Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm also aware that I am the only person on this thread who has posted links to actual scholarly journals indicating the negative effects of ocean acidification and sources for other claims.
The climate change deniers have been incapable of providing anything scholarly, the closest they have gotten are opinion pieces as opposed to articles about current research.
It is a little late to claim a position of superiority on the issue though. What many here are talking about is an important issue and it affects even your linked research (fraud in the climate science community).
Just a brief comment about some of the research you listed, as I still need to go through it in more depth.
From what I have read in some of the above (for instance in the first link), it is not a definitive of evidence, rather the first link is a study of predictive effect.
Quote:
This review presents future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious consequences for reef-associated fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and people. As the International Year of the Reef 2008 begins, scaled-up management intervention and decisive action on global emissions are required if the loss of coral-dominated ecosystems is to be avoided.
Now that does not mean your research is incorrect, but keep in mind that there are major problems with the models as well as the data collected and archived.
Even ocean calcification data is subject to many of the issues that also had an effect on surface temperature records and some of the research used as the basis for some are subject to the same problems of artificially smoothing data to achieve a more consistent result within a view of decline as noted here:
Here is an excerpt from De'ath Figure 2 showing the "scary" decline in calcification that the scientists have alerted the public to, of which they observed:
since 1990 [calcification] has declined from 1.76 to 1.51 g cm−2 year−1, an overall decline of 14.2% (SE = 2.3%). The rate of this decline has increased from 0.3% per year in 1990 to 1.5% per year in 2005.
I thought that it was a little surprising to see the presentation of trends calculated over such short periods, a practice much criticized in the blogosphere, but I guess that the PRL (Peer Reviewed Literature) - or, at any rate, Science - takes these concerns less seriously. The heavy smoothing is also troubling - Matt Briggs won't be very happy.
To see the impact of unsmoothed data, I did a simple plot of the average calcification by year over the data set. I understand that the coral data spans a considerable length and that various sorts of adjustments might be justified, but it's never a bad idea to plot an average. Here are two plots, showing a simple average, first from 1572-2005 and then in the 20th century. Based only on the first plot, one could not say that even the 2004-2005 results were "unprecedented in at least 400 years" - values in 1852 were lower. So I can confirm that the values before adjustment are unprecedented since at least 1852.
Visually, this graph looks to me like calcification has been increasing over time, with a downspike in 2004-5, but, as my critics like to observe, I am not a "climate scientist" and therefore presumably unqualified to see the downward trend that was reported by the Wizards of Oz.
Here's a similar plot for the 20th century also showing the count of sites - which has declined sharply in the past 15 years with only one site contributing nearly all the 2005 values. Curiously, there is a very high correlation (0.48) between calcification and the number of measurements available in a year. The unsmoothed data gives a very different impression that the Science cartoons. Unsmoothed, years up to 2003 were not particularly low; it's only two years - 2004 and 2005 - that have anomalously low values. But it seems a little premature to conclude that this is a "wide-scale" trend as opposed to a downspike -which occur on other occasions in the record.
As you can see, there are curios showings in the application of methodology to achieve these correlations. This is not to say that the conclusions are wrong, simply that the methods are suspect as they do not properly obtain their findings according to standard statistical review.
Keep in mind I do not claim this to be a smoking gun to your information, simply that there are some serious questions to the research, the data collection and archiving to which I might remind you is the very problem they had concerning Mann, Jones, Briffa, Santer and others to which McIntyre has audited.
Also, another problem is that like them, there is issue of obtaining the original data and methodology as well as the fact that the publishers overlooked standard criteria required for peer review process and publishing of findings, another problem noted in many published articles in Science and Nature journals.
As I said though, I need more time to look over your links to bring any direct mention to their specific findings and methodology (if there even is any). The first link though, as I mentioned is purely a speculative prediction and as we are finding, these predictive models are being shown to be lacking which brings up a very important point concerning proper scientific method, which is that models are not a sufficient means to establish conclusive support to a finding without properly replicating their predictions in the environment without unexplained divergence between them. A problem that as of yet not been rectified.
The global climate is in a warning trend that started a few hundred years ago and the rate of warming has been increased due to the burning of geologically sequestered carbon into CO2 and heat. The effects of the atmosphere retaining more energy are the development of more powerful storms and greater short term variability around an increasing trend line. The globe has been, is now and will continue to get warmer.
Apparently some scientists were trying to “play politics” with the latest short term information. This is unfortunate because scientists are not politicians and should just present the data and let the politicians react to the facts. The politicians are most likely to react in an illogical matter because they are politicians, trained in perception, and not scientists trained in logic.
I believe we should face the fact that the globe is getting warmer and figure out how to survive the warming and increasing sea levels.
