Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[pocaracas]

Over-fishing? It may be one more factor to be thrown into the pot.
From what I remember of reading about this in that National Geographic article I linked before, the main CO2 absorbers in the ocean are shellfish, with a big impact on plankton.
Global ocean acidification may be affected by over-fishing in areas where plankton doesn't get replenished... but I'm not convinced the lack of fish would lead to lack of plankton.... If anything, I'd imagine it would lead to a (at least temporary) increase of plankton. But I have no data either way, so I have nothing to substantiate it. Do you?

Not on hand, but I thought scientists generally agree that ocean acidification is mostly due to the effect of overfishing on the bio-system?

They do? Do note I'm not a marine scientist, so I have to search for it...
I tried to google a bit with "ocean acidification overfishing" and both those effects came out rather detached and independent. There may be a correlation, of course... with spiking CO2 levels in the past decades, and overfishing in the same decades, it would stand to reason that both effects are observed.
The interaction of those is just not patent in the first few google hits:
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/threats.cfm
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocea...erfishing/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...32660.html
http://science.time.com/2010/12/03/ocean...deep-blue/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/2...5020110629

In the past, maybe... Right now, not so sure. Do note the spike in CO2 in the last few data points of the plot in the previous post. I'm not sure those points are outliers.

TBH, I actually don't have a hard time accepting anthropogenic EGHG's being responsible for about 0.2 - 0.3 degrees of the trend. If true it points to CO2 being directly attributable in and of itself to 0.1-0.16 degrees. That's such a tiny amount though that I can't see the reason why we are so worried about it. And I have a hard time accepting that it will be a significant impact in the future. The global climate is always changing, we are always experiencing climate change, at least a few tenths of a degree per century.

If the theory on water-vapour feedback was rock-solid and proven, I'd accept AGW theory. But I see this as the biggest problem with the theory.

The problem is always that there are people studying this, both from below and from above the atmosphere.

Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What does this plot show? That the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased between 1970 and 1996.

This other plot shows water vapor a bit beyond the domain of the plot above, but this time it's not the difference between two years... it's just one measurement.

Notice that, around 1300cm^-1, the plot on top shows no difference, while we see a dip due to H2O on the bottom plot.
This only means that there has been no significant increase in atmospheric H2O between 1970 and 1996... at least around 1300cm^-1 mark.


Well, I don't have much time to read all I could to catch up, so have fun:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf