Guest post by Bill Gray Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University
(AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)
June 2011
I am very disappointed at the downward path the AMS has been following for the last 10-15 years in its advocacy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with. We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate Model (GCMs) results and the four IPCC reports do not realistically give accurate future projections. To take this position which so many of its members do not necessarily agree with shows that the AMS is following more of a political than a scientific agenda.
The AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter and the other AMS higher-ups and the Council have not shown the scientific maturity and wisdom we would expect of our AMS leaders. I question whether they know just how far off-track the AMS has strayed since they foolishly took such a strong pro-AGW stance.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) was founded in 1919 as an organization dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge of weather and climate. It has been a wonderful beacon for fostering new understanding of how the atmosphere and oceans function. But this strong positive image is now becoming tarnished as a result of the AMS leadership’s capitulating to the lobby of the climate modelers and to the outside environmental and political pressure groups who wish to use the current AMS position on AGW to help justify the promotion of their own special interests. The effectiveness of the AMS as an objective scientific organization is being greatly compromised.
We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think. This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society.
The AMS should be acting as a facilitator for the scientific debate on the pro and con aspects of the AGW hypothesis, not to take a side in the issue. The AMS has not held the type of open and honest scientific debates on the AGW hypothesis which they should have. Why have they dodged open discussion on such an important issue? I’ve been told that the American Economic Society does not take sides on controversial economic issues but acts primarily to help in stimulating back and forth discussion. This is what the AMS should have been doing but haven’t.
James Hansen’s predictions of global warming made before the Senate in 1988 are turning out to be very much less than he had projected. He cannot explain why there has been no significant global warming over the last 10-12 years.
Many of us AMS members believe that the modest global warming we have observed is of natural origin and due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation resulting from salinity variations. These changes are not associated with CO2 increases. Most of the GCM modelers have little experience in practical meteorology. They do not realize that the strongly chaotic nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system does not allow for skillful initial value numerical climate prediction. The GCM simulations are badly flawed in at least two fundamental ways:
- Their upper tropospheric water vapor feedback loop is grossly wrong. They assume that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause large upper-tropospheric water vapor increases which are very unrealistic. Most of their model warming follows from these invalid water vapor assumptions. Their handlings of rainfall processes are quite inadequate.
- They lack an understanding and treatment of the fundamental role of the deep ocean circulation (i.e. Meridional Overturning Circulation – MOC) and how the changing ocean circulation (driven by salinity variations) can bring about wind, rainfall, and surface temperature changes independent of radiation and greenhouse gas changes. These ocean processes are not properly incorporated in their models. They assume the physics of global warming is entirely a product of radiation changes and radiation feedback processes. They neglect variations in global evaporation which is more related to surface wind speed and ocean minus surface and air temperature differences. These are major deficiencies.
The Modelers’ Free Ride. It is surprising that GCMs have been able to get away with their unrealistic modeling efforts for so long. One explanation is that they have received strong support from Senator/Vice President Al Gore and other politicians who for over three decades have attempted to make political capital out of increasing CO2 measurements. Another reason is the many environmental and political groups (including the mainstream media) have been eager to use the GCM climate results as justification to push their own special interests that are able to fly under the global warming banner. A third explanation is that they have not been challenged by their peer climate modeling groups who apparently have seen possibilities for similar research grant support and publicity by copying Hansen and the earlier GCM modelers.
I anticipate that we are going to experience a modest naturally-driven global cooling over the next 15-20 years. This will be similar to the weak global cooling that occurred between the early-1940s and the mid-1970s. It is to be noted that CO2 amounts were also rising during this earlier cooling period which were opposite to the expected CO2-temperature association.
An expected 15-20 year cooling will occur (in my view) because of the current strong ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) that has now been established in the last decade and a half and ought to continue for another couple of decades. I explain most of the last century and-a-half general global warming since the mid-1800s (start of the industrial revolution) to be a result of a long multi-century slowdown in the ocean’s MOC circulation. Increases of CO2 could have contributed only a small fraction (0.1-0.2oC) of the roughly ~ 0.7oC surface warming that has been observed since 1850. Natural processes have had to have been responsible for most of the observed warming over the last century and a half.
