Claim: Global Warming will cause ocean food chains to collapse

450px-Rockfish_around_kelp_Monterey_Bay_Aquarium[1]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new study published by Adelaide University, claims that ocean acidification and global warming will cause a major collapse of ocean food chains.

The abstract of the study (the fully study is paywalled);

Global alteration of ocean ecosystem functioning due to increasing human CO2 emissions

Ivan Nagelkerken1 and Sean D. Connell

Significance

People are not only concerned about climate change and its effects on plant and animal diversity but also about how humans are fundamentally changing the globe’s largest ecosystem that sustains economic revenue and food for many countries. We show that many species communities and ocean habitats will change from their current states. Ocean acidification and warming increase the potential for an overall simplification of ecosystem structure and function with reduced energy flow among trophic levels and little scope for species to acclimate. The future simplification of our oceans has profound consequences for our current way of life, particularly for coastal populations and those that rely on oceans for food and trade.

Abstract

Rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions are anticipated to drive change to ocean ecosystems, but a conceptualization of biological change derived from quantitative analyses is lacking. Derived from multiple ecosystems and latitudes, our metaanalysis of 632 published experiments quantified the direction and magnitude of ecological change resulting from ocean acidification and warming to conceptualize broadly based change. Primary production by temperate noncalcifying plankton increases with elevated temperature and CO2, whereas tropical plankton decreases productivity because of acidification. Temperature increases consumption by and metabolic rates of herbivores, but this response does not translate into greater secondary production, which instead decreases with acidification in calcifying and noncalcifying species. This effect creates a mismatch with carnivores whose metabolic and foraging costs increase with temperature. Species diversity and abundances of tropical as well as temperate species decline with acidification, with shifts favoring novel community compositions dominated by noncalcifiers and microorganisms. Both warming and acidification instigate reduced calcification in tropical and temperate reef-building species. Acidification leads to a decline in dimethylsulfide production by ocean plankton, which as a climate gas, contributes to cloud formation and maintenance of the Earth’s heat budget. Analysis of responses in short- and long-term experiments and of studies at natural CO2 vents reveals little evidence of acclimation to acidification or temperature changes, except for microbes. This conceptualization of change across whole communities and their trophic linkages forecast a reduction in diversity and abundances of various key species that underpin current functioning of marine ecosystems.

Read more: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112.abstract?sid=90ebddb6-a731-4a13-99c1-eb94a2cf5bdc

The obvious question – why didn’t this hypothesised collapse occur during previous epochs with high CO2 levels, such as the Cretaceous Age? According to Wikipedia, the Cretaceous age enjoyed CO2 levels of around 1700ppm. Yet the Cretaceous was also the age of the Dinosaurs – the period was characterised by large tropical jungles, shallow warm seas, and a vast abundance of life, both marine and terrestrial. I suggest it takes a pretty robust food chain to support a predator like the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Regarding the alleged impact of acidification on calcifying species like corals, it seems a shame the Adelaide boffins didn’t compare notes with their colleagues down the road in Perth, who recently discovered that corals have the ability to manage their internal pH levels – they grow just fine in a wide range of naturally occurring CO2 levels. Or the recent Woods hole study, which demonstrated coral reefs have astonishing resilience and ability to thrive, even in the most extreme conditions.

As for the direct effect of warming – even if warming occurs, the net result in most cases would surely be a slight shift in geographic habitat. For example, the range of temperatures on offer as you travel along say the Australian East Coast far exceeds temperature changes most alarmists predict will occur in the next century, due to global warming.

Advertisements

114 thoughts on “Claim: Global Warming will cause ocean food chains to collapse

    • Yes, you need to do more than dismiss someone’s work based on where they are from.
      The work has far deeper flaws and ad hom attacks should be rooted out. It weakens the strength of the valid critique.

      • Yes, you need to do more than dismiss someone’s work based on where they are from.
        ——————-
        True, but a truth which might diminish with proximity to outback Bundanyabba.

        • Be a bad arguer to defeat a bad arguer to appeal to ignorance ?
          Very risky.
          High potential to backfire.

