Guest post by David Siegel
How do we measure success in helping people understand the climate issue? I don’t think we can measure it by unique visits to WUWT or various videos that many of us know well. But they simply attract the same audience over and over. I think the only way to measure success is by somehow measuring minds changed. This is a quick announcement of a new video I recently released, my philosophy on how to change minds, and a request from the community to help me with some data science.
My name is David Siegel. In 1991, I wrote a book explaining how the greenhouse effect worked and how we have to cut back on CO2 emissions or suffer dire consequences. Then, in about 2014, a partner at a green fund told me “the science is settled.” That prompted me to revisit the subject, and I was surprised to find that the data didn’t support the “common wisdom” that I had believed for so long. So I started reading papers, blogs, and web sites like WUWT.
In 2016, I published an essay called Climate Curious, which, thanks to WUWT readers, has now had about 300,000 views. Last year, I published Global Warming for Dummies.
My goal is to change minds. I don’t think preaching to the choir is useful. I don’t think being smug and using sarcasm helps anyone. In my Open letter to the Heartland Institute, I said they are probably causing liberals to raise even more money, because they look down on “liberals” and make fun of “alarmists.” They keep declaring victory, only to see another billionaire double-down on his commitment to reducing CO2 emissions.
How old are you? Very few young people discuss or debate about climate change. They simply believe what they are told. They don’t want to learn anything from 60-year-olds. When presented with the facts, their reply is “Okay Boomer.” Investors are now looking at “sustainability scorecards” that force CEOs to publish their carbon-neutral plans for the future. I’ve been speaking with people in the oil and airline industries, and they actually believe that they have to put themselves out of business for the sake of the planet.
I don’t think Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Mike Bloomberg, Hans Rosling, Steven Pinker, Tyler Cowen, Richard Branson, Jeff Skoll, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other prominent thinkers are idiots. I respect these people. I don’t think we should make fun of them. That just causes them to dig in deeper and raise more money. How can we have a reasonable conversation with people who believe what we don’t?
I want to see a world where the scientific method comes first. I don’t think our science should change when a new president is elected. I don’t support liberals, conservatives, libertarians, or religious groups, because I think their platform comes first, before science. Can there not be any liberals who are skeptical of climate alarmist claims? Should we take religious skeptics seriously? I would like to see a world where people consider each subject simply on the merits of the available evidence, not on what everyone else believes.
I recently released a video showing just the data on climate claims. I tried to put it into a format digestible for young people, and I’ve heard from a few young people that it opened their minds. I hope you’ll watch and share it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJWnMA3-sQs
I have a request. In my video, I say it would be great if we had a graph of average US historical temperature using only the uncontaminated level 1 and 2 stations from Anthony Watts’ Surfacesations.org project going back to 1900. Does anyone know if that graph exists? I can’t find it. If not, does anyone want to work on creating it with me?
If I could reach one person, it would be Bill Gates, who is writing a book on climate right now. I would ask him to support a public effort of adversarial collaboration to bring alarmists and skeptics together to debate and find solutions together, and to hold journalists accountable for reporting the results accurately.
We convert skeptics one at a time, usually after they turn 60, while alarmists enroll millions each year through text books, television, scary images, scientific journals, and massive public-relations campaigns.
I think the only way for us to measure success is how many minds we change. We can’t do it forcefully or by calling names. If we truly want to change minds, we should be willing to start with our own.
www.climatecurious.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the 70’s, I wrote a book on environmental issues, in which I included the greenhouse effect. Not published.
How can people be influenced to understand science without bias?
This week, I read THE END OF ICE. That book may influence people with extreme emotional content. I don’t think that is best, either, for getting a firm understanding.
My 2-star review in Amazon may interest you.
We who are sceptical of the currently accepted orthodoxy, in general, are so for rational and logical reasons based on a sensible and pragmatic consideration of factual data.
But we live in a society conditioned to be motivated, even manipulated, by emotion based arguments. That is the problem that must be dealt with if there is any hope this coup can be stopped.
