Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[Aractus]

I didn't disagree that oceans are acidifying. The claim that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 is completely wrong. The level of CO2 that we output contributes to ocean acidification, but it isn't the cause of it (because it makes little difference to how much CO2 gets absorbed by the ocean). With no human activity present, the carbon emitters still outbalance the carbon sinks, this is due to the ocean absorbing less CO2 now then it did in the past. Thus it's untrue to say that ocean acidification is anthropogenic - it happens anyway.

[pocaracas]

I didn't disagree that oceans are acidifying. The claim that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 is completely wrong. The level of CO2 that we output contributes to ocean acidification, but it isn't the cause of it (because it makes little difference to how much CO2 gets absorbed by the ocean). With no human activity present, the carbon emitters still outbalance the carbon sinks, this is due to the ocean absorbing less CO2 now then it did in the past. Thus it's untrue to say that ocean acidification is anthropogenic - it happens anyway.

You mean it's just part of another cycle like the ones here?:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precaut.../New_Data/
Curious how the last points in that plot show a spike which doesn't match with the other cycles before humans started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.

[Aractus]

Again, the carbon cycle is unbalanced as it is without anthropogenic activity. The oceans are not overly responsive to increased atmospheric CO2 (in terms of how much they absorb).

As for the ice-core data, you already know that CO2 lags behind the temperature. Don't pretend they go hand-in-hand.

[pocaracas]

Again, the carbon cycle is unbalanced as it is without anthropogenic activity.

How do you know that?

The oceans are not overly responsive to increased atmospheric CO2 (in terms of how much they absorb).

Indeed, they are not. They saturate, and they are reaching the saturation point, disturbing the whole food chain in the ocean, which in turn disrupts the land based food chain.

As for the ice-core data, you already know that CO2 lags behind the temperature. Don't pretend they go hand-in-hand.

Pretend? The plot shows data. There may be a lag, but they do correlate.
Of course, "correlation doesn't mean causation".... but it's a good starting point.

[Aractus]

How do you know that?

Cause I read the science of the carbon cycle in 2011. The emitters outbalance the sinks without anthropogenic CO2.

Indeed, they are not. They saturate, and they are reaching the saturation point, disturbing the whole food chain in the ocean, which in turn disrupts the land based food chain.

Have you considered that over-fishing may be a greater cause to ocean acidification than atmospheric CO2 levels? CO2 levels have some effect, I agree, but it's only minor overall to the total effect of ocean acidification.

Pretend? The plot shows data. There may be a lag, but they do correlate.
Of course, "correlation doesn't mean causation".... but it's a good starting point.

CO2 lags behind temperature by 4/5th of a millennia on average! You know as well as I do that CO2 did not drive natural climate change, but rather CO2 levels are responsive to it.

[Sciworks]

Ok - Here we go again:

If you Google 'cosmic rays global warming' the top entry is:

AGW Sermon Here

That this twat is at the top of the search results is only surprising if you have studied and followed this research for the last 20 years and realise that there have been been many top level experiments, satellite studies, be-10 core samples taken and the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

Anyway the final 'proof' of his ramble is this chart, which 'proves' that cosmic rays have been steady over that period, it shows the 11 years solar cycles affecting cosmic rays, but Solar Scientists have data that the Sun has been increasing in activity for the last 100 yeas.



He was very proud of this, see what he writes under the chart - "You see? It just doesn't work, guys."

If the Sun's activity is increasing, then cosmic rays should have been decreasing for the last 100 years. As the Sun's activity increases, its magnetic field 'expands' (more complicated than this) and decreases the cosmic rays getting to the Earth.

When you see charts of global warming, they show it from 1800, so I tried to find a chart with cosmic ray data for that period, but couldn't.

I went to NOAA and they had raw cosmic ray data:

Cosmic Ray Data Here

I then swiped this into Excel and came up with two charts, I have inverted the Y axis so that it is easier to compare it with global warming charts.

Full Data:



With as much imagination, faith and belief that the congregation has for AGW, you can see the end of the Medieval Warm Period and the Mini Ice Age, check it out.

I then plotted the same data for 1800 to 1994:



Not surprisingly for me, it fits the global warming line used in all the other AGW charts. It clearly shows cosmic rays declining from 1800 to the present day.

The theory is, that as the cosmic rays decrease, there is less cloud cover and more warming. Remember I have inverted the Y axis. Does this show a trend? I think it does. So why don't all the Climate Priests jump on this and praise the Lord of Global Warming, could it be that Carbon Trading may be affected?

This is data from NOAA, not some exaggerated computer model from the imagination of a Climate Priest.

[pocaracas]

How do you know that?

Cause I read the science of the carbon cycle in 2011. The emitters outbalance the sinks without anthropogenic CO2.

Care to share a link to that work?
But, if there is an imbalance without anthropogenic CO2, then this imbalance only gets worse with anthropogenic CO2.
OR do you have data that supports that anthropogenic CO2 has a negligible contribution to the plot I showed in a previous post?

Indeed, they are not. They saturate, and they are reaching the saturation point, disturbing the whole food chain in the ocean, which in turn disrupts the land based food chain.

Have you considered that over-fishing may be a greater cause to ocean acidification than atmospheric CO2 levels? CO2 levels have some effect, I agree, but it's only minor overall to the total effect of ocean acidification.

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?

Pretend? The plot shows data. There may be a lag, but they do correlate.
Of course, "correlation doesn't mean causation".... but it's a good starting point.

CO2 lags behind temperature by 4/5th of a millennia on average! You know as well as I do that CO2 did not drive natural climate change, but rather CO2 levels are responsive to it.

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.

[Aractus]

But, if there is an imbalance without anthropogenic CO2, then this imbalance only gets worse with anthropogenic CO2.
OR do you have data that supports that anthropogenic CO2 has a negligible contribution to the plot I showed in a previous post?

Well, we don't expect it to be balanced, as your ice-core graph shows we expect CO2 to either be building up in the atmosphere or dissipating.

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?

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

Some pseudo-science needs to be a given a chance to gain evidence and become proper science... however, sometimes, it just goes far too fucking far.

[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