Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

What do you know about the science of cancer treatment, finn?

A vaster majority of climate change deniers know even less.

Trust in the method of science doesn't require faith. That's not how it works.

Climate change denial is the new religion of the right. They accept everything their told as faith and attack those you disagree with their religion as blasphemers. It's never been science, it's a con they are victim of.

Climate change denial is a religion, rather. With less and less believers.

It is really petty to attack either side of the climate debate as "religion" and thus fake. It's an insult to religion that propagates pro-secular bias.

The reality is that everyone, including experts and climate scientists are in a state of partial knowledge of climate mechanics and how the future will play out.

Nevertheless, there are things that are known facts, which both 'deniers' and 'true believers' in climate change could agree upon in order to have common ground.

- The relationship between infrared and CO2 is one. Everyone should simply understand how that works.

-Another is the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and living organisms. Everyone should understand that CO2 gas only condenses by absorbing into organic matter.

- The relationship between energy and carbon in fossil fuels. It is basic chemistry to see how molecules of fossil fuels are made up of long chains of carbon and hydrogen. People must understand that fossil fuels are not just energy stored in carbon, but they are very dense and they take a long time to sediment and process into the fossil fuels whose energy density we take for granted in our industrial economic applications of energy.

- The fact that there are other greenhouse gases besides CO2, including methane AND WATER VAPOR. People need to understand that ALL energy results in higher levels of H2O in the atmosphere, and that clouds/fog/mist etc. blanket/reflect infrared heat coming off the ground at night when clear skies would otherwise allow more cooling.

-Developed/paved land doesn't absorb carbon. It can't because the ground is dead sand without roots growing in it. Every shopping center, office complex, unshaded road/highway, house, school, etc. all behave like little mini-deserts devoid of CO2-absorbing trees. These dead spaces of sand/stone absorb sunlight and give off dry heat, which adds heat to the air just like all other waste heat from power plants that increases atmospheric H2O levels. Even cleared fields filled with solar panels generate dry heat the same as an unshaded parking lot if they are not built above tree canopies. To understand climate, you have to understand the relationship between the land and sunlight, and how carbon cycles between the ground and the air.

Certainly.

A startling discovery by a graduate student has uncovered what looks like a fraud remarkably parallel to the infamous “Hockey stick” graph of Michael Mann that purported to show global temperatures skyrocketing when atmospheric CO2 rose, but only did so because “hide the decline” was the operating principle in selecting data.

While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.

Mysteriously, the chart [the one above]only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.

So Wallace did what any scientist interested in the truth would do:

When Wallace emailed his query to Feely and Sabine, however, he found them less than helpful.

Sabine replied that it was inappropriate for Wallace to impugn the “motives or quality of our science” and warned that if he continued in this manner “you will not last long in your career.” Having provided Wallace with a few links – all of which turned out to be useless – he concluded his email by saying “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”

Note that it is a basic methodology of science that data leading to conclusions should be shared, to allow others to analyze it. The use of threats to the career of a person asking questions is a tell.

While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.

Mysteriously, the chart only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.

So Wallace did what any scientist interested in the truth would do:

When Wallace emailed his query to Feely and Sabine, however, he found them less than helpful.

Sabine replied that it was inappropriate for Wallace to impugn the “motives or quality of our science” and warned that if he continued in this manner “you will not last long in your career.” Having provided Wallace with a few links – all of which turned out to be useless – he concluded his email by saying “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”

Note that it is a basic methodology of science that data leading to conclusions should be shared, to allow others to analyze it. The use of threats to the career of a person asking questions is a tell.

Wallace turned to FOIA.

In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:

“…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.”

“…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th Century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I’m hoping to find).”

Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”

In his last e-mail exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the e-mail string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no document found” response.

It looks to me as though some posterior-covering was underway:

Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”

“In whose professional world,” Wallace asks, “is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also to not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”
__________________________________________________________________________________________

So yeah, this shows how your beliefs are basically religious in nature since you don't look deep enough to find out whether they are true or not.

So you are Thomas Lifson and wrote that above in 2014 on American Thinker.

