WITH a stubborn atmosphere failing to warm as predicted, another climate threat was needed to sustain the Climate Crisis industry and keep lazy reporters supplied with junk science to feed their catastrophic climate narrative. Enter “ocean acidification”!
FROM the onset, the term “ocean acidification” was deceptive by design. Oceans are alkaline. The correct ‘scientific’ term for any pH change toward zero is “less alkaline”. Obviously not the scariest of descriptors to shock the public into belief.
“Ocean Acidification” was first referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, resulting in an explosion of journal articles, media reports and alarmist publications from environmental orgs. It has since gone viral, endorsed by scientists from numerous alarmist institutions including the Royal Society, the IPCC and NOAA who coined it “climate change’s evil twin” in a 2016 report.
A 2016 paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science put the issue of “ocean acidification” under the microscope, and found Scientists exaggerating the carbon dioxide threat to marine life…
Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research
“Ocean acidification” (OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans, has probably been the most-studied single topic in marine science in recent times. The majority of the literature on OA report negative effects of CO2 on organisms and conclude that OA will be detrimental to marine ecosystems. As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish.
Excerpts from the paper:
Scientific or academic scepticism calls for critical scrutiny of research outputs before they are accepted as new knowledge (Merton, 1973).Duarte et al. (2014) stated that “…there is a perception that scientific skepticism has been abandoned or relaxed in many areas…” of marine science. They argue that OA is one such area, and conclude that there is, at best, weak evidence to support an OA-driven decline of calcifiers. Below, I raise some of the aspects of OA research to which I contend an insufficient level of organized scepticism has been applied (in some cases, also to the articles in this theme issue). I arrived at that conclusion after reading hundreds of articles on OA (including, to be fair, some that also raise these issues) and overseeing the peer-review process for the very large number of submissions to this themed issue. Importantly, and as Duarte et al. (2014) make clear, a retrospective application of scientific scepticism such as the one that follows could—and should—be applied to any piece of/body of research.
From an article in The Times:
An “inherent bias” in scientific journals in favour of more calamitous predictions has excluded research showing that marine creatures are not damaged by ocean acidification, which is caused by the sea absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It has been dubbed the “evil twin of climate change” and hundreds of studies have claimed to show that it destroys coral reefs and other marine life by making it harder for them to develop shells or skeletons.
The review found that many studies had used flawed methods, subjecting marine creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never be experienced in real life.
Dr Browman, who is also principal research scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, found there had been huge increase in articles on ocean acidification in recent years, rising from five in 2005 to 600 last year.
He said that a handful of influential scientific journals and lobbying by international organisations had turned ocean acidification into a major issue.
“Such journals tend to publish doom and gloom stories . . . stated without equivocation,” he said. The bias in favour of doom-laden articles was partly the result of pressure on scientists to produce eye-catching work, he added.
“You won’t get a job unless you publish an article that is viewed as of significant importance to society. People often forget that scientists are people and have the same pressures on them and the same kind of human foibles. Some are driven by different things. They want to be prominent.”
ENTER climate alarmist in chief – Peter Hannam – Environment Editor at The Sydney Morning Herald / The Age, with his latest doomsday report peppered with the same old regurgitated buzz lines designed to scare you into belief; “tipping points”, “pressure on governments globally to act”, “catastrophic destruction”, “mass bleaching”…
World’s coral reefs face new peril from beneath within decades
New research, published in the journal Science on Friday, has found the sediments on which many reefs are built are 10 times more sensitive to the acidifying oceans than the living corals themselves. Some reef bases are already dissolving.
“Coral reef sediments around the world will trend towards dissolving when seawater reaches a tipping point in acidity – which is likely to occur well before the end of the century,” he said.
At risk will be coral reef ecosystems that support tourism, fisheries and the many other human activities, he said.
The ocean’s acidity has increased about 30 per cent since the start of the industrial revolution, as seas absorb about one-third of the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“It is vital that we put pressure on governments globally to act in concert to lower carbon dioxide emissions as this is the only way we can stop the oceans acidifying and dissolving our reefs,” Professor Eyre said.
Notwithstanding the evidence owing to the inherent alarmism, exaggeration and journal bias of the OA scare, it might be useful for Hannam to consider this simple explanation of what goes on “beneath” the ocean surface…
Corals evolved during the Cambrian era with CO2 levels at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000% or 20 times higher than today’s “CO2-starved” environment of 400 ppm. Atmospheric and ocean temps were also far higher than today. Corals are made of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) – and could not exist without substantial amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
A sound explanation of the fallacy of ‘Ocean Acidification’ …
The last time I looked, the oceans were pronouncedly alkaline, and even the mad IPCC says the acid-base balance has been altered by only 0.1 acid/base units in the direction of slightly reduced alkalinity. However, that estimate, like much else in the IPCC’s mad gospels, is entirely guesswork, because there is no sufficiently well-resolved global measurement program for ocean pH. However, elementary theoretical considerations would lead us to expect homoeostasis in the acid/base balance of the oceans because the buffering influence of the rock basins in which they live and move and have their being is overwhelmingly powerful. Acid/base neutrality is at a pH of 7.0. The oceans are at about 7.8-8.2 (no one knows, so that the IPCC’s alleged dealkalinization of 0.1 acid/base units is well within the measurement error, so that we cannot actually be sure that it has occurred at all; and, on the elementary ground I have described, it is unlikely to have done so). Besides, there is about 50 times as much CO2 already dissolved in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere, so that even if all of the CO2 in the atmosphere were to make its way into the oceans the pH would scarcely change even in the absence of the overwhelming buffering effect of the rocks. As for calcifying organisms, they are thriving. The calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis and came into being 550 million years ago (you are too young to remember) during the Cambrian era, when atmospheric CO2 concentration was 25 times what it is today. The more delicate aragonite corals came into being 175 million years ago, during the Jurassic, when CO2 concentration was still 15 times today’s. “Ah,” you may say, “but it is the suddenness of the abrupt increase in CO2 concentration that the fragile corals will not be able to endure.” However, consider the great floods of the Brisbane River (eight of them from 1840-1900 and three of them since). The rainwater that pours into the ocean and meets the Great Barrier Reef is pronouncedly acid, at a pH of 5.4. Yet the corals do not curl up and die. “Ah,” you may say, “but what about the effect of sudden warming on the puir wee corals?” Well, the Great el Nino of 1997/8 gives us the answer to that one. Sudden increases in ocean temperature cause the corals to bleach. There have been two previous Great el Ninos in the past 300 years, and the corals bleached on both those occasions too. It is a natural defense mechanism against natural change. The corals continue to thrive. My brother and his three sport-mad boys dive on the reef every year and, like many others from whom I have heard, find the corals thriving except where the Crown of Thorns infestation has damaged small parts of the reef. Oh, and the Great Barrier Reef Authority, which has been moaning about the effects of rising sea temperatures on the corals, publish a dataset that shows zero increase in sea temperature in the region of the reef throughout the entire period of record. Don’t hold your breath worrying about ocean “acidification”: it can’t happen, even if all the CO2 in the air goes into the ocean.
Must See Also : Ocean Acidification is a Misnomer | Hawaii Reporter
The Multiple Impacts of “Ocean Acidification” on a Tropical Coral
Takahashi, A. and Kurihara, H. 2013. Ocean acidification does not affect the physiology of the tropical coralAcropora digitifera during a 5-week experiment. Coral Reefs 32: 305-314.
The authors write that “according to the IPCC (2007) models, atmospheric CO2 is predicted to rise to 540-970 ppm by the end of this century and reach a maximum of approximately 1,900 ppm when the world’s fossil fuel reserves are fully exploited,” while noting that “a substantial number of laboratory studies have suggested a decline in coral calcification with a rise in seawater pCO2.” However, they say that recentstudies “have postulated that the sensitivity of corals to elevated levels of CO2 is potentially more diverse than previously considered,” citing the works of Fabricius et al. (2011), Pandolfi et al. (2011) and Rodolfo-Metalpa et al. (2011).