Not just emotional – but by “consensus”. I have friends with advanced science degrees who say 97% of scientists can’t be wrong. As scientists, we often base our studies on theories. The Theory of Relativity comes immediately to mind. We don’t go back and revisit its underpinnings (although I seem to remember doing so during my BS studies). Likewise, I think due to laziness, many scientists do accept CAGW as a fact because of consensus and because they have not examined it and don’t have the time.
Other emotional arguments can simply be (as in the case of a good friend) an attempt to stay connected to their children, who have been taught CAGW at university and consider deniers out of touch or uneducated. I watched him change his belief to favor CAGW as his kids gained PhDs in physics and math at UC Berkeley, UC San Louis Obispo and UC Redmonds, and subsequent years spent at Cern’s Large Hadron Collider, Laurence Livermore, and Los Alamos. He doesn’t want to look out of touch by his children, especially since his highest degree is a Masters in physics. So you look for every reason to believe… and you can convince yourself if the rewards are high enough / the penalties severe enough.
I think someone should come up with a climate version of my favorite joke
A mathematician, an economist are asked “what is the answer to 2+2?”
Mathematician answers 4
Economist answers it’s somewhere between 3 And 5
Statistician answers “what do you want it to be”
Brilliant
David Siegel Focus on the strategic issue of developing cheaper dispatchable sustainable power – such as fusion – to provide for 1000 years. We have limited supplies of inexpensive Biologically Stored Solar Energy (aka natural gas, oil, coal). They have been our “training wheels” to get our technology and economies up and running – but they will not last 1000 years Now to develop cheaper sustainable energy.
David Siegel Strategically focus on the 1000 year time frame. Our natural supply of Biologically Stored Solar Energy launched us into our Industrial, Technological and Computer revolutions. aka natural gas, oil, coal. That enabled a massive increase in our quality of life, and longevity from subsistence farmers into abundant food. However, they will not last to the next millenium. Our challenge now is to develop cheaper dispatchable sustainable fuel, such as fusion. That should be an agreeable goal to Bill Gates et al.
A couple of months ago I posted a video on Youtube that was aimed at a high school audience and had the theme of an optimistic future, not the gloom and doom peddled to high school audiences by eco extremists. You can see it here:
Video link
https://youtu.be/OytsPc193PM
“I think the only way for us to measure success is how many minds we change”
This is of course exactly what the climate movement has done and is doing and it boils down to activism and not science. Fighting activism with activism is what we have been doing and it has gone nowhere. Perhaps a better approach would be to tell information consumers not what to think but how to think. For example the observation that the crime rate in Thailand has been rising while at the same time the tourism business has been going up does not prove that tourism caises crime but to understand why one must have some education in statistics. What I propose is an education movement instead of the proposed change minds warfare against the other side’s change mind warfare.
chaamjamal, the debate is no longer about how, but about how much and how bad. The published science says the how much is probably about 3°C – thats the average, some areas may become cool er, some much warmer – the Arctic for example.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/15/climate-sensitivity-research/
Do you really think “activists” are the only ones who think a global average increase of 3°C or possibly higher is running a huge risk? How comfortable would Bangkok be in April?
Hello Loydo
A really good video published by the Canadian Climate Discussion Nexus on climate sensitivity and the 3°C question. It was put up on youtube about a week ago and is well worth a look.
Loydo,
The chances of reaching 3°C are pretty well zero. But even if we did, most people wouldn’t notice it. That’s because most warming occurs in cold climates, at night and in the winter. I don’t think the good people of Bangkok need worry. And people who live in very cold climates would benefit greatly.
After a century of global warming mankind is prospering as never before. Mankind always prospered during the warm periods – the Roman and Medieval periods and also the 20th century. It’s cold that kills, not warmth. Warmth also helps protect us against the corona virus.
The planet is getting dramatically greener. As shown by a major NASA study several years ago, the main cause is the increase in CO2. And the second cause: global warming. Like most human beings, Nature prefers warmth over cold.
Global warming isn’t a problem, it’s a huge benefit. The real problem is climate change alarmism, which is causing endless suffering and alarm, and the corruption of science. The alarmism is driven by vested interests for climate scientists, green extremism, a hatred of humanity and political activism.
