Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Strange times. In previous generations there was justifiable disgruntlement about unpopular wars, economic despair, and other all-too-real social upheavals. Now it's about an increase in atmospheric CO2. Maybe it's because all the unprecedented prosperity, alleviation of poverty, relative peace, availability of cheap energy, and technological advancement have created far too much space for people to feel far too safe. If CC doesn't pan out for those suffering from so much aggrievement, I wonder what the next source of hatred & resentment will be?

trumps reelection
And the defeat of Trudeau with a conservative.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by newhaul

eccept plant stomata studies say differently .

They actually say that in approx 1900 we had a co2 of 395 ppm
I posted the study 2 or 3 pages back go read it .

Stomatal data vs ice core measurements to measure CO2 levels

Climate Myth...

Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
"When stomata-derived CO2 (red) is compared to ice core-derived CO2 (blue), the stomata generally show much more variability in the atmospheric CO2 level and often show levels much higher than the ice cores." (David Middleton)

What the science says...

Stomatal data is not as direct as ice core measurements and hence not as precise.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Shortly after F. Wagner published his stomatal results (here), a response appeared in Science. The key difference in the result can be seen in the figure:



This figure shows that Wagner's data shows a sharp increase to 330ppm at 11,260 years BP (years before 1950), staying there for 500 years, in disagreement with the Taylor Dome and Vostok ice-core records.

In deciding between these results, several items should be noted:

Firstly, ice-core CO2 measurements are direct measurements on air that has been enclosed in bubbles. On the other hand, stomatal density is an indirect measure. Experiments on stomata density showed that "the stomatal response to increasing atmospheric CO2 was identical to that induced by removing water from the plant roots" (Idso et al 1984). In other words, stomatal index data may not be the able to measure the atmospheric concentration as precisely as its proponents would like.

Secondly, several different ice-core data sets are essentially consistent. Artifacts do appear in earlier ice core records - mainly the Greenland drill sites where CO2 was depleted through a chemical reaction - but there are no such indications of this in the Taylor Dome ice core. In any event, this is a known phenomena, and one that can be accounted for. These records all indicate the CO2 concentration from 260 to 280 ppmv during the preindustrial Holocene.

Stomata data, on the other hand, do not show such agreement. For example Beerling et al (D. J. Beerling, H. H. Birks, F. I. Woodward, J. Quat. Sci. 10, 379 (1995)) report largely scattering proxy CO2 values from 225 to 310 ppmv between 9940 and 9600 14C-yr, in disagreement with the data presented by Wagner et al.

In summary, the skeptics claim that stomatal data falsify the concept of a relatively stable Holocene CO2 concentration of 270-280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution. This claim is not justified.

https://skepticalscience.com/plant-s...co2-levels.htm

(reference links found in original article)

[ImaginaryNumber]

Ocean acidification to hit levels not seen in 14 million years

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-ocean-...ion-years.html

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Stomatal data vs ice core measurements to measure CO2 levels



https://skepticalscience.com/plant-s...co2-levels.htm

(reference links found in original article)

What an absolute crock. But kudos for exposing SkepticalScience for the propaganda site that they are. I guess "GlobalWarmingPropaganda.com" was already taken when Cookie forked over his fifty bucks for domain name registration.


Plant stomata are a valid method of determining past atmospheric CO2 content. In fact, the counter argument to the above SS diatribe is that CO2 diffuses in snow and ice over a period of at least a century before the ice compresses to an extent in which entrapped air is isolated from the atmosphere surrounding it, hence why there is a "smoothing" effect from ice cores that are absent in stomata. Stomata are also located all over the world, not just at the poles. And a number of peer reviewed papers have used stomata as a proxy for past climate reconstruction which indicates that it's held in sufficient regard for this purpose.


But wait there's more. All your alarmist buddies have gotten onto the stomata bandwagon and there are no end of doom and gloom papers using stomata changes in plants to demonstrate to all us great unwashed how up, err Maybe, the creek without a paddle we are. In fact, even your beloved SS site values the effect on stomata when it's in their interest of selling negativity.

