The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The coming death of the oceans > Comments

The coming death of the oceans : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 30/1/2015

'Reconsidering Ocean Calamities' is by Carlos Duarte and seven others, most of them Australian, and it is thought important enough for Nature to have devoted an editorial to its message.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Another helpful article from Don Aitken, reminding us of the misinformation to which we are subjected by scientists who lack a scientific approach. Gavin Schmidt gained appropriate mention, as he strives to replace Michael Mann as an unmitigated misinformer on climate.

I expected a mention of the fact that “ocean acidification” is blatant nonsense, but we know that, anyway.

It is disappointing that climate fraud still has credence, despite its complete lack of science to support it. We do not need misinformation about the oceans to be added to the disingenuous mess.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 30 January 2015 11:06:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane, far from being "blatant nonsense", ocean acidification is a very serious problem. The only people who think otherwise are the ignoramuses like you who think that this means that the oceans are turning to acid!

Ocean acidification means falling ocean pH. And although the oceans are, and always will be, less acidic than pure water, the pH is becoming low enough to adversely affect some of the creatures that live in them. Why is that so hard to understand?
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 30 January 2015 11:38:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,In the Collins dictionary, “acidify” means to “convert to acid”. Where is lowering of PH defined as “acidification”?

I speak honest English, not dishonest climatese
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 30 January 2015 2:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another great sensible article Don. Thanks.

Aidan, don't make a fool of yourself. With the oceans sitting in limestone basins, they are too well buffered to ever even move towards acid.

Besides, you will have to pick one effect of increased CO2. Yes we know it has negligible effect on anything but plants, but ignoring that for the moment. The scam goes that increased CO2 will make things hotter, oceans included. In fact our scammers are now claiming that their missing heat has disappeared into the ocean.

Now we can't find it there, but if for a second we assume the oceans are getting hotter, then must then be outgassing CO2, & be becoming LESS acid.

You really do need to do a spread sheet, & display all the claims put out by the gravy train crowd. You will then be able to chose which of these are obviously in opposition to each other. This global warming & ocean acidification are an example.

A hotter ocean out gasses CO2 & becomes more alkaline. IE; global warming would prevent ocean acidification. Claiming both is an obvious scam. So sorry mate, even a greenie, with little connection to the real world, can't have both.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 30 January 2015 2:15:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another article for the rubes eh Don.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Friday, 30 January 2015 2:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For tens of millions of years, Earth's oceans have maintained a relatively stable acidity level. It's within this steady environment that the rich and varied web of life in today's seas has arisen and flourished. But research shows that this ancient balance is being undone by a recent and rapid drop in surface pH that could have devastating global consequences.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the early 1800s, fossil fuel-powered machines have driven an unprecedented burst of human industry and advancement. The unfortunate consequence, however, has been the emission of billions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. Hasbeen The buz word is surface PH.
Posted by 579, Friday, 30 January 2015 3:31:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ocean Acidification - Carbon dioxide dissolving in the oceans has lowered pH by 0.1 units since 1750, representing a 30% increase in hydrogen ion (acid) concentration.
Posted by 579, Friday, 30 January 2015 3:35:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane, it's not "dishonest climatese" at all. AFAICT there has NEVER been any attempt by any climate scientist in the world to imply that the oceans are turning more acidic than pure water! It's just that anyone who understands chemistry better than year 11 high school level has a more detailed understanding of what "acid" means than you do. I think most scientists would regard decreasing pH as synonymous with "acidification".

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, you claim an observed phenomenon to be impossible and you tell my I'm making a fool out of MYSELF?!?!?

The buffering is itself part of the problem, because a lot of marine creatures have shells of aragonite, which is a more soluble form of calcium carbonate than the calcite which is more prevalent in limestone.

All things being equal, a hotter ocean would hold less CO2. But all things are not equal. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration was much bigger than the rise in sea temperature, and has had a much greater effect on the amount of dissolved CO2.