If you care about Nature and humanity you should look again at the data (e.g. deaths from extreme weather at historical lows) and think again. Many sceptics started as true believers, but when they looked at the data with open eyes they realised how they had been misled.
Chris
My understanding is that any warming will largely be confined to the Norther/Southern hemispheres, affecting night time temperatures. Equatorial regions won’t be unaffected but will be less affected.
So, an interesting observation:
During the ‘unremarkable’ UK winter of 2017/18 there were ~50,000 Excess Winter Deaths in England/Wales. It was probably around double the average as it was a bad flu year. The UK is ~5th wealthiest nation in the world, and extreme poverty (internationally defined as one person living on less than $1.95 per day) is unknown. The English/Welsh population is around 50m.
During the ‘unprecedented’ Indian heatwave of 2017 there were ~2,500 deaths attributed to heat. India has a population of 1.3bn with around 70m living in extreme poverty, more than the entire UK population.
So whilst you run around with your hair on fire about warming of 3C, not even the IPCC claim it will be much of a problem for humanity.
And whilst Michael Mann managed to erase the Medieval and Roman warm periods with some sleight of hand, claiming it wasn’t global, the fact is we know it happened across Europe at the very least. We also know they were periods of great productivity and wealth.
So whilst it might not have been a global phenomenon, it did happen, and it demonstrates the immense benefits of a, warmer European climate.
HotScot – March 15, 2020 at 4:05 am
“DUH”, …..warming of 3C a problem?
I don’t think so, at least not for the thousands of “snowbirds” that migrate to Florida each winter to escape the freezing temps in the northeast US. Those “snowbirds” literally love a 3C, or a 4C or even a 6+C warming.
How comfortable would Bangkok be in April?
…cut the crap…..almost all of the CO2 is coming from China
There is substantially more risk getting to work everyday and the risk is 100 years away. Just because a risk increases it is pretty meaningless unless you give context.
Interesting diverse viewpoints…..IPCC says CO2 doubling might cause up to 4.5 C global warming. On the other hand, Figure 2 of this recent paper based on climate model ECHAM 6.3……
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2019.1699387
shows it would take 3 doublings, 3200 ppm CO2 to achieve 4C warming.
This would change the “crisis” point to the economics of fossil fuel extraction sometime in future.
Loydo,
According to satellite data from Roy Spencer’s page the linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade
That equates to 1.13 C per century. Where do you get 3 degrees?
Ron
Loydo assumes the average change accepted for the Arctic, rounds up to the nearest degree, and then implies that it is applicable to the entire world. While doing so, he/she ignores that the average is being driven primarily by increases in the Winter and nighttime lows, not the Summer and daytime highs. That is, by taking ‘facts’ out of context, and implying things that aren’t true, he/she can make a story that seems scary.
thank you loydo,
but what is the climate sensitivity exactly? and if they know what the ECS is why do they need the TCRE? and if we think it will be 3C warmer than pre-industrial, then when was this pre-industrial reference year when agw began? and what was that temperature then? And how warm can we let it get before it gets bad? is it 5C? or is it 1.5C? or is it something in between?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/25/earth-day-wisdom/
loydeedoe says:
Do you really think “activists” are the only ones who think a global average increase of 3°C or possibly higher is running a huge risk?
About 97% chance that asking you this question is a waste of time, but even if it was 3C (it won’t be), why would you think that was a risk & not actually a benefit? It would be a benefit where I’m at, no question.
There is theory and then there is reality.
The reality is that the increase is low and mostly due to natural causes which is about to change (cooling).
1) Only activists believe that 3C increase even possible.
2) 3C would get us back to the average of the last 10K years.
3) Given how humid Bangkok is in April, it’s unlikely there would be any noticeable change in it’s temperature, even if the impossible did happen and the world warmed by 3C.