        • Doris and Frank
          Doris
          Frank, stop engaging Boris, he’s a lair, wears women’s clothing and teaches at that fake university.
          Frank
          Doris, but so does our son.
          Doris
          That’s different Frank. Our son is a good boy.
          Now if Frank zeroed in on the weakness of Boris’ argument, and presented that to Doris, it would make it much harder for Doris to blow him off.
          A few facts
          All people have lied at some point in their life.
          All people have exaggerated/spun a yarn.
          Some men wear women’s clothing.
          Some people went to better schools than others.
          If you ad hom someone, you distract the brain from listening to the real meat of what you have.

        • Alan
          I’m actually a pretty vicious banterer, but I do it with friends who know me well and give it back as good as I give it. Sarcasm and banter is wonderful in relationships that are secure, but poison in the casual world. I sense that you understand that as well.

    • Just a note.
      Perth is closer to Jakarta than it is to Canberra.
      Australia is a seriously big country. I offer this from the CIA World Fact Book.
      1 Russia 17,098,242
      2 Canada 9,984,670
      3 United States 9,826,675
      4 China 9,596,960
      5 Brazil 8,514,877
      6 Australia 7,741,220
      7 India 3,287,263
      Aras shown are in Square Kilometres.
      The little itty-bitty island way down south is more than twice the size of India, and more than three-quarters the size of Canada.
      Adelaide to Perth is not exactly ‘just down the road’.
      Drivable, but I guess a 4/5/6 day drive for those who like to sleep!
      Auto

    • I did once have a strange experience in Adelaide. One of my first jobs, for a few months, was a travelling door to door salesman. It didn’t last long, I wasn’t very good at it. But one part of this experience stands out.
      Most places, as you can imagine, if you knock on the door of a stranger and try to sell them something, you get the door slammed in your face. Adelaide was different – they kept inviting me in, not to buy the product, but to proselytise to me.
      That was a long time ago – I guess the kids of those people I met in Adelaide have moved on to a new religion.

    • the best thing to say would be they have just shot themselves in the foot yet again as many of the fish stocks, in the northern hemisphere at least ,are on the increase.

    • Animals and plants have been adapting to earthly conditions since literally the beginning of time; look to the past to know the future and it’s pretty obvious all of this “studying” is just churning out more scare literature. And “literature” it is, with weasel words like “anticipate” and “conceptualize.” All in the realm of Science Fiction!
      The minute any nation achieves the industrialized standard of living, the birth rate plummets to barely or below replacement value; that ought to level off the food chain questions quite nicely. Do these nitwits so compartmentalize their worldview that they don’t realize the human species, as pinnacle predator of the moment, is PART and PARCEL of the natural equation? They need to lose the culturally biased and outmoded idea that “nature” is something separate and removed from US. Adaptation to WHATEVER conditions exist is something humans have learned to do supremely well, and our ability to do so via technology is now more advanced than ever.
      Which makes all this apocalyptic claptrap sound even dumber.

      • The minute any nation achieves the industrialized standard of living, the birth rate plummets to barely or below replacement value.
        _________________________________
        That is an unwarranted assumption besed upon modern Western values. If you live in a society where your god tells you continue subjugate your women and continure reproducing whatever your wealth, the results can be and often are very different.
        Osama’s family.
        http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01885/osama-cadillac_1885045i.jpg

      • ralfellis, it’s based on observing every single country over the last 100 years or so.
        As to the muslim countries, most of them haven’t achieved a civilized standard of living yet.
        As for your example of the bin Laden family, I could counter with the Duggars in this country.
        Outliers exist in every group. Regardless, the average birth rate in Muslim countries has been falling.

      • Even more correlated than standard of living, is educational level of women.
        Higher educational level of women = Lower birth rates.

  1. Might also point out that grain yields will likely be dropping over the next several years as the Progressive GMO food scare continues to take hold. Monsanto is reporting a large reduction in sales of GMO seeds. The almost certain loss in yields as a result of using non-GMO seeds will drive up food costs, which will of course be blamed on AGW. There will be no mention that the increase in cost and reduction in yield is due to this forced switch.

  2. Typical hair-brained meta-analysis of papers designed and intended to show negative effects of higher CO2 concentrations and/or lower pH. Half the time the pH is altered artificially and rapidly, which invites a negative outcome.

  3. Another obvious question: why didn’t ocean food chains collapse during the Medieval Warming period and its predecessors?

    • Exactly.
      These authors have once again demonstrated a breathtaking ignorance of Earth history.
      We are in a very cold period in the history of the Earth.
      Life explodes in warm conditions.
      Think of the Silurian Period…explosion of oceanic life. Hot climatic regime.
      And, as noted, the numerous periods from the recent to more distant past in which temps were far higher than today.