What was done
Intrigued by these new and diverse findings, Takahashi and Kurihara measured the rates of calcification, respiration and photosynthesis of the tropical coral Acropora digitifera – along with the coral’s zooxanthellae density – under near-natural summertime temperature and sunlight conditions for a period of five weeks.
What was learned
The two Japanese researchers found that these “key physiological parameters” were not affected by either predicted mid-range CO2 concentrations (pCO2 = 744 ppm, pH = 7.97, Ωarag = 2.6) or by high CO2concentrations (pCO2 = 2,142 ppm, pH = 7.56, Ωarag = 1.1) over the 35-day period of their experiment. In addition, they state that there was “no significant correlation between calcification rate and seawater aragonite saturation (Ωarag)” and “no evidence of CO2 impact on bleaching.”
What it means
Contrary to what many climate alarmists have long contended, there is mounting evidence that suggests that the negative consequences they predict for the world’s marine life in a future high-CO2 world are by no means assured, nor are they likely to be widespread. Keep Reading »
TOP footnote by Dellers
In the last decade or so, the climate change industry has become so vast and all encompassing, employing so many people, it simply cannot be allowed to fail.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, it’s now worth an astonishing $1.5 trillion — about the same as the online shopping industry. If the scare goes away, then all bets are off, because the entire global decarbonisation business relies on it. The wind parks, the carbon sequestration projects, the solar farms, the biomass plantations — none of these green schemes make any kind of commercial sense unless you buy into the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet and that radical green measures, enforced by governmental regulation, must be adopted to avert it.
It’s no coincidence that the ocean acidification narrative began in the early 2000s — just as it was beginning to dawn on the climate alarmists that global temperatures weren’t going to plan. While CO2 levels were continuing to rise, temperatures weren’t. Hence the need for a fallback position — an environmental theory which would justify the massively expensive and disruptive ongoing decarbonisation programme so assiduously championed by politicians, scientists, green campaigners and anyone making money out of the renewables business. Ocean acidification fitted the bill perfectly.
- Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism | The Spectator
- Forget the doom: coral reefs will bloom |The Australian
- Corals survived massive Caribbean climate change – likely to do so again | Climatism
- New publication demonstrates that scientists have routinely exaggerated the “evil twin of climate change” aka ocean acidification | Climatism
- The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?
- Patrick Moore: Ocean ‘Acidification’ Alarmsim in Perspective – JunkScience.com
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
WORLD Leading Authority : Climate and Sea Level Science Is A “Quasi Religion” Hijacked By An Activist AgendaPosted: February 7, 2018
via NoTricksZone By on 4. February 2018 (Climatism bolds & links added) :
World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable”… Poor Quality Data From “Office Perps”…IPCC “False”
German-speaking readers will surely want to save the text of an interview conducted by the online Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) of Switzerland with world leading sea level expert Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.
Few scientists have scientifically published as much on sea level as Mörner has.
Yet because he rejects the alarmist scenarios touted by the media and alarmist IPCC scientists, the Swedish professor has long been the target of vicious attack campaigns aimed at discrediting him – yet to little effect.
Mörner, who headed of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005, has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process.
Sea level hijacked by an activist agenda
In the interview Mörner tells science journalist Alex Reichmuth that climate and sea level science has been completely politicized and hijacked by an activist agenda and has become a “quasi religion”.
According to the BAZ, recently Mörner has been at the Fiji Islands on multiple occasions in order “to study coastal changes and sea level rise”, and to take a first hand look at the “damage” that allegedly has occurred due to climate change over the past years.
IPCC is false
The Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic of alarmist climate science early on because “the [UN] IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely” and “grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise” and that the IPCC “excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.”