It has long been known that stomata (the pores through which plants take in CO2 and exhale oxygen and water) tend to be narrower and stay closed longer under enhanced CO2. This effect is often cited as a benefit in that it increases water efficiency in drought situations. But there is another key piece to reduced stomatal conductance, considering that 90% of a plant’s water use is actually for cooling of the leaves and nothing more: heat from the sun is absorbed by the water in the leaf, then carried out as vapor in the form of latent heat. So while it is true that the plant may retain water better under enhanced CO2, doing so may cause it to retain more heat. This can potentially carry a plant to less optimal temperature ranges (Ball et al. 1988 and Idso et al. 1993). An image present in Long et al. 2006 (Figure 3) shows this effect quite clearly; while a 1.4 C increase is probably not enough to cause significant damage in most cases, global warming will only serve to exacerbate the effect. It is also of note that the study above represented a well-watered situation, and so during a drought condition the temperature increase would be even higher.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What an absolute crock. But kudos for exposing SkepticalScience for the propaganda site that they are.

Skeptical Science was simply reporting (almost verbatim) what had already been published in Science. Science is considered one of the premier science-reporting journals.

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...5446/1815.full

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Ocean acidification to hit levels not seen in 14 million years

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-ocean-...ion-years.html

If Coelacanth's had access to the Internet, there'd be almost no doubt that more than a few would be fin pumping at that news.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You mean about the 40% increase in CO2, or that 150 years of burning fossil fuels has caused a .0115% increase of an essential nutrient that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere? They both say the same thing, of course, but the former sounds much more ALARMING.

You can't even get this right. The increase, using your numbers, is 115 ppm, which is a 40% increase. Not a 0.0115 % increase.

And they do not say the same thing. Slipping into the ppm or percentages re the total atmosphere is an irrelevance, but it's a cheap trick that deniers use to fool the punters ("how can altering such a tiny component of the atmosphere possibly have any effect? It's so minuscule!"). But I guess desperate times call for desperate measures. Or ad hominems. Or psycho-babble.

Sorry. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increased by 40+ % so far. It's too much, too fast, and we can find no similar natural occurrences in our "recent" (past hundreds of thousands of years) history. It sounds alarming because it IS alarming.

I don't even know why the CO2 level is suddenly contentious to you. I believe that you've stated many times your acknowledgement that there's really no scientific disagreement that CO2 is increasing. Or have you changed your mind on that?

the evidence showing a 40% increase in CO2 without establishing a direct correlation with temperature rise.

That's the greater unknown, yes. But so far, and for at least the last 30 years, it's the best hypothesis, it gets stronger every year, and there's no credible alternative hypothesis. For how long do you plan to ignore this?

[catsketcher]

Thanks Imaginary - that was interesting reading.

One problem with the science deniers - flat earthers, anti vaccers, moon hoaxers is that they are prone to cherry picking data. It is very important to not just pick data that suits your own view. There is so much data that you can always pick a null result of many studies to confirm your own view.

I ask the kids in my science class where the fast food place is. 90 percent know where the nearest MacDonalds is and they point in the same direction. It is a principle called consilience - and it means that a theory gets backed up when different fields agree with each other. Say glaciologists and coral reef scientists go to a conference and talk about how their area seems to be affected by heating. They team up with atmospheric scientists, fish scientists and many seem to be having similar observations.

But you can't get this if all you do it focus on the kids who are pointing at the MacDonalds they go to in the next suburb, or the shops they stop at which they go to because they live out of area. You don't go "All you kids are wrong because there is one other kid here who disagrees". You acknowledge it and ask more questions. Which is what scientists do.

This has happened at the start of all major scientific paradigm shifts. Fossil hunters and geologists teamed up with oceanographers and seismologists to come up with the theory of plate tectonics. There was a huge fight over that for about three decades as steady state geologists clung onto theories that were being rolled over by the weight of evidence from multiple sources. Many older geologists could not change their minds - picking up new science is hard and often the progression of science relies on the funerals of the stalwarts as much as the development of new ideas. But the evidence kept on piling up, from laser ranging, from GPS satellites, from seismic depth measurements and eventually a new theory was acknowledged by most - but not by all.

Sadly for scientists, asking people to come along with them about climate change means making people wonder about how we burn fuel, and like the steady state geologists, many people do not like being asked to change - to consider what we could do to reduce CO2 impact - so they do what any addict does - deny the science.