      • me nich
        +shedloads.
        I do NOT want colder.
        I fear we may get a little colder [cooler], but I seriously do not want a lot Colder – that is difficulties around the world.
        I know it is not warming a whole heap.
        But another degree or so warmer by – say, 2050; I’d approach my century then – is not unwelcome.
        Auto

      • Let Obama play with his global warming toy all he wants, while CO2 keeps increasing on its merry way to make planet Earth a better place to live. Earth dynamics is well contained by self-regulating negative feedback the meaning of which escapes alarmists’ ability to understand. In the last 17 years CO2 level increased by 38 ppm, while the real global temperature keeps coming down. CO2 is what all life on our planet is made from, and there is never enough of it satisfy the demand by all vegetation to thrive. Advanced greenhouses add 3 times the ambient level of CO2 and show production increases up to 40%. Whatever little CO2 humans can produce can only add up to benefit the life as we know it, if effective at all.

    • “why didn’t ocean food chains collapse during the Medieval Warming period and its predecessors?”
      Because:

  4. “Ocean acidification and warming increase the potential for…”
    i.e. this study is climastrology guesswork like all the rest, but in the very next sentence suddenly they claim false certainty.
    “The future simplification of our oceans has profound consequences for our current way of life…”
    This is typical of the Warmists, hedging in one sentence only to insist on false certainty of their predictions elsewhere. They highlight the hedging to skeptics who understand the flaws, the highlight the certain doom to non-scientists in government and the general public who don’t know any better.

    • + 9.5
      “This is typical of the Warmists, hedging in one sentence only to insist on false certainty of their predictions elsewhere. They highlight the hedging to skeptics who understand the flaws, the highlight the certain doom to non-scientists in government and the general public who don’t know any better.”
      Not just CAGW, but other weak science does this. We’ll written, but try n zero in better. Perhaps …
      “The information provided does not support the conclusions. You are over reaching.”
      Help the non scientist.

  5. I wonder how many of the Dem voters are becoming skeptical of the 25 year ongoing avalanche of negative media news for Global Warming. The End Is Near can only work for a brief period, then reality hits home for many.

      • “Protecting the environment” and “dealing with Global warming” have unfortunately become politicized mantras for the left with the underlying goal being “control.” Despotism, as a political system the western societies mostly abandoned 300 years ago in a series of revolutions, awaits.

        • Was that an appeal to fear ?
          How about something more tempered …
          Striking a balance seems to be an appropriate value. Please join us in identifying real problems and examining potential solutions. We realize it’s a difficult endeavor, but using extremes and launching personal attacks seems to have created larger problems throughout the course of history.

      • Also those two ideas (protecting the environment and dealing with GW) have become antithetical to the Age of Enlightenment (as in today’s pseudo-scientists tampering with the government reported temp records for political effect) and the advance of free-speech and associated individual liberties (seen as attacks such as in the RICO-20 letter). That is the underlying basis for the “% gaps” between those arguing for centralized authoritarian, socialist-style controls (Democrats) and those arguing for liberty, and free-market capitalism (Republicans).

        • MarkW: “It’s not an appeal to fear, if you are pointing to proven facts.”
          “Proven facts”?
          What “proven facts” would they be then?

      • MarkW seems to have some bizarre notion of proven and facts. Let’s say I forecast Michael Mann to soon start jogging across country naked to bring more attention to the GW crisis. In MarkWs view this is a proven fact simply because I think that is something Mann might do based on his fevered activism.
        However, until Mann does indeed take off cross country naked and I provide evidence of this unusual behavior with photos, videos, and interviews my forecast is in fact not a proven fact.
        Like the assumptions piled on top of assumptions mixed with equal parts speculation and tiresome bias this paper’s predicted ocean ecosystem dis-function is about as proven a fact as Michael Manns naked jaunt.

        • Please note that the key point you are demonstrating is that YOU have to prove your theory. YOU have to provide evidence. YOU are not telling someone nah nah da boo boo you have to disprove me.
          Somewhere along the line cagwistas sucked skeptics into having to disprove CAGW. How did that happen ?
          What was the series of events that shifted the battle to their turf ?

      • All one has to do is look at the positions of the Democrats. They all involve more control by govt over everyone. In other words, despotism.
        I don’t have to project what the Democrats are going to do in the future, merely look at what they have advocated in the past and what they are doing now.