Loydo: “Do you really think “activists” are the only ones who think a global average increas….” I do not believe activists think at all, nor do well over half the population of the US. Worldwide, I’d put it below 25%. Humans have the unique ability to think and they crap all over the idea and whine like children instead. It makes life a nightmare, but they never learn. Humans, by all rights, should be extinct. They emote but lack instincts for survival. Commercials on TV and the Covid 19 indicate they have no idea even how to feed themselves if Alexa dies and they can’t call out or order over the net. There’s so little thought in most humans, I often believe my dog has more sense. What you should have asked is “Do you really think activist are the only ones terrified and too stupid to question a global temperature average?” and the answer would be no, sadly, they are not. Even scientists don’t think anymore.
“No longer about how”?
When was it ever?
“The Cause” has always been touted as “Man is the cause of … whatever” therefore Man must be controlled.
Short of setting off every nuke in the world, Ma’ Nature is responsible for our “climate” and our weather.
(And even if we set off every nuke, she’d clean up Man’s “nuclear winter” eventually.)
You skip over “the how” because if “the how” is natural processes and not Man, then there’s no DESPERATE need for stuff like the GND to “save the planet”.
(Cue George Carlin …)
The Earth is (maybe) sensitive to co2 when there is nothing else happening. But there is always…..
The problem is that more and more people are emotional/feelings based thinkers.
How can they handle an issue like global warming…climate change…I mean climate extinction when they think a 1/3 lbs burger is smaller than a 1/4 lbs. burger?
http://www.gizmodo.com/whats-bigger-1-3-pound-burgers-or-1-4-pound-burgers-1611118517
As the Sun meanders around the galaxy, bobbing through the galactic plane, I sometimes think the Earth passes through clouds of stupidity. Physically undetectable, but none the less there. At times we had the beginning of agriculture, the rise of civilizations, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution – and then there were other times.
I certainly feel stupider than I did 20 years ago, but some people just had a head start…
Perhaps you’re referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Wave
Mike, thanks for that — I’m a bit of a Poul Anderson fan, but wasn’t aware of that particular book.
I remember a short story I read many years ago.
The story posited a cone of energy emanating from the core of the galaxy. Inside this code neurological activity dropped to a third what it was outside the code.
The Earth entered this cone 65 million years ago (incidentally, that’s what killed the dinosaurs, they suddenly got stupid.)
The story was what happened when the Earth left this cone and everybody (including farm animals) suddenly got 3 times smarter.
In his New Sun series of books, Gene Wolfe’s protagonist, Severian, opines:
There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity.
I think he’s an optimist. When you combine human stupidity, with the fact that most people are not logical thinkers but rely on emotion, you understand why the species is doomed.
Derg
“feelings based thinkers” = oxymoron
Good comment chaamjamal
As I recall during the police strike in New York back in the late 70’s or 80’s the crime rate plummeted to zero…. in much the same way Global warming would stop if they stopped reading thermometers. (sic)
Cheers
Mike
If you think there is a problem that needs a solution you have already drunk the koolaid.
The only problem is that so many people have been convinced that there is a problem…
Yes, but even that is quite a problem!
Ignore what people say. Pay attention to what they do.
Exactamundo cB (i just posted my comment below, before i could even see yours!)
Well done…a superb overview. The only thing missing for me was Solar Activity and Solar Cycles. Other than that, a great overview to send to those who still have at least somewhat of an open mind.
“I think the only way for us to measure success is how many minds we change”
Minds don’t matter. The only thing that really matters is how humanity is progressing economically on the whole. Regardless of whether or not minds are changed, there will always be pockets of places where windmills prevail. But, on the whole, nothing’s happened for thirty years (except the fracking boom). Greta has nailed it. They’ve done nothing, but sit on their hands. That is the measure of success…
Sorta like the US Congress’s inability to get anything done on the contentious, partisan issues is a Feature of our System, not a bug.
Most of these “partisan” problems will be solved by the passage of enough time and doing nothing about them. Most especially in that category is the Climate Change scam.
For example: We just have to keep dithering on renewables. At 5%-10% of our total electricity from wind and solar, is costly, but not devastating, and enough to send our economy downwards like NSW, AU or Germany. And it is just enough for the real engineering and cost accounting to show they are more than worthless, they are harmful in terms of resource usage (grid transmission line distribution problems, frequency control, land use and financing). But at still < 10% of electricity supply, they aren't that harmful, and slow leaking them opens enough eyes over time to see their downsides to generate resistance to the renwable scam and thus limit further deployment of this waiting disaster at larger scales.