Don't many smokers, or overweight men, or exercise poor women go into the doctor, get told by their doctor they need to shape up and then come out denying the advice they came to accept. They then cherry pick data "My dad smoked and lived to 90" to justify not accepting the advice of the very people we usually respect - like medical researchers, or the Bureau of Meteorology or the NOAA or the IPCC. We are all addicts to carbon based fuels, we just have to acknowledge it and do whatever we can about it.

The start to Carbon fuels anonymous for me. Gday, my name is Phil and I have been a carbon fuel junkie for 52 years. It has been no real time since I used some fuel (to power my computer) but I am trying to cut down because clever people tell me it should help the environment that I love being in.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Skeptical Science was simply reporting (almost verbatim) what had already been published in Science. Science is considered one of the premier science-reporting journals.

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...5446/1815.full

So it is.


https://www.nature.com/news/2001/010...s010517-8.html


https://www.esa.org/tiee/vol/v1/expe...scription.html


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5928911/


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20552724


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0303111624.htm


https://www.jstor.org/stable/2997427...n_tab_contents


My appeal to authority trumps yours.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by catsketcher

Thanks Imaginary - that was interesting reading.

One problem with the science deniers - flat earthers, anti vaccers, moon hoaxers is that they are prone to cherry picking data. It is very important to not just pick data that suits your own view. There is so much data that you can always pick a null result of many studies to confirm your own view.



...

blah blah blah

...

Here's some free advice. Unlike your students, people in the Internet aren't held captive until the end of period bell rings. Long diatribes either send people to sleep or they just don't bother reading past the first paragraph.


But, extra brownie points for starting your first sentence with a typical alarmist ad-hominem rant. You kind of went backwards after that very impressive first sentence, though. You transitioned into a self describing alarmist ramble.

[catsketcher]

I guess I didn't win you over but thanks for getting me to research ad hominen a bit more. When students ask me questions I often use analogies to make them easier to understand. I still try to listen and read more than type or talk.

Maybe one day we will share an anchorage off Shaw Island or Percy, have a barbeque in front of the A frame and work out that we always have more in common with each other than that that we disagree about. I will say nice things about Peter Cole designs, tell you we owned a couple and we will have a nice chat about life in general. Most of my good friends and family disagree with me strongly about many important aspects of our lives, but we still get on well.

cheers

Phil

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by catsketcher

I guess I didn't win you over but thanks for getting me to research ad hominen a bit more. When students ask me questions I often use analogies to make them easier to understand. I still try to listen and read more than type or talk.

Maybe one day we will share an anchorage off Shaw Island or Percy, have a barbeque in front of the A frame and work out that we always have more in common with each other than that that we disagree about. I will say nice things about Peter Cole designs, tell you we owned a couple and we will have a nice chat about life in general. Most of my good friends and family disagree with me strongly about many important aspects of our lives, but we still get on well.

cheers

Phil

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

and the evidence showing a 40% increase in CO2 without establishing a direct correlation with temperature rise.

Since we started to use fossil fuels as an energy source there is a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature.



Some information on the Berkeley Earth data set:

Berkeley Earth

(Just back from a 5 day cruise and learn in the Gulf Islands.)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you can and should read up on the flaws in the ice core data as well .
Its in the study report I posted already.
Its all the sun there is no question about that .
And we are cooling !!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no correlation between sunspots and temperatures. (I posted this quite some time ago in another thread.)



We are warming

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Since we started to use fossil fuels as an energy source there is a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature.



Some information on the Berkeley Earth data set:

Berkeley Earth

(Just back from a 5 day cruise and learn in the Gulf Islands.)

Someone once posted -- at least a 100 times actually -- that correlation doesn't equal causation. In this case the consensus is about 1.5 - 1.8ºC since we started burning fossil fuels in earnest in the late 19th century. Warming -- whether human or natural caused -- produces more atmospheric CO2 all on its own. Notwithstanding, we are being told not only that this amount of temperature rise over the past 150 years is aberrant & abnormal, but that it is also a contributing cause of every severe storm, flood, species extinction, sea level fluctuation, glacial retreat, unusual snowfall, and record heat. All on account of a warming trend that scientists cannot agree on how much is from natural vs. human forces.

In other words, a graph showing correlation from a single temperature dataset only resolves it for those who made up their minds long ago, and have no further interest in objectivity.