    • That’s one of the reasons why global warming has dropped so far in the public mind. Even this site has had a significant drop in it’s ratings recently as people just stop caring and move on to other topics..

      • Be careful Ben.
        The social justice movement (CAGW is a part of that) will attain the victory they seek if CO2 continues to maintain its status as a codified pollutant. As we speak forces are at play to develop localized analysis of who is suffering disparate impact from generating non renewable energy for the CO2 consumers. Who will get a check and will who give the check.

  6. Okay, we need a seismic or scintillation counter to record the media hits from contrived science in the mass migration to claims from facts. Such a tape or seismograph record would have shown a swarm leading up to Paris and perhaps other international meetings.

  7. “Ocean Acidification ” !!!!!
    Either –
    the oceans are getting warmer & the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing (due to out-gassing).
    Which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
    Or –
    the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification.
    Which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.
    Take your pick – because REAL SCIENCE says you can’t have both.
    Se also
    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Ocean_acidification_examined.pdf
    There is no such thing as Ocean Acidification. It is an absurdity, that can’t happen in theory, models or in reality. It hasn’t been measured, it can’t be measured and in terms of real measurement it is a phantom.
    The pH will only change when the oceans run out of buffer….and not one second sooner
    …and since CO2 makes the buffer.

    • Please be careful. You can acidify by dropping your pH by 0.01 points. You should probably amend all of your statements with “extreme”.
      Also, the amount of CO2 absorbed is related to temperature but fully proportional to air concentration via Henry’s law. As the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere has increased by a factor of 2, this change dominates the balance. Dissolved CO2 is increasing.

      • Find one definition of acidification in any dictionary anywhere that does not say that acidification means the process of turning into, or becoming more, acid. Then I will agree with you, Ben of Houston.

      • Ben, you say
        As the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere has increased by a factor of 2,”
        When did a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 turn into a 200%increase ???
        You also say
        “Dissolved CO2 is increasing.”
        Therefore the oceans are getting cooler !! Which means –
        1 As the oceans are the earth ‘heat sink’ we must have moved into a cooling phase.
        2 That warming oceans and the associated expansive sea level rises are nonsense.
        3 All claims of ‘hottest this’ & ‘warmest that’ are untrue (euphemism for lies).
        4 Atmospheric CO2 will be sucked into the sea leaving less for photosynthesis & we’ll all starve.
        Did you sleep through Chemistry ?? You need to read up on where most atmospheric CO2 comes,
        (clue – Not from us)

      • “fully proportional to air concentration via Henry’s law”
        I think that would be Dalton’s law of partial pressures, which is linear, unlike the solubility/temperature relationship described by Henry’s law, with isn’t. Hence there will be no dissolved CO2 in water at its boiling point, notwithstanding the concentration in the atmosphere above it.

      • 1save, I will admit that the “by 2” is incorrect. It’s actually a 40% increase. Sorry, long day. As for the rest. I didn’t say that. I said nothing of the sort. That’s a pretty stupid strawman, and a very rude insult. It’s simple. There is more CO2 dissolved in the ocean due to the higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any high school chemistry class could calculate that. Henry’s law is a basic calculation for the dissolution of a gas in a liquid. It doesn’t even require algebra. It seems that you are the one who needs remedial chemistry, not me.
        Cat, you are splitting hairs. Henry’s law isn’t applicable at boiling points and we both know it. However we are so far below the boiling point of water that it’s trivial. The change in temperature due to CO2 is so small that it might as well be constant. It’s dwarfed anyway by seasons and currents.
        Menicholas. How is reducing pH not becoming more acid? You are hitting your head into a wall over nonsensical terminology distinctions. Moreover, you are arguing on the wrong side of the definition.

    • + 10
      “It hasn’t been measured, it can’t be measured and in terms of real measurement it is a phantom.”
      Excellent. Draw attention to the concept of the slightly believable phantom. Creating the slightly believable phantom is one of the hallmarks of the con, the psuedoscience.
      Heres a good starter link
      http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm
      Please don’t be offended by the religious reference. I’m not sure why they did it that way as it distracts from the very good info.