Debate. The AMS is the most relevant of our country’s scientific societies as regards to its members having the most extensive scientific and technical background in meteorology and climate. It should have been a leader in helping to adjudicate the claims of the AGW advocates and their skeptical critics. Our country’s Anglo-Saxon derived legal system is based on the idea that the best way to get to the truth is to have opposite sides of a continuous issue present their differing views in open debate before a non partisan jury. Nothing like this has happened with regards to the AGW issue. Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society (with the backing of the society’s AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate on this issue. I know of no AMS sponsored conference where the AGW hypothesis has been given open and free discussion. For a long time I have wanted a forum to express my skepticism of the AGW hypothesis. No such opportunities ever came within the AMS framework. Attempts at publication of my skeptic views have been difficult. One rejection stated that I was too far out of the mainstream thinking. Another that my ideas had already been discredited. A number of AGW skeptics have told me they have had similar experiences.
The climate modelers and their supporters deny the need for open debate of the AGW question on the grounds that the issue has already been settled by their model results. They have taken this view because they know that the physics within their models and the long range of their forecast periods will likely not to be able to withstand knowledgeable and impartial review. They simply will not debate the issue. As a defense against criticism they have resorted to a general denigration of those of us who do not support their AGW hypothesis. AGW skeptics are sometimes tagged (I have been) as no longer being credible scientists. Skeptics are often denounced as tools of the fossil-fuel industry. A type of McCarthyism against AGW skeptics has been in display for a number of years.
Recent AMS Awardees. Since 2000 the AMS has awarded its annual highest award (Rossby Research Medal) to the following AGW advocates or AGW sympathizers; Susan Solomon (00), V. Ramanathan (02), Peter Webster (04), Jagadish Shukla (05), Kerry Emanuel (07), Isaac Held (08) and James Hansen (09). Its second highest award (Charney Award) has gone to AGW warming advocates or sympathizers; Kevin Trenberth (00), Rich Rotunno (04), Graeme Stephens (05) Robert D. Cess (06), Allan Betts (07), Gerald North (08) and Warren Washington and Gerald Meehl (09). And the other Rossby and Charney awardees during this period are not known to be critics of the AGW warming hypothesis.
The AGW biases within the AMS policy makers is so entrenched that it would be impossible for well known and established scientists (but AGW skeptics) such as Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Bill Cotton, Roger Pielke, Sr., Roy Spencer, John Christie, Joe D’Aleo, Bob Balling, Jr., Craig Idso, Willie Soon, etc. to ever be able to receive an AMS award – irrespective of the uniqueness or brilliance of their research.
What Working Meteorologists Say. My interaction (over the years) with a broad segment of AMS members (that I have met as a result of my seasonal hurricane forecasting and other activities) who have spent a sizable portion of their careers down in the meteorological trenches of observations and forecasting, have indicated that a majority of them do not agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming. These working meteorologists are too experienced and too sophisticated to be hoodwinked by the lobby of global climate modelers and their associated propagandists. I suggest that the AMS conduct a survey of its members who are actually working with real time weather-climate data to see how many agree that humans have been the main cause of global warming and that there was justification for the AMS’s 2009 Rossby Research Medal (highest AMS award) going to James Hansen.
Global Environmental Problems. There is no question that global population increases and growing industrialization have caused many environmental problems associated with air and water pollution, industrial contamination, unwise land use, and hundreds of other human-induced environmental irritants. But all these human-induced environmental problems will not go away by a draconian effort to reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 is not a pollutant but a fertilizer. Humankind needs fossil-fuel energy to maintain its industrial lifestyle and to expand this lifestyle in order to be able to better handle these many other non-CO2 environmental problems. There appears to be a misconception among many people that by reducing CO2 we are dealing with our most pressing environmental problem. Not so.
