From the newspaper SouthCoastToday.com
Our View: There is no debate on climate change
The “debate” over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago. Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.
One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.
The point was made in the meeting that it is not typical that scientists would agree so broadly. There’s a reason for that: Theories aren’t agreed upon in the scientific community, but facts are.
Theories are debated. Facts are facts.
The UMass scientists were invited to discuss three undeniable, provable effects that burning fossil fuels has on our oceans: acidification, warming, and sea level rise.
Read the rest here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140205/OPINION/402050305
===============================================================
When the public’s right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all of the other liberties we hold dear are endangered. -Christopher Dodd
Source h/t to WUWT reader “Vico”
Stephen Richards says: @ur momisugly February 6, 2014 at 12:42 pm
That’s a great word ‘progressive’. It sounds a lot better than communist or socialist or moaist or leninist or marxist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are using the usual black is white reasoning.
Progressive = Luddite
The Fifth Estate has lost its way.
J. Philip Peterson says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:13 am
I didn’t see CO2 referred to in the article. They label it carbon which is the first lie.
That is my first propaganda bias signal. CO2, the evil gas that should not be spoken by its name.
From the article:
Acidification: Carbon from human activity of burning fossil fuels is being absorbed into and changing the pH of our oceans, thus affecting the growth of corals and the ability of mollusks to make their shells
Carbon from human activity? Exactly as Dr. Ball said not long ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/fighting-the-wrong-battle-public-persuaded-about-co2-as-pollutant-not-as-cause-of-warming/
“misrepresentation of CO2 as a pollutant”
Acidifiation?
Well, no wonder the former MSM is losing its battle too as news outlet.
Dr Burns says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:17 am
Let’s see if this makes it past their moderator:
I doubt that.
sophocles says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:19 am
Is it the ostrich which is supposed to hide by burying its head in the sand?
Well said, describes well the action.
Terry Comeau says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:47 pm
The Fifth Estate has lost its way.
____________________
The Fifth Estate became the Fifth Column, long ago.
If SouthCoastToday wants to censor the views of skeptics, how about we contest their First Amendment rights? What’s good for the goose is surely good for the gander here.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm
You need to make a differentiation between CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse gas, CO2 in the ocean surface (the “mixed” layer) and CO2 in the deep oceans.
The different quantities involved:
atmosphere: ~800 GtC (pure CO2 as gas)
ocean surface: ~1,000 GtC (1% CO2, 90% bicarbonate, 9% carbonate)
deep coeans: ~37,000 GtC (slightly different from the surface)
The ocean surface and the atmosphere are in close contact and exchange CO2 at a high rate. Any increase (or decrease) of CO2 in the atmosphere is followed by a 10% increase (or decrease) of total carbon (thus CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate, called DIC – dissolved inorganic carbon). That is the buffer factor of CO2 in the oceans. The buffer factor is caused by the reactions which dissociate extra CO2 in water to its different forms, but these reactions also increase the concentration of H+ ions, thus make seawater less alkaline. Some call that more acidic, which is technically correct, but highly misleading for the general public who thinks of “more acidic” as really acid.
Thus an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases the pH of the oceans.
…
Ferdinand, your description gives the impression that the atmosphere faces a uniformly saturated ocean and an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is pushing it in the ocean.
not talking about the huge variations in CO2 in the atmosphere due to the photosynthesis now, the ocean content in CO2 is highly variable and looks very far away from your explanation of saturated CO2 at the surface:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/SOCAT+fCO2+map
Alan Robertson says: @ur momisugly February 6, 2014 at 1:43 pm
C’mon Gail… that must have been a rhetorical question, because you know full well what’s up with those people. One could say that the “truth about climate change” would affect their bottom line, but the answer goes much deeper- those bankers are in the club and humanity isn’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I know most papers are Banker Controled but I thought this was a little local paper like my brothers-in-law work for.
As you said the elite view us as ‘chattel’ or is that cattle.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:13 pm
Acidification, warming and sea level rise…. So where is the demonstration that any of these are linked to the rate and mass of CO2 emissions from human activity?
and
Show me where the pH of the ocean alters with AG CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
Don’t push it too far… warming and sea level rise, little or no effect, but “acidification” or pH changes, directly coupled to DIC and atmospheric CO2 are proven, see the DIC and pH changes over the past ~30 years in the previous links I sent. The DIC changes with about 10% of the change in the atmosphere.
And the change in 13C/12C ratio in the ocean surface layer also follows the change in the atmosphere, which is directly in ratio with human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Terry Comeau says:@ur momisugly February 6, 2014 at 1:47 pm
The Fifth Estate has lost its way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Fifth Estate was bought by J.P. Morgan in 1915.
Excuse my butting in, but several have mentioned the “Fifth Estate” in relation to the press. That is not correct. While the “fifth column” does refer to spies and saboteurs, the press is supposed to be the “Fourth Estate”. It refers to the fact it is not Executive, legislative or Judicial (hence 4th) and therefore not government.
Jewish science was also in a great minority in Germany a few decades ago and was shut out in the process.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Thanks for such an in-depth explanation. Would it be fair to summarise your explanation to the question as: human CO2 is unlikely to cause any sort of noticeable difference to ocean heat content or ph levels for many years, if at all?