Why do you cherry pick facts that superficially suit your position instead of looking at all the facts and adjusting your position accordingly?
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 31 January 2015 1:24:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting that a week + prior to NAOO and NASA making the announcement about 2014 temperatures the Japanese Meteorological Agency had already announced 2014 to be the warmest year since records had been taken.
But, regardless of any dispute about temperature, the environment has certainly provided evidence that temperature has been high.

.Iditarod dog sled race travelled over gravel in sections in 2014.
.A lake under the Greenland ice sheet disappeared leaving mushy snow/ice on surface.
.Unprecedented regression of ice in Austfonna, happening over a longer time frame.
.Methane blow outs on Yamal Peninsula.
.There was a spike of heat stroke deaths in Australia in January 2014.
.Children in Alaska made a video in a very creative way of the snow activities they were not able to participate in as usual, due to very little snow just prior to Christmas 2014.

The US Tea Party have resolved that climate change is happening but will not attribute any responsibility by man (2015). They are heavily sponsored by mining interests.
The US Military already believe that climate change is happening and have been making strategic plans for many years to cover the issues.

In regard to acidification, there are areas where impacts are happening. The Bering sea being a prime example of acidification.
Colder shallow waters are more impacted than those close to the equator.

Quote: "The overall message was that ocean acidification is already affecting Alaska waters."
Also: "...Washington’s Blue Ribbon panel that was organized in the Pacific Northwest to address OA after shellfish seed stock crashed due to more acidic waters affecting the hatcheries."

from

http://www.aoos.org/ocean-acidification-workshop/
Posted by ant, Saturday, 31 January 2015 3:38:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article flies in the face of the facts.

A look at some graphs will show this.

The first to look at is the temperature graph, which shows a still steadily rising one, and an upward curve.

The second is the link between Co2 and temperatures, both of which are indubitably linked in the irrefutable Graphs.
Currently Co2 is at 400 PPM, unprecedented, and taking us into uncharted territory.

The third would be the solar activity graph, which appears to have peaked during the seventies and is now in a waning cycle.

Suggest you view SBS's years of living dangerously, to see some interesting facts; and indeed, the way some celebs are able to misinterpret or misrepresent them?

Interpretation of the graphs may very, but the graphs don't.

Surely it is past time to stop representing the concerns of the fossil fuel industry; even inadvertently, and time to start looking at those carbon neutral or carbon negative alternatives that will indubitably improve our economic prospects!

Given we stop thinking like a minerals exporter; and instead, think of ourselves as an economy that makes and exports things. And what we need to do to make that happen!?

Arguably, the lowest costing energy on the planet, coupled to the lowest taxing economy on earth, will make that happen and in spades!

Both doable, by #1, moving to thorium and micro-grids, all owned and controlled by the government; and homemade biogas, used onsite via ceramic fuel cells.

And #2, by simply eliminating all the parasites and unproductive practice from the TAX INDUSTRY!

All bound to be resisted to the last breath, by current vested interest.

None of which should alter pragmatic outcomes; such as was the case when we more or less, abandoned our footwear and textiles industries; with far more jobs simply sacrificed on the altar of unavoidable pragmatism!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 1 February 2015 9:51:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane: It is disappointing that climate fraud still has credence, despite its complete lack of science to support it.

It is indeed disappointing.

Although the carbon tax was axed, the Government still remains party to the fraud, viz. Direct Action implementation; RET retention and subsidisation of unreliable, uneconomic renewable energy; funding the politicised CSIRO's supposed climate research; brainwashing school and university students that climate change is man-made; pledging $200m to the totalitarian UN's world climate fund.

And now there is even the real threat that an ETS would be implemented , should either Malcolm Turnbull or Julie Bishop replace Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.
Posted by Raycom, Sunday, 1 February 2015 10:41:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycon stated: " It is disappointing that climate fraud still has credence, despite its complete lack of science to support it."