YEP
Joel O’Bryan
You remarked, “… the US Congress’s inability to get anything done on the contentious, partisan issues is a Feature of our System, not a bug.” Congratulations! Very few people understand that. Mark Twain observed that, “No man was safe while Congress was in session.”
Exactly.
We wei in action — or inaction…
A superb overview. The only thing missing for me was Solar Activity and Solar Cycles. A perfect gift for those true believers who still have at least somewhat of an open mind.
Great video! Thanks for the voice of sanity.
I do it on a one-to-one basis, using Andy May’s superb chart showing the earth’s temperature over the last 500 million years – one of the best of the many excellent articles published at WUWT over the years.
In a discussion over Greta Thunberg at my golf club (in the UK), I pulled my smart phone out and showed my fellow golfers the chart (which shows that the earth is in one of it’s coldest phases right now and that although currently our planet’s average temperature is around 14ºC, its actual average temperature is around 19ºC).
The effect was stunning. Seeing the information presented in that format, by a scientist (I believe Andy describes himself as a geoscientist) really hit home with this group. One of them, a very successful local businessman, examined the graphic carefully and said he thought it was fantastic. “I’ve never seen anything like it” he said.
Of course he hasn’t because the BBC – the UK’s dominant source of ‘news’ – does not allow information of this sort onto the airwaves. Now, my example relates to older people I know. But showing younger people that chart and asking them related questions such as what %age of earth’s history has our planet had ice at both poles (answer 9%) will have an impact.
I’m very grateful to Andy and to WUWT for publishing the information in that format because it demonstrates very effectively the folly of making judgements about the climate based on the last hundred years or so (or ‘standing too close to the picture’ as I call it. You have to step back to make sense of it all).
“I do it on a one-to-one basis, using Andy May’s superb chart showing the earth’s temperature over the last 500 million years”
There is no global temperature. There certainly isn’t a chart that shows such a thing over the last 500my. someone may be calling it that, but it’s just a numbers game.
Send the link, man! I want to see this graph now!
Take a look at Tony Hellers website, https://realclimatescience.com. He does a very nice job of showing the actual data around this subject (temps, ice, sea level, etc) and has recently. done some discussions of the actual data, not the ‘adjusted’ data.
+1
We have to explain it to Loydo.
She’s impervious to data that isn’t pre-approved by the collective.
I noticed they don’t want to learn it from 19 yr old Naomi Seibt either…At least on my Facebook – get very few comments when I post her videos… but the choir likes them….
JPP
I don’t think we should make fun of them.”
Oh I disagree. Some deserve to be made fun of and ridiculed mercilessly. Target #1: Bloomberg for throwing a fortune (for you and me) in 4 months on his Presidential campaign vanity project begs to be ridiculed. And his throwing many more millions of dollars down the toilet on his Buying State AG’s efforts has been a remarkable failure as well.
The reason I say this is because people understood Bloomberg threw away a lot of money in a short time (close to $600 million) on all those ads that annoyed the Hell out of everyone for 2 months on every radio and TV you turned. They quickly understood this was guy who thinks everything can be bought. And his credibility is shot. And thus his climate message is much more widely understood to be a hypocritical at best with his jets and multiple mansions, even with the people who think climate is a problem. Bloomberg is a joke and he needs to be ridiculed at every opportunity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5iaEx74dXM
As for other targets, well AOC, Greta, Bernie the commie, state level idiots like Gov Inslee of Washington state or former Cal Gov Moonbeam, and so many other pols and useful tools who couldn’t describe the Greenhouse effect to save their lives. Yet they want to impoverish folks like me to send my electric bill money to billionaire’s Green schemes, well… to Hell with them. I’ll ridicule those folks at every opportunity.