  8. 1. This paper has nothing to do with the meeting starting in Paris next month.
    2. The geological record is irrelevant when looking at today’s world.
    3. All the world’s oceans have a pH which remains static and unvarying throughout the year, which is why ocean acidification is so dangerous.
    4. There is no such thing as natural climate change and even if there was, climate scientists have conclusively proved it ceased in 1951, after which all climate change was caused by increasing CO2 levels.
    5. There are no climate scientists who suffer from grant addiction.
    6. Mann’s Hockey Stick is a blend of sound science and statistics.
    7. Thermageddon is imminent.
    8. Clouds, rain and storms represent a strong positive feedback.
    9. Politicians can always be trusted.
    10. Climate models are accurate and should never be questioned.
    Sarc off/

  9. So terrestrial organisms are incapable of adapting to relatively minor changes in their environment now, are they?
    Sounds like Evolution denialism to me.

    • Evolution denialism? How about seasonal temperature delta? Diurnal temperature delta?
      If you live in North America, how often have you experienced 40 degree F temperature drops in a matter of hours from “blue northers”? And they want us to believe that a 3 degree F change in “average” temperature due to a few extra ppm of CO2 is the death of the planet?

  10. The only species in imminent danger of extinction, whether by acid reflux or getting too hot under the collar is “Scientivus Climaticus Alarmist” Their habitat is shrinking rapidly and their brains are not adapting fast enough to enable them to see the writing on the wall. They are still fixated on the trough which will soon be empty. It will be a shame to see them go. Just like the laughing jackass and the Manakin bird they have kept us amused. Lew and Cook need to be preserved in a zoo or no one will believe they existed in 50 years though as they are not of the species they may continue to dance like the Manakin to no avail for many years yet..

  11. “Regarding the alleged impact of acidification on calcifying species like corals, it seems a shame the Adelaide boffins didn’t compare notes with their colleagues down the road in Perth, who recently discovered that corals have the ability to manage their internal pH levels – they grow just fine in a wide range of naturally occurring CO2 levels.”
    As the author of the Perth study stated:”“This is most likely only typical to corals from reefs such as Heron Island lagoon where temperature and pH fluctuations vary greatly on daily to seasonal basis” says Ms Georgiou.”
    Saying “corals have the ability to manage their internal pH levels” implies all corals have this ability, which the author states is most likely NOT the case.

  12. This type of crap is so asinine….
    If “normal” was 20 degrees warmer…..normal CO2 levels were 1000ppm
    These exact same people would be hysterical and screaming the opposite.

  13. The abstract reads like it’s just a bunch of alarmist “buzz words” strung together by a computer model. Maybe the complete document makes more sense, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

  14. The real food chain they are worried about is the collapse of the flow of grant money into their feeding troughs. The Parisites say they need private financing to meet their goals.
    [Begin Quote]
    INTERNATIONAL:
    CCAP’s Helme discusses need for private financing to meet Paris goals
    OnPoint: Wednesday, October 14, 2015
    http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2040/transcript
    How will private-sector investments factor in to the overall success of December’s anticipated Paris climate agreement? During today’s OnPoint, Ned Helme, president of the Center for Clean Air Policy, discusses the financing framework that will be needed to ensure the goals of a Paris agreement are met. He also talks about the role of coal internationally and how its expanding use in some countries impacts efforts to reduce emissions.

    • yesterday’s piece associating us skeptics with Hitler’s failed science advisers who (a D word here) true science causing Hitler to go to war to win territory as resources would become scarce – that was even more disgusting (expecting moderation for Hitler, but it was some Yale scholar brought him up – glad my children didn’t go there)

  15. an overall simplification of ecosystem structure and function with reduced energy flow among trophic levels and little scope for species to acclimate

    Because the oceans produce 90%+ of all Oxygen on the planet, what they are really saying is The End Of All Life On Earth As We Know It.
    From a (bad) Sci-Fi movie, it is an ELEE, an Earth Life Extinction Event.
    Then they say:

    profound consequences for our current way of life, particularly for coastal populations and those that rely on oceans for food and trade

    Yes, you could put it that way.

  16. “metaanalysis” + “quantified the direction and magnitude” = Fantasized
    “conceptualize broadly based change” = Fantasized
    I didn’t understand the word “metaanalysis” but found “meta-analysis is that there is a common truth behind all conceptually similar studies”
    So the “authors” looked at “632 published experiments” – it would be interesting to count the number of fact based documents they actually looked at where the content wasn’t 99% propaganda with an excess of “likely” “could” “anticipated” etc.