Please provide properly researched up to date scientific papers that show that anthropogenic climate change is not happening.
As stated in a previous post, there are any number of practical examples showing that there are a number of examples showing that the climate situation is awry.
A further example is drought in the Amazon Basin ; there have been 4 droughts in the last decade. Previously it had been believed a drought in the Amazon Basin is a 100 year occurrance.
Last year there was a photo showing 45,000 walrus on a spit of land instead of hunting as they normally would. Its got something to do with lack of sea ice close to shore and depth of water, Raycon.
Last year the Marshall Islands were overwhelmed by sea water, twice.

http://350.org/4th-graders-made-a-clever-video-about-their-not-so-white-christmas-but-it-ended-up-being-something-much-more-powerful/

Three ski fields in British Columbia; Cyprus, Whistler, Big White have shown a decline in snow since 1901 and an increase in average winter temperatures.

Opinion doesn't match observation, and data collection using instrumentation and satellite data. Opinion is pretty meaningless Raycon, without any objective evidence.

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
Posted by ant, Monday, 2 February 2015 7:27:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant you must be a fellow traveler, if not a fully funded passenger on the gravy train. If not you must be so naive as to probably have trouble combing your hair in a mirror.

There is just so much evidence of doctored data, only a fool or someone with their eyes wide shut would not see it.

Take the latest doctoring by GISS.

They have announced warming in Paraguay, & their current corrected figures show this. Of course the emphasis in on corrected figures. When you pull up the old figures, you find they have adjusted the recorded figures for the 40s, & early 50s arbitrarily downward by, would you believe 2.5 degrees C. Now that is a sure way to get the angle of the graph running the way you would prefer.

Our own illustrious BOM did the same thing with the official temperature for Darwin a couple of years back, by a full 2 degrees. I don't know how they expect to get away with this stuff long term, too many people have the old unadulterated records for that, but I guess the people involved will be retiring soon, & don't really care.

Obviously the only people who fail to smell a rat in these record announcements are those who have blocked their nostrils up with the wet cement of ideology, & are determined to ignore the stink at all costs. The real question is, what other than research grants do they expect to get from it?
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 2 February 2015 12:24:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The oceans are alkaline, not acidic, With a PH of about 8. As Aidan points out, there has been no acidification of the oceans, merely a lowering of the PH, making them slightly less alkaline, but certainly not acidic.

The assertion of “acidification” is another element of the climate fraud.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/acidification-gate-noaa-accused-of.html

Science shows that human emissions have no measurable effect on climate, and the nonsense about lowering emissions is not only baseless but would be detrimental to the civilized world, if it could be effected.
As a recent OLO article showed, we need a higher, not lower proportion of life supporting CO2 in the atmosphere

Global warming has stopped, despite the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, which the fraud-backers predicted would cause warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/

Ant has demonstrated her support of dishonesty in the past, but I thought that Rhosty had more sense than to back the climate fraud.There may be good reasons to advocate the technology to which he refers, but lowering of CO2 emissions is not one of them
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 2 February 2015 1:11:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, LeoLane; I wrote about how various environments are showing that warming has been happening. You obviously do not have any answers.
Quote from my original post "But, regardless of any dispute about temperature, the environment has certainly provided evidence that temperature has been high." A number of examples were then given showing the impact temperature was having on the environment.
In relation to acidification I gave a couple of quotes where it has occurred.
Watts is a very poor reference he is not a scientist and has been proven wrong a number of times.

I notice leo you are just as abusive as in the past; your comment was once again quite sexist. When you need to personally attack it displays a lack of argument.