It must be remembered that advanced industrial societies do more for the global environment than do poor societies. By greatly reducing CO2 emissions and paying a great deal more for our then needed renewable energy we will lower our nation’s standard of living and not be able to help relieve as many of our and the globe’s many environmental, political, and social problems.
Obtaining a Balanced View on AGW. To understand what is really occurring with regards to the AGW question one must now bypass the AMS, the mainstream media, and the mainline scientific journals. They have mostly been preconditioned to accept the AGW hypothesis and, in general, frown on anyone not agreeing that AGW is, next to nuclear war, our society’s most serious long range problem.
To obtain any kind of a balanced back-and-forth discussion on AGW one has to consult the many web blogs that are both advocates and skeptics of AGW. These blogs are the only source for real open debate on the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Here is where the real science of the AGW question is taking place. Over the last few years the weight of evidence, as presented in these many blog discussions, is beginning to swing against the AGW hypothesis. As the globe fails to warm as the GCMs have predicted the American public is gradually losing its belief in the prior claims of Gore, Hansen, and the other many AGW advocates.
Prediction. The AMS is going to be judged in future years as having foolishly sacrificed its sterling scientific reputation for political and financial expediency. I am sure that hundreds of our older deceased AMS members are rolling in their graves over what has become of their and our great society.
[duplicate text removed ~ ctm]
Kevin, what processes are you talking about?
Are you trying to say that it takes thousands and 10 of thousands of years for ocean acidification?
And that all the claims of current dropping pH are bogus?
All I’m saying is just trying to use common sense, and trying to give real world examples, to show you that you can’t lower pH with any acid until you run out of buffer.
If you think the oceans can run out of carbonates, bicarbonates, etc, then prove that they can………..
Latitude says: June 19, 2011 at 12:42 pm
re. “you are so threatened you want to know who I am…..”
I’m not the slightest bit afraid of you which is why I user my real name when I post. You on the other hand don’t, so the likelihood of of you being afraid to post your real name is the issue here. Plus, I don’t think you show much integrity when you are afraid or unwilling to use your real name.
Latitude says: June 19, 2011 at 4:57 pm
re. “If you think the oceans can run out of carbonates, bicarbonates, etc, then prove that they can………..”
It’s not about running out of carbonates and bicarbonates.
Warming and Acidifying Seas
The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere now exceeds 380 ppm, which is more than 80 ppm above the maximum values of the past 740,000 years (5, 6), if not 20 million years (7). During the 20th century, increasing [CO ] has driven an increase in the global 2 atm oceans’ average temperature by 0.74°C and sea level by 17 cm, and has depleted seawater carbonate concentrations by ~30 mmol kg−1 seawater and acidity by 0.1 pH unit (8). Approximately 25% (2.2 Pg C year−1) of the CO2 emitted from all anthropogenic sources (9.1 Pg C year−1) cur- rently enters the ocean (9), where it reacts with water to produce carbonic acid. Carbonic acid dissociates to form bicarbonate ions and protons, which in turn react with carbonate ions to produce more bicarbonate ions, reducing the availability of carbonate to biological systems (Fig. 1A). De- creasing carbonate-ion concentrations reduce the rate of calcification of marine organisms such as reef-building corals, ultimately favoring erosion at ~200 mmol kg−1 seawater (7, 10).
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCMM/Publications/21706633/HoeghGuldbergetal2007.pdf
Hmmm… I wonder why the World Bank is interested in science?
Anonymous Latitude
Do you every look at real science papers? Or do you only get information from some persons blog that says limited scoped things about limited scoped perspectives?
Google Scholar is your friend:
http://scholar.google.ch/scholar?hl=en&q=ocean+acidification+carbonates+bicarbonates&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
John M. Quinn says: June 19, 2011 at 2:09 pm
I criticize Professor Gray because he does not seem to consider all relevant factors and therefore misses critical and relevant pieces of the puzzle.
Your post displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. To put it in simple terms, if you put on more clothing, you will be able to trap more heat close to your body. If you remove more clothing, your body will radiate more heat outward.