Lars P. says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Lars, I tried to make it not too difficult for Cheshirered, who is not so technically as you and I may be…
But of course, I know that there are continuous flows of CO2 from upwelling places near the equator to the cold sink places near the poles. And that there are a lot of seasonal movements in and out of the ocean surface… But in average an 100% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will give a 10% increase of CO2 in the ocean surface with a high exchange rate (1-3 years).
Here is a more detailed map of the average exchanges over a full year from the measurements over the oceans in 1995:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/images/fig06.jpg
The 1995 February/August pCO2 differences can be found here:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
with a lot of explanation in that and previous and following pages…
Cheshirered says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:07 pm
Thanks for such an in-depth explanation. Would it be fair to summarise your explanation to the question as: human CO2 is unlikely to cause any sort of noticeable difference to ocean heat content or ph levels for many years, if at all?
I would be a little more cautious: human CO2 is unlikely to cause any sort of noticiable harm caused by the tiny changes in pH or ocean seawater temperature levels for many years…
I used seawater temperature instead of ocean heat content by purpose, as the heat content is a massive amount in figures, but it is fractions of a degree C (or F) in temperature… Any harm on corals or fish – if any – is by temperature, not by heat content…
I agree with South Coast Today; that’s Texas / Lousiana / MrsHippy / Alibaba / Fluorida ; that the climate has changed and become acidic around Massachoosits; well since the departure of its senior senator (rest his soul).
Just the other day, on one of the five or six leftist SFO T&V network station NEWS broadcasts, the spokesit actually said in so many words, that the oceans had now finally gone slightly acidic.
No I didn’t call them; ignorance is not a disease, and it can be funny to watch.
But for a dead tree publisher to say: “””””.One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it….. ……””””” is really a statement of obfuscation.
I need nummers !
“””…One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists…”””
HOW MANY are there.
OOPS !!…”””…participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday …”””
Oh now I get it; ALL three of them said so ??
Well I’ll take them off my party list.
Now I have been to board meetings (never again) ; I have chaired board meetings (dumbass); and I have been at board meetings, where a non-board member guest was present (spies; all of them).
You never invite more than one. If the more than one belong to the same organization, as the one, they are superfluous. If the one, doesn’t know all the facts to be discussed then s(he) is superfluous; get somebody who does.
If the more than one, are from different organizations; they don’t want to be discussing their stuff in front of other folks, who are likely competitors (spies).
So DON’T invite more than one.
Hell, when the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Check Bouncer Babs Boxer’s committee) meets to discuss major USA energy matters (it’s their job); they generally invite about three each of CAGW pushers, and three “realists”. To inform them of the known facts.
Often they include a comic foil such as Bill Nigh ; “The SCIENCE Guy”.
But they never invite enough of anybody, to reach a statistically significant consensus about the facts. It’s all for public show , to create the illusion that they are doing something. . They aren’t of course; there’s thousands of unelected bureaucratic busybodies, busy writing the regulations; tens of thousands of pages of them; while the elected aren’t even reading the Bills, that they sign into law.
I’m sure that Texans are interested in what UMass scientists, past, present and future (triads) think.
Yet another example of why the main stream media ( in this case a small tributary to same) are drying up. It’s all electronic now, and such a print editorial policy can be cross checked electronically in seconds for free, Thank Google. A smaller version of the Guardian, but with the same inevitable end outcome. They will end slipping free papers under doorsteps to boost claimed circulation. It is interesting to watch centuries old business models go extinct. Sad to see them hasten their own oblivion by bowing to PC.
Thank you, Dr. Engelbeen for that beautiful graph. The most amazing part of it is that the sea concentration clearly changes first, followed closely by the atmosphere. I wonder what on Earth could be the mechanism involved?
NICELY DONE GAIL!
Thanks for the info on the board of directors. The Boston Globe has been doing this for quite awhile covering for UPC/First Wind.
Well I thought Dartmouth was a prison; but I see that is Dartmoor that is a prison. Sorry for the mixup.
Southcoasttoday.com has a ciculation of a few thousand illiterates. Another pravda rag promoting stupid not science.
Lady Life Grows says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Thank you, Dr. Engelbeen for that beautiful graph. The most amazing part of it is that the sea concentration clearly changes first, followed closely by the atmosphere.
Which one of the several graphs I referenced do you mean?
BTW, no “Dr.” have a chemical engineer degree (B.Sc.), but after a lot of self-study exercised a job at M.Sc. level of process automation in a large chlorine/VCM/PVC factory…
Cheshirered says:
February 6, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Sea experts…help!!!!
‘Ocean acidification’: this one always gets me. I was under the impression that the oceans already contain orders of magnitude MORE CO2 than the atmosphere. Is that correct?
Something you should consider is that to be acidic water only has to have a concentration of more than 1/10,000,000 grams of H+ /litre.
Even WUWT has a policy to exclude certain topics and groups.So how is that different from Southcoasttoday imposing some limits? Presumably there is somebody there saying WUWT has “a circulation of a few thousand illiterates”.
I am sure 100s of WUWT commenters could out debate their editorial board on a purely scientific basis.
Jeff L., the percentage is about the same as any other debate forum (perhaps even more scientific that in IPCC itself, where, as you know, good scientists abound!!). What´s your point despite cheap sarcasm?
Haven’t the Greenies made their point? They stopped global warming cold!