Maybe Leo you need to have a peak at a chemistry site or textbook to understand the relationship between CO2 and salt water; I gave a practical example of where acidification is happening in a previous post
Posted by ant, Monday, 2 February 2015 3:13:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane,

<<The oceans are alkaline, not acidic, With a PH of about 8. As Aidan points out, there has been no acidification of the oceans, merely a lowering of the PH, making them slightly less alkaline, but certainly not acidic.>>
That's like saying "Canada is cold not warm. As Aidan points out, there has been no warming of Canada, merely a raising of the temperature, making it slightly less cold but certainly not warm."

<<The assertion of “acidification” is another element of the climate fraud.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/acidification-gate-noaa-accused-of.html >>
One piece of research into ocean acidification may possibly be fraudulent (though I don't regard a one sided report as sufficient proof of that). But you seem to have failed to comprehend that there is a lot more to the phenomenon than one piece of research.

<<Science shows that human emissions have no measurable effect on climate,>>
There's a very big difference between "an effect that's difficult to measure accurately" and "no measurable effect". Human emissions have the former.

<< and the nonsense about lowering emissions is not only baseless but would be detrimental to the civilized world, if it could be effected.>>
Multiple orders of magnitude less than the cost of doing nothing.

<<As a recent OLO article showed, we need a higher, not lower proportion of life supporting CO2 in the atmosphere>>
Asserting something isn't showing it!

<<Global warming has stopped, despite the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, which the fraud-backers predicted would cause warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/>>
Last year was measured as the hottest on record. What evidence would convince you that global warming has not stopped?
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 2 February 2015 3:51:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan, you must have a different interpretation to these words than I have "...Washington’s Blue Ribbon panel that was organized in the Pacific Northwest to address OA after shellfish seed stock crashed due to more acidic waters affecting the hatcheries." Nothing ambiguous about those comments.

The Republican Party has acknowledged that climate change is happening. If I was doing the denier trick I would leave out the proviso that they do not believe man is to blame. It is a step towards reality; they would miss out on donations if they were to acknowledge any involvement by man.

A Watts blog proves nothing, Aiden.
Posted by ant, Monday, 2 February 2015 6:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant, I suggest you read it again. Your post is misdirected: I was quoting Leo.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 2 February 2015 10:13:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My apologies, Aidan.

Hasbeen wrote:"Ant you must be a fellow traveler, if not a fully funded passenger on the gravy train."

Hasbeen, you're joking, I'm not employed in any way by those promoting a realistic view to climate change; nor, do I belong to any political party. My concern has come from the kind of world we will be passing onto my children, young relatives, and people generally.

The gravy train sits on the other side of the fence, Hasbeen; mining interests give huge donations particularly to the LNP. A number of peak onsite denier sites are also funded by mining interests.
The Koch bros in the US have promised $889 million towards the 2016 US elections, Heartlands and the Cato Institute et al are funded by mining interests.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/27/3615930/koch-brothers-climate-delay-889-million-2016-election/

A recent paper by Hanno Meyer et al published in Nature Geoscience on 26th January 2015 was subtly misquoted by Watts to give the wrong impression about climate change. One of the authors Thomas Laepple was contacted and the Watts version was totally repudiated. Just one example of many where Watts has been shown to be wrong.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 3 February 2015 7:13:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant: " Please provide properly researched up to date scientific papers that show that anthropogenic climate change is not happening."

It is up to the proponents to show that anthropogenic climate change -- as distinct from natural climate variation -- is happening.

The application of scientific method calls for the proponents of an hypothesis to test whether it is correct or incorrect. However, no one has succeeded in tabling the empirical scientific evidence necessary to prove the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming (climate change).

Rather than spoil a good story by acknowledging the inconvenient truth, proponents (including the corruptly-influenced IPCC, ideologically-biased ABC, politicised science organisations (CSIRO and science academies), vested-interest and unprofessional scientists and entrepreneurs) resort to unscientific means, viz. asserting, alarm-generating unvalidated climate models, politicising, propagandising, and shouting down anyone with an opposing view.