The increase in 1906 was very likely a mix of mostly natural variation due to oceanic heat content overturn, mixed with possibly or very possibly some of the increased forcing effect. Natural variation continues today but increasingly mixed with increased anthropogenic forcing amounts.
The polar axis moves on relatively long times scales 26kyrs and 41kys respectively regarding the precession and obliquity angles and could not have played much of a role in the change in 1906.
The book promotes solar as cause agent? Solar luminance changes ‘might’ account for possibly 3 to 5% of signal, but solar flux decreased in the last 30 years. So these issues need to be parsed and forcing levels determined. The total assessment indicates that changes in solar activity simply can not explain current changes and inertias. Of course now we ‘may’ be entering a solar quiet phase, so some people are saying we may start cooling… unlikely.
The odds of going into a Maunder Minimum (MM) styled cooling event are extremely low I would say based on the basic math. Radiative forcing during the period surrounding the MM were relatively small, so when the sunspot activity dropped we lost likely around have the signal strength which is around 0.2 W/m2 in total variance (0.1 W/m2 in relative change). Since we are currently estimated around 1.66 W/m2 a quite sun will only reducing climate forcing by 0.1 W/m2 which equals 1.56 W/m2 positive forcing all in.
Unfortunately, we will continue to warm.
Billy Liar says: June 19, 2011 at 1:02 pm
re. “But perhaps you knew that already :-)”
Someone always has to take things down to the silliest level, and Billy has done just that.
So the implication by extrapolation is that I don’t have the right to say anything because I’m not an agriculture expert? Of course the post just above yours shows that I am actually relying on other people that are experts.
So you were saying…?
John, not one single person has measured a decrease in carbonate ions…that is all conjecture
….that can’t happen until the oceans run out of buffer
Explain how you can lower the pH of a base without running out of buffer.
You can’t.
If the planet had ever run out of buffer, ever, in the past, nitrification and denitrification would have stopped.
Nitrification and denitrification requires a much higher level of carbonates/buffer than calcification in order to work.
Nitrification and denitrification will stop long before calcification will stop.
That has never happened, even when CO2 levels were in the thousands.
John I find you well-versed in AGW theory, which is quite refreshing. You seem capable of going beyond the talking points. Bravo. But I must protest your reference to CO2 causing such an increase in SST. Mathematically and mechanistically, this is not possible. The sea surface warming you refer to can only have a tiny fraction related to LW radiation re-emitted by CO2. You must know that.
Aninymous Latitude says: June 20, 2011 at 5:04 am
Your argument still seems confused and without relevant context. Can you be more clear. Are you saying there have been ‘no’ measured changes in PH levels. Are you saying the extra CO2 absorption in the ocean changes nothing? Or are you just saying that those things don’t matter because buffers will handle everything and there will be no impacts, and if that is your premise which peer reviewed/responded studies support your idea?
Red herring arguments such as yours are generally worthless.You could argue that we really don’t know the affects of the whining children on global warming, therefore we cant’ say for sure we have checked every possible connection and therefore we don’t know anything…
If you are going to make an argument show me it’s relevance. What does anything you are saying have to do with current changes in ocean acidification, global warming, or climate forcing. What is your premise? What are you talking about…
Or are you just talking because you have nothing better to do and don’t mind presenting nonsensical rants on the intertubes?
John, again
You can’t lower the pH of anything until you run out of buffer.
Denitrification requires a 10 to 1 ratio of carbonates.
Denitrification will stop before calcification stops.
If denitrification stops, it will be extremely obvious.
Is there any evidence of denitrification stopping?
The anonymous Latitude says: June 20, 2011 at 5:04 am
“not one single person has measured a decrease in carbonate ions…that is all conjecture”
One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals.