He tells the BAZ: “I always want to know what the facts are. That’s why I went to the Fiji Islands.”
“Very poor quality data” from “office perps”
Mörner also dismisses claims by the Swiss ProClim climate science platform who recently announced that the Fiji Islands are seeing a rapid sea level rise. According to Mörner the data were taken from poor locations. “We looked over the data, and concluded that they are of very poor quality” and that the researchers who handled the data were “office perps” who were “not specialized in coastal dynamic processes and sea level changes”.
“Many of them have no clue about the real conditions.”
Sea level “absolutely stable”
Mörner tells the BAZ that sea level at the Fiji islands was in fact higher than it is today between 1550 and 1700. Coral reefs tell the story and “they don’t lie,” the Swedish professor said. He added he was not surprised by the data because “it is not the first time the IPCC has been wrong”.
Over the past 200 years: “The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable”.
“Because they have a political agenda”
Not only is sea level rise due to climate change at the Fiji Islands exaggerated, but the same is true worldwide as a rule. When asked why are we seeing all the warnings from scientists, Mörner tells the BAZ: “Because they have a political agenda.”
Mörner warns readers that the IPCC was set up from the get-go with the foregone conclusion man was warming the globe and changing the climate: Mörner says: “And it is sticking to that like a dogma – no matter what the facts are.”
When asked if sea level rise poses a problem for the islands, Mörner answers with one simple word: “No.”
Strong evidence solar activity impacts sea level
The Swedish professor also tells the BAZ that the rates of water rushing into the ocean due to glacier melt are exaggerated and that thermal expansion of the ocean is minimal. Mörner adds:
“Sea level appears to depend foremost on solar cycle and little from melting ice.”
Junk surveys produce “nonsense”
When asked by the BAZ why he became skeptical, Mörner recalls the “great anger” from an IPCC representative when he spoke at a 1991 sea level conference in the USA. He was surprised by the reaction, alluding to the fact that it is normal to have different views in science. And as the years followed, he became increasingly aware of the falsehoods made by the IPCC and the organization’s refusal to admit to them.
On the subject of publishing research results:
“Publishers of scientific journals no longer accept papers that challenge the claims made by the IPCC, no matter the paper’s quality.”
In his decades long career, Mörner has authored some 650 publications, and he tells the BAZ that he has no plans to stop fighting. “No one can stop me.”
Near the end of the interview Mörner calls the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe global warming is man-made “nonsense” and that the number comes from “unserious surveys”.
“In truth the majority of scientists reject the IPCC claims. Depending on the field, it’s between 50 and 80 percent.”
Cooling over the next decades
Mörner also sees little reason to reduce CO2 emissions, and calls the belief in man-made climate change a religious movement driven by public funding.
In conclusion Mörner tells the BAZ that he thinks solar activity will likely decrease and that cooling will ensue over the coming decades.
“Then it will become clear just how wrong the global warming warnings are.”
See also :
- NASA “Sea Level Rise” Fraud | Climatism
- THE Fantasy Of Accelerating Sea Level Rise Just Got Hosed | Climatism
- BBC Forced To Withdraw Fake Sea Level Claims | Climatism
- SCIENTISTS : ‘Loud Divergence Between Sea-Level Reality And Climate Change Theory’ | Climatism
- 44th Pacific “Sinking Islands” Extortion Forum (COP21 Update 2015) | Climatism
- Fiji ‘Flooding’ Is Fake News From #COP23 | Climatism
Snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)
ONE of the more classic instances of
global warming climate change fear-mongering, gone horribly wrong, direct from the mouth of esteemed climatologist Dr David Viner of the UK’s CRU, circa 2000.