I also believe the “deniers” are refusing to accept that their beneficent God is just as indifferent to the survival of man’s economic prosperity as He was of the dinosaurs when he dropped a big rock on their entire ecosystem. Global warming is trivial to questioning the assumption that God is beneficial or merciful. I believe in the nonexistence of a human form God and the complete indifference of the Universe toward anything or anyone.
And................... back to religion we go
I bet I could start a thread about cartoons, and some yahoo would try to make it about "God"
And................... back to religion we go
I bet I could start a thread about cartoons, and some yahoo would try to make it about "God"
It is quite telling of a persons blind acceptance of something when they cling to claims to which evidence that has been verified and validated to show their position to be unfounded.
GregW's continued claims of the issue have been discussed at length and shown to be incorrect by valid scientific process. This is the very essence of the current issue, yet the fact that his claims are still monotonous calls of authority is disturbing on many levels as it shows that the tactics used by those who are currently discussed in this issue have been effective in the programming of the public to a bias.
This is a dangerous find as no truth is relevant if the people refuse to accept any proper form to obtaining it. It is an incubator for corruption and oppression to which there is no safety in fact of position.
I have a question: What is your real motivation for denying climate change?
Is it an economic reason that you deny this is happening largely as a consequence of man made global pollutants, or is it a political reason, as the right has used Al Gore as their lightning rod to politicize a scientific argument, not a political one. If neither of those, how do you consistently deny that rising temperatures are not showing copious examples of potentially irreversible change?
I would estimate between 40 to 60% of deniers have no clue as to why they think man is not causing this but instead do so for a combination of reasons, mainly the radical rightwing attempts to deny this is happening (George W. Bush, Sen. Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, FOX, etc., etc..) being the primary reason(s).
The question is good. your opining is obnoxious. Obnoxious, yet so typical to the point of being insipid.
My reason for opposing Anthropogenic Global Warming? It is simply really. The science opposes AGW.
When confronted by climate change deniers I just ask a single question.
"Does releasing millions of tons of chemicals into the environment have no effect on it?"
At that point one of two things happens
1. The Climate Change denier quickly shuts their mouth and backs off
2. The Climate Change denier starts rattling off quotes and slogans from Fox News/Limbaugh/Alex Jones/etc and begins the back pedaling process.
you must be talking to dolts.
Because if you asked me that question you would get a question in return.
Does "effecting the environment" have to mean changing the climate?
those two things are not the same.
and CO2 isnt "a chemical" it is a gas. A naturally occuring gas.
A gas that is necessary for life.
your question is silly, pointless, and without merit in the AGW debate.
The global climate is in a warning trend that started a few hundred years ago and the rate of warming has been increased due to the burning of geologically sequestered carbon into CO2 and heat. The effects of the atmosphere retaining more energy are the development of more powerful storms and greater short term variability around an increasing trend line. The globe has been, is now and will continue to get warmer.
Apparently some scientists were trying to “play politics” with the latest short term information. This is unfortunate because scientists are not politicians and should just present the data and let the politicians react to the facts. The politicians are most likely to react in an illogical matter because they are politicians, trained in perception, and not scientists trained in logic.
I believe we should face the fact that the globe is getting warmer and figure out how to survive the warming and increasing sea levels.
I also believe the “deniers” are refusing to accept that their beneficent God is just as indifferent to the survival of man’s economic prosperity as He was of the dinosaurs when he dropped a big rock on their entire ecosystem. Global warming is trivial to questioning the assumption that God is beneficial or merciful. I believe in the nonexistence of a human form God and the complete indifference of the Universe toward anything or anyone.
Greg buddy, I hate to break this to you, but warming the planet doesnt cause more powerful storms.... sorry, neither the science, nor the observed record agree with that....
once again, IT IS THE SCIENCE PEOPLE, THE SCIENCE.
I'm also aware that I am the only person on this thread who has posted links to actual scholarly journals indicating the negative effects of ocean acidification and sources for other claims.
The climate change deniers have been incapable of providing anything scholarly, the closest they have gotten are opinion pieces as opposed to articles about current research.
Not true. and I have posted scholarly work that has rebutted this false notion of ocen acidification.
You cant have the problems OA believers claim without adding additional hydrogen to the mix. the amount of hydrogen is static.
To comment more directly on the OP's question, while this is not the "motive" as the science of fact is the motive to which my contest exists to this topic, but also the fact that due to the science being manipulated to support a bias, it also leads to power grabs and legislation to which inflict hardship through excessive regulation which has numerous avenues of effect on all aspects of our lives.
Case in point, the unbridled power given to the EPA through the unethical findings of the such research.
