Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is a giant leap of a conclusion.

really like you are not extremely pro MMGWC biased .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

really like you are not extremely pro MMGWC biased .

My bias is evidence-based science.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Unsubstantiated idle assertion.

So you're aware of climate science-related papers that Shaviv has published since 2017?

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is a giant leap of a conclusion.

Prominent skeptics have been making the claim for years that they can't get grants, can't get published, can't get peer reviewed. A few pages back an interview from Curry said just that. Earlier in the thread it was an interview with Spencer. Most recently a physicist confirmed. Need more examples? Shall I put them on a graph so they'll look more like "scientific evidence" to you?

To counter all this, we have your pronouncement that a few published papers, some of them quite dated, somehow renders it "proof positive" that all of this criticism from prominent, vested professionals is simply "BS". So let's ask the question again, who's more biased, these scientists or you?

If they can't get grants to do research, then no papers get produced, and there's nothing to publish. Then there's little incentive for scientists to propose research other than that which supports the official line. But then partisans like you disingenuously decry the lack of "peer reviewed evidence" of natural forces that might otherwise justify the skepticism! Are you starting to see why some of us are not only skeptical, but cynical too?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

My bias is evidence-based science.

Ahh. There it is! And I have no doubt you sincerely believe it.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Exile

So you're aware of climate science-related papers that Shaviv has published since 2017?



Prominent skeptics have been making the claim for years that they can't get grants, can't get published, can't get peer reviewed. A few pages back an interview from Curry said just that. Earlier in the thread it was an interview with Spencer. Most recently a physicist confirmed. Need more examples? Shall I put them on a graph so they'll look more like "scientific evidence" to you?

To counter all this, we have your pronouncement that a few published papers, some of them quite dated, somehow renders it "proof positive" that all of this criticism from prominent, vested professionals is simply "BS". So let's ask the question again, who's more biased, these scientists or you?

If they can't get grants to do research, then no papers get produced, and there's nothing to publish. Then there's little incentive for scientists to propose research other than that which supports the official line. But then partisans like you disingenuously decry the lack of "peer reviewed evidence" of natural forces that might otherwise justify the skepticism! Are you starting to see why some of us are not only skeptical, but cynical too?

And if they challenge the scientific rigor of papers that are being published as did Professor Ridd they get fired from their jobs.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

Every time you post a graph showing warming or warming-related events such as sea ice extent, sea level rise, etc., or comment to that effect, without any further explanation or analysis, it implies the warming is the direct result of human-derived CO2 or you obviously wouldn't post them. Citing UAH data to confirm TD's observations, along with dropping Spencer & Christy's names along with, associates warming's impacts on the Arctic with AGW, a correlation which has plenty of mainstream support but does not amount to causative fact, and is certainly not the conclusions drawn by the scientists who produce the UAH data. But such low-level manipulation is hardly new, which is exactly why so much of the public associates any sort of warming-related event with anthropogenic forces alone.

I'm trying to honestly characterize the current state of the science despite my admitted bias, and won't be resorting to sophomoric tactics if someone intelligently and honestly corrects me. In contrast, you are so consumed with your own extreme bias that you are either oblivious to how misleading your posts are, or are doing it intentionally. Not sure which one is in play here, but it doesn't really matter since either way they are misleading, and so a disservice to the science you so rather cynically express such fidelity to.

Talking about honesty are we? The man made CO2 is so far the only plausible explanation with some proof. There are fancy theories but without substance about solar minimum, volcanoes, ocean CO2 and Newhauls favourite "there's no warming" etc.
It's ok to have scepticism but that should be practised equally to all theories not just to the one you happen to dislike.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Talking about honesty are we? The man made CO2 is so far the only plausible explanation with some proof. There are fancy theories but without substance about solar minimum, volcanoes, ocean CO2 and Newhauls favourite "there's no warming" etc.
It's ok to have scepticism but that should be practised equally to all theories not just to the one you happen to dislike.

perhaps you should go back through some of the older CC threads and review my theorem before you actually say any more about it . It is actually in line with many other scientists theories . Ask jack or Sailoar for a refresher I'm sure they can bring you up to speed fairly quickly ..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Talking about honesty are we? The man made CO2 is so far the only plausible explanation with some proof. There are fancy theories but without substance about solar minimum, volcanoes, ocean CO2 and Newhauls favourite "there's no warming" etc.
It's ok to have scepticism but that should be practised equally to all theories not just to the one you happen to dislike.