THE catastrophic dud-prediction was reported by Charles Onians in the Independent’s most cited (now deleted) article – Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
SINCE Viner’s vapid verbal, Europe and much of the Northern Hemisphere has experienced some of the coldest winters on record, especially over the past five years, with plenty of snow to boot…
2018 RECORD SNOW
MOSCOW saw more than half its average monthly snowfall in the space of 24 hours with 17 inches blanketing the capital by Sunday morning. At least one man was killed, several injured and about 2000 trees collapsed due to the heaviest snowfall in Moscow since the beginning of the weather records, said meteorologists.
WILL the casualties be recorded as human CO2-induced,
global warming climate change related? Or, do only “extreme heat” casualties make the cut?
THE Independent wasn’t alone in its failed snowfall predictions. Our most ‘trusted science’ agencies were parroting the same warmist propaganda…
CLIMATE’S holy body, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased:
AUSTRALIA’S ‘premier’ scientific body, the (warmist) CSIRO, jumped on the “end of snow” bandwagon in August 2003:
Simulations of future snow conditions in the Australian alpine regions were prepared for the years 2020 and 2050…
The low impact scenario for 2020 has a minor impact on snow conditions. Average season lengths are reduced by around five days. Reductions in peak depths are usually less than 10%, but can be larger at lower sites (e.g. Mt Baw Baw and Wellington High Plains).
The high impact scenario for 2020 leads to reductions of 30-40 days in average season lengths. At higher sites such as Mt Hotham, this can represent reductions in season duration of about 25%, but at lower sites such as Mt Baw Baw the reduction can be more significant (up to 60%)…
We have very high confidence (at least 95%) that the low impact scenarios will be exceeded and the high impact scenarios will not be exceeded.
2014, the New York Times signalled “The End of Snow”:
AND yet, climate realists (sceptics) are still smeared and slimed as the climate “deniers”. Rather telling when one considers the real-world evidence at hand.
- AMID a Warming Planet, Snow Falls in Southern Morocco – First Time in 50 Years! | Climatism
- THE “Blizzard Of Oz” That Wasn’t Meant To Be | Climatism
- EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters” | Climatism
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
- Understanding The “Hottest Year Evah” | Climatism
- TOP 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed | Climatism
- SCIENTISTS : Worst Climate Warnings ‘Will Not Come True’ | Climatism
- THE Inconvenient Truth Is That Catastrophists Are Wrong | Climatism
- Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered | Climatism
- Snowfall on Alaska mountains has doubled – climate change blamed | Climatism
- David Viner’s Thing Of The Past Comes Back To Haunt Him (Again!) | Climatism
See also :
- CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | Climatism
- EXTREME WEATHER Propaganda – The Pathway To Global Warming Hysteria | Climatism
- NASA “Sea Level Rise” Fraud | Climatism
- Understanding The “Hottest Year Evah” | Climatism
THE back-pedalling by climate ‘scientists’ continues as it becomes ever more obvious that their alarming projections have been deliberately exaggerated to push an agenda far removed from reality.
THE refined estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled) is even more significant considering that recent emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed, according to scientists.
LATEST findings are yet another blow to the “settled science” meme…
Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
January 18 2018
Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to man-made emissions than previously feared, a study has found. It raises hopes that the worst predictions about global warming can be avoided.
It suggests that the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed.
Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.
However, the study makes clear that steep reductions in emissions will still be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It also concludes that the aspirational target in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C is less likely to be achieved.
The study, published in the journal Nature, refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature.
It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.
The concentration has already increased by about 50 per cent since pre-industrial times, from 270 parts per million (ppm) to 403ppm.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body which advises governments, gives a range for ECS of 1.5–4.5 degrees C. The new study narrows this range to 2.2–3.4C.
Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper, said his team had “squeezed both ends” of the range presented by the IPCC.
“We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don’t need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.
“That’s useful because it gives policymakers and people an idea of what they have got to deal with and they can make decisions on that basis.”
Mr Cox said his study showed there was less need to worry about apocalyptic visions of the future, such as those presented in the 2007 award-winning science book Six Degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which had an image on the cover of a tidal wave breaking over Big Ben.