Analogous to the dramatic changes in the carbonate speciation, i.e., the measurable decrease in the concentration of carbonate ion and the increase in bicarbonate and aqueous CO2, many other so-called weak acid species that undergo acid-base reactions in seawater will undergo significant speciation shifts with decreasing pH.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
OCEAN CARBONATE SYSTEM
Seawater carbonate chemistry is governed by a series of chemical reactions:
CO →←CO +H O→←H CO →←H+ +HCO− →←2H+ +CO2−. (1) 2(atmos) 2(aq) 2 2 3 3 3
Air-sea gas exchange equilibrates surface water CO2 to atmospheric levels with a timescale of approximately one year. Once dissolved in seawater, CO2 gas reacts with water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), which can then dissociate by losing hydrogen ions to form bicarbonate (HCO3−) and carbonate (CO32−) ions. The seawater reactions are reversible and near equilibrium (Millero et al. 2002); for surface seawater with pH of ∼8.1, approximately 90% of the inorganic carbon is bicarbonate ion, 9% is carbonate ion, and only 1% is dissolved CO2. Adding CO2 to seawater in- creases aqueous CO2 , bicarbonate, and hydrogen ion concentrations; the latter lowers pH because pH = –log10[H+]. Carbonate ion concentration declines, however, because of the increasing H+ concentrations. The projected 0.3–0.4 pH drop for the 21st century is equivalent to approximately a 150% increase in H+ and 50% decrease in CO32− concentrations (Orr et al. 2005).
Over century and longer timescales, the ocean’s ability to absorb atmospheric CO2 depends on the extent of CaCO3 dissolution in the water column or sediments:
CaCO →←CO2− +Ca2+.
John Reisman,
You really need to get up to speed on the subject of ocean pH, which has been thoroughly discussed here over the past year. It is evident that you’re winging it. Cutting and pasting simple chemical reactions doesn’t fool anyone. To help you get real understanding, here are three relevant articles. Please read them and the comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/25/oh-noes-the-abalone-must-be-saved-so-we-can-eat-it
There are similar articles, including a follow-up by Willis to his article above. Search the archives for them. All your pH questions are answered in detail in the links above. The short version is: don’t worry, ‘acidification’ is just another false alarm. But don’t take my word for it. Educate yourself, then you will understand that ‘acidification’ is just the latest scare du jour.
John P. Reisman says:
June 19, 2011 at 10:21 pm
You will need to explain your figures in your last paragraph to me I’m afraid, and especially the sources for radiative forcing levels during the MM.
As far as I am aware, solar radiation TSI is supposed to vary by no more than 0.1% or up to 2W/m2 during an 11 year cycle.
(see http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Glory/solar_irradiance/total_solar_irradiance.html)
Now, I remember reading somewhere that human radiative forcing is supposed to be around 0.8 W/m2 (don’t have time to look for it again, IPCC?) so I am unsure what your ‘currently 1.66 W/m2’ refers to?? and where does solar variation come down to 0.1 W/m2???
Sorry, but actually, reading your last paragraph again – I can’t make any sense out of it.
Even Nasa says that TSI equates to up to 2 W/m2!!
Please explain in greater detail your ‘math’ and reasoning!
Pamela Gray says: June 20, 2011 at 7:35 am
re. “Bravo. But I must protest your reference to CO2 causing such an increase in SST.”
I would say I am semi well versed. I know too many people that know a lot more than I do.
Without actually digging into the issue, I propose the following allegory to explain.
The ocean has not changed color, so it’s dark water absorption properties have not changed. It’s froth albedo has likely not changed either. So how can the ocean warm due to CO2?
Imagine you are walking outside on a warm day. You are wearing a tee shirt. The sun is out. Now, imagine putting on a sweater. What happens rather quickly is that the heat you were radiating out through your tee shirt is now being radiated back toward your skin because of the sweater, through your tee shirt.
You begin to feel warmer. Now, if 1/3rd of your tee shirt had holes in it. Those holes could represent the higher radiative properties of land, loosely speaking of course.
But the areas where you have layered tee shirt _ sweater, your body warms a bit more. The oceans, like your body begin to absorb that extra heat energy and your whole body begins to rise in temperature. If it is ‘too warm’ out, you may eventually experience some degree of heat stroke because you are unable to radiate enough heat away from your body.
