MartinR

The cost will be zero. This is basic economy. Sooner or later we have to replace fossil fuels, otherwise we will run out.

Also, probably the real cost will be zero also. Maybe even positive for the national economy and also the private economy. The nations that are addressing this issue and have significantly reduced their emissions do not seem to suffer. I mean Switzerland and Sweden and Denmark are not exactly dying. California is not the poorest state in the US.

What nonsense.

If we reduce anthropogenic CO2 by half, how much will the temperature reduce?
And how much will this reduction cost?

Answer, temperature reduction zero, cost quadrillions.

This quest equates to someone rising funds to build a staircase to heaven because heaven is so much better.

Face it, it is nonsense at the nth degree.

[Wotname]

Leaving aside the AGW arguments for a moment.

Curious - is the supply of fossil fuels finite or infinite?

I've always assumed it was finite and therefore sooner or later an alternative must be found. If so, will it cost more to do it now or later or is the question more like whose pockets are lined by doing now or by doing it later?

Of course, if fossil fuels are infinite, the question is sort of redundant.

[Marc1]

Oh! I see ... the whole quest for the reduction of CO2 has nothing to do with cooling the planet that is not heating, nor to stop the sea rise that is not happening ... it is actually to reduce coal or oil usage because it will eventually run out. (Coal will run out in something like 1000 years by the way, and oil ... we keep on finding more)
How silly of me.

And if that argument fails will we be talking about becoming vegetarians? or live in caves that do not need heating? fit oar locks on our boats? How much better life would be if we all go to work on pushbikes?

There are words to describe all this schemes, but they fit more the language of psychiatrist.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Marc1

...This is reality:....

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......

Counter-intuitively, sea level changes are not the same world-wide.

Climate Change: Global Sea Level NOAA

Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2017, global mean sea level was 3 inches (77 millimeters) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). It was the sixth consecutive year, and the 22nd out of the last 24 years in which global mean sea level increased relative to the previous year.


Global map showing where sea level in 2017 was higher (blue) or lower (brown) than the 1993-2017 average. NOAA Climate.gov map, adapted from Figure 3.16a in State of the Climate in 2017.

Since the start of the satellite sea level record in 1993, the average rate of sea level has been about one-eighth of an inch (3.1 mm) per year. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms.

Global sea level since 1880


The light blue line shows seasonal (3-month) sea level estimates from Church and White (2011). The darker line is based on University of Hawaii Fast Delivery sea level data. For more detail on the data sources, see the end of the article.