But EPA’s data show that the rule is all cost and no benefit. According to EPA, the proposed rule will increase car and truck prices an average $1,100. (74 Fed. Reg. 49460) As a result of less CO2 in the air, the rule will lead to decrease in global mean temperature by 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius (0.016°C) in 2100 and a decrease in mean sea level rise by 1.5 mm. (74 Fed. Reg. 49589) That’s not a joke—that’s what the rule says. Obviously 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius, 90 years down the road will not affect the climate in any way.
As has been discussed on numerous occasions and the EPA is known for enforcing weak findings as fact in order to regulate (specifically one cast concerning DDT which was later proved harmless through valid process and verification as opposed to the predictive and assumptive research the EPA used to make its determination. Not to mention the current issues with SHS studies and the weak conclusion leading to excessive regulation as well).
Quote:
It would be bad enough if the rule only imposed exorbitant costs and with no benefits. But this will start the regulatory cascade that many of us have written about. To finalize this rule, EPA would also finalize their “endangerment finding” (in other words, EPA would find that GHGs from motor vehicles harm public health and welfare). CO2 and GHGs will become subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards, New Sour Performance Standards, Hazardous Air Quality Standards, among other regulatory schemes.
More regulations again increasing costs, limited production and ability in our economic realms. This will cost people, but the costs will come in many ways to which people will ignorantly accept not realizing the basis to which these costs emanate.
Quote:
If EPA makes an endangerment finding for GHGs, that action would make two permitting programs apply to GHGs—prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V. PSD applies to stationary sources which emit more than 250 tons a year and Title V applies to stationary sources which emit 250 tons per year. According to EPA, this would force as many as 6 million buildings (school, churches, hospitals, office buildings, farms, etc.) to comply with the Clean Air Act’s permitting provisions. To try to address this problem, EPA has proposed a “tailoring rule.” The point of the tailoring rule is that 250 tons per year of emissions can be read to mean 25,000 tons per year. Again, that’s not a joke: EPA “Tailoring Rule” confirms Mass v. EPA set the stage for administrative quagmire and economic disaster*|*OpenMarket.org
As mentioned previously, these regulations add up and each effect of such increases costs to which ultimately result in the tax payer and consumer carrying the brunt.
All of these powers to regulate, to tax, to fine and fee. All based on predictive schemes of data that we now have verification of some to be manipulated to fit a bias.
So why do I contest?
1) The science is fraudulently being promoted.
2) The fraud exists to support ulterior motives of political agenda to effect power of control and monetary acquisition from the people.
Plainly, the wool is being pulled over peoples eyes to give excuse to theft and relinquishment of individual rights. Not based on science, not based on anything other than a simple scheme of power and control through clever manipulation to appeal to emotions and ignorance.
Since neither position in the argument can ever really know what will happen in the future, whats wrong with using the cleanest, most efficient, highest technology available just because its the smartest thing to do? Thats just using intelligence. If a side effect happens to be that the air becomes cleaner because of that, then so be it.
The global warming argument distracts both sides from actually looking at the real question. What is the benefit to the continued burning of filthy oil, and FOREIGN oil at that? Who knows if it causes global warming... but if there are cleaner, smarter more independent ways within our technological capabilities to create energy, then why shouldnt we work towards using them?
I can only imagine that someone profiting from the oil industry itself would make such an argument to use antiquated technologies instead of progressing into the future.
The other side of the whole global warming debate is basically saying...
"Nothing we do is affecting the earth! Who cares if cleaner, more efficient technologies exist?? Lets just keep doin' the same ol' same ol'! Suck all the oil dry, dont try to progress! I'm makin easy money this way, dont get people all interested in a technology that wont make ME money!!! Lets keep supporting our enemies by purchasing their oil, Its not hurting the earth! Global warming rubbish! The liberals are liars with a secret agenda!"
Seems to me those in favor of the oil industry MUST operate based on secret agenda because there isnt ONE logical reason to steer the world away from advancing. Its actually ironic that their main claim is that OTHER side has the secret agenda and people actually buy it.
I suggest liberals change their argument away from global warming, and to more of a "Do it just because we can, and because its smart." Then see what arguments a republican oil pig nut job will bring up.
I imagine when "whaling" was a profitable business because it was used to fuel lanterns for lighting, they cried foul when power plants were invented, and maybe they even had weird stories back then of some hidden leftist agenda to derail the country, when in reality it was only progress. Progress is sure to kick some deadbeats off its path and they wont go away easily.
Its time again to progress, move into the future, use the newest technologies available, just because its the smart thing to do whether or not it effects global warming.
Im curious what the arguments are for continued use of dirty industy that supports terrorists when cleaner ones exist? (BESIDES "because it DOESNT cause global warming".)
Last edited by Borus; 11-25-2009 at 02:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