  17. “Claim: Global Warming will cause ocean food chains to collapse”
    Of course, if you take a look at one of Jeff Masters’ recent posts, another epidemic of coral bleaching is underway and will doom us all. However, if you run a quick Google search, you will notice something very peculiar about the vast majority of domains turning up hits about coral bleaching. I got to the end of the second search page before I just closed the browser.

  18. There will be a never ending steam of unproven catastrophic headlines that lack scientific support but those headlines are aimed at scaring people from the Pope to the common man to maintain the meme of catastrophic CO2 warming, so we must act now. In 2010 headlines hyped a paper by Boyce 2010 claiming “Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 ” But the Boyce study was thoroughly debunked for its poor methodology. Yet the scary story gets burned into people’s minds. I just had to people argue we are all going to climate hell and that false 40% drop was their evidence.
    But the peer reviewed literature that debunks those false claims never make headlines. For example Chavez (2011) in Marine Primary Production in Relation to Climate Variability and Change write “Recent in situ and satellite time-series of primary production can be clearly linked to interannual ocean variability. Global marine primary production appears to have increased over the past several decades in association with multi-decadal variations”
    Then in “Is there a decline in marine phytoplankton?” McQuatters-Gollop (2011) specifically debunked Boyce’s conclusions writing, “Boyce et al.1 compiled a chlorophyll index by combining in situ chlorophyll and Secchi disk depth measurements that spanned a more than 100-year time period and showed a decrease in marine phytoplankton biomass of approximately 1% of the global median per year over the past century. Eight decades of data on phytoplankton biomass collected in the North Atlantic by the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey2, however, show an increase in an index of chlorophyll (Phytoplankton Colour Index) in both the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic basins3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (Fig. 1), and other long-term time series, including the Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT)8, the Bermuda Atlantic Time Series (BATS)8 and the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI)9 also indicate increased phytoplankton biomass over the last 20–50 years. These findings, which were not discussed by Boyce et al.1, are not in accordance with their conclusions and illustrate the importance of using consistent observations when estimating long-term trends.”
    In “Impact of a shrinking Arctic ice cover on marine primary production” (2008) Stanford’s Arrigo reported, “Annual primary production in the Arctic has increased yearly … Should these trends continue, additional loss of ice during Arctic spring could boost productivity >3-fold above 1998–2002 levels” Further study was published in 2015 concluded, “Here we investigate changes in sea ice between the years 1998 and 2012 at regional and basin scales and how these have impacted rates of phytoplankton net primary production (NPP). Annual NPP increased 30% over the Arctic Ocean during our study period, with the largest increases on the interior shelves and smaller increases on inflow shelves.”
    The real racketeers that Whitehouse should pursue are those pushing unsupported catastrophes.

    • “…pushing unsupported catastrophes.”
      ‘Not far removed from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, is it?
      Rather than being crushed by the fleeing mob, the penalty with the CAGW false alarm is being crushed by rising prices needed to pay for the towering, spinning, inefficient whirlygig contraptions whose main function is to suck money from everyone’s pockets.

      • “…pushing unsupported catastrophes.”
        ‘Not far removed from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, is it?
        Rather than being crushed by the fleeing mob, the penalty with the CAGW false alarm is being crushed by rising prices needed to pay for the towering, spinning, inefficient whirlygig contraptions whose main function is to suck money from everyone’s pockets.

        • Steve
          I’m not in Britain and am having a hard time finding accurate reports on the increase in energy prices there. Could you please point me to an objective source ?
          Thanks in advance.

      • Knute, I’m not in Britian either, but I see from a quick Goorgle the Gruaniad reported on 11-16-2013 that energy prices rose 37% in 3 years, not to suggest, mind you, that the Gruaniad is an objective source, nor Goorgle.

        • Thanks, I saw the same b4 I asked. Seems a tad extreme. I can find gigawatt price comps but not household rates of increase.
          Maybe the Brits are embarrassed.

      • A colleague has been working to create an algorithm that would advise wind energy companies when to shut down their windmills during periods of greatest risk that has been massacring bats and birds. But the wind companies are not willing to do so because even with their subsidies, such actions would further minimize profits. Taxation for bad subsidies is what sucks money from your pockets.
        https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204875608230679&set=a.10201786469284136.1073741827.1253832247&type=3

  19. It is so depressing to learn that the science that I once believed in as a child has become the ” Monster under the Bed” !!!