As for David Seigel and his, ‘Then, in about 2014, a partner at a green fund told me “the science is settled.”’ epiphany, where the Hell were you when Obama said exactly that in State of the Union address in January 2014? And former VP Al Gore had said that many times years before Obama. Alan Moran’s 2010 book “Climate Change: The Facts” took this claim head-on of “the science settled” being throw in skeptic’s face and debunked it then. So maybe you were sleeping on the “scientific method” then too. The GMAT hiatus of course was the big problem for the climate scammers in 2014 with Paris looming (and still is), which is why John Holdren was given the task of quarterbacking the 2015 TomKarl “pause buster” paper by flipping around SST adjustments na fake statistics from it to getting warming trend where there was none. The actual science was showing the climate change was a scam, and they had to make up disinformation to give Obama cover at Paris. The Obama admin was nothing but 8 years of fake narratives, from the ACA, the stimulus act, the give terrorists $150 B Iran Deal, and the climate scam with the Paris deal. Anyone who was being honest and objective from 2009 onwards could see the lies and disinformation campaigns (Basically anyone with a brain could see the set-up they were ptiching: “If you like your climate, you can keep your climate. Just fork over your most cherished liberties and all your disposable income, and we’ll do a little rain make that terrible climate problem go away.”) that spewing out the Obama White House on every subject they touched, not just climate.
So if it took you until 2014 to realize there was something seriously wrong with the climate change claims, welcome to party. I guess better late than never.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
H L Mencken
Science is never settled. The enemy of climate alarmism is data
Good explanations, good data, good graphics. Unfortunately the sound is not good.
Maybe it would be worth the effort to redo the recording in a professional studio?
Good luck getting young people involved!
I’m a physicist who’s been interested in climate since the 1970s. If the public could be convinced by the real science, given how very much it is in our favour, the argument would have gone away long ago. What influences the public is emotion, I wish it were otherwise, but when I explain radiative transfer theory to anyone their eyes gloss over, when I say that AGW alarm-ism is killing people,m they wake up.
I’d like to see something along the lines of what Bjorn Lomberg does in his books, e.g state that for the sake of argument we can go along with AGW conjecture, but here’s 20 major really harmful things it does. If someone knows of a PPT like that, pls let me know.
I do not think we need more books about why AGW is wrong, I think I now have about 100 on the shelves. I think we need one which says “AGW is real, but here’s how the polices are killing people and damaging the environment”
Sad but right…
As soon as you say, AGW is real, but…, Bob, you’ve conceded the argument.
I’ve found that people are ready to believe that, as regards CO2 and AGW, no one knows what they’re talking about.
Not the IPCC, not Jim Hansen, not Gavin Schmidt, not Michael Mann.
No one.
Changing my mind about anything is like turning around an aircraft carrier, and I’m a lot more flexible than most people, and a lot more wary of bad argument. Unfortunately, somebody’s position on the severity of climate change is now linked with personal morality. The climate catastrophe people believe that they are good and that deniers (to use the current term) are wicked, or else really, really stupid.
I think that the Theory of Evolution is bunk. I have never come close to being able to change anyone’s mind on that one, and the reason is that to disbelieve in Evolution is thought to be a sign of either outright stupidity or religious fanaticism. People just won’t hear the arguments against Evolution. (They think, for example, that the obverse of believing Darwin is to believe Genesis. You have to tell them that no, you don’t think the Old Testament is a history.)
A man who can change his mind once he’s made it up is a very rare being. A mean who can convince him to change his mind (without a shotgun) is even rarer.
Well stated.
I would point out one major difference. Believing in the theory of evolution doesn’t cost them anything. Believing in AGW is getting ready to cost them both money, inconvenience and a reduced standard of living. Personal suffering changes minds a lot faster than a theory in which believing costs nothing.
Given that the video is intended to change minds, the ocean acidification section which starts at 34min, will totally fail in this objective and in my opinion, fatally jeopardize the effectiveness of other parts of the presentation.
Statements such as ‘there is no such thing as ocean acidification from carbon dioxide’ and ‘The notion of ocean acidification is made up and makes no sense to ocean scientists’ are simply untrue and need drastic qualification and justification.
See https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification ‘Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world’s oceans.’
This is the mainstream view from NOAA andis held rightly or wrongly by a majority of ocean scientists (check the hundreds of publications on this topic!) and to dismiss it without further ado with a couple of sentences is a huge strategic mistake and will invite derision.