“The very high warming rates are looking less likely so that’s good news,” he said.
“Unless we do something bizarrely stupid, we are not looking at catastrophic climate change.
“But I wouldn’t want people to think we don’t need to act. It means that action is worthwhile. We can still stabilise the system if we choose to do so.
“We are definitely up against it but we aren’t in a position where we are talking about such large climate changes that we are just messing around on the decks of the Titanic. We know better now, I hope, from our work what we have got to do.”
He said his study showed the 2C target set in Paris was “still just about achievable” but limiting warming to 1.5C in the long term could only be achieved by “overshooting” and then somehow reducing the temperature using futuristic technology, such as artificial trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said the study “confirms that we will see significantly more warming and impacts this century if we don’t increase our ambition to reduce CO2 emissions; but the possibility of 6 degrees or more warming with associated devastating impacts can perhaps begin to be ruled out”.
Climatism Related :
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
- CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could | Climatism
- WHAT I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled | Climatism
ECS Related :
- Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’
- How scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1,000,000,000,000-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures | The Sun UK
- Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects | Watts Up With That?
- New climate change calculations could buy the Earth some time — if they’re right – The Washington Post
A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.
THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.
THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…
RUCKER’s forward received via email …
“Newspapers coast to coast”
Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.
Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.
I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.
First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.
Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!
Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming
Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.
But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:
As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?
Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”
The correct answer, however, is decrease.
How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”
People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.
This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.
It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”
One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.
The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.
As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.
CO2 Related :
- CO2 In The Atmosphere Is Not Pollution | Climatism
- THE Carbon Dioxide Word Game | Climatism
- WORDS Of Wisdom To A Disciple Of The Church Of Climatology | Climatism
- GLOBAL Cooling A Reality But Technology And CO2 Will Help Earth Survive | Climatism
CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :
- CSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research | Climatism
- The global dance of carbon dioxide and spreading green flora « JoNova
- Greening the Planet and how Fossil Fuels protect world’s Flora & Fauna | Dr. Matt Ridley | Climatism
- Good News! We Have Lots More Forest Than We Thought | Climatism
“Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.”
BUT wait, there’s more! …
“So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well – James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future…”
ERGO, no! There is no “weather or climate shift [that could] cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule.”
HOT, cold, wet, dry, snow, drought, flood, heatwave, blizzard – it’s ALL “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate disruption” and it’s ALL your fault!
Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule? Apparently not, according to leading climate explainers.
It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real
Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017
This week’s cold snap has brought record-low temperatures, freezing rain and heavy snow to much of the United States. But 2017 is still on track to be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded globally — and scientists say climate change is to blame.
Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.
View original post 817 more words
BETWEEN the start of 1997 and the end of 2014, average global surface temperature stalled. This 18-year period is known as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” and has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
THE rise in global temperatures that alarmed climate campaigners in the 1990’s had slowed so much that the trend was no longer statistically significant. This despite one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution occurring since February 1997.
THE pause took a pause during the 2015/16 super El Niño which was the strongest such event in recorded history and helped to make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years in the modern warm period. However, 2017 witnessed the biggest drop in global temps in recorded history, seen across most data sets, bringing temps back inline with 1997-2014 averages, rendering “the pause” alive and well, to date.
THERE has been a recent surge in media reports aiming to debunk and bury the inconvenient hiatus, not predicted by any climatologist, science agency, government body, media outlet or UN computer model.
A few of the latest attempts by the mainsteam media at re-writing climate history…
BEFORE it “never happened” – ‘established’, ‘peer-reviewed’ climate science was all over the pause…
1997 – 2015 TEMPS
PEER-REVIEWED PAUSE “SCIENCE”
The Executive Summary alone mentions the word “pause” eleven times, but the key paragraph is this:
The Met Office link to their “pause” explanation has been deleted! Very un-Orwellian of the climate mafia…
“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”― George Orwell,
“The hiatus continues to challenge climate science.” – Hedemann et al | Nature Climate Change …
PAUSE for thought via Tony Heller’s RealClimateScience…
Before it was disappeared, the hiatus was central to the IPCC report.
