Ocean acidifcation .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

Thanks for this info Allen, I'll take a look. I'm aware that Spencer differs not only from so-called "deniers," but also from some of his fellow skeptics. I've always thought the science was pretty well settled that the source of the additional CO2 was human, with most of it from fossil fuel emissions. I wouldn't doubt that there's skepticism on this issue, but I'm not sure what it entails. Or maybe I just forgot.



As I recall, the more significant issue is the relationship between CO2 and warming. Not whether that relationship has been long proven (as you've pointed out), but whether it's measurable. This seems to be the core of the controversy within the science over how much certainty exists over the IPCC's conclusion that CO2 is a "significant" contribution. As you presumably know, some believe it accounts for all the warming, whereas others (e.g. Spencer) only an inconsequential amount.



Am I stating the parameters of this debate correctly?

You are and I’ll comment on Dr Spencer’s comments on that part of it on a later post.

I will point out there have been lots of posts about the underlying science of CO2 climatic effects and there have been lots of push back that it is a hoax, a scam, junk science, etc. but the actual skeptic scientists do not dispute it. This thread could be much more interesting to others if it didn’t rehash or try to debunk basic physics.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

You are and I’ll comment on Dr Spencer’s comments on that part of it on a later post.

I will point out there have been lots of posts about the underlying science of CO2 climatic effects and there have been lots of push back that it is a hoax, a scam, junk science, etc. but the actual skeptic scientists do not dispute it. This thread could be much more interesting to others if it didn’t rehash or try to debunk basic physics.

I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, but I certainly agree that the entire tone & substance of the discussion -- and therefore its educational value -- could certainly be elevated into a much more constructive discourse. I just read the two Spencer articles "debunking" some of the skeptic science and this seems like a great place to start. I've always known that Spencer agrees with more of the mainstream positions than people like to pigeonhole him with. This will help clarify.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Ocean acidification could boost shell growth in snails and sea urchins

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...nd-sea-urchins

The world’s oceans are acidifying rapidly as they soak up massive amounts of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released from burning fossil fuels. That’s bad news for tiny marine critters like coral and sea urchins that make up the base of the ocean food chain: Acidic water not only destroys their shells, but it also makes it harder for them to build new ones. Now, scientists studying sea snails have discovered an unexpected side effect of this acid brew—it can help some of them build thicker, stronger shells by making their food more nutritious.

....

But some lab studies suggest more food, such as algae, could help strengthen marine organisms’ shells, and thus offset some of the damage caused by ocean acidification. Scientists predict climate change will do just that, because extra CO2 increases the availability of nutrients, like nitrogen, essential to algal growth.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is this not what you, L-E and many others have been imploring us all to accept since the inception of these lengthy threads?

You have still failed to quote me.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... I don't know.
I didn't understand your analogy to medical studies and germ theory.

Often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of a paper do think about global climate change. This is a consequence of experts writing for experts: many elements are implicit.
If a conclusion is widely accepted, then it is not necessary to reiterate it within the context of expert discussion.
Scientists generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees. This is clearly the case with the largest portion of the papers examined - those dealing with impacts of climate change. The authors evidently accept the premise that climate change is real and want to track, evaluate, and understand its impacts.
With genuinely well-established scientific theories, ‘consensus’ is not discussed, and the concept of consensus is arguably irrelevant. For example, there is no point to discussing a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun, or that the hydrogen molecule has less mass than the nitrogen molecule, or that some germs (bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa) can sometimes make us sick.
Hence, not many astronomical, physics, or medical papers will necessarily bother to take a 'position' on these FUNDAMENTAL facts.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ohhhh Kaaaay . . .

"It turns out that the 97% consensus that they found I am indeed part of . . . and my associate John Christy, he agrees with it. In fact all skeptics who work in this business, all are part of this 97% because that 97% includes people who think humans have some influence on climate."

What part of "none of of Spencer's paper were categorized of as being pro-AGW in the Cook et al study" do you not understand?

BTW - none of Christy's were either. Three were "No position" and 2 were "5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW"



Go to the database: https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326...91datafile.txt

Hit <ctrl> F and search on Spencer and Christy.

Neither Spencer nor Christy were part of the 97%.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

This thread could be much more interesting to others if it didn’t rehash or try to debunk basic physics.

The American Physical Society Climate Statement has a section on the Physics of Climate Change

https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/p...gy/climate.cfm

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What part of "none of of Spencer's paper were categorized of as being pro-AGW in the Cook et al study" do you not understand?

BTW - none of Christy's were either. Three were "No position" and 2 were "5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW"



Go to the database: https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326...91datafile.txt

Hit <ctrl> F and search on Spencer and Christy.

Neither Spencer nor Christy were part of the 97%.