John Reisman says:
“I would say I am semi well versed.”
Not really. If the oceans were warming due to CO2 or anything else, themal expansion would show the sea level rise. accelerating. Just the opposite is happening, indicating global cooling:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/paintimage2111.jpg?w=640&h=422
The anonymous Latitude says: June 20, 2011 at 7:53 am
Prove it. Show me the cites of the peer reviewed papers that show there is nothing changing in the oceans. Where are the papers? Or are you planning to continue to babble without substantiation?
The anonymous Smokey says: June 20, 2011 at 8:04 am
Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen from watts articles, and guest articles, they are typically deeply flawed due to narrowly scoped examinations. I’m not just saying this, I’ve read a few. Certainly not all as I prefer to spend my time examining peer reviewed work and relevant contexts form more scientific perspectives. This web site is pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum from science. And no, getting a web award form non scientists that either vote or traffic a site giving it a high rating does not mean it is a scientifically sound web site and by no means validates it’s articles scientifically.
OFten facts are presented out of context to favor a particular spin or possibly even agenda? I don’t know why Anthony choose not to look at evidence in context. Maybe he is just not ‘scientific’ in his perspectives and thought processes, considerations, perspectives and certainly not in what I have read of his articles.
If you want me to look at something send me to peer reviewed articles not pages on this web site that take facts out of context on a regular basis.
In fact my advise to you is don’t study this web site for science, spend your time in peer reviewed articles in sources with good peer review reputation. You will find much better information.
You really need to get up to speed on the subject of ocean pH, which has been thoroughly discussed here over the past year. It is evident that you’re winging it. Cutting and pasting simple chemical reactions doesn’t fool anyone.
================================================================================
You can deconstruct ocean acidification using high school science, if you think about where to start.
It’s impossible for CO2, at any level, to put as much acid in the ocean as the process of ammonification, nitrification, and denitrification does.
Kev-in-Uk says: June 20, 2011 at 8:10 am
re. “As far as I am aware, solar radiation TSI is supposed to vary by no more than 0.1% or up to 2W/m2 during an 11 year cycle.”
Excellent catch Kev-in-Uk!!!
Bravo.
You caught a mistake that both I and NASA made.
I was describing total estimated changes due to Schwabe cycle variation of radiative forcing on the surface of the planet; while NASA was describing total estimated changes in radiative forcing in space, which roughly translates (2W/mw in space, processed through our atmosphere, roughly represents around 0.2 W/m2 on the surface.
Congratulations are deserved on that one.
Reisman says:
“Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen from watts articles, and guest articles, they are typically deeply flawed due to narrowly scoped examinations. I’m not just saying this, I’ve read a few.”
Coming from the alarmist echo chamber blogs, some folks are disoriented by the uncensored back and forth, open debate here at WUWT. For example, every aspect of the ocean pH argument was discussed by people on both sides of the debate. In the end, only verifiable facts were left standing and the conclusion was obvious to everyone: ocean pH is not a problem. That’s why every time the pH issue is raised, it quickly dies down again.
The open debate here easily debunks pseudo-scientific nonsense such as:
“Prove it. Show me the cites of the peer reviewed papers that show there is nothing changing in the oceans.”
Once again a card carying member of the alarmist crowd demands that scientific skeptics must prove a negative. But the scientific method doesn’t work that way. Skeptics have nothing to prove. The fact is that most peer reviewed papers are wrong. Not sometimes; most times. And it’s not easy to argue with a paper. Here, the truth is discovered much more readily. To be honest, the appeal to authority of peer reviewed papers is playing a weak hand. Make your arguments, and we’ll see if they stand on their own. So far, they haven’t.
For example, the GCMs predicted warming, and they were wrong. Ocean acidification was claimed to be a problem, and that was shown to be wrong. pH was claimed to be rising fast, and that was shown to be wrong. The sea level was claimed to be rising fast, and that was shown to be wrong. The sea level anomaly is actually declining. The ARGO buoy network shows that ocean heat content is delcining, as is the sea level.