When it comes to climate science, I believe I am skeptical of all theories, and I'm even skeptical that the warming trend that's apparently been amplified up your way can simply be assumed to be aberrant or unusual. What's clearly aberrant is the spike in CO2, and it seems almost all scientists agree that this is contributing to warming to some degree, but they differ on how much and the amount of impact. Claiming that "no better explanation exists" assumes that the earth has never experienced such warming trends before, and so quickly becomes a red herring absent historical information. Speaking for myself, I can't "deny" the majority view, but the mere fact that other views aren't being reported in the media doesn't make the majority one any more viable scientifically. I think you have to be a qualified expert to fairly judge that one, and that's when Jack's oft-toted scientific "evidence" legitimately comes into play, not amongst laymen on the internet lacking expert credentials or expertise.

So do you know when the last time, if ever, this level of warming you've been witnessing occurred, and if it was prior to the fossil fuel era? Or if the rate of the warming has been truly aberrant? I believe there were some successful passages of the NWP in the 19th century that were recorded, and probably some prior thereto, but sea ice extent is influenced by a lot of factors other than just temps so I'm not sure how much to rely on that.

I similarly can't make any of my own judgments about solar activity, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc., except that they are obviously minority views. It appears we are in fact "cooling" right now, but only for the past few years, and thus far it could be consistent with similar short-term cooling periods coming off strong El Nino's. Jack's presentation of graphs & posts did a good job of demonstrating that one. Newhaul's position is that this is the start of a new, long-term cooling trend due to reduced solar activity (still don't understand the cosmic ray deal ), but he's acknowledged the long-term warming trend and agrees that we'll obviously have to "wait & see." There does seem to be (minority) support from the science that solar activity may be a dominant force, but also (majority) evidence that disputes it. In any event, I don't quite understand why Newhaul's positions draw such ire, but whatever. I also don't know how to keep "score" on the various theories since it's not like the skepticism is coming from fortune tellers & witch doctors. There are serious professionals doing competent research on both sides.

The only theory I "don't like" are those put forth, under the guise of objectively representing "the science," that state or imply that the dominant/official theories are the only ones worthy of consideration, and therefore people inquiring about how the minority views can be so easily dismissed are, well [fill in the blank]. I don't mind bias in its own right, or people advocating why their position should be accepted over others, but it's misleading to misrepresent the actual state of the science as completely one-sided, since it's not. You can be both biased and bring some level of objectivity to bear without being deceptive or dishonest. My personal bias is more directed against what I see are not very credible people simply dictating the majority theory without much thought, while arrogantly and often angrily dismissing alternative ones with a similar absence of thought. For me, this signals some sort of personal or political agenda, with actual truth a mere secondary goal.

[RaymondR]

I think we need a break from all this catastrophism. I have lived through three of these cultish imminent catastrophe cults.

The first was the imminent ice age because statistically we were nearing the end of one of a series of inter ice age warming periods.

The second was the nuclear winter, where the smoke from all the burning cities due to the imminent northern hemisphere nuclear war was going block out the sun and the crops would not grow and we would all starve to death.

Now we have global warming and when that branding lost effectiveness because the imminent end did not come about on time, climate change.

Quit it, I'm sick of it.

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by Exile

The only theory I "don't like" are those put forth, under the guise of objectively representing "the science," that state or imply that the dominant/official theories are the only ones worthy of consideration, and therefore people inquiring about how the minority views can be so easily dismissed are, well [fill in the blank]. I don't mind bias in its own right, or people advocating why their position should be accepted over others, but it's misleading to misrepresent the actual state of the science as completely one-sided, since it's not. You can be both biased and bring some level of objectivity to bear without being deceptive or dishonest. My personal bias is more directed against what I see are not very credible people simply dictating the majority theory without much thought, while arrogantly and often angrily dismissing alternative ones with a similar absence of thought. For me, this signals some sort of personal or political agenda, with actual truth a mere secondary goal.

Well said, best post so far.

The reason you observe this behaviour is simple. This is a cult, far removed from science.

The "belief" predate the search for a confirmation, a bit like those who want to prove scientifically the existence of God. The bias fits a pre existing set of values and "global warming" and those who are at fault, have been in the hate list well before global warming was invented.

This just fits the bill.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

When it comes to climate science, I believe I am skeptical of all theories, and I'm even skeptical that the warming trend that's apparently been amplified up your way can simply be assumed to be aberrant or unusual. What's clearly aberrant is the spike in CO2, and it seems almost all scientists agree that this is contributing to warming to some degree, but they differ on how much and the amount of impact. Claiming that "no better explanation exists" assumes that the earth has never experienced such warming trends before, and so quickly becomes a red herring absent historical information. Speaking for myself, I can't "deny" the majority view, but the mere fact that other views aren't being reported in the media doesn't make the majority one any more viable scientifically. I think you have to be a qualified expert to fairly judge that one, and that's when Jack's oft-toted scientific "evidence" legitimately comes into play, not amongst laymen on the internet lacking expert credentials or expertise.