The MWP, LIA, 1940’s spike, 1970’s global cooling – all disappeared by the climate mafia.
Sometimes settled science requires rewriting history over and over again.
CALL me a cynic, but if “global warming” is so dastardly, and an “imminent global threat”, as we’re constantly told, isn’t a near 20 year warming “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown” (if that works better for you) a good thing? It definitely wouldn’t appear so by how much abuse, huffing and puffing is spewed out by the climate mafia when those two words – “pause” or “hiatus” are printed or uttered. One might think that the angry voices have skin in the climate game, financially, politically and/or ideologically. Oh…wait!
AS we know, the pause has been a big embarrassment to the climate establishment, because the longer it goes on, the more it casts doubt on their climate models and their theory, and thus threatens the literal trillion dollar industry made up of grants, funds, well-paid government jobs in climate bureaucracies, rent-seekers, advocacy groups, bird-slicers (windmills) and bat-blasters (solar farms)…
A LOT of jobs, reputations and (taxpayer) funds are now at stake.
TO conclude, an excellent summary of the pause and what it means for our understanding of the chaotic and complex climate system by Dr David Whitehouse…
The lesson of the pause is not that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, but rather that the computer models, which predicted an acceleration in global warming, and on which current policy is based, have proved to be inaccurate. Nevertheless, the pause is an important event that enriches our understanding of a highly complex climate system. In the future, a long-term rise in global temperatures may resume. There is a good chance, however, that the recent super El Niño only interrupted the 1997-2014 pause. No-one knows. But if the pause were to resume or warming keeps slowing down, many of the fundamental assumptions of climate science would have to be re-assessed.
Dr David Whitehouse is the science editor of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
THE latest “pause-buster” paper that this post is based on claims that “Missing Arctic temperature data, not Mother Nature, created the seeming slowdown of global warming from 1998 to 2012, according to a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change.” – Zhang et al. …
IF that’s the case, then what for the “missing data” at the other ‘inconvenient’ pole – Antarctica – that has been cooling for the past ~40 year and gaining ice mass?
“Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a−1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a−1..” – H. Jay Zwally et al. …
PERHAPS cancel’s out the apparent “unreported” Arctic data that underpins the latest pause-buster attempt by Zhang et al.
FURTHER, a valid and worthy observation by our friends “Climate Realists” who noted on twitter:
Latest Excuse on the Pause: There was NO pause in global warming because of a lack of data in the Arctic… and yet your told the Arctic is the worst it’s ever been.. work that one out.
AND this via @SimonMaxfield8
FOR the Arctic they give a warming estimate of 0.659°C per decade. This means, without the Arctic data, the global temperature paused, i.e. only one region was contributing to global warming, and a region where it’s been estimated about half is due to natural factors. #Oops
Global Warming Pause/Hiatus Related :
- List of excuses for ‘the pause’ in global warming is now up to 52 | Climatism
- The ‘Pause’ Returns As Global Temperatures Plummet, Warming Hiatus To Extend To 20 Years! | NoTricksZone
- NEW STUDY: Global Warming “Pause” Confirmed, Climate Models Wrong | Climatism
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures | Climatism
- MUST READ : How The Pause Was Made To Disappear | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
- Despite new study, global warming pause ‘still going strong’
- Delingpole: The Pause in Global Warming Is Real, Admits Climategate Scientist | Climate Depot
- The Pause | Search Results | Climatism
- Global warming hiatus –
El Niño Related :
- Berkeley Earth – ‘record temperature in 2016 appears to come from a strong El Nino’ | Watts Up With That?
- Global temperatures plunge in April (2017) – “the pause” returns | Climatism
- Stunning Drop In Global Temperatures As El Niño Warming Ends | Climatism