Not arguing they were included. Only that they met the criteria the Cook study established for inclusion, which explains why Spencer testified the way he did. Is this inanity deliberate or are you just unable to think in more than one dimension at a time? What is your argument here? Try and articulate it — I’ll do my best to respond.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I also found a chart where he shows that twice as much CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 is being created as showing up in the atmosphere. He points this out as “good” news but of course that other half is bring absorbed by the ocean decreasing the ph. url]

you state that half of the co2 from fossil fuel use is going into the oceans .
Please provide proof of that assertion .

The planets greening says otherwise.

And no that's my opinion will not be an acceptable reply.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Ocean acidification could boost shell growth in snails and sea urchins

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...nd-sea-urchins

The world’s oceans are acidifying rapidly as they soak up massive amounts of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released from burning fossil fuels. That’s bad news for tiny marine critters like coral and sea urchins that make up the base of the ocean food chain: Acidic water not only destroys their shells, but it also makes it harder for them to build new ones. Now, scientists studying sea snails have discovered an unexpected side effect of this acid brew—it can help some of them build thicker, stronger shells by making their food more nutritious.

....

But some lab studies suggest more food, such as algae, could help strengthen marine organisms’ shells, and thus offset some of the damage caused by ocean acidification. Scientists predict climate change will do just that, because extra CO2 increases the availability of nutrients, like nitrogen, essential to algal growth.

rather interesting article . Written by a journalism intern .
The big problem is it specifically states that the additional co2 present is all coming from the atmosphere and we all know that a large portion of the co2 comes from submarine volcanic activity.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Here's the Cook consensus breakdown of its findings on the positions taken by scientists in their published studies (as summarized in the abstract):

66.4% - no position on AGW
32.6% - endorsed AGW
0.7% - rejected AGW
0.3% - uncertain about the cause of global warming

The now infamous 97.1% is only "among [rated] abstracts expressing a position on AGW." In other words, since 66.4% expressed no position on AGW, then 97.1% of the remainder that took a position (33.6%) endorsed AGW, not 97.1% of all the scientific papers. Bottom line = ~33% endorsed AGW.

When the scientists were asked to evaluate their own papers, however, the percentage taking no position (curiously) dropped from 66.4 to 35.5% and Cook claims that 97.2% of the papers that did express an opinion endorsed the AGW position. So in other words, 97.2% of ~65% endorsed AGW this time, but not 97.2% of all the scientific papers!

Bottom line = ~65% endorsed AGW.

I don't see how anyone can count papers that don't explicitly state whether that piece of work either supports or detracts from the hypothesis of AGW. The climate is a BIG subject; there's other stuff being studied besides AGW.

I'm sorry that this isn't the smoking gun of the CC conspiracy that you want it to be.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have still failed to quote me.

Tell us you’re not denying that you’ve ever stated that 97% of climate scientists support the AGW position. Not 65%, not 35%, not papers vs actual scientists. Why aren’t you instead responding to my analysis of the Cook study and checking it for accuracy? There’s an effort underway to steer the thread more constructively. Are you good with that teacher, or will you be disrupting the class?

I’m en route to my boat right now but will search for your old posts later if I must. Again, are you really disputing that you ever misrepresented the Cook study or any other consensus study, whether willfully or not?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What part of "none of of Spencer's paper were categorized of as being pro-AGW in the Cook et al study" do you not understand?

BTW - none of Christy's were either. Three were "No position" and 2 were "5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW"



Go to the database: https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326...91datafile.txt

Hit <ctrl> F and search on Spencer and Christy.

Neither Spencer nor Christy were part of the 97%.

of course they were not in the cook study final list .
Definitely don't want to list anything that said that its all a hoax ..
Also there is the fact that at the time of the study both Spencer and Christy were still employed by the U.S. Government.
( need to feed family is a real concern )

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't see how anyone can count papers that don't explicitly state whether that piece of work either supports or detracts from the hypothesis of AGW. The climate is a BIG subject; there's other stuff being studied besides AGW.

I'm sorry that this isn't the smoking gun of the CC conspiracy that you want it to be.

Never believed in any conspiracy, only a lack of credibility from your side. Not the scientists, but the partisans. This manipulation of evidence supports my concerns. After all this time it’s hard to believe you blindly followed Skeptical Science rather than reading it for yourself, but I have to confess I didn’t fully understand it either until now. This is where unchecked bias leads, and you were warned. Plenty of other stuff to agree on as Allen has initiated. Look for common ground.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The American Physical Society Climate Statement has a section on the Physics of Climate Change

https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/p...gy/climate.cfm

one is intrigued as to the caveats of this one . The most interesting part is not what the paper said but what the reference list says . Well over 80% of the votes are direct from various IPCC reports which have nothing to do with actual cp scientific works. They instead are from policy recommendations from politicians for politicians.