Oh I'm sorry. Here is the link to the content of my post:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/evidence_discovered_that_ocean_acidification_scare_may_be_as_fraudulent_as_global_warming.html#ixzz629cLTGZC

So according to you, the effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms and their habitats can be neglected?
Did the researchers from the various marine science disciplines fake the data as well?

Oh, well then bring on the data that includes the measurements from 1900 instead of from 1988 that show the great spike in acidification.

This is an interesting story, and it certainly wouldn't be surprising to find out that some 'scientists' took liberties in falsifying research for various reasons, either because they were desperate to convince the public to act, or because they thought it would benefit them professionally, or because they wanted to plant examples of bad research as ammunition for subverting climate science more broadly.

Whatever the case, it reminds me of something similar I read about a looser statistical threshold being used to correlate secondhand smoke with disease during the time period when smoking was under attack.

If true, it leaves me conflicted, because on the one hand I am against deception and data/analysis-manipulation; but on the other hand it is good that smoking is now prohibited in most places, and it would be a terrible tragedy to reverse anti-smoking laws and start having smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants again.

So while it's wrong to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, sometimes it does result in progress that you wouldn't want to reverse just because the progress was instigated by researchers who weren't perfect saints.

Ultimately we also should keep in mind that no scientific method is perfect, and statistical methods are all ways of manipulating data to paint a certain picture, which can be interpreted in various ways depending on the interests doing the research and publishing/disseminating results/conclusions.

We shouldn't pretend like there is any such thing as perfect research, but we also shouldn't doubt real facts just because nothing is perfect.

Actually I have looked into this red herring — almost five years ago.


what wallace did wrong

Looks like you're the faith-based one, consulting the holy sites of your climate denial religion and trying foist their propaganda off as "independent scientific research". Pitiful.

Well if that's the material you're putting your faith in, point me to the graph that shows the decrease (acidification) in ocean pH levels between 1900 to 2014, and not between 1988 and 2014.

Empirical data withheld by key scientists shows that since 1910 ocean pH levels have not decreased in our oceans as carbon dioxide levels increased. Overall the trend is messy but more up than down, becoming less acidic. So much for those terrifying oceans of acid that were coming our way.

What happened to those graphs?

Scientists have had pH meters and measurements of the oceans for one hundred years. But experts decided that computer simulations in 2014 were better at measuring the pH in 1910 than the pH meters were. The red line (below) is the models recreation of ocean pH. The blue stars are the data points — the empirical evidence.

Graph is found here: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/oceans-not-acidifying-scientists-hid-80-years-of-ph-data/

Any reason why we should believe what’s written on this site?

It is interesting that the first pH meter was constructed in 1934 by Arnold Beckman, the first handheld pH meter was launched in 1948, and only in the 1970's the first single-probe portable conductivity meter was developed.

However,


Even today, marine meteorological instruments are just and only a barometer, a barograph, a psychrometer, and suitable apparatus for measuring sea temperature on the WMO Voluntary Observing Ships (VOS).
(Exactly the same, when our boat was for a short period an "auxiliary weather ship" in 1970, because the actual ship wasn't back on position from repairs.)

Yes but aliens from outaspace have had pH meters for millenaries and they told Glenn that the oceans are in fact alkalanizing... :-)

I'd already guessed that he only poses that question to get knowledge, who else has such contacts besides him.

What's remarkable here is once again the gullibility of these folks, how easily they get fooled by any stinking con job of a website. They care not for the source's credibility or even identity; they see not the obvious clues (the web design that screems "artisanal from the 1990's", no peer review, no academic source...). They just swallow that crap as soon as they see it -- no filter, no hesitation necessary -- because it tells them what they desperately want to hear.

Hmm. What is also interesting is that, according to the NOAA:

"During the period from 1910 thru 1988 the most common method for measuring pH was the potentiometric method using hydrogen ion sensitive glass electrodes coupled with a reference electrode (Dickson, 1993a)."

Let's talk about the pH level of the ocean, and see what kind of acid bullshit you've been swallowing. What's the pH of the ocean today?