In this context, the recent interview with Dr Patrick Moore, committed environmentalist and Greenpeace co-founder, (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLXNiEd7axY#t=10 ) is pertinent. Moore discusses various climate change issues, including his reinstatement of science as the basis of environmental policy and his conclusion that claims human action caused climate change are not scientific.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 4 February 2015 10:50:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, the opinion of a non-scientist is worthless without any evidence. Deniers of climate change apparently wish the argument to go along the lines of ... yes it is...while the denier says ...no its not.
Those who deny climate change come from groups such as having religious conviction; they get paid or are influenced by anti science groups; people with highly conservative views find it difficult to comprehend, climate change is not in a neat little package; conservatives tend to be more tunnel visioned; its just too scary; climate change is a conspiracy.

Deniers often suggest that climate change is fraud or a hoax no real evidence is supplied. The logic is along the lines of if a small group of GPs are caught out for malpractice that means that all GPS are corrupt; or, if a few political scientists are corrupt it means that all political scientists are corrupt; that's clearly just nonsensense. When investigations are held; deniers don't believe the outcomes ... its a conspiracy.
The 4 droughts in the last decade in the Amazon Basin are a conspiracy I guess; though normally drought there is a 100 year event.

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
Posted by ant, Thursday, 5 February 2015 4:22:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant, you display blind faith in the 'religion' of man-made climate change.

" The 4 droughts in the last decade in the Amazon Basin are a conspiracy I guess ..."

Assumably, by your reckoning, these 4 extreme weather events may be explained by GISS showing temperatures in a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay having risen faster than almost anywhere else -- an illustration of man-caused global warming.

Surprise! Surprise! It turns out that this temperature rise was indeed ' man-caused'.

As reported in Christopher Booker's 24 January 2015 article, 'Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html :

When Paul Homewood (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/) examined GISS records between 1950 and 2014 for three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay, they showed a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

When Homewood checked GISS’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.
Posted by Raycom, Saturday, 7 February 2015 10:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, with deforestation water cycles are changed; temperature, may, or may not be an issue. Did you not know, or are you trying to obfuscate? What might be your explanation for the droughts?
As stated previously, there are many natural phenomena that are displaying climate change; and temperature increasing.
. the 35,000 walrus on a land spit cannot be explained away by deniers.
. the lakes forming on the Greenland ice sheet during summer and drained by rivers disappearing into moulins cannot be explained away by deniers. Try explaining that away, Raycom.
.

Methane is a serious greenhouse gas; mining companies in the US had been assuring the EPA that little if any was voiding from fracking sites. The EPA choose to accept the word of mining companies; a third party measured the methane being voided and found that levels far exceeded what was considered to be safe. NASA measured a methane cloud 2,500 square miles in size and initially felt their instrumentation was faulty. Try googling methane levels over Utah.
Another case where self regulation has been shown to produce wrong data. The last in the film series Years of living Dangerously and data from NASA; bring that to our attention.
Raycom, you can produce as many references as you like about the conspiracy of temperature data being tampered with; in the meantime our planet practically warns us temperatures are increasing.

You made an attempt to answer the drought issue in the Amazon Basin; its a matter of basic science as to what is happening.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 8 February 2015 6:19:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant: "... you can produce as many references as you like about the conspiracy of temperature data being tampered with; in the meantime our planet practically warns us temperatures are increasing."

Tampering of temperature data, detected at least in South America, USA, Russia, Australia, NZ and the Arctic, is not the only form of corruption that appears acceptable to the IPCC.

The infamous 'hockey stick' curve of northern hemisphere temperature played a central role in the launch of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report in 2001, appearing in the Summary for Policymakers, the Technical Summary, and the Synthesis Report.