In other respects, the video is an excellent rebuttal to alarmists.
miha– The NOAA link is simplistic, but their pH link better explains it. There are still many alive that remember how difficult pH was to precisely measure and it suffers from even worse historical interpretations than temperature. pH was historically measured mostly during the daytime when it was higher and the most productive places tend to have lower pH. The semantics of the chemistry have been discussed here many times. There are a number of reviews on the subject, this one more recent–Esbaugh, A.J. 2018. Physiological implications of ocean acidification for marine fish: emerging patterns and new insights. Journal of Comparative Physiology. B. 188:1–13.
Read these, give an idea of the complications, it is still a big ocean. Number of papers published does not necessarily prove much beyond popularity and funding, pushed by quantitative journal impact factors.
Ries, J. B., A. L. Cohen, and D. C. McCorkle. 2009. Marine calcifers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification. Geology. 37(12):1131-1134.
Borges, A. V. and N. Gypens. 2010. Carbonate chemistry in the coastal zone responds more strongly to eutrophication than to ocean acidification. Limnology and Oceanography. 55(1):346-353.
I watched the whole You Tube linked above and left a few comments there.
“Deep state cut-outs such as Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Mike Bloomberg, Hans Rosling, Steven Pinker, Tyler Cowen, Richard Branson, Jeff Skoll, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other prominent “thinkers” are idiots.”
There you go David Siegel, I’ve fixed it for you! 😉
But I enjoy being smug and sarcastic. Believed the AGW rubbish in the 80’s but it does not stand up to any proper examination of the reality. Don’t see how you change the mind of anyone without A level physics. Much harder to convince people they’ve been fooled than to fool them in the first place. Polar bear numbers are a good way to start the red pilling.
$Money is the only sure way to get large numbers of people interesred in a subject who would otherwise just go about their normal lives.
Show them how much they will each have to pay “out of pocket” for some claimed benefit. Then clobber the veracity of the “benefit” with the facts…but only after you’ve gotten their attention by talking about the $money.
A recent polls indicated that individuals would be willing to spend an extra $10 a month “for the climate”…but unless we “Decarbonize” with Nuclear Energy, the extra cost is going to be closer to $400 a month forever (if you extrapolate out the current costs in Germany TO the final costs to reach their CO2 Emissions Goals… including increased costs for electricity, heating, industrial heat, and transportation).
David, regarding your interest in temperature records of the highest quality stations assessed by the surface stations project. I did an anlysis of temperatures from the 23 CRN#1 stations in the US, comparing unadjusted and adjusted GHCN data files.
The analysis shows the effect of GHCN adjustments on each of the 23 stations in the sample. The average station was warmed by +0.58 C/Century, from +.18 to +.76, comparing adjusted to unadjusted records. 19 station records were warmed, 6 of them by more than +1 C/century. 4 stations were cooled, most of the total cooling coming at one station, Tallahassee. So for this set of stations, the chance of adjustments producing warming is 19/23 or 83%.
Summary report with links to spreadsheets is here:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/
Well David, you must start at the beginning. Why did Margert Thatcher ring the “Co2 is Bad Bell”?
Why did “Co2 Causes Global Warming” change to just “Global Warming”?
Why did “Global Warming” change to “Co2 causes Climate Change” then to just “Climate Change”?
Why does the “Investment Banks” want a “Carbon trading market”?
Why does the UN want a “International Carbon Tax”?
Why do governments around the world want to pick “Winners and Loser” with the power of the “Purse”?
Why since the end of the last “Ice Age” we have had warmer periods of time than we are experiencing now?
Almost all the answers I get from people who want “Co2 Regulations” is “I don’t know”.
Winning hearts and minds with mostly the scientific facts is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. My opinion of course. The video is instructive but what classroom will it be played in? Screeching the end of the world has usually proven to be effective at least for awhile. Sometimes long enough to cause great calamities.
The climate fight requires slugging it out it while grasping their belt. The telling blows will come from exposing the lies, manipulation, and money grubbing. In this very political fight some provide the scientific ammunition, others use it.