  20. More evidence that the boffins know that the global warming scam has just about run it’s course.
    Now they are trying to find a new scare on which to hang their give us all your money and all your freedom train on.

    • Mark W, I think you are right. Acidification may be the one remote hope they have in the CO2 scary story. If David Evans’ soon to be released peer reviewed paper demonstrates the IPCC models are greatly over estimating the climate sensitivity then acidification will become the big story (sorry, beat up) in this endless saga of follow the money, not to mention power and control.

  21. Since the paper justifies making gross assumptions based on metaanalysis of others experiments, I will do the same.
    I’ll assume the authors are complete idiots based on my metaanalysis of dozens of papers like theirs that make tiresome, poorly supported but certain dire forecasts.

  22. An interesting paper about coccoliths.
    What are coccoliths ? Little single celled plant plankton that plate themselves with calcite.
    They are responsible for about 30% of the limestone on the planet so they do a bit of work.
    http://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Pagani/6_2008%20Henderiks_EPSL.pdf
    According to this report they have declined in size since the Eocene due to declining atmospheric carbon dioxide. Of note also is that the Eocene epoch [56 to 34 million years ago] was substantially warmer than at present yet eco-systems did not collapse.
    Perhaps Mr Nagelkerken and Mr Connell should study some history [when it’s related to rocks it’s called geology].

    • Well we know global warming is a hoax, so there is no chance of that happening. Pleases me on both counts!

  23. “Temperature increases consumption by and metabolic rates of herbivores, but this response does not translate into greater secondary production, which instead decreases with acidification in calcifying and noncalcifying species”
    Does this make any logical sense to anyone?

    • “Temperature increases consumption by and metabolic rates of herbivores, but this response does not translate into greater secondary production, which instead decreases with acidification in calcifying and noncalcifying species”
      Should likely be
      Temp increases consumption and metabolic rates of herbivores, but this response does not translate into greater secondary production (of what ? likely in the context of the paragraph … ), which instead blah blah.
      A tad sloppy no doubt.

  24. What interests me is how a 10% increase in CO2 (down to biota level only) can produce a 30% reduction in alkalinity). I’ve corresponded with NOAA on this, suggesting that dumping, drainage, and dredging are larger contributors. Acidification is said to have begun ~1750, and that’s ~200 years too early for a significant CO2 impact. The answer I got not only agreed that this probably plays a factor, but pointed out that such activities produce acid via biota output, i.e., the same mechanism that applies to CO2.
    The “3 Ds” correlate better with the pH data better than does CO2.

  25. I guess the recent paper revealing that most experiments on ocean acidification were badly designed and therefore yielded results of minimal use. I wonder if the 632 experiments cited were among the useless ones? Imagine 632 (!!!) ocean acidif experiments. This number alone is a symptom of a mental disorder in this science.

  26. “Claim: Global Warming will cause ocean food chains to collapse”
    And for proof of that, they can point to the massive ocean die offs at the end of the ice age, comparable to the Permian and Mesozoic extinctions. I wonder how people, elephants, cows, antelopes, whales, etc managed to survive.

    • Alan
      Two prongs
      1. You are right. Flimsy critical thinking. Bad science. Hold em to task.
      2. They are appealing to the 10% chance of catastrophe part of risk management. They “hey, we are doing this (increasing CO2) and there’s a chance it may be fine or even beneficial, but also a end of the bell curve chance we may be destroying ourselves.”
      And so the crowd yelled
      “Save us from that 10% monster”.
      It’s a dastardly mind_____. It’s the act of the cultist. To fix it, you do number one and you have to figure out something more appealing for number 2.

        • You want to target the silent majority.
          The fringe, as evidenced by a previous post on the makeup of Atlantic readers, is fairly highly educated and relatively wealthy. They are not your silent majority (SM).
          So what does the SM want ?
          Mostly, they want to be left alone to be safe economically, politically and socially. They don’t want conflict and they just want to be liked by whatever circle they are in.
          Worrying them (sorry SM) about how much this wave is going to cost them will scare them. They want to provide for theirs first. If you scare them that they can’t do that they we get mad. Start listening.
          I hear that the English are hurting, but I rarely see a concerted effort to get that out. Either it’s not bad or the skeptic is missing an opportunity.

Comments are closed.