All these facts point to one conclusion: the planet is cooling. The central argument of the climate alarmists is that CO2 is causing accelerating global warming. Now that the planet itself is falsifying their conjecture, will they accept that empirical evidence? Some will. But many will respond to the falsification of CAGW like Harold Camping. Their cognitive dissonance will not allow them to change their minds now that the facts have changed. For them, it only means that doomsday has been postponed.
The problem with ocean acidification is that the natural range of ocean pH is somewhere between 7.5-8.5.
even 7.5 is very unstable and requires that some very strict conditions are met to get there
If salt water has a hard time maintaining 7.5, in a closed lagoon, at low tide, in bright sun light, on the hottest day of summer, with a mud bed performing denitrification, and a dying rotting grass bed feeding it….
That’s the worst conditions anyone can think of, much worse than any amount of CO2 in the air……….
Yet as soon as the sun goes down, the pH rises again……………………..
John P. Reisman
It’s very simple to understand the real problem. We humans eat food. Many crops have thermal limits that are now being impinged upon. Therefore as we continue to warm, we will have less food. It does not matter how much bigger plants ‘can’ grow. We will simply have less food, thus more inflation, which is a serious economic consideration.
I’d love to know which crops you’re talking about. Based on my experience in my garden, more warmth = longer growing season = more crops. However, if it gets cooler than it is now, we will definitely experience a loss in crops. That experience matches that of farmers I’ve known.
There are many crops that still can’t be grown in certain regions of Europe where they once were grown, because the climate is too cold (grapes, for one). It would take a good amount of warming before those would even become viable in those regions. From what I can see, getting my hands dirty in the soil working with real plants in the real world (as opposed to computer models), it looks like cooling is much more to be feared. And it also seems we’re still a good bit below an ideal warmth for the best possible harvest.
the anonymous Smokey says: June 20, 2011 at 9:13 am
Sorry Smokey, unless your links come from science sites…
the anonymous Latitude says: June 20, 2011 at 9:25 am
Links to science articles, anyone, anyone, not miscellaneous blogs… anyone, anyone, bueller…, bueller…
TonyG says: June 20, 2011 at 9:38 am
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07bc4243-a48e-4481-8a5f-daf01b1f5eba
Actually, I was visiting a friend up in Norway and he told me that there are more and more wineries popping up, further and further north. It’s not a mad rush yet, but they are rather happy about the trend.
If you have ever partied in Norway or Iceland, as I have, then you would know the significance of this.
Kevin O’Neill says:
June 18, 2011 at 8:28 pm
If there is an alternative theory to AGW (merely criticizing AGW is not in itself a climate theory) then why hasn’t it produced a GCM that can produce comprehensive results with similar or better accuracy?
Bowen says Kevin: Because it is “trade” secret . . . . How can you assert that one “controls” the weather without an accurate model . . . . Long ago emperors claimed they were responsible for the Sun being darkened . . . until the prediction was wrong and the emperors killed their “Astrologist”! See Chinese History . . . .and the current “An Inconvenient Truth”!
It was a gimmick then, and a gimmick now! The “Huckster Effect”! And it will stay a secret for as long as it can be . . . . The “Fiat Effect”!!!!!
John P. Reisman says:
June 20, 2011 at 9:05 am
Ah ok – you are presumably trying to use the average solar insolation (say around 250 w/m2) and then using 0.1% of that? which would actually give you 0.25 w/m2 of possible ‘at surface’ variation? (assuming transmittance remains the same, etc).
However, isn’t that missing any and all actual atmospheric warming/cooling as a result from solar variation effects?
And I still can’t see where this ‘1.66 w/m2 currently estimating’ comes from?
I believe the IPCC use a human induced (i.e. co2) radiative forcing of 0.8 w/m2? (I don’t necessarily agree with that figure, but I’m sure it’s one they put out!)