So do you know when the last time, if ever, this level of warming you've been witnessing occurred, and if it was prior to the fossil fuel era? Or if the rate of the warming has been truly aberrant? I believe there were some successful passages of the NWP in the 19th century that were recorded, and probably some prior thereto, but sea ice extent is influenced by a lot of factors other than just temps so I'm not sure how much to rely on that.

I similarly can't make any of my own judgments about solar activity, cosmic rays, volcanoes, etc., except that they are obviously minority views. It appears we are in fact "cooling" right now, but only for the past few years, and thus far it could be consistent with similar short-term cooling periods coming off strong El Nino's. Jack's presentation of graphs & posts did a good job of demonstrating that one. Newhaul's position is that this is the start of a new, long-term cooling trend due to reduced solar activity (still don't understand the cosmic ray deal ), but he's acknowledged the long-term warming trend and agrees that we'll obviously have to "wait & see." There does seem to be (minority) support from the science that solar activity may be a dominant force, but also (majority) evidence that disputes it. In any event, I don't quite understand why Newhaul's positions draw such ire, but whatever. I also don't know how to keep "score" on the various theories since it's not like the skepticism is coming from fortune tellers & witch doctors. There are serious professionals doing competent research on both sides.

The only theory I "don't like" are those put forth, under the guise of objectively representing "the science," that state or imply that the dominant/official theories are the only ones worthy of consideration, and therefore people inquiring about how the minority views can be so easily dismissed are, well [fill in the blank]. I don't mind bias in its own right, or people advocating why their position should be accepted over others, but it's misleading to misrepresent the actual state of the science as completely one-sided, since it's not. You can be both biased and bring some level of objectivity to bear without being deceptive or dishonest. My personal bias is more directed against what I see are not very credible people simply dictating the majority theory without much thought, while arrogantly and often angrily dismissing alternative ones with a similar absence of thought. For me, this signals some sort of personal or political agenda, with actual truth a mere secondary goal.

Quite right what you said. I think the most bias against MMGW is how the media and environmentalists represent it, not the science itself.
The theory of cosmic rays is fashinating, thou as long as we (our solar system) are inside this galactic arm there's no no substancial change but eventually we travel between the intermediate space between two arms and that will be another matter..
One have to understand that the scientists studying the subject are not a homogenous group working for a common goal. There's a lot of academic politics and personal bias among them and most have their own interests in the game. There's also a lot guilt on politicians who mostly make their proposals politically profitable as they are more worried of their career and support from voters than the environment itself, hence the blaming and bias against opponents.

[GordMay]

From Newhaul's link
... Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.
“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.” ...
... In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper* on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors ...

“Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” ~ by: Nir J. Shaviv & Ján Veizer
*➥ http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/I...s/GSAToday.pdf

See also:
“On the Role of Cosmic Ray Flux variations as a Climate Driver: The Debate” ~ by: Nir J. Shaviv & Ján Veizer
➥ On the Role of Cosmic Ray Flux variations as a Climate Driver: The Debate | ScienceBits

[ImaginaryNumber]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0808103807.htm

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0808103807.htm
Excerpt:

"... Model calculations for coral growth based on these chemical data resembled the decline in growth measured in the field highlighting their importance to facilitate growth. In an environment with a lower pH, the corals at the ojos must put more effort to raise their pH to the observed level. This process is likely to cost them more energy. Since the corals must distribute their energy reserves over many important functions such as food acquisition, digestion, reproduction or defense against diseases, they grow more slowly. Other influences, however, such as the calcium concentration in the calcifying fluid or the role of coral symbionts, offer potential for further research. "The study has also shown that we still have a long way to go before we understand all the interactions between changes in seawater and coral growth,...

“Using B isotopes and B/Ca in corals from low saturation springs to constrain calcification mechanisms” ~ by M. Wall, J. Fietzke, E. D. Crook & A. Paytan
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11519-9

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“Using B isotopes and B/Ca in corals from low saturation springs to constrain calcification mechanisms” ~ by M. Wall, J. Fietzke, E. D. Crook & A. Paytan
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11519-9

this is the first sentence in the paper linked to
Ocean acidification is expected to negatively impact calcifying organisms, yet we lack understanding of their acclimation potential in the natural environment


Read we don't have have a clue.
But it is a start and its not like this isn't a natural process that has been going both ways for eons .