Warmists avoid mentioning Climategate. This is not surprising, in light of conclusions about Climategate reached by respected NZ investigative journalist, Poneke, in 2010 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nz.general/bF0e3QINu8M ):

"Having now read all the Climategate emails, I can conclusively say
they demonstrate a level of scientific chicanery of the most appalling kind that deserves the widest possible public exposure.
The emails reveal that the entire global warming debate and the
IPCC process is controlled by a small cabal of climate specialists in
England and North America. This cabal, who call themselves 'the Team',
bully and smear any critics. They control the 'peer review' process for research in the field and use their power to prevent contrary research being published.

The Team's members are the heart of the IPCC process, many of them
the lead authors of its reports.

They falsely claim there is a scientific 'consensus' that the
'science is settled', by getting lists of scientists to sign petitions claiming there is such a consensus. They have fought for years to conceal the actual shonky data they have used to wrongly claim there has been unprecedented global warming this past 50 years. Their emailed discussions among each other show they have concocted their data by matching analyses of tree rings from around 1000 AD to 1960, then actual temperatures from 1960 to make it look temperatures have shot up alarmingly since then, after the tree rings from 1960 on inconveniently failed to match observed temperatures."
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 11 February 2015 11:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, you can huff and puff about what you consider to be a conspiracy but it is immaterial as to what is happening in the real world displaying climate change. Deniers bring up the same tired information which is now years old. Meanwhile there have literally been thousands of climate change scientific papers published.

Those denying climate change have no answers in relation to the lakes forming on the Greenland ice shelf with rivers taking water away to moulins.

Yesterday I was listening to the Captain of a Canadian Coast Guard ship saying how they can venture into open water in the Arctic Ocean in Summer where that had into been possible about 7 years ago. He wasn't talking about climate change but hydro graphic work.

I've yet to hear an explanation why there were 35,000 walrus on a spit of land when they would normally been hunting.

But if you like old data Raycom; in relation to temperature, how about:

"Parts of the Arctic have experienced an unprecedented heatwave this summer, with one research station in the Canadian High Arctic recording temperatures above 20C, about 15C higher than the long-term average. The high temperatures were accompanied by a dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice in September to the lowest levels ever recorded, a further indication of how sensitive this region of the world is to global warming."
Reported in 2007.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/record-22c-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-394196.html

What is the denier explanation?
Remember Arctic sea ice is at a lower extent and volume now than it was in 2007.

A little logic Raycom; when we moved to our current home in 1988, the house was on a paddock with one tree; quite a windy spot. We planted lots of trees and shrubs shielding us from some of the wind. If we took temperatures from a particular spot back in 1988 and compared them to current measures, there would be a variance in temperature. A case of the environment having changed.

But temperature is something from your point of view that can be argued about; data and observation from the environment is a different proposition.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 12 February 2015 12:56:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, getting back to drought in the Amazon Basin:
As an adolescent occasionally I read Field and Stream magazines;in an article about the Beaverkill River (US) by Theodore Gordon who wrote about the impact on his beloved river through deforestation ( elsewhere in onlineopinion I suggested his surname was Theodore). That was 50 plus years ago when only a few scientists were discussing climate change and it was not a topic of general discussion. But as a 13 or 14 year old I didn't hear anything about climate change. The article was about how flow rates had significantly altered with flash flooding and significant lowered water flows at other times. The article was not a comment about climate change but described the relationship between deforestation and its impact on the water cycle.

Regardless of what deniers might say, we now know that deforestation does have an impact on climate change; temperature may or may not be an added feature.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 12 February 2015 1:19:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant, despite all your huffing and puffing, your assertions remain wholly unsupported -- you have not tabled any empirical scientific evidence to show that the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions..
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 12 February 2015 1:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, as a teenager I understood the impact on water cycles caused through deforestation, you do not appear to be able to understand what is common knowledge. There have been four droughts in the Amazon Basin in the last decade. Drought is not a usual happening there, a once in one hundred year event. There has been deforestation in the Amazon Basin.
Theodore Gordon observed what was happening on the Beaverkill River and he was not a scientist, now we see what he described replicated in many places.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 12 February 2015 2:37:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy