Features

Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism

A paper review suggests many studies are flawed, and the effect may not be negative even if it’s real

30 April 2016

9:00 AM

30 April 2016

9:00 AM

There was a breathtakingly beautiful BBC series on the Great Barrier Reef recently which my son pronounced himself almost too depressed to watch. ‘What’s the point?’ said Boy. ‘By the time I get to Australia to see it the whole bloody lot will have dissolved.’

The menace Boy was describing is ‘ocean acidification’. It’s no wonder he should find it worrying, for it has been assiduously promoted by environmentalists for more than a decade now as ‘global warming’s evil twin’. Last year, no fewer than 600 academic papers were published on the subject, so it must be serious, right?

First referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, it has since been endorsed by scientists from numerous learned institutions including the Royal Society, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the IPCC. Even the great David Attenborough — presenter of the Great Barrier Reef series — has vouched for its authenticity: ‘If the temperature rises up by two degrees and the acidity by a measurable amount, lots of species of coral will die out. Quite what happens then is anybody’s guess. But it won’t be good.’

No indeed. Ocean acidification is the terrifying threat whereby all that man-made CO2 we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere may react with the sea to form a sort of giant acid bath. First it will kill off all the calcified marine life, such as shellfish, corals and plankton. Then it will destroy all the species that depend on it — causing an almighty mass extinction which will wipe out the fishing industry and turn our oceans into a barren zone of death.

Or so runs the scaremongering theory. The reality may be rather more prosaic. Ocean acidification — the evidence increasingly suggests — is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.

Some of us have suspected this for some time. According to Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, long one of ocean acidification theory’s fiercest critics, the term is ‘just short of propaganda’. The pH of the world’s oceans ranges between 7.5 and 8.3 — well above the acid zone (which starts below ‘neutral’ pH7) — so more correctly it should be stated that the seas are becoming slightly less alkaline. ‘Acid’ was chosen, Moore believes, because it has ‘strong negative connotations for most people’.

Matt Ridley, too, has been scathing on the topic. In The Rational Optimist he wrote, ‘Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm.’ I agree. That’s why I like to call it the alarmists’ Siegfried Line — their last redoubt should it prove, as looks increasingly to be the case, that the man-made global warming theory is a busted flush.


To the alarmist camp, of course, this is yet further evidence that ‘deniers’ are heartless, anti-scientific conspiracy theorists who don’t read peer-reviewed papers and couldn’t give a toss if the world’s marine life is dissolved in a pool of acid due to man’s selfishness and greed. Unfortunately for the doom-mongers, we sceptics have just received some heavy fire-support from a neutral authority.

Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.

Ocean acidification theory appears to have been fatally flawed almost from the start. In 2004, two NOAA scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine, produced a chart showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels. But then, just over a year ago, Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with 30 years’ experience, noticed while researching his PhD that they had omitted some key information. Their chart only started in 1988 but, as Wallace knew, there were records dating back to at least 100 years before. So why had they ignored the real-world evidence in favour of computer-modelled projections?

When Wallace plotted a chart of his own, incorporating all the available data, covering the period from 1910 to the present, his results were surprising: there has been no reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last -century.

Even if the oceans were ‘acidifying’, though, it wouldn’t be a disaster for a number of reasons — as recently outlined in a paper by Patrick Moore for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. First, marine species that calcify have survived through millions of years when CO2 was at much higher levels; second, they are more than capable of adapting — even in the short term — to environmental change; third, seawater has a large buffering capacity which prevents dramatic shifts in pH; fourth, if oceans do become warmer due to ‘climate change’, the effect will be for them to ‘outgas’ CO2, not absorb more of it.

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, Moore quotes a killer analysis conducted by Craig Idso of all the studies which have been done on the effects of reduced pH levels on marine life. The impact on calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units (beyond what is considered a plausible reduction this century) is beneficial, not damaging. Marine life has nothing whatsoever to fear from ocean acidification.

Given all this, you might well ask why our learned institutions, government departments and media outlets have put so much effort into pretending otherwise. Why, between 2009 and 2014, did Defra spend a whopping £12.5 million on an ocean acidification research programme when the issue could have been resolved, for next to nothing, after a few hours’ basic research?

To those of us who have been studying the global warming scare in some detail, the answer is depressingly obvious. It’s because in the last decade or so, the climate change industry has become so vast and all encompassing, employing so many people, it simply cannot be allowed to fail.

According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, it’s now worth an astonishing $1.5 trillion — about the same as the online shopping industry. If the scare goes away, then all bets are off, because the entire global decarbonisation business relies on it. The wind parks, the carbon sequestration projects, the solar farms, the biomass plantations — none of these green schemes make any kind of commercial sense unless you buy into the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet and that radical green measures, enforced by governmental regulation, must be adopted to avert it.

It’s no coincidence that the ocean acidification narrative began in the early 2000s — just as it was beginning to dawn on the climate alarmists that global temperatures weren’t going to plan. While CO2 levels were continuing to rise, temperatures weren’t. Hence the need for a fallback position — an environmental theory which would justify the massively expensive and disruptive ongoing decarbonisation programme so assiduously championed by politicians, scientists, green campaigners and anyone making money out of the renewables business. Ocean acidification fitted the bill perfectly.

Does this prove that global warming is not a problem? No it doesn’t. What it does do is lend credence to something we much-maligned sceptics have long been saying: that in many environmental fields, the science is being abused and distorted to promote a political and financial agenda. Perhaps it’s about time our supposed ‘conspiracy theories’ were taken more seriously.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • C D Xbow

    Are you for real? The great barrier reef has been terribly affected, and you believe it’s all just a conspiracy.

    • Geoff Beitzel

      Yes, high temperatures and bleaching have been the main contributors, but ocean acidification is a problem. It doesn’t mean it becomes an acid, it means the pH is lowered. And that is not a linear scale either, if one remembers basic science. A small drop in pH means a big rise in acidity. Any organism with a calcium carbonate structure won’t be too happy! And this article was listed under “Science”…

      • Roland

        If the oceans pH drops it is not becoming more acidic, it is becoming more neutral. It needs to get below 7 pH to become acidic. This play with words is just another propaganda scare campaign. .

        • CB

          “If the oceans pH drops it is not becoming more acidic”

          Strike that. Reverse it.

          A dropping pH is the definition of acidification.

          If you don’t know the first thing about a subject, why in the world would you have such a strong opinion on it?

          “In 1895, Arrhenius… described an energy budget model that considered the radiative effects of carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) and water vapor on the surface temperature of the Earth”

          earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius

          • Roland Riese

            Ups, 4 years of study down the drain; how did I manage not
            to understand this pH thing? All this playing around with my fish tank to get the pH of 7.0 to get it to neutral was wrong? I was not making it more neutral, I was making it more acetic; but we call it neutral to not scare the fish! And all the tropical fish books using the wrong terms?

          • CB

            “how did I manage not to understand this pH thing?”

            I think you do understand it!

            I think Climate Deniers know very well the things they say are untrue, and know very well that their lies are likely to endanger their well-being.

            Climate Denialism is a suicidal mental disorder.

            How could you possibly be too stupid to understand facts so plain?

            “When carbon dioxide dissolves in this ocean, carbonic acid is formed. This leads to higher acidity, mainly near the surface, which has been proven to inhibit shell growth in marine animals and is suspected as a cause of reproductive disorders in some fish.”

            ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification

      • If you don’t understand it, it can’t be science?
        Or, can it be science comments, a science article you didn’t understand, or like?

        Who’s problem is that?

      • therealviffer

        Are you deliberately trying to deceive, or are you just lacking in comprehension of written words?

        Acidity and alkalinity are two different states. A slight reduction in alkalinity, but remaining alkaline, can’t mean the state has acquired acidic properties, because it isn’t acidic. Is that too difficult for you?

    • grimm

      Did you read Howard Browman’s article in ICES Journal of Marine Science or Patrick Moore’s for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy? What about the Craid Idso study referred to by Moore – did you take the trouble to read that?

      Perhaps you just decided to restrict yourself to Delingpoles piece because, as a non-scientist, he is easier to dismiss.

      Then there is the question of 100 years of data being ignored by researchers.

    • Why are the only choices you provide that scientists are either right, or in a conspiracy? Why isn’t the option given for scientists simply being wrong ? Does turning issues into black & white make it easier for lefties to comprehend?

      Coral bleaching is a regular event. http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/zz278/CarbonFooledYa/CectKVUXIAACxly_zpsharonppd.jpg You been fooled if you think it’s anything other than natural. Are young left-wing people easier to fool? How many years does it take to become less gullible & trusting of authority?

      • Zanderz

        Just to add that ‘coral bleaching’ is a stupid name and has nothing to do with the removal of colour by an acid (as in clothes bleaching). It’s simply algae not living on the coral anymore as a result of temporary higher surface sea temps.

    • How do you know the Great Barrier Reef has been affected? Because that’s what you’ve been told?

      Perhaps “conspiracy”, with its connotations of clandestine meetings to agree a nefarious agenda, is the wrong word. Would you be happier with “institutional bias”?

    • putin

      Looked fine to me the last time I swam on it.

    • Zanderz

      Terribly affected by what? The sea is not acid, it’s mildly alkaline. Coral isn’t dissolving because of warm alkali seas, if anything this would increase the deposition of minerals.

    • Are humans responsible for El Niño, which is warming the areas waters??

  • mikehaseler

    When future generations look back on this scam our generation will look pretty pathetic. First we ignored the obvious evidence from the satellites showing no warming and instead allowed policy to be dictated by those like NASA who employed an eco-activist to produce sorry I mean create their global warming data (NASA make a huge amount of money from eco-monitoring projects – they need global warming). Second, we ignored growing Antarctic ice, the greening of the planet and the simple fact that CO2 has been much higher in the past, and instead allowed those people with their snouts in the trough to plot a course to literally destroy modern civilisation.

    We have allowed ourselves to be controlled by people like the BBC who can take all that is good in life: industry, commerce and all the benefits from communication technology, educations, health care … all the benefits of a modern fossil fuel powered economy the like of which would be the envy of EVERY SINGLE PREVIOUS GENERATION and even KINGS and EMPERORS would envy us today … and those like the BBC have been allowed to portray all that is good in the modern would as evil using the proxy of CO2.

    They have literally turned morality, science and even economics on its head. And we as a generation allowed them to do this. We’re going to look pathetic in the eyes of history.

    • Roland

      Very well put in words what I feel.

      • CB

        “Very well put in words what I feel.”

        Why don’t you try a little less feeling and a little more thinking…

        James Delingpole is well-known for lying about the dangerous nature of fossil fuels.

        …so why in the world would you believe a single word he says about fossil fuel?

        If you were a true skeptic, why aren’t you the least bit skeptical of what you read?

        “James Delingpole is one of several climate change skeptics cc’d on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change… Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.”

        http://www.desmogblog.com/james-delingpole

    • Richard Lemmer

      “evidence from the satellites showing no warming”

      Except for the clear empirical evidence of CO2 warming the atmosphere from…satellites:

      https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
      http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/jli/pdf/puckrin2004.pdf

      Empirical evidence of reduced outgoing radiation and increase downward radiation. Unless basic physics or modern spectroscopy is wrong, CO2 is the cause of the atmosphere retaining greater amounts of heat.

      This tallies with the huge number of temperature records, including records using natural proxies, and the clear loss of ice across all of the planet’s ice sheets and glaciers, from Canada to the Himalayas to Greenland – ice loss that swamps the gains in the Antarctic.

      This would be why every major science institution in the world – regardless of their home country’s political system or government – supports AGW.

      • mikehaseler

        if you knew anything, you’ll know that 90% of El Ninos are followed by La Nina, so the temporary warming we had will now disappear from the temperature record.

        So, for all practical purposes, the global temperature as shown by the satellites shows no warming for 18 years. (or is it 19?)

        This is in extreme contrast to the bizarre climate models that predicted up to 1C warming during that period. Instead the best anyone is talking about even including El Ninos is closer to 0.01C/decade.

        So, please stop posting rubbish. The current temperature according to the only credible and corroborated dataset shows no significant warming for 18 years.

        • bufo75

          You won’t stop Lemmer posting rubbish, it’s what he does !

          • mikehaseler

            Thanks – now the research shows CO2 is good for the environment and now we are coming down the El Nino slope – I really hope mother nature is going to shut up his kind of stupidity this year.

          • bufo75

            Indeed, Lemmer spends his whole time trolling James’s “climate blogs”.
            Why ? That $1.5 trillion might be a clue.
            Dirty work, but someone’s got to do it !

          • Richard Lemmer

            http://temp.webcdn.blackdesertonline.com/forum/service_live/monthly_02_2016/conspiracy-640_s640x427.jpg.880c2fbe8ae7d249ca21f7afa4d3e862.jpg

            I’ve linked to my own personal social media accounts before to show I’m not employed by BigEvilGreenLobby Ltd.

            Much better to spend my time pointing out James’s BS than spend my time lapping it up free of charge 🙂

          • mikehaseler

            You forgot to add: Splitters!

          • For some it is also a religion ..
            Good luck with that!

          • mikehaseler

            It’s the advantage of being an academic – you can sit around at public expense all day on blocks, attacking & trying to destroy the very society that pays your wage.

          • CB

            “It’s the advantage of being an academic – you can sit around at public expense all day on blocks, attacking & trying to destroy the very society that pays your wage.”

            Why Mr. Haseler, that sounds as if you’re talking quite specifically about yourself!

            Hmmmm…

            It has been known for literally centuries that CO₂ will acidify water… in fact, CO₂ used to be called “carbonic acid”.

            …so why in the world would Mr. Delingpole think this science is “wobbly”? If he were a paid liar, why in the world would anyone pay someone so clearly mentally unstable?

            “In 1895, Arrhenius… described an energy budget model that considered the radiative effects of carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) and water vapor on the surface temperature of the Earth”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius

          • mikehaseler

            First CO2 was much higher around the carboniferous at 6000ppm and reefs still built.
            Second acidification requires ending up with some acid, In contrast Sea water is alkaline so the correct term is neutralising or “reducing the alkalinity.
            Third, because CO2 is absorbed by photosynthesis and builds up at night the amount of change during the daily cycle is greater than the small change due to atmospheric CO2.

            In short, the whole fruitcake idea about CO2 acidification is bananas.

          • CB

            “First CO2 was much higher around the carboniferous at 6000ppm and reefs still built.”

            For part of it, that’s true!

            Are the reefs we have today adapted to those conditions?

            “Over 90% of Great Barrier Reef suffering from coral bleaching”

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/asia/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching

          • mikehaseler

            Coral bleaching on the GBR – no evidence of net decline

            “From Andrew Bolt at Australia’s Herald Sun below, some sharp evidence
            in a new paper that the “coral bleaching” scare of the Great Barrier
            Reef is unfounded and mostly made up.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/coral-bleaching-on-the-gbr-no-evidence-of-net-decline/

          • CB

            “Coral bleaching on the GBR – no evidence of net decline”

            …that you are willing to acknowledge.

            The answer to my question is no.

            No, reefs are not adapted to the conditions that were present on the planet hundreds of millions of years ago.

            Now why are you linking to the industry causing the decline in the Earth’s reefs?

            Do you think that’s likely to be persuasive to anyone who isn’t profoundly mentally ill? Do you have any actual science to back up your insane claim, or is wattsup the very best you can do?

            “Anthony Watts was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland’s ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.”

            http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

          • mikehaseler

            The very small “decline” is almost certainly due to fishing.

            And there’s plenty of evidence CO2 is beneficial for life on earth and that we currently live in a “CO2 desert”.

            And you don’t impress anyone by quoting DeSmug blog which is pure propaganda with no science.

          • CB

            “The very small “decline” is almost certainly due to fishing.”

            According to you.

            Guess what your word is worth?

            “The problem is human activities assault reefs on many different levels,” says Dustan. In Florida people drain their septic tanks directly into the ocean. The additional nitrates in the human waste cause algae to grow on top of the coral structures and deprive the coral polyps of sunlight. In the Indian Ocean around Sri Lanka, fishermen often use dynamite to catch fish and in the process end up blowing the reefs to bits. Around the islands of the Philippines and Japan, over fishing of natural predators has allowed the Crown of Thorns starfish to run rampant and devastate the coral in the area (Miller and Crosby 1998). The world over, global warming, which many believe to be caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, is warming the top layers of the seas in the tropics and causing the coral to turn white and lose their polyps—a condition known as “bleaching” “

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Coral

          • mikehaseler

            NASA – you mean the ones who employed a 6x arrested eco-activist to compile the world temperature record and who obtained huge amounts of money to put satellites into space to measure global temperature and then – when they failed to show the warming their 6x arrested eco-activist was claiming blamed the satellites rather than their 6x arrested eco-activist?

          • CB

            “NASA”

            Close!

            Same first letter.

            The correct answer is nothing.

            Your word out here is worthless, Mike Haseler, and given your reputation, if you are saying something, chances are greater that it’s false than true!

            …now why do you bother?

            Are you trying to humiliate yourself?

            Is that your actual goal?

            “Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units.”

            http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

          • mikehaseler

            Correction – even if the figure is right (and usually they are just propaganda non-science ignoring the buffering of sea water and normal daily PH changes) the worst that can be said is that it has moved from “nasty” caustic Alkaline toward “nice” neutral by 0.1ph

          • CB

            “Correction”

            No, I didn’t ask for you to say random words.

            I asked you to explain yourself.

            Why bother posting anything at all if you’re just going to make yourself look like a joke?

            Persuading anyone is not going to be possible when you have such a well-cemented reputation for dishonesty.

            …so why do you bother?

            Is humiliation your actual goal?

            “Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.”

            ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification

        • Richard Lemmer

          Sorry, but that doesn’t refute the studies of CO2’s properties.

          As for the ‘temporary warming will disappear’ – the last large El Nino in 1997/1998 was followed by La Nina’s, but each year of the 2000s was warmer than every year of the 1990s, bar the 1997/1998 El Nino event. As each year of the 1990s was warmer than the 1980s.

          So whilst the extreme spike in short term noise was not maintained, the long term trend showed that the temperature did not fall to the levels seen across the majority of the 1990s.

          This is clearly shown even by studies run by skeptics, like the UAH record.

          The UAH record is also an outlier compared with pretty much every other temperature record – so it’s corroborated by only a few other studies. It’s credibility has been called into question given the fact that it uses a rather abstract modeling method to measure temperature and the fact that it has had to make big corrections in the past – corrections that made it more aligned with the majority of temperature records it supposedly refutes.

          Regardless, the UAH record doesn’t account for rising ocean temperatures, another clear indication of a warming planet.

          • mikehaseler

            CO2 is a minor trace gas with a radiation impact of between 0.5 to 1.2C depending with paper you read. The impact of that warming is smaller than the natural variation that is clearly present. E.g. the 1690-1730 warming seen in CET was 2C.

            So, it is doubtful even 300 years ahead, that those alive there will be able to discern what change if any is attributable to CO2.

            However, the computer models are not built on the CO2 effect, instead, they come to the same response irrespective of the value of CO2 warming that you put in. Because they are built to model an imagery “mann-made” 20th century warming + some imaginary extra feedbacks dreamt up in someone’s wet dream.

            So, the climate models have nothing to do with CO2 – when you analyse the detail, they are nothing different than taking the post global cooling trend till the end of warming in 1998 – and drawing a very biased WARMING line into the far distant future IRRESPECTIVE OF THE value of CO2 WARMING.

            CO2 warming is just an excuse. It is not what governs the climate models, instead the climate models are there to project forward the temporay 1970-1998 warming trend.

            And those stupid models have now been conclusively proven to be rubbish. And likewise, anyone pushing those discredited models is likewise …

          • Richard Lemmer

            So CO2 does cause the planet to retain heat.

            What natural variation is clearly present? Most natural variables would suggest we should experience colder temperatures than the 1980s/19990s, when natural variables were completely different.

            And I’ve not mentioned models.

            As I said, even the UAH record shows that the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s (which were warmer than the 1980s), bar one extreme El Nino year that was deemed to be a once-in-a-century occurrence…except we are having a similar event just 18 years later. That last El Nino’s temperatures have been beaten by 2014 and 2015 according to most other temperature records.

            CET has little bearing on global temperatures – and over 15 different studies using a huge variety of sources have shown that we are experiencing a warmer climate than any other point in over 2,000 years.

            Not that that is particularly important – it may have been warmer in the past without that having any bearing on why we are experiencing increasing temperatures now – the basic causes between the two events might be completely different. If it was warmer in the past, that doesn’t mean the same cause is in effect if we experience warming now. And comparing the impacts of a warming world in the 21st Century with a global population of 7 billion people with a warming world in the 17th Century with a global population of 0.5 billion people is pointless.

          • mikehaseler

            No it is simply nuts to talk of CO2 causing the planet to retain heat. What it does is with another of other gases and other effects is to set and control the stable greenhouse temperature.

            A CHANGE in heat (increase or reduction), is a result of CHANGE in greenhouse effect.

            CET is well correlated with global temperature and is therefore the best proxy we have so again you are intentionally misrepresenting the truth.

            And it remains a fact that the only credible temperature measurements show no significant warming for 18 years in total contrast to the “95% certainty” of the IPCC who said at least 0.14C/decade warming.

            The models are busted, so please stop trying to pretend otherwise.

          • Richard Lemmer

            http://media.al.com/news_huntsville_impact/photo/john-christy-climate-change-chart-0a201a1637955761.jpg

            Graph from Spencer and Christy, clearly showing that according to balloon and satellite data sets – the sets they rely on so much – that 2005 and 2013 were warmer than 1998…so I’m not sure how ‘credible’ your 18-years-without-warming meme is.

            As for the CET…I suppose all those other studies of the historical global climate are just wrong then? All those spectroscopy measurements are wrong, all the other temperature records – direct and by proxy – are wrong (except, like during the 2000s when global warming ‘paused,’ its useful to say they are correct), all the supporting evidence from changing plant blooming periods and animal migration is wrong, the measurements of global ice sheets are wrong (except, like minor growth in some parts of the Antarctic, when its useful to say they are correct), ocean temperature measurements are wrong…

            Given your original comment’s mentioning – bizarrely – of the BBC and some fabricated moral crusade against the luxuries of modern life, I think your concern is more political, and its blinding you from seeing that the science is fairly robust.

        • Dan Aldridge

          //if you knew anything, you’ll know that 90% of El Ninos are followed by La Nina, so the temporary warming we had will now disappear from the temperature record.//

          Really? Gee, what’s up with this graph then?

          https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/enso-global-temp-anom/201213.png

          Is it just a coinkidink that El Nino’s keep getting stronger?

          • mikehaseler

            Forecast: La Niña to replace El Niño conditions in the fall of 2016 – dry winter for California expected

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/01/forecast-la-nina-to-replace-el-nino-conditions-in-the-fall-of-2016-dry-winter-for-california-expected/

            Synopsis: La Niña is favored to develop during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2016, with about a 75% chance of La Nina during the fall and winter 2016-17.

            http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

          • Dan Aldridge

            Yes… it’s a cycle. Problem: why do El Nino’s keep getting stronger? Why did this recent one just kill half the Great Barrier Reef? Here, let me answer that for you:

            “ENSO without global warming”
            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bqjLCcFeHxI/UYksArpSe-I/AAAAAAAABKI/UiKbMz4jn_4/s1600/flat.png

            “ENSO with global warming”
            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ng6yjblMNso/UYksIWEDsDI/AAAAAAAABKQ/XAV0TpJj7Zk/s1600/rising.png

          • Dan Aldridge

            Sure. It’s a cycle. No surprise there. Problem is, a cycle means, up and down, balancing back out to zero. But that’s not what’s happening. The El Nino’s keep getting warmer, and so, for that matter, do the La Nina’s. Why?

            Well, let me answer that for you:

            “ENSO without global warming”
            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bqjLCcFeHxI/UYksArpSe-I/AAAAAAAABKI/UiKbMz4jn_4/s1600/flat.png

            “ENSO with global warming”
            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ng6yjblMNso/UYksIWEDsDI/AAAAAAAABKQ/XAV0TpJj7Zk/s1600/rising.png

          • Dan Aldridge

            Hmm, I don’t know why my reply keeps disappearing, but anyway…

            Yes, El Nino / La Nina is a cycle. It’s called ENSO. Problem: an oscillating cycle should go up and down and basically balance out to zero. Which is not what we are seeing. El Ninos keep getting stronger. This past one just killed half the Great Barrier Reef.

            Here, let me answer that for ya:

            “ENSO without global warming”
            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bqjLCcFeHxI/UYksArpSe-I/AAAAAAAABKI/UiKbMz4jn_4/s1600/flat.png

            “ENSO with global warming”
            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ng6yjblMNso/UYksIWEDsDI/AAAAAAAABKQ/XAV0TpJj7Zk/s1600/rising.png

          • Dan Aldridge

            I’ve replied to this comment about four times and my responses keep disappearing. Maybe it’s my links, so this time I’ll try it without them. I get that El Nino / La Nina is a cycle… it’s called ENSO. Problem for you: an oscillating cycle goes up and down and basically balances out to zero. That is not what’s happening. Both El Nino and La Nina are getting warmer. This most recent El Nino killed half the Great Barrier Reef. See the chart I linked to above.

          • mikehaseler

            “a is a cycle” and “and basically balances out to zero”

            There we have one of the most important reasons why climate academics continually fail to understand the climate because they cannot think beyond “cycles” and systems which must “balance out to zero”.

            The real world isn’t like that. Natural variation doesn’t “balance out to zero”.

          • Dan Aldridge

            Um, that’s kinda what the word “oscillation” means… but in any case, sorry but energy doesn’t just pop outta nowhere. If there is a mechanism that is causing both La Nina and El Nino to get continuously warmer, you need to explain what that is. You can’t. TSI stopped increasing around the mid-twentieth century and then began to decline right around the time temperatures began climbing steeply. Other factors – such as land use, human-emitted aerosols and the like are mostly negative. The real answer to this “mystery” is obvious, and it’s one you don’t want to admit:

            “ENSO without global warming”
            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bqjLCcFeHxI/UYksArpSe-I/AAAAAAAABKI/UiKbMz4jn_4/s1600/flat.png

            “ENSO with global warming”
            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ng6yjblMNso/UYksIWEDsDI/AAAAAAAABKQ/XAV0TpJj7Zk/s1600/rising.png

            Wasn’t so hard, was it?

          • mikehaseler

            Unfortunately no one has any idea how much of the temperature change we’ve seen is:
            1. Natural
            2. Man-made (and nothing to do with CO2)
            3. caused by rising CO2 (and even how much of that rise is caused by humans).

            So, unfortunately your approach subtracting a made up figure from Enso is meaningless.

            To put it simply there is a half a millennium of stored heat in the ocean ready to cause climate change today and trip up the unwary (or to be used by dishonest). So your whole “where does the heat come from” is missing the megalasaurus in the dunny.

          • Dan Aldridge

            Where on Earth do you get this idea? Skeptical Science has an excellent page on this:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

            If like Roald J Larsen you dismiss SkS out of hand, I’ll send you straight to figure 10.5 of the latest IPCC assessment:

            http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig10-5.jpg

            “Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their midpoints (bars) for warming trends over the 1951–2010 period due to well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHG), anthropogenic forcings (ANT) anthropogenic forcings other than well-mixed greenhouse gases (OA), natural forcings (NAT) and internal variability. The trend in the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set 4 (HadCRUT4) observations is shown in black with its 5 to 95% uncertainty range due only to observational uncertainty in this record.”

            Basically ANT means, ‘human factors other than GHGs’ – which are mostly negative.

            If you want a more detailed breakdown than that, you can look at this:

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS-07.jpg

          • Dan Aldridge

            “oscillation: movement back and forth in a regular rhythm.”

            That pretty much means, “balances out to zero” LOL. But seriously, how do you explain the fact that there’s a net energy increase? Oscillations don’t just cook up energy by themselves like some kind of perpetual motion machine… it has to come from somewhere. TSI from the sun stopped increasing and then began falling around the middle of the twentieth century. The Milankovictch Cycle which skeptics love to point to passed its peak around 2,000 years ago if I remember correctly… and is now (oops, I mean was) on a gradual cooling trend. Other human factors like land-use and aerosol emissions are net negative. So please, do tell, why are both El Nino and La Nina getting warmer?

          • mikehaseler

            Dan, the issue of climate noise is a complex one and many people who ought to know better fail to understand the issues involves in this kind of noise.

            This is a general article about the kinds of issues that arise (and note I’m particularly scathing of some at WUWT who constantly writing articles about this or that “cycle” they’ve discovered).

            http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/12/09/natural-habitats-of-1f-noise-errors/

            This one proposes a potential mechanism to explain the El Nino “cycle”.

            http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/10/31/pdo-and-el-nino-resonant-response-to-natural-variation/

            However, the above will be misleading, because the actual noise is a combination of many different effects so that as a sum the natural variation is better described using a simple 1/f type noise model.

            This I hope explains the lack of return to “zero point” (if not look at uburns.com and you’ll see how this kind of noise behaves).

            http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/12/09/statistics-of-1f-noise-implications-for-climate-forecast/

      • WFC

        You cite articles from 2001, 2004, and 2006.

        Here’s something a bit more up to date: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png

        • Richard Lemmer

          Was that a peer reviewed article in a journal of science or a blog post? The link doesn’t work.

          Regardless, Spencer’s thoughts on energy imbalance has been shown to be shaky at best. Google Andrew Dessler to find out more.

          Spencer has used techniques that – if he were an ‘alarmist scientist’ – would have JD frothing at the mouth calling for his resignation.

          • WFC

            The link works for me.

            And it is an exercise in number crunching – showing the disparity between model projections and actual (satellite and radiosonde) readings. His data are freely available if you want to run the numbers yourself.

            The only serious attempt to critique that graph is by Gavin Schmidt who has said, for some reason, that he thinks it should have started in the middle, not at the beginning.

          • Richard Lemmer

            So it’s a blog post?

            And I’ve never mentioned models.

          • WFC

            Yet two of the articles you cited are about models, comparing them with actual observation, whilst Dessler was attempting to refute Spencer’s critique of the models.

            Since you aren’t interested in blog posts – notwithstanding that you seem happy to discuss the topic on a blog – you won’t be interested in Spencer’s response, or indeed Dessler’s response to Spencer’s response.

            On the off chance that you are, Spencer’s response is here, whilst Dessler links to his response in the comments underneath: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/the-dessler-cloud-feedback-paper-in-science-a-step-backward-for-climate-research/

          • Richard Lemmer

            In short, Spencer’s theory has not conclusively overturned the basic physics supported by the spectroscopy measurements.

            I’m not interested in blog posts that are purporting to be science. Anyone can write a blog and claim it’s the height of astro-physics.

            At the end of the day, AGW presents a theory with a huge amount of corroborated evidence.

            Spencer doesn’t: you need an assortment of far-out scientific and conspiracy theories to believe he is correct.

            All those spectroscopy measurements are wrong, all the other temperature records – direct and by proxy – are wrong (except, like during the 2000s when global warming ‘paused,’ its useful to say they are correct), all the supporting evidence from changing plant blooming period and animal migration is wrong, the measurements of global ice sheets are wrong (except, like minor growth in some parts of the Antarctic, when its useful to say they are correct), ocean temperature measurements are wrong…

            Also, it’s not clear what Spencer thinks in terms of which year was the warmest:

            http://media.al.com/news_huntsville_impact/photo/john-christy-climate-change-chart-0a201a1637955761.jpg

            http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Christy-V6-vs-v5_6-LT-1979-Mar2015.gif

            The balloon and satellite data that Spencer & Christy sometimes wheel out suggestw that 2005 or 2013 was the warmest year on record…contradicting their own research and their trend of adjusting the data to cool the results.

          • WFC

            Tsk tsk. Those pesky error bars. It would be so much more straightforward if scientists, like newspapers and blogs like Skeptical Science “Credulous Zealots” were able to ignore them.

            But if you aren’t interested in what Spencer and Dessler have to say on a blog, I wonder why you are interested in what I have to say, or, indeed, why you think that anybody should be interested in what you have to say on a blog.

      • El Niño warming ends

        According to the alarmists, the rise and peak in temperature is evidence for man made global warming. That means, current El Niño is caused by man made CO2.

        I am a good sport, let’s pretend that is right, – according to the data, did we just start emitting CO2 last year? https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0gfbCot_c9w/Vx6GORsGw6I/AAAAAAAAJ1c/Pn69Ly1VuMMYXOkZTebOnN4FOEs6q0oeACLcB/s1600/elnino-feb2016.png

        Whole story;
        http://climateirony.blogspot.no/2016/04/el-nino-warming-ends.html

      • scott_east_anglia

        “Except for the clear empirical evidence of CO2 warming the atmosphere from…satellites:”

        None of those links point to anything that says anything about a measured effect on the climate. They are based on models or rely on a calculation that begs the question that such heating would occur, without checking whether it actually happens.

        In reality there is no empirical evidence anywhere that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate.

    • Marcus

      This

  • JSC

    pH is a base 10 logarithmic scale, which means pH 7 is 10 times more alkaline than pH 6 and pH 8 is 10 times more alkaline than pH 7, or 100 times more alkaline than pH 6. So for the oceans to go from pH 8 to pH 6 it would require 100 times more acidity (hydrogen ions) than they currently have.

    This by itself is not a trivial amount and it doesn’t take into consideration that the oceans are highly buffered with billions of tonnes of carbonates, bicarbonates, phosphates and the like rendering them even more resistant to pH changes.

  • Central power

    Normal pH in biology is 7.4. As pointed elsewhere there is substantial buffering at hand.Various seas have differing pHs. At the moment we know two things for sure: a) we know very little b) no significant detrimental effects on the seas (apart from the effects of industrial pollution, over fishing etc) have been demonstrated. In addition you can not tie specific temperatures to specific events. Average temperature is a meaningless concept similar to say average temperature of 100 people – it tells you nothing about their health. High temperature – more evaporation – more rain. High temperature – more evaporation – more drought.You can explain thus anything you like. As for the overheated UK by far the hottest summer was in 1976 – even before global warming was invented.

  • Frank

    Pity no-one at the BBC understand any of this stuff!

  • Sargon the bone crusher

    SO nothing is happening? That is what this deranged creature Delingpole is suggesting. It beggars belief.

    • scott_east_anglia

      Delingpole is saying that the climate alarmists are wrong, not that nothing is happening.

      Whatever has been happening, there is no empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate.

      Knowing that, the warming industry has deployed smoke and mirrors and propaganda ever since before the Rio summit to cover up that fact.

      • Sargon the bone crusher

        Your post is a lie.
        You have lied either put of ignorance or a perverse and twisted character.
        As for Delingpole, he is just a hack. I would rather refer to great scientists that hacks and their cretinous acolytes like you.
        Piss off – I will not engage with your mindless self any more.

        • scott_east_anglia

          “Piss off – I will not engage with your mindless self any more.”

          You daren’t, because you know that you cannot offer any empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate.

          Of course, you could prove me wrong by producing such real evidence. None of your ‘great scientists’ found any, and there is none in any of the IPCC reports, so you would be the first to do so.

          But remember that correlation is not the same as causation, data on their own say nothing about their causes, and citing the output of computers as real evidence is only a dishonest circular argument, because computers only produce what they are configured to.

          Go for it – there’s a Nobel prize in it for you. Or should I just report you to the mods?

    • Craig King

      Nothing outside of natural variation is happening. If you can point to something supernatural going on please feel free to do so.

  • Bryan Squigley

    “so more correctly it should be stated that the seas are becoming slightly less alkaline.”

    Something acidifying and something becoming less alkaline are literally the same thing. Both are correct labels for the phenomenon.

    “First, marine species that calcify have survived through millions of years when CO2 was at much higher levels”

    Extinction events take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years to recover from. Ocean acidification will not make the seas completely dead, but they can make them far less diverse and much more boring. I for one do not want to see the rich tapestry of marine biodiversity wiped out from the oceans, because we were unable to update our energy sources to cleaner forms. Especially when we have the capabilities and technology to do so as a species. We know through science that there have been mass extinctions events caused in the past that were associated with sudden changes in atmospheric carbon levels and ocean pH levels. You can remain ignorant of scientific consensus and have a selection bias in which research you cite. The rest of us don’t feel like running the grand experiment of “lets see what happens when we tweak the chemistry of our climate and oceans due to human activities”.

    Life on earth will always be able to bounce back, but that takes thousands to millions of years for evolution to do its work. Needless to say this means a human induced mass extinction event will haunt us and at least the next hundred or so generations.

    • Tom M

      “……Something acidifying and something becoming less alkaline are literally the same thing…..”
      No they aren’t. Water reducing from 100°C to 90°C wouldn’t ever be described as increasingly cold.
      Fortunately for sensible people and the acid/alkali argument there is a numerical dividing line given to us. Above seven is alkali below seven is acid. It is always either one or the other. Why anyone would wish to call something acid that is clearly alkali can only be ascribed to some desired presentation spin. Therin lies the rub.

  • Carstairs

    As a corrupt tool of Big Oil ( they say my cheque is in the post ) I should draw attention to the observations of Jørgen Peder Steffensen who is Associate Professor at the University
    of Copenhagen and one of the world’s leading experts on ice cores. He has studied ice cores from sites in Greenland and has been able to reconstruct temperatures there for the last 10000 years.

    In brief his conclusions are……..

    Temperatures in Greenland were
    about 1.5 C warmer 1000 years ago than now: It was perhaps 2.5 C warmer 4000
    years ago: The period around 1875, at the lowest point of the Little Ice
    Age, marked the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.
    ………………….
    He states…..

    “I agree totally we have had a global temperature increase
    in the 20thC – but an increase from what? ..Probably an increase
    from the lowest point in the last 10,000 years.

    We started to observe meteorology at the coldest point in
    the last 10,000 years.”

    • Joel Bhatt

      There is a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the global average temperature, and human activities are producing the majority of the CO2 currently being added to the atmosphere, you can’t deny it.

      • scott_east_anglia

        Correlation is not the same as causation. Data on their own say nothing about their causes, and citing the output of computer models as real evidence is no more than a dishonest circular argument.

        You can’t deny it.

        What you also can’t do is offer any real (empirical) evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate. No-one can or has. Deny that if you will, but only if you can produce such evidence.

        • Joel Bhatt

          Computer models based off of current empirical and theoretical science are useful for comparing with the evidence, and are most certainly not dishonest if used correctly and with caution. There is no evidence to suggest CO2 is not the major factor in climate change when other factors such as volcanoes, continental shifts, etc. are not occurring.

          More to the point, do you not believe CO2 absorbs light and re-emits it at infrared frequencies, or do you not believe human emissions can affect the globe? Are you not aware of the overall consensus in scientific research that human induced emissions are affecting the global temperature, or are you just ignoring it?

          If you were to look at the most global attribution studies you would find that they give the same result; we are the biggest contributors to the changing climate. Here is just one study agreeing with this view: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6.

          Interlinked the temperature is to CO2 concentrations, albeit on a smaller scale (Antarctica focused study) https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/. It is based off of several up to date datasets that suggest temperatures do not rise before CO2 concentrations, my point being that the Antarctica study is evidence to suggest the correlation in the global average is in fact a causation.

          I appreciate your scepticism, but the reality is that the world is roughly 0.8 degC warmer than the 20th century average, and the 9 out of 10 of the hottest years on record were after 2000. All you have to do is look at a plot of the world average against CO2 concentration to see that the correlation is too strong to be just a coincidence, particularly when you factor out all other variables such as solar radiance and ocean heat absorption.

          • scott_east_anglia

            Thanks for the bog-standard alarmist propaganda review. We know all about it, especially since it hasn’t changed for well over a decade, and it has been picked over ad nauseam.

            I pointed out that there is no empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate – unless you could produce it. You haven’t because you can’t, because there isn’t any.

            Instead of evidence you merely re-iterated the same tired old propaganda. In particular, the old fallacy that correlation is the same as causation. And you even tried to pretend that asserting the output from computer models as real evidence is not just a circular argument.

            Believe what you like, but don’t expect to persuade others without solid evidence to back up what is otherwise mere conjecture – and pretty poor conjecture at that..

          • Joel Bhatt

            I just produced empirical and theoretical evidence showing just that. You are ignoring half of what I am saying and nitpicking the rest.

            To assume that CO2 concentrations have no effect on the climate from a graph spanning millions of years, where other vast geological processes such as plate tectonics are in play, is an incorrect and wishful assumption. It is entirely possible that in our time the main driver is in fact the concentration of CO2, and I reiterate that there are plenty of papers out there that are in line with this hypothesis.

            If you think that your view is entirely rational and infallible then you are an arrogant fool, and no amount of empirical evidence will sway you. If I am an alarmist then you are full blown denier, but worse you discourage any meaningful debate by slandering anyone who would suggest you are not the only voice of truth.

          • scott_east_anglia

            “… there are plenty of papers out there that are in line with this hypothesis.”

            The hypothesis was blown over ten years ago when the predicted tropospheric hot spots failed to materialise. Mainstream science dropped the matter, which is why nothing new has emerged from the warming industry – not even refinements to the theory – for over a decade.

            “..no amount of empirical evidence will sway you”

            On the contrary, even a teensy weensy bit of empirical evidence would make all the difference. You need to look up what is meant by empirical evidence. It has nothing to do with computer programs, tortured data, or question-begging.

            It is perfectly rational to require those who would have us change our way of life to back their notions with real evidence. In the case of MMGW due to CO2 that never happened.

            There is no empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate. The scientists were about to say so before the Rio Conference but were swiftly silenced to preserve the political priority of siphoning money from western nations to the poorer members the UN General Assembly.

            That is why Russian and the Asian nations ignored the claptrap, while conning credulous western electorates via their politicians out of other people’s money.

            As for your ill-considered, ill-mannered, unnecessary and derogatory ad homs, I suggest you read them aloud while looking in a mirror.

          • Joel Bhatt

            Oh yeah like you are being well mannered here. We are currently in a time of low volcanic activity and low solar activity, yet both CO2 and global temperatures continue to increase together. No other explanation exists for this phenomenon, and you can hide behind your words all you like but in reality the empirical data from the recent past exists to back up the current theory. I have shown you what you need to see, but you have failed to even look at it, so I am done with you.

      • Craig King

        Well the correlation is that CO2 lags temperature both rising and falling.

      • soysauce1

        Can you just remind us by how many degrees the earth has ‘warmed’ in the last 19 years… Ummh didn’t think so…

      • newminster

        In fact if you look closely at the global average temperature for the 20th century and the CO2 levels for the same period the correlation is not good at all. The graphs only match for about 40% of the time. Don’t be deceived by long-term trend lines, a favourite trick (not just in climate) to disguise a lack of correlation or simply variations
        Broadly speaking, temps increased from about 1910 to 1940 and were more or less static (with a slight decline in some data sets) from 1940 to 1970 and then increased again over the next 30 years before again levelling off. CO2 levels were on a consistently rising trend for all that time.
        On ocean acidification, Delingpole is correct. There is a marginal decrease in alkalinity, too small to have any significant effect on marine life and over the last century even that decrease is virtually zero.

        • Joel Bhatt

          Similarly you should not be deceived by focusing on the short term. Short term changes in other variables do not discredit the observation that the overall trend is a rise in temperatures with a rise in CO2 concentrations. All you have to do is look at a plot of the global average vs CO2 concentration to see the trend. Where did you get the 40% from out of curiosity?

      • Trainspotter

        What is a ‘global average temperature’ [sic]? How is it calculated?

        • fundamentallyflawed

          They stick a thermometer on the tarmac of a runway in the sun all day and take the highest value and say its rising …

          • samton909

            And then adjust upward.

          • mikebartnz

            Recently I saw a photo of a weather station and you wouldn’t believe what was within ten metres of it but an incinerator.

      • mikebartnz

        Quote *and human activities are producing the majority of the CO2 currently being added to the atmosphere, you can’t deny it.*
        That really does show your ignorance.

  • CheshireRed

    ‘Ocean acidification’ was dreamed up to prop up failing predictions of what turned out to be non-existent runaway warming. No actual observed warming was proving disastrous for the credibility of AGW theory, hence more nuanced gremlins were introduced that can’t be so easily refuted. File alongside Peak oil, the methane bomb, collapsing west Antarctica ice sheet and so on.
    In addition NASA / GISS, NOAA and now NSIDC have ALL been caught red-handed adjusting, manipulating and outright cheating actual climate data. If RICO laws are to mean anything and if we’re holding the establishment to account for the Hillsborough disaster cover-up, then If I was a ‘climate scientist’ that’s been cooking the climate data I’d be VERY worried indeed.

  • MrBishi

    I remember James taking a book selling trip to Australia and diving on the Great Barrier reef. He returned to tell us all that the stories about the destruction of the reek were false and that it was in great condition.
    Carbon dioxide dissolves in water to create carbonic acid leading to coral bleaching and disintegration.

    • The_Common_Potato

      At what pH does “bleaching and disintegration” occur? That’s the point of the article.

      • MrBishi

        James makes a living out of diverting attention away from important issues.
        Fact, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to coral bleaching.
        The why, when and how are irrelevant.
        James was wrong a couple of years back – about coral, wind farms and global warming – end of debate.

        • The_Common_Potato

          What? The oceanic pH is all that matters. You imply so yourself. Are you instead saying that if the pH ‘acidified’ from (say) pH 12 to pH 10 corals would be affected in the way you claim?

          • MrBishi

            Ocean Ph levels are around 8 so I’m a bit mystified why you use Ph levels of 12 and 10.
            They appear to have been around 8 for several billion years, so your question was a “trick” or simple ignorance.
            No, I did not “imply” that acidification is the only cause of coral death, it is also linked to warming ocean temperatures, but I hoped to avoid stirring up the halfwits over global warming.

          • The_Common_Potato

            Are you being deliberately obtuse today? The point is that details matter. You said correctly, “Carbon dioxide dissolves in water to create carbonic acid.” The next bit – “coral bleaching and disintegration” – is dependant on the actual pH, not any change in hydrogen ion concentration.

            Delingpole’s article is all about how details do matter.

            Anyway, F1 GP then LFC… tricky decision to make.

          • MrBishi

            So,not a trick question then.
            I began this exchange with the observation, “James makes a living out of diverting attention away from important issues”.
            It is to be expected that his acolytes follow his example.
            BTW, I’m glad to see James recovered from his PE.

        • scott_east_anglia

          “CO2 in the atmosphere leads to coral bleaching. The why, when and how are irrelevant.”

          It just does – so there!

          That reminded me of a politically incorrect joke, not reasoned argument, or the proffering of any empirical evidence.

          • MrBishi

            This is an open blog, feel free to explain the science to the readers.

          • scott_east_anglia

            Ah. The trolls are migrating from the Telegraph now that comments there are closed.

            “feel free to explain the science to the readers.”

            It is not science, but an art – the art of propaganda:

            “Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to
            promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”

            You already know all about it, but here is a description for any reader not familiar with it.

            I hope other posters will follow my lead in not feeding you any further.

          • MrBishi

            Self awareness not one of your strengths?
            I’m on Disqus, not the telegraph blog.
            BTW, coral bleaching is a SCIENCE not an art.

    • polzzlop

      “Carbon dioxide dissolves in water to create carbonic acid
      leading to coral bleaching and disintegration.” ?

      There is liquid CO2 on the ocean bottom. Certain places CO2 bubbles up as the
      fishies happily swim around. Science has the answer;
      “|an increase in CO2 simply lifts all three curves a little higher (Le Chatelier’s principle).
      Note the relative concentrations CO2 : HCO3 : CO3 = 0.02 : 2.05 : 0.12 = 1 : 100 : 6”
      http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm

  • The_Common_Potato

    Correlation and causation: Cheese causes death by bedsheet!

    More money research required.

  • scott_east_anglia

    Frog in the throat? 🙂

    I always liked the ones about – firstly the effect of the length of female hem lines on the climate, and secondly the clear correlation between global warming and rising postal charges.

  • ohforheavensake
    • Grandito

      The Guardian article is utter tosh. If it is accepted that CO2 levels have varied significantly throughout the existence of corals then it becomes almost impossible to argue that levels lower than previous peaks would mean their extinction. The argument proposed against this? Someone published a paper claiming that 250 million years ago 90% of all marine live became extinct and that it was due to high levels of CO2. The rest is not better.

  • redsquirrel

    i got bored 1/2 way through. did he get past

    “i’d like ocean acidification to be made up, so i’m gonna pretend it is made up. ”

    ?

  • walworthianus

    For heaven’s sakes, Delingpole – we know you’ve got school fees to pay, but – really. I normally skip this sort of stuff, but am home ill, so … Do you HONESTLY believe in the world-wide conspiracy of all significant learned and governmental bodies?? As for the sources you quote – 60 minutes on Google shows that Patrick Moore left Greenpeace 30 years ago and took up a career of felling forests and salmon fish farming in BC, and Greenpeace really resent him continuing to flaunt the ancient connection; Howard Bowman seems to know about fish eggs and may indeed be a respectable scientist; Mike Wallace – “a hydrologist of 30 years experience”, but only now doing his PhD, runs a black box “World’s Most Accurate Climate Forecasts (TM)” consultancy claiming astonishingly accurate results, but the methods are proprietary and therefore not open to scrutiny; and as for Craig Idso – what a curious family are the Idsos – appointing each other to grandiloquently titled positions in their little organisation – the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. I am disappointed – I imagined that the climate sceptic world would have much more beef than this. Go back to TV reviews – much more illuminating…

  • I love debunking “experts” using nothing but logic

    “The negative feedbacks, which actually do exists (unlike the imaginary positive feedbacks) like evaporation, convection and cloud formation always increase where the sun shines, where it is getting warmer.

    It is not a coincidence that the desert regions of the world located far from the coast lines are the warmest, – lack of water, water vapor and clouds allows it to be warmer. But even in deserts air is rising when it is being heated (water vapor rises more than 2 times faster than warm air), and air that rises leave areas of low pressure. The stronger, or bigger, low pressure areas are, more air is rising. This leads to colder and more moist air from neighboring areas being sucked in to replace the rising air. Woila, desert storms.

    When whole continents are being warmed, you end up with monsuns, biggest of those systems are the monsuns in India and South America.

    Lack of monsun means the area hasn’t been warmed up enough, like we saw in north Afrika during the cold 70’s, back when the dishonest, “green” activists could tell us CO2 was cooling the planet to the point of a new ice age, – The Ice-Age Scare”!

    For the Middle East to become warmer, geological changes in the earth’s crusts needs to happen first.

    Storms will not grow bigger either, because the earth has a fixed size and storm systems are effectively kept under control due to lack of space.”

    https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/i-love-debunking-experts-using-nothing-but-logic/

    • Dan Aldridge

      LOL using “nothing but logic”. Deductive logic rests on inductive logic, and inductive logic rests on facts.

      And incidentally, the “Ice Age Scare” among anyone but a few confused media sources is a bogus right-wing talking point:

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

      • The consensus in the 70’s, in fact by a lot of the same dishonest, “green”, criminal rent and grant seeker activists that today say we got a man made global warming, was that there was a man made global cooling.

        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

        I noticed you didn’t understand the logic i wrote about.

        • Dan Aldridge

          LOL that’s just a bunch of media articles. Which is the whole point: yes, there was a ~media~ scare about global cooling. But Peterson et al quantifies the actual ~research~. Clearly you didn’t read it… which is no surprise. The confirmation bias force is strong in climate change deniers.

    • maltow

      It’s like their ‘missing heat is hiding out in the oceans’ memes, and their entire ‘energy budget’ tosh too logically. (Bearing in mind that their heat is ‘missing’, so is not then there to effect the outward heat flux of oceans, and in turn cannot then leave more of the heat introduced by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature.
      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/12/hotwhopper-wrong-on-ocean-heat/ )

      Applying no more than logic then: Actual science says that the measure of LW is entirely one of nett cooling for oceans, but they attest that oceans are now warming because they are ‘absorbing’ LW energy at the skin layer which somehow finds its way into the bulk of oceans and warms them. What they fail to recognise is that this is LW nett warming NOT LW nett cooling obviously. In fact this contention is more than that in fact when taken to it’s logical conclusion, since it MUST then mean that oceans are no longer able to cool at all by any means but are now nett warmed by both DSR AND DLR.

      So, the question for them is now, when are we to expect the oceans to boil then? Duh!

  • ThisNameInUse

    More denialist tripe. When you quote serial misleader Matt Ridley, you lose all credibility. And then the discredited work of a PhD student who’s already been schooled in what he missed in his “finding”.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2813

    Right wing vandals continue their shameless assault on our civilization and national security. You people belong in Guantanamo. You are more of a threat to our way of life than ISIS is.

    • We only need 1 sec. Citing Sks is evident you’re disingenuous. Sks is a religious blog-church and a complete waste of time. All they post is dishonest pseudoscience dressed up as science and smear. which, of course, was exactly what you also wrote.

      • Dan Aldridge

        Instead of making an ad hominem argument against SkS, how’s about addressing their actual critique?

        • There were no genuine critique of any part of the underlying science, facts or logic of the falsified man man global warming hypothesis or it’s evil twin, coral bleaching and dying as a result of ocean acidification. There’s no man made global warming. Something that doesn’t exist can’t cause a secondary – anything.

          • Dan Aldridge

            LOL. Proof by assertion. “Something that doesn’t exist”. Even the most skeptical of the talking heads for the fossil fuel industry among scientists don’t claim this. This is what Carl Sagan would call an extraordinary claim if there ever was one. The multiple, independent lines of evidence converging on the fact that climate change is human-caused are there, whether you admit them or not.

            To start with, how about use a source you probably trust: the Heritage Foundation:

            http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/02/an-inconvenient-truth-liberal-climate-inquisition-cant-explain-past-temperature-changes

            Look at the graph they post. Funny thing is, it suggests exactly they opposite of what they think it does. If I were going to do a lecture on how we know climate change is human-caused, their graph would be exhibit A.

          • If the disingenuous activists had just one, 1 real piece of evidence for the man made global warming hypothesis, they would have written it down for all to see. The leftist media would have reported that one, 1 piece of evidence with millions of different angles and spins 24/7 for decades. The world would have started to build 1000’s of nuclear powerplants ..

            Instead, what do we see?

            One dishonest activist fool after the other, all connected to the billion dollar fraud led by Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC pushing their failed, not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, no not even twenty, or fifty, or one hundred, no, they got way over hundred failed Playstation 64 data models. In additions to 1000’s of new coal fired power plants.

            What does that tell us?

            They have no idea what they are talking about!

            All we can say for sure is, this is not about pollution, not about the weather, not about science, not about logic, not about CO2, – it’s not even about the climate ..

            It’s all about the money!

            Empirical data, evidence, documenting and showing 2 things, 1. They do not understand the science, and 2. They are lying to us all, ref.: Climategate: https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

            Models Fail: Greenland and Iceland Land Surface Air Temperature Anomalies
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/06/models-fail-greenland-and-iceland-land-surface-air-temperature-anomalies/

            .. and then there’s the dishonest-for-the-case-tag-along-feel-good-activist-fool, filling up every comment section, spewing nonsense, insults, ad hom and poorly understood PAL-reviewed pseudoscience, lies and stupidity, preventing all and any real debate.

            Useful idiots creating a smokescreen of personal attacks, spam, bs and nonsense to conceal the facts and the truth.

            Because if the facts and the truth about this man made global warming came out, a lot of people would be in trouble.

          • Dan Aldridge

            Um, for starters, the following is a very genuine critique:

            “Consider what would happen if one simply took all available temperature data used this to estimate annual mean temperatures over the last 100 years, rather than calculating anomalies and gridding quality checked data. The result would obviously be nonsense. Changing geographical and seasonal biases in data availability, and incorrect data would corrupt the analysis. Wallace’s analysis suffers from exactly the same problems.

            Geographical variability in ocean pH is large. Upwelling area have the lowest pH as the water upwelling from the deep oceans has high CO2 concentrations from decomposition of sinking organic matter. The geographical coverage of ocean pH measurement is extremely unlikely to have remained constant over the instrumental period. Any analysis that fails to take this into consideration is doomed.”

            It goes on from there to give concrete evidence underscoring this point. But you just wave it away because you – unlike even the most skeptical of climatologists – think you can literally dismiss decades of climate research going back to Suess and Revelle in the 50’s with a wave of your hand.

          • In science only empirical data is of interest, pseudoscience and shallow subjective opinion are of no interest.

            Feel free to keep your feel-good you-must-believe-me bs to yourself!

            Why would it be different this time?
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/why-would-it-be-different-this-time/

          • Dan Aldridge

            I haven’t asked you to believe anything. I’ve asked you to pick one point instead of lambasting me with a litany of crank and political-spin sources. Since you’ve confined yourself to one such source, I’ll respond.

            Here’s the CMIP models vs. observations, last updated Feb 22, 2016:

            http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

            Funny, looks nothing like Christy’s presentation to Congress, does it?

            And for a bit more clarification, here’s Gavin Schmidt, ripping Christy’s testimony to shreds:

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/#more-18943

          • Let me help you a bit, what is the difference between data models and empirical data? (You can even call a friend ..)

            Let me know when you understood that you – again – provide documentation for not understanding even the basics ..

            Why would it be different this time?
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/why-would-it-be-different-this-time/

            I believe i have told you before, what dishonest, “green” rent and grant seeker activists “believe” is of no interest, Gavin “.. even if we should redefine what the peer-reviewed process is” Schmidt, ref.: Climate Gate; http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.no/2009/11/redefining-peer-review.html

            Empirical data falsified the man made global warming hypothesis, ref.:
            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

            Gavin Schmidt and other dishonest activists have tried to smear both John Christy and his data, as we know, this is the normal method when lacking real arguments .. In defense of satellite temperature data
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/in-defense-of-satellite-temperature-data-dr-john-christys-powerful-senate-testimony-yesterday/

            And his written testimony is here: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 2 Feb 2016
            https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

            Your shallow smear and science illiterate rant has been debunked – again!

          • Dan Aldridge

            Wahahaha I think with your inability to comprehend basic English (IE, stop spamming me with links), you must be some kind of chat-bot.

            Gavin Schmidt isn’t the one who had to have his data constantly correct for errors suspiciously favorable to his prefered conclusion; Christy is. I’ve already linked those errors to you. Also I find it hilarious that Christy uses another crank, McIntyre, whose work has been brutally refuted, to bolster his claim. I double-dare you to read the following:

            // In his testimony at the hearing (for Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph), Christy lectured the audience about scientific openness, presenting himself as a paragon of virtue when it came to sharing source code.

            Christy: “When asked by other scientists at Remote Sensing Systems in California, we provided sections of our code and relevant data files. By sharing this information, we opened ourselves up to exposure or a possible problem which we had somehow missed – and frankly this was not personally easy. On the other hand, if there was a mistake, we wanted it fixed.”

            Christy seemed to have no idea what he had just walked into. Waxman had apparently been waiting for precisely this moment:

            Waxman: “Thank you. I want to ask Dr. Christy about this because you stated that you provided your computer code to other researchers when it was requested, and you specifically mentioned providing your computer code to RSS. Is that accurate?

            Christy: “We provided the part of the code that was in question.”

            Waxman: “Well, I contacted RSS about your testimony and Mr. Frank Wentz sent me a letter last night, and he wrote to say, “Dr. Christy has never been willing to share his computer code in a substantial way,” and he provides the text of a 2002 e-mail exchange between RSS and yourself…. In light of this letter, Dr. Christy, I would be interested if you care to clarify your testimony because Mr. Wentz wrote further, “I think the complexity issue was a red herring. My interpretation of Dr. Christy’s response is he simply didn’t want us looking over his shoulder, possibly discovering errors in his work. So we had to take a more tedious trial-and-error approach to uncovering the errors in his methods….” What do you say about that? That sounds inconsistent with what you have told us.”

            This discussion is a matter of public record, by the way.

    • RopeableOfRowville

      In all the arguments on this topic I’ve had online with acidification believers, not one of them has had any notion of chemical buffering. It’s, actually, quite germane given that the seabed is almost entirely carbonate rock. Probably you were playing hooky from school that day too.
      There are places where CO2 concentration lowers (a narrow zone of) water pH (a lovely reef off Papua New Guinea, and numerous seabed hydrothermal vents) and lo and behold marine life – much of it carbonated – thrives there.
      So if I were you I’d shut up and stop proving to the rest of us that you’re an uneducated moron.

    • HeftyJo

      “You people belong in Guantanamo.”

      Ah, the fascist environmentalist movement. After all, when you can’t win the argument the solution is to just scream, “SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!”. Problem is the watermelon environmentalists are gaining political power and persecuting the non-believers for wrong think could very well become a reality.

  • Sean L

    It was snowing in north London yesterday. Global warming, that is.

    • fundamentallyflawed

      That’s the beauty of climate arguments everything fits into their theory……

      • Sean L

        Yeah and Marxism is another similarly elastic theory, immune to contradiction. Ditto psychoanalysis. Also, theories of racism and Islamophobia, even homophobia, are irrefutable. In each case what’s in question is human motive which is ultimately as unfathomable and opaque to scientific inquiry as the weather. Climate theory is based on weather considered statistically. Racist theory is also statistical. If a racial group’s “representation” is less than their proportion of the population, that is evidence of racism. But wherever the racial group in question *is* adequately or even over-represented, that is never evidence of the *absence* of racism. Just as snow in London in April, or whatever the weather event might be, never counts as evidence against climate theory.

    • Disqus Bolloqus

      That figures, most Londoners think the World ends at the M25

    • Anaussieinswitzerland

      Weather
      Climate
      Learn the difference.

      • Sean L

        In this context “climate” is weather considered statistically. Materially it means data gathered from weather stations recording temperature; and computer output purporting to predict the weather/climate. Computer output is based entirely on computer input. To that extent *climate* is entirely man made.

        • Anaussieinswitzerland

          Wrong.

          Climate is weather averaged over time.

          The generally accepted weather period that can be accepted as climate is thirty years.
          That is why the deniers’ favourite meme of “No warming for (insert any number from 14 – 20 years) and 9 months) even if true (it isn’t) is completely meaningless.

          • Sean L

            Yes averaged over time is another way of describing a form of statistical analysis. Statistics is just the analysis of data. I could just as well say “weather considered numerically” or “weather considered by average over time”. But I said statistically because in this context “climate” refers to the analysis and prediction of statistical trends. The figure of 30 years is entirely arbitrary, based on nothing so much as the human lifespan, an utter irrelevance in geologic or planetary time, as is human existence tout court. A *day* is a lifespan, i.e. “climate” to some entities. The logic of this weather cult is entirely anthropomorphic.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “But I said statistically because in this context “climate” refers to the analysis and prediction of statistical trends”

            Thank you for the gish gallop.
            You realise, of course, that it is garbage.
            In this context “climate” refers to observed, historical fact.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1986/plot/uah/from:1986/trend

            “The figure of 30 years is entirely arbitrary, based on nothing so much as the human lifespan”

            Really?
            In that case I am well on the way towards the start of my third lifetime. Lucky me.

            If climate was an arbitrary period based on human lifespan it would be far more likely to be based on the allotted “three score and ten” or the accepted 25 years per generation.

          • Sean L

            All you’re doing there is reaffirming the point: relating it to the human lifespan. 30 years in itself has no significance other than in relation to how we experience existence. And if you forecast the climate, whether to warm or cool it matters not, you are predicting a statistical trend. We can question the value of the data; the validity of the interpretations; the methods. But “statistics” is merely the English word for the analysis of data. Perhaps your resistance to the term is its association with charlatanry. If so, it’s well founded – and there’s hope for you yet. Perhaps you do possess an ounce of the necessary empirical scientific attitude, in spite of your bewitchment by this insane ant-scientific, political and business driven cult.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “relating it to the human lifespan. 30 years in itself has no significance other than in relation to how we experience existence.”

            Very Zen and completely meaningless.

            “And if you forecast the climate, whether to warm or cool it matters not, you are predicting a statistical trend”

            Just plain wrong. Climate models are not forecasting statistical trends. They are replicating what will occur due to changes in the chemical make up of our atmosphere under various scenarios.
            Statistics has nothing to do with it.

            “But “statistics” is merely the English word for the analysis of data”

            Not quite.
            Statistics is the analysis of numerical data.

            As to the rest of your post I note it consists entirely of evidence free hand waving.

          • Sean L

            Yes I’d taken for granted your recognition that temperature *is* a number; that its measurement and calculation is necessarily statistical. What you’re doing is assimilating what is to be measured with the unit of measurement. As if the analyses or “science” were identical with the phenomena: *were* the phenomena! But It’s a primitive human trait to mistake the word for the thing. We do it all the time, particularly in childhood. Whether the statistics are correct, their validity and interpretation, is what is in question. To regard the models as not statistical or numerical, to think they *are* the phenomena only shows the power with which such quasi-religious cults can take a hold of one, suppressing the rational faculty. Scary. The human life span can’t be meaningless, since we are humans and we are the observers in question. My point was that the human lifespan, even human existence as a species, is for the most part irrelevant, considering the forces that ultimately determine shifts in climate. Though no doubt humans can have some influence on the weather, and even climate, through deforestation for instance.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            In amongst the word salad I found one sentence that had any meaning.
            Predictably enough it is wrong.

            “My point was that the human lifespan, even human existence as a species, is for the most part irrelevant, considering the forces that ultimately determine shifts in climate.”

            Human activity is swamping the planet’s natural forcings.
            You are trying to turn the study of climate science into a philosophical debate.
            It isn’t.

          • Sean L

            Yes climate science is statistical analysis. Of course it ought not to be, but computers ultimately only process digital data – data that is reducible to numbers. So what’s in question are the methods and practices of climate science. And that is an entirely human enterprise, having nothing to do with the phenomena, the earth, sea and the skies, constitutive of weather and climate. So yes you’re right, the questioning of the scientific method is bound to be philosophical to a great degree, by definition.

  • Central power

    There is a consensus among climatologists, that a disappearance of global warming , would put the majority of them out of the job and stop this multi billion gravy train.Thus this “Climate Change” will stay with us for a foreseeable future.
    The three main drivers of Earths temperature are: the Sun,the Sun and the Sun. The moment the Sun stops shining – the heat radiates back into the space. In other words yesterday’s temperature is immaterial. It does not matter that yesterday my house was hot – if I do not put the heating on today – it will be cold. CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician (Ice Age) – actually substantially higher – 5 to 20 times the present levels. Don;t you worry – the consensus climatologists have a simple explanation: err the Sun’s activity was lower.
    Alas their main mantra is some positive feedback theory: an increase of CO2. will result in an increase of water vapor (the main greenhouse gas) concentrations. For some reasons this positive feedback did not happen in the late Ordovician.
    Just a small point:The Paris Climate conference attracted close to 50,000 participants including 25,000 official delegates from government, intergovernmental organisations, UN agencies, NGOs and civil society. Twice as many as the previous one in Lima. The Paris conference included fleeting “fossil fuel” visits by Obama, Cameron, Putin etc. Next time they will presumably use a solar panel plane.similar to Solar Impulse 2. This plane is circumnavigating the globe, Left Abu Dhabi in March 2015.landing near San Francisco, California, on April 23 2016. Another 12 – 14 months to go.

  • bengeo

    Yawn!

  • ian

    This really is embarrassing, if any scientist could really prove that climate change was not caused by humans they would win the Nobel prize, sadly, no-one has managed it yet, at least not when their research is scrutinised. Even if the most funding hungry of scientists cynically perpetuated a climate change myth there would still be thousands left who would not need the money or who had more burning desires to research something in their field without having to worry about contextualising it within climate change. This argument just doesn’t make any sense and really highlights how little people of this opinion understand about science.

    Also if climate change was not anthropogenically driven now then we would still have to implement all the same solutions and changes and face the same threats as the climate is changing and we know that CO2 is one of the primary drivers. It would be good for James to stick to reporting on something that he actually knows about, he is well schooled, although not with any scientific background of note, and I’m sure there is something more culturally pertinent that he could entertain us with.

    • Briez

      I still laugh at people who buy into the big business of AGW.

      The pseudo-sciences of Global Warming and its ugly twin, the Acidification of the Earth, and those who believe it, are the real threat to humankind. They are, and always have been a threat to the health and well-being of Freedom in Western civilisation, because their first and foremost belief system is, Statism.

      I don’t need to be a scientist to see Global Climate Change is nonsense. My own intellect and my healthy connection to common sense tells me that the idea of AGW is bull excrement.

      I am not in the least bit worried about changes in climate; what I find more worrisome, are the psychotics who actually believe in this nonsense and the lengths they are willing to go to destroy anyone who denies their theocratic Earth religion’s claims.

      http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2016/04/25/justice-department-investigating-climate-skeptics

      http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/21/robert-f-kennedy-jr-wants-to-jail-his-political-opponents-accuses-koch-brothers-of-treason-they-ought-to-be-serving-time-for-it/

      http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888

      http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2014/05/19/lefty-scientist-jail-pols-who-deny-global-warming-pbs-host-worries-the

      Enjoy this dose of reality. Weather scares have been going on long before the day you were born. I have found articles dating back to the late 19th Century with claims of climate doom if we don’t change our wicked ways, and a call to Government control to save us from ourselves. Bah!

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

    • scott_east_anglia

      “we know that CO2 is one of the primary drivers.”

      We know nothing of the kind, and neither do you. You merely ‘believe’ it.

      Neither you nor anyone else has any empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the Earth’s climate. If there was such evidence there would be no argument, discussion, propaganda, or lies. Everyone would be pulling together to save the planet.

      But there isn’t, so we aren’t, because there is no threat from MMGW due to CO2.

    • Sean L

      One ought to feel embarrassed that any man in full possession of his faculties should even consider the idea that humans could be agents of climate change, if only because human existence is itself a mere blip in planetary time. Life in any form is ultimately only a function of “climate change”. But one realises that anthropomorphism is the most primitive as well as prominent human trait, in whatever guise it comes.

    • David davis

      Water vapour absorbs many times more infra-red radiation than CO2. Perhaps you ought to try to research a way to prevent water-gas getting into the atmosphere, or even try to stop clouds forming?

  • Jacobi

    I remember this hoary old tale in “scientific” journals as far back as the 1960s. Your son need not worry!

    Regarding the idea of a vast unstoppable “Climate Change Industry” May I draw attention to a truly remarkable editorial in the New Scientist, dated 16th April 2016. This magazine is in the “popular “ category. Nevertheless it enjoys world circulation for those with an interest in science.

    The Editorial makes some startling statements about the quality of so-called scientific research papers, alleging the not just some apples but the science industry “barrel” itself is rotting. The allegation that data is “tortured until it confesses” is admitted . It quotes one analysis as saying that more than 50% of papers these day s are not reproducible. Psychiatric or papers related to what I shall call soft psychiatric “science “are even worse, more than 60% being unreproducible.

    I have a friend still active in science publishing and he assures me that there is a circa ten year deadline after which papers on the same old subjects, using old evidence, can be published as new science.

    • AWoLsco

      “The allegation that data is “tortured until it confesses”

      Very ,very interesting……. and that confirms my own suspicion that ‘Science’, which depends on honesty and intellectual rigour of the very highest order, has been hijacked and derailed…and that corresponds directly with the rise of jewish power and banksterism. ie from the 1900s onwards and the appearance of that huckster and plagiarist Albert Onestone, or Einstein.

      Far from the ‘enlightenment’ being maintained, we are now in a headlong retreat back to superstition and mystery…. a return to the ‘secret knowledge’ of the ancient ‘mysteries’, jealously guarded by the Shining Ones, the priesthood of ancient Egypt…the few set aside to bless the many…and such-like middle-eastern mystic twaddle.

      Science in the 21st century……..
      Goobledegook squared + Goobledegook squared = Diddly Squat.

      All the fiddling about at CERN and wasting taxpayers’ money is proof positive of the veracity of this equation.
      James Watt got better results in 2yrs of work,on his own, than all those high-paid charlatans that call themselves ‘physicists’, have achieved in ten.

      • Bendys

        The “Big Bang” is from Kabbalah.

        • AWoLsco

          “from Kabbalah.”

          Ho, Ho.

          “and in the beginning there was God and he created the world in seven days”

          OK, sounds reasonable enough, thinks I.

          ..”and in the beginning there was nothing, Then a ‘singularity’ started a ruddy big bang and from that the universe was born”….says a (fake?)cripple from a wheel chair, who by rights should have snuffed it decades ago.

          Which should I…or you,….. dear reader, believe?

      • Jacobi

        Your suspicion that a large part of science has been highjacked, I suspect by the Science Industry”, is probably correct.

        Your conclusion that it has anything to do with Jews, other than in that Jews do seem to be surprisingly intelligent people, is a lot of balls.

        • AWoLsco

          “in that Jews do seem to be surprisingly intelligent people,”

          Yes, VERY SURPRISINGLY intelligent people…until one spots a phenomenon……………..They all talk each other up….ie

          “Wonderful stuff, Einstein, with your lovely bushy moustache…you are ze master of ze universe”…even if you did pinch most of your goobledegook off an Italian.

          Silverstein to Goldstein….”Wonderful work, Moshe. Shows true insight and incredible mental acuity.”
          Goldstein to Silverstein……”Pure genius, Miranda, and the hallmark of true wisdom.”

          Sigmund Freud…”The maestro with the true insight on our times and mentality”….trills the Jewish Times and Porno-Thrice-Nightly.
          Julius Streicher of der Sturmer…..”Freud?…an obvious utter fraud and snake oil salesman…a jewish witch-doctor for the gullible, easily-duped masses.”

          One could go on, citing charlatan after charlatan…. Franz Boas and his sidekick, closet lesbo Margaret Mead, a satanist…Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm etc etc.

  • Disqus Bolloqus

    Delingpole clutching at straws again in a vein attempt to justify his pet crank theory, whilst at the same time ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence provided by climate scientists.

    • Jacobi

      It would appear that the Editor of the New Scientist agrees with Delingpoles’ crank theory!!

      • Disqus Bolloqus

        Probably why he or she is editing a magazine instead of conducting research.

        • Jacobi

          Even the editor of the New Scientist, while being as it is a ” popular” journal, I assume is a scientist and one of wide experience. You could argue that from his objective position he has a much more real;istoc understanding of the “Science” industry?
          And what is your position, by the way. Are you or have you ever been involved in active research science. just curious?

    • derekcolman

      At a time when the oceans were much warmer than today and atmospheric CO2 levels 5 to 10 times higher, that was when crustaceans evolved. But the findings of Craig Idso really clinch it. Reduction in ph of up to 0.3 is actually beneficial. Why do you not realise you have been sold a pup? if you go into the mass of scientific papers, you will find that no detrimental effects of lowered ph value have been found anywhere in the open oceans. The only evidence is in sheltered shallow water where the Sun has evaporated the water, thus raising the strength of all chemicals in the water. Marine creatures with shells actually love CO2 because that’s where they get the carbon from to make the calcium carbonate that forms their shells.

      • Disqus Bolloqus

        I look forward to the age of the crabs!

      • AWoLsco

        “Reduction in ph of up to 0.3 is actually beneficial.”

        When I was interested in this some years ago, I read just that, written by an elderly Australian marine biologist. He maintained that ocean creatures have to work quite hard at maintaining a slightly acid environment in which they thrive…so if anything, then a slight acidification of the oceans would give the creatures a wee bit of a rest from mere survival….and thus they would go forth and multiply…..good news for those absolutely breathtaking , gob-smacking awesome, incredible whales we love so much.

        …and the same with plants with respect to CO2. They positively love the stuff.
        Right now, in far-off distant Dutchland, commercial firms are pumping this noxious gas into their millions of acres of greenhouses…..and have been doing so for yonks…so that either you can get cheap tomatoes and cucumbers, or they can make greater profits..

        Marvellous stuff CO2.
        The world positively loves the stuff.

  • scott_east_anglia

    A big problem for the alarmists is their inability to cover up the total absence of any empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the climate.

    Prior to the Rio conference the science team who were about to say so were quickly silenced as the political imperative for the poorer nations in the UN General Assembly to extract money from the richer nations took over.

    The result was an embarrassing stitching together over subsequent decades of a smoke-and mirrors pseudo-science largely based around jimmied-up computer programs to frighten western electorates into making their politicians cough up moolah to keep the political show on the road.

    The mantle was picked up by every anti-west pressure group, leading to a huge propaganda campaign and a resulting societal instability in the west that persists to this day. It didn’t work on Russia and the Asian countries, who saw the bunk for what is was and carried on regardless, rendering our greenie national suicide meaningless.

    The 60-year PDO cycle reversed nearly 20 years ago, and the concurrent warming from Asian cloud pollution ceased rising when the clouds became saturated. Their associated warming effect since the 1970s was erroneously ascribed to an increased greenhouse effect from atmospheric CO2 concentration by the IPCC. The result was an unexpected (to the warmists) levelling-off of the slight temperature increase that had been the their raison_d’être over the previous 30 or so years.

    People then realised that all of the predictions made on the back of the IPCC hypothesis had consistently failed to happen. Enough time had elapsed for none of them had to have come about. In particular the failure of the predicted tropospheric ‘hot-spots’ to appear killed the hypothesis stone dead.

    As a result mainstream science abandoned the project a long time ago, which is why nothing new – not even refinements to the theory – has emerged from the warmest camp for over a decade. They have only banged on about the same ancient stuff.

    Meanwhile we are seeing a change in solar activity as evinced by reduced sunspots, which scientists believe will lead to increased cloud cover and albedo, causing a repeat of the Little Ice Age this century.

    So when the PDO reverses again we may not see the temperature increase the warmists are craving – that their fiddling while the Earth doesn’t burn is desperately holding the fort in anticipation of.

    Consequently it’s hardly surprising that the antique global warming ‘science’ has become stale in editors’ eyes.

  • Meltonmark

    Now apply the same approach to that other witless rubbish known as Darwinian Evolution. Here are some articles dealing with ‘science’….

    http://superstore.wnd.com/Tornado-in-A-Junkyard-The-Relentless-Myth-of-Darwinism-Paperback

    http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken?

    ttps://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/manufacturing-consent-in-science-the-diabolical-twist/

    • scott_east_anglia

      Could you edit your last link and add the missing ‘h’ from https?

      • Meltonmark

        Done, Thank you.

    • Sean L

      That one about “manufacturing consent” is spot-on. Doesn’t just apply to science either. That the report on the worthlessness of peer review doesn’t get wider notice is only to be expected. I’m surprised Delingpole hasn’t written about it…

    • Sean L

      That one about “manufacturing consent” is absolutely spot-on. Doesn’t just apply to science either. That the report on the worthlessness of peer review doesn’t get wider notice is only to be expected. I’m surprised Delingpole hasn’t written about it…

  • Jojje 3000

    Science should be saved from political agendas, but is works because few knows what science is (i.e. not research).

  • Inaba-kun

    More utter bilge from chief denier Dellingpole. Who do I believe? 98% of the world’s climate scientists, or a crack pot tin foil hat conspiracy theorist hack?

    Well look at it this way Dellingpole, if somehow against all the odds you and the rest of the anti-science wackos are right and this has been the biggest conspiracy theory in human history and we’ve decarbonised the planet for nothing… well at least we still get to breath cleaner air and hundreds of thousands every year who would have died of respiratory illness will live.

    Oh and news flash Dellingpole, 9/11 wasn’t an inside job. I realise this will shake your world view further.

    • Duke_Bouvier

      If you were going to drop a few trillion to help humanity there there are no doubt a vast range of much more worthwhile projects that could have been done instead. You don’t help people just by dropping wads of cash into a hopper labelled “good”.

    • Stevie Mac

      to be fair, if he *is* right, he isn’t a wacko and he isn’t anti-science. He’s just astute. I lean towards thinking there is human caused global warming but sometimes a consensus is wrong and its not anti-science to oppose it….a lot of breakthroughs have been made by individuals who went against what most believed.

    • effinayright

      Only someone who has NEVER looked at the 97% claims and read how completely debunked they are could make such ignorant statements.

      Someone who thinks reducing CO2 makes the air “cleaner” and reduces death from respiratory illness is seriously silly.

      Wanna reduce CO2 on your own, Inaba-kun: STOP EXHALING!

      (and since Delingpole doesn’t think 9/11 was in inside job, you’re just flinging snot. Because that’s all you’ve got.)

      • Inaba-kun

        You’ve convinced me now. All those climate scientists with their decades of peer reviewed evidence are all lying. What a fool I’ve been to believe evidence and facts over conspiracy theories.

        Grow up you muppet.

        • effinayright

          It is obvious that you are totally unequpped to offer any factual evidence for your position.

          In fact, you REFUSE to look at the evidence.

          You REFUSE to deal with the FACT that even the warmistas can’t explain “the pause”, now 19 years old.

          You REFUSE to recognize that historical surface temperature data has been DICKED WITH by warmistas, to lower past temps and thus artificially ramp up more recent temperature data to attain the hockey stick.

          You REFUSE to accept that there is NO DATA to support AGW,
          only computer models that have (1) been all over the place, contradicting each other, (2) not been able to model the past or present, let alone the future, and (3) ……are not experiments in the first place.

          A model is not an experiment, and its results are not “data” about the real world, only numbers generated by a software program.

          You REFUSE to understand that there has not been “decades” of peer review, and that there has been plenty of “pal review”.

          MichaelMann notoriously said that HE would see to it that “peer review” would be changed to make damn sure that no disagreement was allowed to see publication.

          The arctic ice hasn’t melted, but has gone back toward historical leavels. Antarctic ice is at record high levels. There are no “extreme weather events”.; no Cat 5 hurricanes since Katrina, e.g. There’s no evidence of warming in the troposphere, which AGW says must happen. Ocean temps and levels are stable, with no significant deviation from historical figures.

          IOW zip nada zilch rien rei nil nul

          But hey: how about you posting all that “peer review” and the actual 97% agree survey. Put it up. Lets see it.

          Otherwise: Damatte kure!

          • Inaba-kun

            Pleased with that rant? Makes no difference to me, you wasted your time typing it. I have no time for conspiracy theories on any front, especially not ones such as climate change where the evidence and scientific consensus is so enormous.

            You keep believing your crack pot conspiracies if it makes you happy. I’ll stick with the scientists.

          • cardigan

            Who are you going to stick with? Al Gore? Leoardo di Caprio? The Pope, Emma Thompson? Vivienne Westwood?

    • alfredo

      Someone who mis-spells the author’s name (twice) when it’s a few inches above his posting wouldn’t appear to have particularly well-disciplined mental processes.

      • Inaba-kun

        Never mind the science or even the topic, you found a typo. Well done. With debating skills like yours the climate change deniers have this in the bag.

        Now go away and grow up.

    • Hank_Scorpio

      News flash for you, but consensus does not equal fact. That’s totally against the scientific method.
      Also I see that you upped the percentage to 98%, you people just can’t stop fudging your numbers….

    • Rev Snow

      Someone claiming to speak for science ought not suggest that CO2 is unclean or contributes to any respiratory illness. You should be embarrassed.

      Goes to show how much of this “debate” is driven by politicized language rather than rational, evidenced claims.

      Tell me, what is the required “safe” level of ocean pH we must maintain? Over what period of time has the ocean stayed in that safe range, and when and why might we expect human activities to drive us out of it? If we have to guard against ‘ocean acidification’ we ought at least know what the boundaries are.

      • Anaussieinswitzerland

        Burning fossil fuels produces a lot more than CO2.

    • cardigan

      98% of the world’s climate scientists – Wrong, don’t you know it’s 97%

      • Anaussieinswitzerland

        No, as more of the older generation retire and die off the percentage of those who actually understand the latest scientific advancements increases.

  • scott_east_anglia

    Many passionate adherents of the “MMGW due to CO2” actually have no notion of how flimsy is the support for the platform they so ardently thump.

    There has never been any empirical evidence that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever affected the climate. That is why the proponents of the conjecture had to resort to propaganda, smoke and mirrors, and jimmied up computer programs to hide truth.

    The Asian portion of the world, including Russia, just plain never accepted it – they saw through the propaganda from the outset and are carrying on as normal.

    It is only the electorates in western democracies with universal enfranchisement, where half the electorate must by definition be sub-normal, that swallow enough of the propaganda to keep their vote-sensitive politicians forking out other people’s dosh to support the farrago. Matters were made a lot worse when every anti-west weirdo pressure group climbed on the CO2 band-wagon, which they saw as attacking the west at its roots through shutting down the energy supply on which it depends.

    In the west, the relentless propaganda, especially in schools, has been so effective that even when it is glaringly obvious that none of the warming industry’s predictions have come true and its hypothesis was falsified and abandoned over a decade ago, people still passionately believe the hoax.

    • Hank_Scorpio

      Well said, and double score for using “Dosh” and “Farrago” properly…..

  • DwightVandryver

    Delingpole is right. The Great Barrier Reef is not under threat from any supposed decrease in oceanic pH levels, or from global warming aka climate change. It is, however, under threat from the Crown of Thorns starfish:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/23/coral-eating-crown-of-thorns-starfish-can-be-killed-with-vinegar-scientists-find

    What is more, these starfish can be killed with vinegar! This implies that a more acidic ocean would favour their destruction. No doubt the AGW camp will try to associate the population increase of the starfish with global warming, and no doubt, there are likely to be “peer reviewed” papers soon to be written that support this thesis. It’s true that AGW has become a gravy train, so the truth of the matter, if there is one, will be hidden. It really wouldn’t do to suggest that this phenomenon is due to natural variation.

    • Dan Aldridge

      Um, do you really think those starfish ganged up and severely bleached over 50% of the entire reef in a matter of weeks? facepalm

      • cardigan

        Evidence for 50% of the entire Barrier Reef bleached in a matter of weeks please.

        • Dan Aldridge

          Actually that was incorrect. I meant “50% SEVERELY bleached”. Here’s the link to the damage for the recent bleaching event:

          http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/7340420/data/bleaching-map-data.jpg

          99+% of 522 reefs
          + 90% of 226 reefs
          + 75% of 122 reefs
          = 841 of 911 reefs bleached. IE, about 93% bleached.

          I can’t find my work for this figure, but for ~severe~ bleaching my calculation was 65% of the reef. Look at the link above and you can check the numbers yourself.

          If you are questioning that this all just happened, it’s not some adjusted data from NASA that you can talk your way around. Divers watched it happen. They recorded temps on their dive computers. They watched the coral light up like Christmas trees as it released its zooanthelae. Then they watched it turn white. Here’s the temp record of the event:

          http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/vs/ts_figures/ts_2yr/2015_2016_ts_gbr_far_northern.png

  • Temperature keeps falling ..

    https://wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/global-warming-reality-check-april-2016-die-globalen-temperaturen-gehen-weiter-zurueck/

    Did we all park our cars?

    Just kidding, the temperature increase was all done and a result of the last El Niño event, got nothing to do with man.

    • Dan Aldridge

      Here’s a graph of 20th century El Nino’s and La Nina’s. Notice anything?
      http://climatenexus.org/sites/default/files/ElNino4.png

      Isn’t a decadal ~oscillation~ supposed to remain roughly the same? Well, let me suss that out for ya:

      Normal El Nino/La Nina cycle:
      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bqjLCcFeHxI/UYksArpSe-I/AAAAAAAABKI/UiKbMz4jn_4/s1600/flat.png

      El Nino + global warming:
      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ng6yjblMNso/UYksIWEDsDI/AAAAAAAABKQ/XAV0TpJj7Zk/s1600/rising.png

      • More fake data from the fake tag-along-feel-good-activist-fool.

        Empirical data totally debunk your fake activist, political adjusted and fitted graphs, ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

        NOAA’s Own Data Show Pause In Troposphere Temperatures, Confirming UAH & RSS
        https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/noaas-own-data-show-pause-in-troposphere-temperatures-confirming-uah-rss/

        How can NOAA’s own data show there’s a pause when your data clearly doesn’t?

        http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/image_thumb39.png

        http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/image_thumb40.png

        No, 2015 Was Not The Hottest Year Evah…
        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/21/2825535/

        Another data-set showing the pause, ref.: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h81bc0wqZfc/VyqV0UMlfTI/AAAAAAAAJ_w/HDjztM3JLqcs6qEru1Q3AqjK0H4OH-OvwCLcB/s1600/elnino-feb2016.png

        What would be the point of counterfeiting temperature data if you didn’t get the result you wanted?
        http://climateirony.blogspot.no/2016/05/warmest-on-record.html

        “The Hottest Year Evah”
        https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/the-hottest-year-evah/

        NASA and NOAA Climate Fraud Files
        https://climatism.wordpress.com/category/climate-fraud-2/

        I did not only debunk you – again, i also documented you are a dishonest activist – again!

        • Dan Aldridge

          Dude, ever heard the term “proof by verbocity”? It’s a logical fallacy, and your posts could be used as an example in a logic textbook. If we want to have a link war, how about this: the latest IPCC assessment sites over 9,000 pieces of peer-reviewed research. Not blog-posts by fossil fuel industry shills like Goddard and not political hack-jobs like Breitbart. No non-college-graduated weathermen (Anthony Watts) among them. Published, peer-reviewed research How about I list them all out one by one. Then whose verbocity will triumph?

          Fact is, you didn’t answer the arguments and evidence in the SkS post because you can’t. UAH and RSS aren’t even vaguely in agreement, and UAH in particular has been plagued with instances of adjustment, all upwards mostly caught by outside experts:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made

          • Smear is used by dishonest, “green” activists when they know they have lost the argument.

            Sks is a blog-church, run by some of the most dishonest activist criminals in the global warming swindle community, no need to wast time on their smear and pseudoscience, ref.: https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=skeptical+science

            In defense of satellite temperature data – Dr. John Christy’s powerful Senate testimony yesterday

            “From the “yes, but satellite data is good enough when they want to scream the Arctic is melting” department comes this powerful takedown of recent claims about the satellite temperature data being inferior to surface temperature data.”
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/in-defense-of-satellite-temperature-data-dr-john-christys-powerful-senate-testimony-yesterday/

            And his written testimony is here: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 2 Feb 2016
            https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

            Yet again i totally debunked your dishonest bs!

          • Dan Aldridge

            LOL it isn’t a “smear” to point out you are using a classic fallacious ploy favored by creationists and conspiracy theorists (argument by verbocity, also known as the Gish Gallop, after creationist Dwayne Gish). No response to the 9,000+ citations of published, peer-reviewed research… but yes you “debunked” me with more links from the non-college-graduated weather man who receives money from the fossil fuel industry lapdog, the Heartland Foundation.

            As for the Arctic, its dis-intigration can be confirmed visually. Watch a time-lapse video from 1980 and whatdya know, the ice just gets smaller and smaller. While Watts and you sit there denying it, cruise ships are already opening up cruises of the “impassable” Northwest Passage. Google it. First time ever, this summer!

            People like you can only pretend it’s not happening because you happen to be nowhere near the action. Ask someone who lives in Laapland. Or who skis. Or who scuba dives. I dive, and between 2010-11 I saw all the hard coral in my favorite Thai island die off… in the space of a year. We watched the temperatures spike on our dive computers, we watched the coral light up like a Christmas tree as it ejected its zooanthelae, and then we watched it turn first white, then gray, then crumble away.

            By the way it’s 33C degrees here in Taiwan… as hot as summer on a normal day… and it’s only early May. We had our hottest temperature ever just three years ago, but you can bet that will be beaten out this summer.

          • Name Calling, “creationists and conspiracy theorists” is another way of telling us you feel the pressure. Name calling is smear, so again you confirmed you do not have any valid arguments.

            When you talk about 9000 citations published in peer-reviewed papers, don’t you actualy mean a few hundreds, with 30% PAL-reviewed and some user manuals from washing machines, product declarations for winter boots and propaganda brochures from WWF?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pruTqY_JLcg

            https://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

            Here is the actual science you were (thought) you were talking about, all of the peer-reviewed publications and none of the PAL-reviewed pseudoscience bs-papers you and the likes of you always seem to be eager to pull out.

            This also contains the realists peer-reviewed papers, and as we can see from this powerful documentation, no need to worry, the sun can’t be controlled by dishonest leftist criminals posing as know-it-all trying to cripple all industry with their hoax-taxes!

            https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf

            50% Increase In Eurasian Autumn Snow Cover Since 1979
            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/50-increase-in-eurasian-autumn-snow-cover-since-1979/

            Greenland had gained 500+ billion tons of ice since August
            https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mPA-w2B5xH4/Vx6Q-FvDrMI/AAAAAAAAJ1s/EkmJphF030YldeCz0S1rTpXKBCr5D-uTwCLcB/s1600/Melting%2BGreenland.jpg

            When it comes to the dishonest “green” activists, logic must be the biggest conundrum – ever!
            http://climateirony.blogspot.no/2016/04/when-it-comes-to-dishonest-green.html

            “From about 1988 to 2007, the Arctic lost large amounts of multi-year sea ice (MYI) due to winter winds blowing it out into the North Atlantic. That pattern has since reversed, and as you can see below, older and thicker ice is moving away from the Atlantic and into the Beaufort Sea, and becoming older and thicker.”
            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/oldest-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-continues-to-increase/

            Do tell, how does man made CO2 control the wind-direction!?
            Since the change in 2007, did we stop emitting CO2?

            I am not going to comment on your fantasy of corals dying, other than to say, if you had education, or if you read this article of which you are doing your propaganda bs on, you would know better than to write the nonsense you wrote.

            Can’t be easy to be this shallow and dishonest as you potrait yourself to be in your service as an useful idiot.

            Average temperature for Taiwan is + 25C. – In the southern part in summer time + 38C.

            Empirical data is of no concern for the leftist, dishonest, “green” activists.

            You have been debunked yet again, and we have gotten more documentation of the level of dishonesty from you.

          • Dan Aldridge

            What the heck? I posted a lengthy response to this a couple days ago and it’s missing. Well, I’ll try to crank it out again quickly.

            // Name Calling, “creationists and conspiracy theorists” is another way of telling us you feel the pressure. Name calling is smear, so again you confirmed you do not have any valid arguments. //

            Please tell me you see the irony… well, obviously you don’t. But to say this after you’ve call me “dishonest leftist environmentalist” about twenty times!

            As far as your links: look man, I’m sorry to tell you, but just because you link to something doesn’t mean you’ve debunked something or proven a point. I’m a dude on the internet, not a debater in “Intelligence Squared” or something. This is what I was getting at about “proof by verbocity”. If you posted a link or two I’d go in and tell you what’s wrong with it, but you seriously expect anyone to go through nine or ten links… especially when they are from sources like the oil-industry-funded Heartland Institute and STEVEN GODDARD? That guy is a crank. And yes, this is name-calling. Well-deserved. You’ve called me names plenty of times, so suck it up. One needs no more evidence than the fact that Goddard has the stones to promote an alternative theory for temperatures on the planet Venus. IF you believe that guy is qualified to refute ~astro-physicists~ your ideological blinders are as thick as lead.

            Meanwhile, someone posted ONE link to an article from SkS about the science in the article above and you hand-waved it away as propaganda without even giving a moment’s notice to the actual arguments and evidence.

            As far as “pal review”, it’s actually the handfull of denialists who engage it in. You seriously think the 200+ scientists who wrote the latest IPCC assessment, plus the 1000 more who reviewed it, plus the thousands from all over the globe who wrote the research upon which it was based are all scratching each others’ backs? Give me a break.

            Finally, as far as my “fantasy” about the coral in the Andaman Sea: I’m not surprised you don’t want to comment, as what can you say? I was THERE. I saw it. Tons of other divers did too, just as they are now seeing at the Great Barrier Reef, where roughly half the coral over a 2000+ km expanse is now dying or dead. And if you want to say this is proof by anecdote, here’s the news report:

            http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2010/2010-08-16-02.html

          • Follow the tread back, you commented on my post using nothing but smear, ad hom and nonsense .. Because you lack REAL evidence. Logically, you have to be a dishonest, “green” activist with no knowledge, all of which i have firmly documented.

            I do not need to visit Sks web-page anymore. When i started my climate research i spent many hours reading their propaganda, i already know it’s fake.

            I do not see any point in commenting your shallow smear, as we know, if any of the dishonest, “green” activists actually did find a mistake on their web page, it would have been reported all over the net, newspapers, TV and radio, you would have used it to prove realists doesn’t know what they are talking about ..

            No such reports have been published, i.e EVERYTHING posted on WUWT., Heartland and by Steven Goddard etc. must therefore be correct.

            Yes, i know, you didn’t think of that ..

            “As far as “pal review”, it’s actually the handfull of denialists who engage it in. You seriously think the 200+ scientists who wrote the latest IPCC assessment, plus the 1000 more who reviewed it, plus the thousands from all over the globe who wrote the research upon which it was based are all scratching each others’ backs? Give me a break.”

            No, no one has ever said that. The 40 – 50 dishonest activists in and around Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC did in fact disregard the science and made up their own “reality”, ref.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=share

            The inner workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is exposed and laid bare by Donna Laframboise. Ref.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pruTqY_JLcg

            https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/delinquentteenager_sample.pdf

            Changes done in the IPCC 1995 report by Benjamin Santer.
            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/beforeandafter.png

            We know the peer-reviewed process is corrupted, because the activists described how they would do it in the leaked emails from Climategate, ref.: http://smallthoughts.com/climategate/

            Also, we can see the result of that corruption in the “science” journals Science and Nature even today.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069024/abstract;jsessionid=50E2C009B5D0696190CDF13284B9DDFC.f01t02?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+14th+May+11%3A00-14%3A00+BST+%2F+06%3A00-09%3A00+EDT+%2F+18%3A00-21%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

            “Finally, as far as my “fantasy” about the coral in the Andaman Sea: I’m not surprised you don’t want to comment, as what can you say? I was THERE. I saw it. Tons of other divers did too ..”

            I do not doubt you saw something, evidently you had no clue what you saw. After a forest fire, is the whole forest dead for ever?

            Fires, bleaching and corals dying is a natural thing, part of the natural circle. Did you notice, even humans do die, but the whole human race don’t perish when one individual, or a 1000 die.

            If in fact the humans caused it, why did it stop?

            When corals developed some million years ago, CO2 level was way way higher, both 10 – 20 and 30 times as high, how is that possible?

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/08/the-great-barrier-reef-is-it-dead-yet/

            I do not get why you continue to lie after i have numerous times documented you are of ill agenda and less than honest.

            In fact every thing you have posted has been refuted, but still you keep posting lies and propaganda.

            What is the point? Do you think by some magic i will change my mind? Suddenly start to disregard the actual data, the empirical observations made in nature?

            Are you really that stupid?

          • Dan Aldridge

            In fact, I’ve never made a single ad hominem criticism of your argument. You clearly don’t know what it really means. For a criticism to be ad hominem, I’d have to claim you or your source was wrong because of some aspect of you or your source’s person. It isn’t just calling you or them a name.

            As far as this:

            // if any of the dishonest, “green” activists actually did find a mistake on their web pages, it would have been reported all over the net, newspapers, TV and radio, you would have used it to prove realists doesn’t know what they are talking about ..

            No such reports have been published, i.e EVERYTHING posted on WUWT., Heartland and by Steven Goddard etc. must therefore be correct. //

            That is the most bizarre claim I’ve ever heard in one of these discussions. It reminds of the error described in Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” as “What you see is all there is”. In other words, because YOU’VE never seen a mistake pointed out about one of these sites, everything they must say is correct. WOW!

            Well, I can personally tell you a mistake just off the top of my head in WUWT: he claims (and you can look this up) that James Hansen had predicted a huge amount of sea level rise in New York by like 2030. Which was WRONG. Hansen predicted that amount of sea level rise by that date IF atmospheric CO2 had doubled by then. But if you need more examples of WUWT’s wrongness, just go to the blog “Wott’s Up with That”. There are innumerable examples.

            As for Goddard, I’ve already told you one obvious mistake that anyone with a grasp on reality should be able to recognize: Goddard doesn’t accept the scientific explanation of the hotness of Venus’ atmosphere. Which is ridiculous. Oh yes… and here’s another:

            ‘In June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel hostSteve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

            The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as “pants on fire”—its lowest possible rating.’

            I won’t link to any of these items, as you seem to be pretty handy with the cut and paste, you should know how to Google them.

            // Fires, bleaching and corals dying is a natural thing, part of the natural circle. Did you notice, even humans do die, but the whole human race don’t perish when one individual, or a 1000 die.

            If in fact the humans caused it, why did it stop? //

            Um, that’s like saying, ‘people were getting cancer before cigarettes were invented – therefore, cigarettes don’t cause cancer’. It’s totally non sequiteur. The coral died, and continues to die, because of water temperature spikes caused by increasingly powerful El Nino’s. Which is what’s predicted by global warming theory. This whole “It’s a natural cycle” thing is totally bogus. The real natural cycle is the Milankovitch Cycle, which was at its latest peak around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This is something you could look up with incredible ease… but of course you won’t, because your mind is trapped in an echo-chamber of fossil fuel-funded propaganda. We should now be gradually decending towards cooling, but instead we are seeing the complete opposite, with no explainable cause other than the energy being added by long-wave solar radiation as it is trapped in our atmosphere by greenhouse gases, exactly as Fourier and Tyndall figured out in the mid-19th century.

          • I noticed you didn’t go through any of the documentation i posted, none.

            Rest of your bs. has already been debunked numerous times.

          • Dan Aldridge

            You’re right, I didn’t. As I explained to you above. Here’s my statement:

            “As far as your links: look man, I’m sorry to tell you, but just because you link to something doesn’t mean you’ve debunked something or proven a point. I’m a dude on the internet, not a debater in “Intelligence Squared” or something. This is what I was getting at about “proof by verbocity”. If you posted a link or two I’d go in and tell you what’s wrong with it, but you seriously expect anyone to go through nine or ten links… especially when they are from sources like the oil-industry-funded Heartland Institute and STEVEN GODDARD?”

            Haven’t you noticed, I’m not pasting any links here? I’m just using fairly straight-forward logic from my own brain with a little bit of documentation where necessary, as with the Goddard point. This is a reasonable level of work for a discussion in a comments section. Reading a whole heap of links is NOT, and your claiming that because I won’t I can’t is the proof by verbocity fallacy I was talking about.

            As for the “rest of my BS”, um, no, it has not. You claimed no errors by WUWT, Goddard or the Heartland Institute. It’s obviously ridiculous, as credible or not, no source is without errors, but in any case I just told you a big error on WUWT, a whole site full of more of them and a couple more of Goddard’s. Nor have you refuted my clear logic that “climate change happens naturally, therefore we aren’t causing it” is a non sequiteur. The Milankovich Cycle is well-known and has been for a century.

          • My links is documentation, you do not link to documentation cause you got no documentation. Those few times you actually did link to anything, it was just as worthless as the nonsense you post without attempting to document.

            You claim to use logic; “I’m just using fairly straight-forward logic from my own brain ..”

            By that you documented you actually don’t know what logic is.

            You cannot use logic to prove man made global warming when empirically data in fact shows there’s no such thing as man made global warming.

            You have been debunked – again (this time by logic!)

          • Dan Aldridge

            LOL first of all, just because you link to some conservative propaganda mouthpieces, that doesn’t entail “documentation”. What would be nice are some politically-neutral, credible sources – and one which actually say what you interpret them as saying. A common trick I’ve found by denialists is to link to peer-reviewed studies and claim they say something they don’t.

            As for my own “documentation”, which information would you like me to document? I’ll be happy to. Lucky for me, I have multiple lines of empirical evidence converging on the conclusion that humans are causing global warming at my disposal. So please do tell, which claim that I have made would you like me to back up?

            Regarding, “debunked by logic”, um, where, again? You’re the one who doesn’t seem to know what an actual Ad Hominem argument is. Apparently you also don’t understand the concept of Proof by Verbocity. Nor do you get that “the climate’s changed before, therefore we aren’t causing climate change now” is a non sequiteur. But by all means, continue to disparage my logic…

          • Nonsense! Calling it “conservative propaganda mouthpieces ..” is just dishonest and the same shallow smear we have gotten all too used to.

            Why do you post such nonsense?

            Simply because you cannot document errors in it, if you could, you wouldn’t post childish nonsense.

            I always document your errors, i always document my claims.

            Doesn’t matter for what you actualy document as long as it has to do with man made global warming, which empirical data clearly shows we don’t have, on any level. No sea level rise, no ice melt, no warming, CO2 doesn’t heat anything, it probably cools the planet .. https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earths-climate/

            That is the point we disagree .. Do you really have to ask what to document?

            Apparently you do not understand the concept of logic ..

          • Dan Aldridge

            LOL with a wave of your hand you dismiss SkS – which has won awards and is replete with beginning, intermediate and advanced-level summaries of science, as well as a very well-moderated comments forum. I’m betting you’d dismiss ScienceBlogs, The Conversation, and RealClimate just as easily Meanwhile, here’s an example of the typical conservative propaganda mouthpiece, ClimateDepot:

            // Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms (PDF), Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming. [12], [13], [6], [37]

            Although he has no scientific expertise in the area, Morano has become a prominent climate change denier…

            …From 2006 to 2009, Morano was the communications director for Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the minority chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Prior to the last election, Inhofe was the majority chair of the EPW committee. In the 2002 election cycle, Senator Inhofe received more in donations from the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. ”

            Yeah, great source there. Totally no red flags for bias at all.

            As for the question of logic, no, I think I understand something about it. Your claim of “no warming, no ice melt, no sea level rise” is just outrageous. But I’m not going to play denialist whack-a-mole with you. If you have a specific claim you want me to document, go ahead and ask. Like I said, I have multiple, converging lines of evidence from independent, scientifically ~credible~ sources, so empirical evidence is definitely NOT a problem. Please, ask away. Pick any one point you like.

          • Sks is falsified by the empirical data, which they are all too eager to confirm by posting smear and nonsense about the scientists who just happens to just be honest, citing the actual data ..
            Awards?? For what?
            Not science, so it has to be propaganda!!
            And whom did they get the awards from?

            Other blog-churches ..

            And then you go posting smear about Marc Morano ..

            Tell us where he is wrong, what information he has published has been wrong?

            Let’s try again ..

            Doesn’t matter for what you actualy document as long as it has to do with man made global warming, which empirical data clearly shows we don’t have, on any level. No sea level rise, no ice melt, no warming, CO2 doesn’t heat anything, it probably cools the planet .. https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earths-climate/

            That is the point we disagree .. Do you really have to ask what to document?

            Apparently you do not understand the concept of logic ..

            You have been debunked – again!

          • Dan Aldridge

            SkS ALWAYS cites the peer-reviewed literature in its articles.

            As far as Morano, yes, I notice how you just completely brush aside the host of red flags for bias around this guy. As for what he’s gotten wrong, a far shorter list would be what he’s gotten right, but here’s a tiny taste:

            “Morano is considered a central player in orchestrating the Climategate scandal. Weeks before the 2009 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, a hacker stole a large amount of files, including private data and emails, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The data was then shared with climate skeptics, including Morano. These skeptics went on to cherry-pick information and sound bites from the emails in an effort to indict climate scientists for deliberately manipulating data and misleading the public.

            In less than 48 hours, Climategate became the top story in international news. During the scandal, Morano said, “I seriously believe we should kick them [climate scientists] while they’re down. They deserve to be publicly flogged.” Multiple independent investigations have found no fraudulent activity, and all of the scientists have since been exonerated. Climategate helped seed doubt in public opinion leading up to the biggest climate negotiations in world history.

            Prior to running ClimateDepot, Morano served as the communications director for Senator James Inhofe from 2006 to 2009. During his tenure, Morano helped author the infamous report “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” The report was debunked. Research found the list contained at least 84 signees had taken industry money, 49 retirees, 20 economists, and 70 with no expertise in climate science.”

            As for this guy Larsen: he is not even a climatologist. Even the most skeptical of climatologists – whom I can count on one hand: Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels and Jon Christy – accept the greenhouse effect as proven and real. This has been he case since Fourier, Tyndall and Arhenius in the 19th century. You’re good at hyperlinking, do your own Google searches.

          • More nonsense, dishonest bs and smear from you.

            1875 coldest year in 10000 years and no warming for 58 years
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/1875-coldest-year-in-10000-years-and-no-warming-for-58-years/

            EPA Chief concedes no climate impact from ‘climate rule’: It’s about ‘reinventing a global economy’
            http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/05/12/epa-chief-concedes-no-climate-impact-from-climate-rule-its-about-reinventing-a-global-economy/

            UN climate chief candidly admits goal is not to help environment but to end capitalism
            http://poorrichardsnews.com/un-climate-chief-candidly-admits-goal-is-not-to/

            You can stop pretending to know anything about science now, or honesty.

            You have been debunked again, not only you, the whole “green” fraud movement!

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “Smear is used by dishonest, “green” activists when they know they have lost the argument.”

            “Sks is a blog-church, run by some of the most dishonest activist criminals in the global warming swindle community,”

            BANG!

            Bügger. There goes another irony meter.

            I should know by now to order in extra stock when Ronnie starts posting.

  • Mary Ann

    What have brexit and climate change denial got in common? they both require burying heads in sand.

    • scott_east_anglia

      “they both require burying heads in sand.”

      Preferably the ‘remainers’ heads,

    • cardigan

      I don’t know anyone who denies that the climate changes over millennia. There is nothing new under the sun. It is impossible for the oceans to become acidic because there is too much bicarb down there, nature’s antacid from limestone rocks and former crustaceans on the ocean floor.

      Basic chemistry, this stuff is not difficult.

  • Dan Aldridge

    This was actually written to refute a different piece of ocean acidification denialism, but it might as well have been written to refute this one:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/16/ask-the-real-experts-about-ocean-acidification-not-climate-science-deniers

    • So, where is the logic in citing a dishonest, “green” activist blog-church while at the same time refusing to take in to consideration real, empirical data?

      Ocean acidification can be refuted just by simple logic.

      What is a natural law?

      What does Henry’s law say?

      If humans warms the planet, would that include the oceans?

      What happen to CO2 trapped in sea water as the sea warms?

      How can a warmer ocean with less CO2 become less alkaline?

      References:
      http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Solutions_and_Mixtures/Ideal_Solutions/Dissolving_Gases_In_Liquids%2C_Henry's_Law

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=acidification

      You have been debunked – again!

      • Dan Aldridge

        LOL Henry’s Law plus Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures are why we have ocean acidification. Well, them, plus the fact that we are emitting tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on a yearly basis:

        // What is causing ocean acidification?

        As carbon dioxide obeys Henry’s Law (which states that the concentration of a dissolved gas in a solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solution) an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere directly leads to an increase in the amounts of CO2 absorbed by the oceans. Human induced CO2 emissions have increased since the industrial revolution through the burning of fossil fuels, land use practices and concrete production[1]. This increase from around pre-industrial values of 280 parts per million (ppm) to 383ppm today (See Enhanced Greenhouse Effect) has resulted in the acidification of the ocean. //

        http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/indicators/ocean_acid.jsp

        I looked at your article from the non-college-graduated weather man. So great, you’ve got ~one guy~ who thinks increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is not ~the only~ driver of ocean acidification. Now, I note this is typical cherry-picking of experts, but let’s assume he’s right.

        First of all, “not the only” isn’t saying much. He isn’t “debunking” the fact that increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 does increase acidifcation; he’s just saying there may be another factor. That’s fine… the world is a complicated place.

        But second, um, gee, what’s causing the warming of those oceans, again? Could it be… um, the end of the LIA…until NOW?

        • You failed – again.

          Cherry picking which questions to answer and ignoring the questions that are too hard ..

          Those questions you actually did answer was, as always, way off.

          For example, where is the ocean acid?

          At what pH is water acidic?

          What is the current pH (average) in the oceans?

          What happens to CO2 dissolved in the oceans when the oceans warm?

          “For the first time ever has the man made global warming crisis been depicted in a graph that remove all doubt ..”
          http://climateirony.blogspot.no/2016/05/so-where-is-it.html

          You have been debunked – again!

          • Dan Aldridge

            Um, having ~real~ curiosity is the hallmark of honest skepticism. Having “questions” with no corresponding desire for answers is pseudo-skepticism. This is a bit old, but it’s the most cited piece on the topic I can find:

            http://208.180.30.233/lib/reefs_endangered.071214.pdf

            As for that graph, come on. It’s totally off-topic for this thread, which is on acidification, but in any case, I’ve seen tons of graphs with funky parameters on “woodfortrees” and other places trying to prove various things. The graphs that matter most are the ones corroborated in multiple ways, and accepted by the majority of experts. Like this:

            “Ten different temperature records that all tell the same story. These include the primary surface temperature thermometer records (NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT); satellite measurements of the lower troposphere temperature processed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH); and 5 major reanalysis datasets which incorporate station data, aircraft data, satellite data, radiosonde data, buoy and ship measurements, and meteorological weather modeling.”

            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154265710566654&set=a.10150479817366654.428841.656391653&type=3

          • In your first link i only needed to read the headline; “Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification” – to know it is nonsense. “Rapid climate change” means rapid man made global warming. Man made global warming doesn’t exist, i.e no rapid climate change. In fact, weather over time is climate. Weather is always changing, so climate change??

            A bit redundant ..

            Let’s try again, – where is the ocean acid?

            At what pH is water acidic?

            What is the current pH (average) in the oceans?

            What happens to CO2 dissolved in the oceans when the oceans warm?

            “Ten different temperature records that all tell the same story. These include the primary surface temperature thermometer records (NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT) ..” – those are the data sets that are counterfeit, bent, tortured, adjusted and fake.

            Only thing moving is El Niño ..
            https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h81bc0wqZfc/VyqV0UMlfTI/AAAAAAAAJ_w/HDjztM3JLqcs6qEru1Q3AqjK0H4OH-OvwCLcB/s1600/elnino-feb2016.png

            Rest of your claims is falsified by this graph, ref.:
            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

            That is also the same graph that falsifies the man made global warming hypothesis.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/in-defense-of-satellite-temperature-data-dr-john-christys-powerful-senate-testimony-yesterday/

            And his written testimony is here: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 2 Feb 2016
            https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

            Dutch Geologist Calls Climate Science A “Mass Hysteria” …”Historians Will Shake Their Heads In Disbelief”

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/04/dutch-geologist-calls-climate-science-a-mass-hysteria-historians-will-shake-their-heads-in-disbelief/#sthash.Kz9Dw8Tj.dpbs

            Decarbonization “gross nonsense”

            “On the endeavor to “protect the climate” through cutting CO2 emissions, something often called decarbonization, Lüdecke calls it “gross nonsense” and tells us that a changing climate is “a law of nature“. He adds that there is no evidence that CO2 is “harmful to the climate” and that it strongly warms it”.

            Lüdecke tells the DAV that strong warming is found only in models that use dubious assumptions and effects:

            Whether or not these effects are based on reliable data is of no interest to the modelers. This is how one gets the temperature rise that one desires. The only problem is that these models have not been able to reproduce the past. The climate models simply don’t work. They are wrong. Amazingly that does not bother the climate alarmists.”

            The retired German professor also slams the media for uncritically blaring out every alarmists claim, no matter how foolish it may be, and shutting out reasonable voices. Whenever an alarmist prediction fails to appear, “a new one such as ocean acidification gets paraded out in the public“.

            On Germany’s trillion-euro attempt to curb CO2 emissions, Lüdecke calls the effort “absurd”, claiming that the country’s share of global CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the total emitted globally, and that the government’s target would result in a temperature difference of “only a few thousandths of a degree over the next 20 years“. He calls it a “purely political agenda“, summarizing:

            Factually it is therefore totally idiotic what we are doing.”

            On sea level rise and ice melt, Lüdecke reminds us that sea level rise is happening at a perfectly normal range of 1 to 3 mm per year, depending on the data source, and that there is no evidence of anything alarming happening. To put things into there proper context, he tells the readers that it would take Greenland ice 5000 years to melt even if the temperature rose 5°C. “By then we’ll likely be already well into another ice age.”

            Greenland temperature has dropped 2.5°C

            A warming of Greenland is very unlikely, according to Lüdecke:

            A scientific publication using data from ice core analyses show that the mean temperature of Greenland has fallen 2.5°C over the past 8000 years.”

            Brutal dictator

            On what is driving the climate alarmism, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

            It’s all an ideology, a mixture of well-known Marxism, Nature Romanticism and the interests of powerful investors and politicians. […] not at all about good, but rather about a brutal dictator that wants to tell us which lights to use, that we’re no longer allowed to eat meat – in short, how we are to live.” […]

            The aim of the eco-ideology is in reality another society – undemocratic and dictatorial. Ecology here is only an instrument. […]

            Climate change is a dangerous undemocratic ideology.”

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/08/retired-professor-on-germanys-co2-reduction-effort-totally-idiotic-what-we-are-doing/#sthash.2PFngEVo.IS1I8D1F.dpbs

            Posting PAL-reviewed nonsense really doesn’t help you much. To lie about temperature records when it is so easy to check .. Incompetence is obviously widespread among the you-must-believe-me-socialists, “green” feel-good airheads.

            You have been debunked – again!

          • Dan Aldridge

            Dude, writing a bunch of words [does not equal sign] “debunked”. You are just engaging in more proof by verbocity. And after dismissing with a wave of your hand the most cited piece of peer-reviewed research to date on the topic in question.

            As far as this:

            “In fact, weather over time is climate. Weather is always changing, so climate change??”

            Bullshit. Changes is weather fall within a relatively predictable range. Data from numerous proxies show a relatively stable cycle of peaks and troughs, called the Milankovich cycle, and at the beginning of the industrial revolution, we were just coming down from one such peak on a long 50,000-year trek towards an ice age. I showed you before, now I will show you again:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

          • I noticed you didn’t answer any of my questions, i can only assume it is because if you did, you would falsify your own nonsense, which, of course, you are all too well aware of = Dishonest!

            1875 coldest year in 10000 years and no warming for 58 years
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/1875-coldest-year-in-10000-years-and-no-warming-for-58-years/

            EPA Chief concedes no climate impact from ‘climate rule’: It’s about ‘reinventing a global economy’
            http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/05/12/epa-chief-concedes-no-climate-impact-from-climate-rule-its-about-reinventing-a-global-economy/

            UN climate chief candidly admits goal is not to help environment but to end capitalism
            http://poorrichardsnews.com/un-climate-chief-candidly-admits-goal-is-not-to/

            But you can stop lying now ..

            You have been debunked – again, not only you but your whole “green” fraud-movement!

          • Dan Aldridge

            I haven’t answered them because why should I? You aren’t curious about the answers. Further, you won’t accept credible sources, but only cranks and political spin-sites. I gave you the article on ocean acidification most cited by actual experts, and you waved it away because you didn’t like the title. The problem with belief in conspiracies is that it is an intellectual forcefield against truth. Any dis-confirming information is simply waved away as part of the conspiracy.

            Incidentally, here is your hero, the non-college-graduated weatherman himself (Anthony Watts), telling you you’re wrong:

            “Mr. Postma and everybody else involved in this idiotic discussion over “magic gas”

            The greenhouse effect exists, get over it. The only questions are magnitude, sensitives [sic], and feedbacks.

            This thread is closed, along with a warning to any other “Slayers” out there posing under other names (Doug Cotton this means you).

            Your GHG science is pointless, wrong, and unwelcome here. Take it somehwere [sic] else, and please, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony Watts”

            http://principia-scientific.org/to-anthony-watts-and-wuwt-please-stop-your-greenhouse-gas-censorship/

          • I cite empirical data, measurements from nature, unadjusted and factual.

            But you do not seem to understand what empirical data is. Instead you post pseudoscience and wonder why i won’t believe in it ..

            “It must be big oil, Koch brothers, big brother or mother Theresa funded nonsense..”

            I have posted the questions several times on different fora and comment sections, i’ll repeat it; What is empirical data?

            What is evidence?

            Why don’t you answer when i ask you to point to errors i’ve made, or posted, and document what is wrong and how it is wrong ..

            Luke warmers got 2 problems, 1. They do not stay true to the scientific method, which say, if a hypothesis can’t be backed up with data and empirical measurements – IT’S WRONG!

            And 2. Theoretical physics is just that, theoretical.

            THE FOUR KNOWN SCIENTIFIC WAYS CARBON DIOXIDE COOLS EARTH’S CLIMATE
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earths-climate/

            Let’s try again, – where is the ocean acid?

            At what pH is water acidic?

            What is the current pH (average) in the oceans?

            What happens to CO2 dissolved in the oceans when the oceans warm?

            “Ten different temperature records that all tell the same story. These include the primary surface temperature thermometer records (NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT) ..” – those are the data sets that are counterfeit, bent, tortured, adjusted and fake.

            Only thing moving is El Niño ..

            https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h81bc0wqZfc/VyqV0UMlfTI/AAAAAAAAJ_w/HDjztM3JLqcs6qEru1Q3AqjK0H4OH-OvwCLcB/s1600/elnino-feb2016.png

            Rest of your claims is falsified by this graph, ref.:

            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

            That is also the same graph that falsifies the man made global warming hypothesis.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/in-defense-of-satellite-temperature-data-dr-john-christys-powerful-senate-testimony-yesterday/

            And his written testimony is here: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 2 Feb 2016

            https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

            Dutch Geologist Calls Climate Science A “Mass Hysteria” …”Historians Will Shake Their Heads In Disbelief”

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/04/dutch-geologist-calls-climate-science-a-mass-hysteria-historians-will-shake-their-heads-in-disbelief/#sthash.Kz9Dw8Tj.dpbs

            Decarbonization “gross nonsense”

            “On the endeavor to “protect the climate” through cutting CO2 emissions, something often called decarbonization, Lüdecke calls it “gross nonsense” and tells us that a changing climate is “a law of nature“. He adds that there is no evidence that CO2 is “harmful to the climate” and that it strongly warms it”.

            Lüdecke tells the DAV that strong warming is found only in models that use dubious assumptions and effects:

            Whether or not these effects are based on reliable data is of no interest to the modelers. This is how one gets the temperature rise that one desires. The only problem is that these models have not been able to reproduce the past. The climate models simply don’t work. They are wrong. Amazingly that does not bother the climate alarmists.”

            The retired German professor also slams the media for uncritically blaring out every alarmists claim, no matter how foolish it may be, and shutting out reasonable voices. Whenever an alarmist prediction fails to appear, “a new one such as ocean acidification gets paraded out in the public“.

            On Germany’s trillion-euro attempt to curb CO2 emissions, Lüdecke calls the effort “absurd”, claiming that the country’s share of global CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the total emitted globally, and that the government’s target would result in a temperature difference of “only a few thousandths of a degree over the next 20 years“. He calls it a “purely political agenda“, summarizing:

            Factually it is therefore totally idiotic what we are doing.”

            On sea level rise and ice melt, Lüdecke reminds us that sea level rise is happening at a perfectly normal range of 1 to 3 mm per year, depending on the data source, and that there is no evidence of anything alarming happening. To put things into there proper context, he tells the readers that it would take Greenland ice 5000 years to melt even if the temperature rose 5°C. “By then we’ll likely be already well into another ice age.”

            Greenland temperature has dropped 2.5°C

            A warming of Greenland is very unlikely, according to Lüdecke:

            A scientific publication using data from ice core analyses show that the mean temperature of Greenland has fallen 2.5°C over the past 8000 years.”

            Brutal dictator

            On what is driving the climate alarmism, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

            It’s all an ideology, a mixture of well-known Marxism, Nature Romanticism and the interests of powerful investors and politicians. […] not at all about good, but rather about a brutal dictator that wants to tell us which lights to use, that we’re no longer allowed to eat meat – in short, how we are to live.” […]

            The aim of the eco-ideology is in reality another society – undemocratic and dictatorial. Ecology here is only an instrument. […]

            Climate change is a dangerous undemocratic ideology.”

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/08/retired-professor-on-germanys-co2-reduction-effort-totally-idiotic-what-we-are-doing/#sthash.2PFngEVo.IS1I8D1F.dpbs

            Naomi Klein admits global warming is not about science but destroying capitalism
            https://greenjihad.net/2015/08/19/naomi-klein-admits-global-warming-is-not-about-science-but-destroying-capitalism/

            UN climate chief candidly admits goal is not to help environment but to end capitalism
            http://poorrichardsnews.com/un-climate-chief-candidly-admits-goal-is-not-to/

            EPA Chief concedes no climate impact from ‘climate rule’: It’s about ‘reinventing a global economy’
            http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/05/12/epa-chief-concedes-no-climate-impact-from-climate-rule-its-about-reinventing-a-global-economy/

            And Michael Mann has given up on “climate science”, his kind of “science”

            So you can stop pretending you know anything about science, or honesty, this isn’t about climate science, it’s about money and power, population control etc. as described in Agenda 21.

            1875 coldest year in 10000 years and no warming for 58 years
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/1875-coldest-year-in-10000-years-and-no-warming-for-58-years/

            There’s no man made global warming, never was, never will be with the technology man knows today. That is why the dishonest activists are telling us it’s not about man made anything ..

            You have been debunked – again!

          • Dan Aldridge

            Dude. You don’t need to teach me what empirical evidence is. There is heaps of it in the widely-cited article on ocean acidification you ignored because you disagreed with the name.

            I have already told you why I won’t answer your questions. You won’t believe the answers. If you would, you would’ve looked them up yourself; instead, you surround yourself with crap sources from cranks and political spin-sites. And just because those sites post some numbers there, doesn’t mean that’s “empirical data”. All sites use numbers like that, see. You are still trusting that the numbers are correct, and they are being interpreted correctly – because you are not an expert yourself. Same as me. You are trusting ~their~ numbers and ~their~ interpretations because you LIKE their conclusions. I trust numbers and my interpretations because they represent the consensus of what the mainstream, current state of knowledge is on the topic, as accepted by MOST experts because this is what MOST of the research on the topic tells us.

            Now, you can quit with your proof from verbocity / conspiracy theory carpet-bombing, because I don’t have time to read all that crap. If you want to have a discussion, pick ONE point and use ONE source to document it. We can talk about that, but if you want me to respond, then expect to be required to read MY source, regardless of whether you ASSUME you can dismiss it because of one word in the title.

            And incidentally, I notice you completely ignored your OWN preferred source, Anthony Watts, when I quoted him as telling those total cranks at Principia Scientific they were nuts for dismissing the GHE.

          • Let’s try one more time .. I cite empirical data, measurements from nature, unadjusted and factual.
            But you do not seem to understand what empirical data is. Instead you post pseudoscience and wonder why i won’t believe in it .. “It must be big oil, Koch brothers, big brother or mother Theresa funded nonsense..”

            I have posted the questions several times on different fora and comment sections, i’ll repeat it;
            What is empirical data? What is evidence? Why don’t you answer when i ask you to point to errors i’ve made, or posted, and document what is wrong and how it is wrong ..

            This was my response to you about Watts:
            Luke warmers got 2 problems, 1. They do not stay true to the scientific method, which say, if a hypothesis can’t be backed up with data and empirical measurements – IT’S WRONG!

            And 2. Theoretical physics is just that, theoretical.

            Example of theoretical physics
            THE FOUR KNOWN SCIENTIFIC WAYS CARBON DIOXIDE COOLS EARTH’S CLIMATE
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earths-climate/
            I.e – more evidence you have no idea what you are talking about

            Let’s try again, – where is the ocean acid?

            At what pH is water acidic?

            What is the current pH (average) in the oceans?

            What happens to CO2 dissolved in the oceans when the oceans warm?

            Only thing moving is El Niño ..

            https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h81bc0wqZfc/VyqV0UMlfTI/AAAAAAAAJ_w/HDjztM3JLqcs6qEru1Q3AqjK0H4OH-OvwCLcB/s1600/elnino-feb2016.png

            Man made global warming (they call it “climate change” to fool people) is falsified in this one graph, ref.:
            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/in-defense-of-satellite-temperature-data-dr-john-christys-powerful-senate-testimony-yesterday/

            And his written testimony is here: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 2 Feb 2016
            https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

            Dutch Geologist Calls Climate Science A “Mass Hysteria” …”Historians Will Shake Their Heads In Disbelief”
            http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/04/dutch-geologist-calls-climate-science-a-mass-hysteria-historians-will-shake-their-heads-in-disbelief/#sthash.Kz9Dw8Tj.dpbs

            Decarbonization “gross nonsense”

            “On the endeavor to “protect the climate” through cutting CO2 emissions, something often called decarbonization, Lüdecke calls it “gross nonsense” and tells us that a changing climate is “a law of nature“. He adds that there is no evidence that CO2 is “harmful to the climate” and that it strongly warms it”.

            Lüdecke tells the DAV that strong warming is found only in models that use dubious assumptions and effects:

            Whether or not these effects are based on reliable data is of no interest to the modelers. This is how one gets the temperature rise that one desires. The only problem is that these models have not been able to reproduce the past. The climate models simply don’t work. They are wrong. Amazingly that does not bother the climate alarmists.”

            The retired German professor also slams the media for uncritically blaring out every alarmists claim, no matter how foolish it may be, and shutting out reasonable voices. Whenever an alarmist prediction fails to appear, “a new one such as ocean acidification gets paraded out in the public“.

            On Germany’s trillion-euro attempt to curb CO2 emissions, Lüdecke calls the effort “absurd”, claiming that the country’s share of global CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the total emitted globally, and that the government’s target would result in a temperature difference of “only a few thousandths of a degree over the next 20 years“. He calls it a “purely political agenda“, summarizing:

            Factually it is therefore totally idiotic what we are doing.”

            On sea level rise and ice melt, Lüdecke reminds us that sea level rise is happening at a perfectly normal range of 1 to 3 mm per year, depending on the data source, and that there is no evidence of anything alarming happening. To put things into there proper context, he tells the readers that it would take Greenland ice 5000 years to melt even if the temperature rose 5°C. “By then we’ll likely be already well into another ice age.”

            Greenland temperature has dropped 2.5°C

            A warming of Greenland is very unlikely, according to Lüdecke:

            A scientific publication using data from ice core analyses show that the mean temperature of Greenland has fallen 2.5°C over the past 8000 years.”

            Brutal dictator

            On what is driving the climate alarmism, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

            It’s all an ideology, a mixture of well-known Marxism, Nature Romanticism and the interests of powerful investors and politicians. […] not at all about good, but rather about a brutal dictator that wants to tell us which lights to use, that we’re no longer allowed to eat meat – in short, how we are to live.” […]

            The aim of the eco-ideology is in reality another society – undemocratic and dictatorial. Ecology here is only an instrument. […]

            Climate change is a dangerous undemocratic ideology.”
            http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/08/retired-professor-on-germanys-co2-reduction-effort-totally-idiotic-what-we-are-doing/#sthash.2PFngEVo.IS1I8D1F.dpbs

            Naomi Klein admits global warming is not about science but destroying capitalism
            https://greenjihad.net/2015/08/19/naomi-klein-admits-global-warming-is-not-about-science-but-destroying-capitalism/

            UN climate chief candidly admits goal is not to help environment but to end capitalism
            http://poorrichardsnews.com/un-climate-chief-candidly-admits-goal-is-not-to/

            EPA Chief concedes no climate impact from ‘climate rule’: It’s about ‘reinventing a global economy’
            http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/05/12/epa-chief-concedes-no-climate-impact-from-climate-rule-its-about-reinventing-a-global-economy/

            Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/?singlepage=true

            Naomi Klein, The Heartland Institute, and Are We Blind, Too? http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/naomi-klein-the-heartland-institute-and-are-we-blind-too/

            And Michael Mann has given up on “climate science”, his kind of “science”, of course (also called pseudoscience).

            So you can stop pretending you know anything about science, or honesty, this isn’t about climate science, it’s about money and power, population control etc. as described in Agenda 21.

            1875 coldest year in 10000 years and no warming for 58 years
            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/1875-coldest-year-in-10000-years-and-no-warming-for-58-years/

            There’s no man made global warming, never was, never will be with the technology man knows today. That is why the dishonest activists are telling us it’s not about man made anything .. It’s about global government and socialism and a new world order.

            You have been debunked – again!

          • Dan Aldridge

            LOL more proof by verbocity, which you call “debunking”… linking to a bunch of cranks and political spin-sites while ignoring the bulk of decades of peer-reviewed research because there’s a huge conspiracy of climate experts…

          • Helpless and weak!

            Decades of PAL-reviewed bs really doesn’t seem to impress nature – at all!

            Why would it be different this time? https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/why-would-it-be-different-this-time/

        • david russell

          A couple of years ago I did a calculation of how much acid in the ocean is created annually by human CO2 emissions. It amounted to 1 part acid to 107,000,000,000 parts seawater.
          Hard to believe that’s causing a problem.

          • Dano2

            Arguments from incredulity: never compelling.

            Best,

            D

          • david russell

            Typically I ignore the serial liar, Dano2, but here he has a point. Perhaps an illustration will be more compelling.
            A drop of water is officially .05ml (google it). Therefore, as a cubic meter is 1mm ml, a cubic meter has 20mm drops.
            So a [swimming] pool say 20m x 6m x 2M would have 240 cubic meters.
            Given that human acid to seawater is 1 part acid to 107B parts seawater, you’d have to spread 1 drop of acid among 23 such swimming pools to get the same effect as the amount of human acid going into the ocean annually.
            1 drop of acid spread among 22 (actually almost 23) swimming pools… per year, is ….well….not much!!
            Ron White would say “None” but he’s a comedian.

          • Dano2

            Weak little seagull russell has always run away from requests for evidence of the serial liar, Dano2 notwithstanding,

            despite your effete handwaving, the oceans acidify due to man’s CO2 emissions. You can’t ululate it away.

            Best,

            D

  • 2016 El Nino Not Linked To Global Warming, Says Former IPCC Vice-Chairman

    Global Cooling In The Works

    “The current El Nino phenomenon that has brought prolonged drought and sweltering heat to Malaysia is the strongest of the 20 over the last 60 years, but there is no concrete evidence to link its heat intensity to global warming, says former IPCC vice-chairman. Climatologist and oceanographer Prof Dr Fredolin Tangang of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia said this year’s El Nino was even more extreme than the severe phenomena experienced in 1982/82 and 1997/98. “There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,” said Tangang, who had served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency. –Voon Miaw Ping, Malaysian National News Agency, 9 May 2016”

    http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=4ae8e46d84&e=96bb006873

  • Why The Anthropogenic Global Warmers Are The Real Deniers!

    “It has been going on for so long now. For far too long the scientifically illiterate have hurled abuse at Climate Sceptics for the great sin of believing in Great Nature and the scientific method. So now in the United States of America you have the real possibility of electing a President who does not believe in man-made Global Warming, but in Sun-made Global Warming, who actually believes that the Sun makes us warm, and believes that the Sun is inconstant with Solar flares and mighty Solar storms.

    Is it not amazing that such a collective madness could have troubled mankind for so long? In the United Kingdom there was a well-loved Botanist who appeared regularly on BBC television, who suddenly disappeared from the networks. His contracts were not renewed. He became persona non grata.

    What was his great sin in the eyes of the scientifically illiterate mob? He believed and declared that Carbon Dioxide was, and is, a food for green plants, and that these same green plants produce for us and for all mankind the Oxygen of life.

    So that was the very first thing that the Warmists denied. Even now if I write on a Facebook site of those avowedly interested in the environment and point out that the increased presence of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has led to a distinct greening of the Sahel, who are the first to leap up and hurl abuse at me? Why! Non other than the Greens! One might have thought that the Greens would want a green world, that they are the ones who might want to protect the Amazonian forests, and whatever new craze has taken their fancy. Instead of which they wish to bury the very gas of life that is food for green plants and which is elementary Biology.

    ‘Where did you get your figures from? You, Mr Anthony Bright-Paul are very ignorant and deluded. Don’t tell me you have written a book!’ Oh these are just a sample of the abuse that is hurled at me. Shall I tell you something? I quite enjoy baiting these ignoramuses and trolls and tell them they harm me not at all, but only advertise to the world at large the levels of their separate IQs.

    It is time now to turn the tables on these self indulgent and scientifically illiterate ignoramuses. There are some, mind, who do have a smattering of what they call ‘climate science’ (what a giveaway that is!) and they explain to me that this Carbon Dioxide has now got such a thick layer in the atmosphere that it is preventing the heat escaping. Aha! The overcoat in the sky!

    It is a wonder that our aircraft have not bumped into it now and then! This puerile nonsense has been passed around as science. Even a jobbing plumber will know that there is a continuum to Outer Space. Now you can see why these nincompoops are the real deniers. They deny that the Sun warms the Earth and they deny that there is a continuum to Outer Space.

    No! No! The temperature of the Earth is rising and it is all because wicked man is burning fossil fuels. So what is the temperature of the earth today? Well, I do not have it handy. But surely CNN and the BBC, they both show these wonderful weather forecasts and maps of the whole world. I can see the temperature in San Francisco and New York and Mexico City and Havana. Surely with such an important matter they would declare that the Global temperature is such and such and that it has advanced 1/10th of a degree since yesterday.

    Why are they so shy, when they roundly declare that the Earth is getting hotter and hotter and these great panjandrums are going to limit the rise to 2º Celsius? Why, whole nations have just signed up to this risible nonsense, led by the US secretary of State. Have we all gone crazy to allow these scientific illiterates to lead us by the nose?

    If there is such an entity as the temperature of the Globe there is clearly only one thing that can make us warmer and that is the mighty Sun. The Sun is one million three hundred thousand times as big as the Earth and is immensely hot. The radiation from the Sun is intense. Just tell me how ‘intense’ is the radiation from a frozen molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere which I am assured is radiating downwards to Earth and making it ‘hotter than it would other wise be’. Hotter than it would otherwise be? Believe me these are the precise words of a famous Physicist, who has appeared on numerous documentaries of the BBC; words that she emailed me many moons ago.

    Ah yes! The Lower Atmosphere is getting hotter. And what precisely is this Lower Atmosphere? Where does it start and where does it end? The atmosphere has a huge range of temperatures, as anyone flying today will know. Modern aircraft have monitors on board and one is able to see the temperatures declining as the aircraft ascends and increasing as the aircraft comes in to land.

    That is a matter of empirical experience for everyone who is awake enough to look at the monitor. Here is proof that there is a huge range of temperatures in the atmosphere, the hottest part being at the bottom.

    Hot air rises. Anyone disagree? It is a gas law. As gases are heated they rise up and expand and the molecules get farther and farther apart, which is why it feels colder. Ask any one who has climbed Mt Everest or even been up in a balloon. There is a huge range of temperatures in the atmosphere. A Global temperature? Depends what you are assessing. The truth is much simpler. There is no such entity .. Read more ..

    http://principia-scientific.org/why-the-anthropogenic-global-warmers-are-the-real-deniers/

  • For the first time ever has the man made global warming crisis been depicted in a graph that remove all doubt. Tell me, – do you see it??

    http://climateirony.blogspot.no/2016/05/so-where-is-it.html

  • “The White House showed “bad faith” in how it handled an open records request for global warming data, a federal court ruled Monday, issuing yet another stinging rebuke to the administration for showing a lack of transparency.

    For President Obama, who vowed to run the most transparent government in U.S. history, Judge Amit P. Mehta’s ruling granting legal discovery in an open records case — the third time this year a judge has ordered discovery — is an embarrassing black eye.

    In this most recent case, the Competitive Enterprise Institute was trying to force the White House office of science and technology policy to release documents backing up Director John C. Holdren’s finding that global warming was making winters colder — a claim disputed by climate scientists.

    Mr. Holdren’s staffers first said they couldn’t find many documents. They then tried to hide their release by saying the documents were all internal or were similar to what was already public.

    Each of those claims turned out not to be true.

    “At some point, the government’s inconsistent representations about the scope and completeness of its searches must give way to the truth-seeking function of the adversarial process, including the tools available through discovery. This case has crossed that threshold,” the judge wrote.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/10/federal-judge-obama-white-house-showed-bad-faith-in-global-warming-case/

    Why would you hide documentation if you in fact had real evidence?

    You wouldn’t!!

    They do not have evidence for man made global warming cause such empirical data doesn’t exist, it’s really that simple.

    But, of course, they have a lot of made up, adjusted and counterfeit data ..

    Would you cheat if there really was a real problem??

  • Sea level rise, a special kind of sea level rise, locally only, no, not global, local only!!

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/headlines-exaggerated-climate-link-to-sinking-of-pacific-islands#comment-73946189

  • This is how the world would look like if the dishonest, “green” activists actually managed to create their “green” utopia. A leftist world government with ignorance and incompetance on biblical proportions. Truly a scary scenario!!

    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/02/venezuela-is-out-of-food-heres-what-an-economic-collapse-really-looks-like.html

  • This is what the empirical data supports!

    Decarbonization “gross nonsense”

    “On the endeavor to “protect the climate” through cutting CO2 emissions, something often called decarbonization, Lüdecke calls it “gross nonsense” and tells us that a changing climate is “a law of nature“. He adds that there is no evidence that CO2 is “harmful to the climate” and that it strongly warms it”.

    Lüdecke tells the DAV that strong warming is found only in models that use dubious assumptions and effects:

    Whether or not these effects are based on reliable data is of no interest to the modelers. This is how one gets the temperature rise that one desires. The only problem is that these models have not been able to reproduce the past. The climate models simply don’t work. They are wrong. Amazingly that does not bother the climate alarmists.”

    The retired German professor also slams the media for uncritically blaring out every alarmists claim, no matter how foolish it may be, and shutting out reasonable voices. Whenever an alarmist prediction fails to appear, “a new one such as ocean acidification gets paraded out in the public“.

    On Germany’s trillion-euro attempt to curb CO2 emissions, Lüdecke calls the effort “absurd”, claiming that the country’s share of global CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the total emitted globally, and that the government’s target would result in a temperature difference of “only a few thousandths of a degree over the next 20 years“. He calls it a “purely political agenda“, summarizing:

    Factually it is therefore totally idiotic what we are doing.”

    On sea level rise and ice melt, Lüdecke reminds us that sea level rise is happening at a perfectly normal range of 1 to 3 mm per year, depending on the data source, and that there is no evidence of anything alarming happening. To put things into there proper context, he tells the readers that it would take Greenland ice 5000 years to melt even if the temperature rose 5°C. “By then we’ll likely be already well into another ice age.”

    Greenland temperature has dropped 2.5°C

    A warming of Greenland is very unlikely, according to Lüdecke:

    A scientific publication using data from ice core analyses show that the mean temperature of Greenland has fallen 2.5°C over the past 8000 years.”

    Brutal dictator

    On what is driving the climate alarmism, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

    It’s all an ideology, a mixture of well-known Marxism, Nature Romanticism and the interests of powerful investors and politicians. […] not at all about good, but rather about a brutal dictator that wants to tell us which lights to use, that we’re no longer allowed to eat meat – in short, how we are to live.” […]

    The aim of the eco-ideology is in reality another society – undemocratic and dictatorial. Ecology here is only an instrument. […]

    Climate change is a dangerous undemocratic ideology.”

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/08/retired-professor-on-germanys-co2-reduction-effort-totally-idiotic-what-we-are-doing/#sthash.2PFngEVo.IS1I8D1F.dpbs

  • Michael Fremer

    Of course the coral reefs are disappearing due to bleaching. I guess Al Gore is donning scuba gear and using “white out” to paint them…….

  • Dutch Geologist Calls Climate Science A “Mass Hysteria” …”Historians Will Shake Their Heads In Disbelief”

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/04/dutch-geologist-calls-climate-science-a-mass-hysteria-historians-will-shake-their-heads-in-disbelief/#sthash.Kz9Dw8Tj.dpbs

    • The book also looks at all important themes of the climate debate are discussed in short, clear analyses, and all allegations of the climate alarmists are tested against measurements and observations, and are refuted. In the end all warming hysteria is not based on science, but only on non-validated computer models. As is often said: Rubbish in – gospel out.

  • Anaussieinswitzerland

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wv3dIjrcsk

    40 seconds of video that illustrates just how much James Delingpole knows about climate science.

    • stickytape

      I’m guessing this a poor way of trying to denigrate James Delingpole, actually p155 poor.
      Reflect on this, if all the CO2 in the atmosphere were dissolved into the ocean, the ph would still be alkaline, and no I’m not doing the calculation for you, if you can’t work it out yourself, you have no business commenting at all.
      Oh, and if all the CO2 were dissolved into the ocean, then all life on land would cease

      • Anaussieinswitzerland

        Hahaha!

        And you think there is a point where water turns from acid to alkaline?

        Lol

        I bet you think it involves the number 7 too.

        Why are you deniers so stupid?

    • zlop polz

      Paul Nurse is some kind of psychopath/sociopath.
      One sometimes mistakes these types to be honest.
      It takes extreme alertness and a lot of energy to deal with liars.

      • Anaussieinswitzerland

        LOL
        Sit Paul Nurse is the president of the Royal Society.

        Who are you?

  • All you dishonest, “green” activists, you can stop pretending you know science. As you can see, i was right!

    It’s not about man made global warming, which doesn’t exist ..

    “That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/05/12/epa-chief-concedes-no-climate-impact-from-climate-rule-its-about-reinventing-a-global-economy/

    UN climate chief candidly admits goal is not to help environment but to end capitalism
    http://poorrichardsnews.com/un-climate-chief-candidly-admits-goal-is-not-to/

    “Once we abandon notions of progress, we free ourselves to concentrate on making do with what we have rather than placing our hopes on some future material or ethical utopia.
    http://www.umweltethik.at/en/progress_and_environmental_sus/

  • Why would it be different this time?

    First a little science. Data Models vs. empirically measured temperature: Why doesn’t temperature increase when CO2 increase? According to the red line it should. Because CO2 doesn’t produce energy (heat), in fact it cools the planet’s atmosphere .. Here’s how: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/why-would-it-be-different-this-time/

    • Dan Aldridge

      Um… yah… right… I’d love to sit here arguing the helio-centricity of the solar system with you til Florida’s under water, but I think I’ll just leave this here, and walk away, whistling and rolling my eyes…

      https://scontent-tpe1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13254117_10154279192651654_3886054722703307937_n.jpg?oh=eaff093f043901b92e1c122e453f9c2f&oe=579C0688

      • “The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.

        Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

        https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/falsi%EF%AC%81cation-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-e%EF%AC%80ects-within-the-frame-of-physics/

        “.. essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”!!

        Which empirical measurements confirms (not the adjusted data, of course), ref.:

        https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HCFc6CsR1Yg/VzDZv57wSfI/AAAAAAAAKDA/sE9FnjOcbkULFgIOOtQb5s_Aa1vNfyTnwCLcB/s1600/Yearly%2Baverage.jpg

        https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h81bc0wqZfc/VyqV0UMlfTI/AAAAAAAAJ_w/HDjztM3JLqcs6qEru1Q3AqjK0H4OH-OvwCLcB/s1600/elnino-feb2016.png

        NASA Admits Substantial Climate Uncertainties
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/13/nasa-admits-substantial-climate-uncertainties/

        Negative Climate Feedbacks are Real and Large
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/12/negative-climate-feedbacks-are-real-and-large/

        Add it up with all my other posts and documentations posted here in this comment section, you have to ask, why doesn’t this man made climate swindle ends?

        Because it is not about climate, CO2 or science at all ..

        Why would it be different this time?

        First a little science. Data Models vs. empirically measured temperature: Why doesn’t temperature increase when CO2 increase? According to the red line it should. Because CO2 doesn’t produce energy (heat), in fact it cools the planet’s atmosphere .. Here’s how: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/why-would-it-be-different-this-time/

        • Dan Aldridge

          LOL more proof by verbocity. And I love your guy’s “proof”. He puts some numbers and a bunch of jargon, mentions the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and you’re eating it up. Isn’t it a bit of a red flag to you that no one in mainstream science accepts this BS? Here, let me tell you why it’s wrong.

          Roaldjlarson’s train of logic above has a subtle problem in its over statement of the constraints this law places on energy flow. Given a warmer and a cooler body exchanging energy either through convection or through radiation, the fact is, energy is constantly being exchanged in both directions. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to individual photons, it applies to the net flow of energy in the entire system. How could it be otherwise?

          When an excited molecule of CO2 releases a photon, it does not somehow “know” which way to send it. It can not aim it towards a cooler body. It is simply released in a random direction. In the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, having absorbed some of the energy radiating towards space from the surface of the earth, this random choice of direction means that, roughly speaking, half of that energy is sent back. An individual molecule is not influenced at all by the temperature of the earth’s surface, be it warmer or cooler.

          Where the second law does apply is in the net flow of heat, and this happens because a warmer body will send out more energy overall than it is receiving from the cooler one. Lots of energy going back and forth, but on balance more is leaving the warmer body.

          In the case of the simplified earth-atmosphere system, the Earth’s surface warms from the sun’s incoming shortwave radiation. As it is now a warm body floating in cold space, Earth radiates long wave energy back out at a rate that is dependent on its temperature. If that were the whole story, the earth would have balanced its incoming shortwave with its outgoing long wave radiation at an average surface temperature of roughly -18C and it would be a rather inhospitable place. As it is, the content of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing long wave radiation and send it back down where we all live. The earth must balance this by warming enough so that it can radiate this additional energy back out again. The totality of this natural effect is around 33C, bringing our average surface temperature to a comfortable +15C.

          So, it is not really like a blanket, which inhibits convection in both directions, or like an actual greenhouse, which lets in the sunlight and then also inhibits convection, but both are reasonable analogies as far as they go. The scientists in the IPCC know this, they are only using these analogies to help laypeople understand the very general principals. If you hear someone attacking climate science by attacking these analogies, they are attacking a strawman.

          As we have added to the greenhouse efect, the planet’s surface must now warm until it reaches a new equillibrium temperature high enough to radiate out as much again as it is now receiving.

          This is all very well established and long standing physics. No basic ignored mysteries, no violations of fundamental laws, just great explanations of naturally observed phenomena all over the solar system and beyond.

          This was actually a quote from Scienceblogs, but I didn’t put it in quotes because I knew you wouldn’t read it if I did.

          • Let’s put a test to your nonsense, shall we!?

            What your nonsense means, if it actually was true, is that, based on your theory, humans can build heat pumps that produces more energy than what it consumes (are being sent in).

            So, why does my heat pump require electricity?

            Where is such working heat pumps you are describing installed?

            Physics Proves Radiating Gases Decrease Global Temperature It Can Quantify How Much, About -0.086C/Doubling https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/why-would-it-be-different-this-time/

            You have been debunked – again!

          • Dan Aldridge

            How on Earth would the GHE lead to that? Look, a good analogy is a sink. If you let a tap run, the water in the sink will go down at the same rate at the same rate that it flows from the tap. However, if a bit of debris partially blocks up the drain, the water won’t go down as quickly, and the water will begin to accumulate in the sink. That’s it. It’s not that complicated. The info I provided above explains it better; if you disagree, why not go and argue with those authors… or better yet, go to RealClimate where you can discuss the science with actual climate experts, instead of promoting your crank theories here and debating with no-nothings like myself?

            PS, if you are right and the GHE is “nonsense” please explain why the Earth isn’t an ice-ball or slush-ball like it was hypothesized to have been just before the Cambrian explosion. Let me re-fresh your memory: “As it is now a warm body floating in cold space, Earth radiates long wave energy back out at a rate that is dependent on its temperature. If that were the whole story, the earth would have balanced its incoming shortwave with its outgoing long wave radiation at an average surface temperature of roughly -18C and it would be a rather inhospitable place. As it is, the content of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing long wave radiation and send it back down where we all live. The earth must balance this by warming enough so that it can radiate this additional energy back out again. The totality of this natural effect is around 33C, bringing our average surface temperature to a comfortable +15C.”

            So, given there is no GHE, what is the mechanism, exactly, that traps heat in the atmosphere so it doesn’t simply re-reradiate into space?

          • There’s no climate experts at RealClimate, activists, yes ..

            So, now CO2 doesn’t heat the atmosphere anymore, good!

            At what altitude does the heat blocking you are talking about occur? “The Hot Spot”?
            “The Hot Spot” is located 8 – 12 km. above equator. What is the temperature in “The Hot Spot”?
            I’ll help you, it’s around minus (-) 42 C.!

            What kind of magic are capable of making something that cold warm the surface of + 15 C.? (It’s actually 14, 5 C.)

            Another thing, you write: “.. with its outgoing long wave radiation at an average surface temperature of roughly -18C and it would be a rather inhospitable place.”

            At what altitude are the calculated temperature of – 18C.? The earth’s black body surface? Where is that?

            And it’s not even a true black body .. So much stuff you fail to understand!

            Redistribution of heat is the key to understand why the earth was a “snowball” 640 million years ago. How does the earth distribute its heat? Through wind, water vapor, but most of all through the oceans currents and conveyor belts. When all the landmasses are in and around equator, as it was during the time 640 – 710 million years ago, it is easy to understand why it all became frozen. Most of the ocean waters was at the poles and, of course, not much warm water was circulating.
            As the crust changed and the continental drift opened up for more water at the equator, the earth slowly warmed as the water started to receive heat from the equatorial stronger sun and more warm water went into the circulation.

            CO2, as i have proven to you before, doesn’t heat the earth. Temperature is given based on 4 things, the energy from the sun + mass/gravity/pressure, ref.: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html

            You have been debunked – again!

          • Marty Gwynne

            Real science is headed up my Schmidt, a modeler, who doesn’t even understand statistical analysis. Steve McIntyre constantly makes a fool of that clown. He is dishonest and very disingenuous.

          • They have no choice, if they are honest they have to admit humans don’t control the sun, i.e – next day they have to start looking for work – and who would like to hire someone that has publicly made themself, on purpose, dishonest and a liar?

          • Marty Gwynne

            We know the bottom line here, if you dont support AGW you get no funding, especially if your uni gets state funding.

            This message is clear to those who graduate, you either want a career and your projects funded or you want to be an outcast that cant get published, cant get funding or have a career.

            No gov is funding ANY science that tries to break CAGW theory, which is what science the method is about, you try every conceivable way to break your theory, if you fail, it’s a solid theory.

            When they started calling people “deniers” they lost the argument, and we seen it for the environmentalist scam it is

            The idea is so weak, it cant stand up to debate, Schmidt at GISS refused debate with other scientists on the media, because he is a modeler, PhD in maths, he is no climate scientist.

          • zlop

            Supporting the Rothschild World Order,
            IPCC climate science is Mind Control.

          • Marty Gwynne

            wtf, are we on the same side of the debate here!?

            I am 100% GW (not AGW) is real and very low sensitivity and CAGW is bollocks and that CO2 growth is NOT human emissions driven.
            wtf lol

            IPCC science is not science, they want global governance and after they get that, then population control.

            Communists want to control everything even nature, remember lysenkoism

          • zlop

            ” are we on the same side of the debate here!?”
            I don’t know if more CO2 warms, possibly cools, per lowering of clouds.
            CH4, a stronger “greenhouse” gas — likely cools a little.

            Bolshevik style control methods have become more effective.

            Those who doubted Einstein were prosecuted, jailed and drugged.
            https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/albert-einstein-the-myth-the-plagiarist-and-the-zionist#.VsvpAOw3-Kg.email

          • Marty Gwynne

            CO2 will give some warming but probably causes a bigger negative feedback

            I am not a fan of Einstein, drug me up so, his maths dried up when
            his wife left him and he had planted assistants with other researchers
            to steal work. Its the only way he preempted others.

            Relativity is bunk. I suggest you take a gander at the work of Stephen S Crothers, he breaks down the maths, the best way to debunk what is mathematical salad by Einstein

            I am done with arguing the climate science with you because
            you are not arguing climate science, you are applying physics to
            nothing, as in arguing the physics points on their own and claiming
            sophistry on my part, god I hope you are not a stefan moleneaux follower

            Stop listening to those radio shows man, you’re phuckin with your own head.
            You probably think the ISS space station is in a swimming pool do you?
            😀

            Blaze up, take your meds! and enjoy your day, later

          • Dan Aldridge

            // There’s no climate experts at RealClimate, activists, yes … //

            Um, gee, let’s see…

            “Raymond Pierrehumbert is the Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, having earlier served on the atmospheric science faculties of MIT and Princeton…”

            “David Archer is a computational ocean chemist at the University of Chicago. He has published research on the carbon cycle of the ocean and the sea floor, at present, in the past, and in the future.”

            “Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry….”

            That’s not even half of them. Shall I continue? Now as for the Hockey Schtick… um… who even is that, exactly? No author’s name is even shown on the site, let alone credentials.

            // What kind of magic are capable of making something that cold warm the surface of + 15 C.? (It’s actually 14, 5 C.) //

            Look, the greenhouse effect has been experimentally verified, k? Our understanding of it provides a number of verifiable predictions. If carbon dioxide is trapping more heat, we should see less heat escaping to space. Satellites measuring infrared radiation coming from Earth find less heat escaping to space over the last few decades, at those exact wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs energy (Harries 2001,Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). The researchers who analysed this data described this as:

            “…direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. – Harries 2001

            If less heat is escaping to space, there’s only one place it can go – back to the Earth’s surface. Scientists check this by measuring infrared heat coming down from the atmosphere. These measurements confirmed the satellite data – more heat is returning to the Earth’s surface (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006, Wang 2009). This extra piece of evidence upon the existing body of evidence led scientists to conclude that:

            “This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”

            – Evans 2006

            And regarding the Hockey Schtick’s arguments… please.

            If you and that, um, guy or whatever it is are right, I don’t know why you’re bothering arguing with no-nothing me on here. You outta be out getting your Nobel Prize, because you’ve just tossed the Houghton’s “Physics of Atmospheres,” Dennis Hartmann’s “Global Physical Climatology,” or Ray Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate” out the window. Eureka! Forget all that stuff about “optical density” and “albedo”!

            Now, I am a rational person. I understand that a good argument requires

            1) the conclusion follows logically from the premises

            2) the premises are true.

            So even if I am not personally able to point out the flaws in an argument, which would be more rational:

            a) assume the last fifty years of atmospheric physics is garbage or

            b) that there’s something false in your premises or a flaw in your logic my lack of knowledge leads me to miss.

            Which do you think I’m going to guess is right? And in case you think Hockey Schtick has a monopoly on over-our-heads physics equations about atmospheric physics:

            https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/goddards-world/

          • Marty Gwynne

            Stop trying to simplify the earth’s climatic system, reductionism is the reason we have such bogus climate science, there are no simple analogies

          • Marty Gwynne

            What a collection of junk science claims.

            The hydrological cycle drives global temperatures you loonie,

            The earth without ALL GHGs (including the main, water vapor) would be, according to NASA and the IPCC would be -19c, if just GHGs minus water vapor, maybe around -5c

            But, without evaporation the earth’s surface would warm another 33c in no time and keep climbing.

            Venus is that hot because there is no evaporation and precipitation, liquid water cannot exist there so it’s bloody hot, that and it is closer to the sun duh, the atmosphere absorbs the input energy it never reaches the Venetian surface

            What does this mean for the copy paste simpletons? Yes, the hydrological cycle negative feedback is of a greater order than GHG forcings even IF you include the very water vapor that gives radiative forcing

            An increase in the water cycle evaporation would cause a greater negative feedback duh, by more clouds and precipitation, a 50% increase in precipitation from warming would raise cloud cover to 90%, which means the surface would freeze

            But here;s the kicker for you, no trend in water vapor, and global basins are showing a reduction in evaporation.

            Pow

          • zlop

            “The earth without ALL GHGs (including “the
            main, water vapor) would be, according to
            NASA and the IPCC would be -19c,”?

            All atmospheres warm the surface.

            “What are you all afraid of: the realization that the Earth could be 100% nitrogen or 100% CO2 or 100% naughty vapours of some sort, and using the same surface pressure, would provide for the same average global surface temperature? Why are you all trying to include so-called GH gases; ocean modulations; re-radiations; crusts, your grandma’s bad breath and so on ad nauseam?” quoting kzeller

          • Marty Gwynne

            I actually dont understand what you are getting at, at all?

            Are you a catastrophist? or are you saying there is no problem, I cant tell

            Of course our atmosphere warms the surface. I clearly said that, if we had no atmosphere the earth would be about 33c colder, currently it’s 15c, without atmosphere it would be -19c BUT, without the water cycle AND our current atmosphere as it is now, the earth would COOK and all life would die, it is the water cycle, evaporation clouds and rain that prevent the earth from being a ball of gas with a big dead round rock at it’s core.

            The obvious conclusion therefor is that the water cycle decides what temperature the surface is.

            If you cant get your head around that, get a cab

          • zlop

            ¿¿”if we had no atmosphere the
            earth would be about 33c colder”??

            Moon is 155K — Earth’s atmosphere warms by 133K

            Why are you obsessed with the water
            cycle – it controls the weather, but has little
            effect global average surface temperature.

          • Marty Gwynne

            Dear lord, you are lost my friend, if you dont understand what energy the hydrological cycle contains, you literally need to go to the leg shop and get a leg to stand on.

            Without this atmosphere, the average surface temperature would be 255k there abouts NASA agrees, no GHG effect, about -18 or -19c

            The only way the surface can really cool, the oceans and so on, is via evaporation, ergo if the earth is “being cooked by man” then water vapor must increase and there is no trend in water vapor and in fact the basins around the world are showing less evaporation.

            FYI no evaporation, we’d be all dead, you know nothing john snow.

          • zlop
          • Marty Gwynne

            “Quit rambling” is avoiding the salient points, I am also a regular on WUWT

            Also look up the meaning of the word “Estimated”

            You seem to not understand the argument. The argument is not what you think it is, we are talking the effect of radiative forcing of ALL GHGs (including the main one water vapor) compared to the negative feedback of the water cycle

            We are not talking the difference between “with no” atmosphereno water and “with atmosphere and water” or estimated heat in moisture, we cant measure that, too dynamic

            The point, you sorely miss intentionally or refuse to address is that the negative feedback created by the hydrological cycle is of a greater order than the radiative forcing of all GHGs (including water vapor put there by the water cycle)

            If we had our current atmosphere water vapor and all, but no liquid water, the earth would increase in temperature by over 30c in a very short time and continue to rise thereafter, until other substances melt and become vapor, like say lead, Venus has lead rain.

            Without water evaporating there is no way to cool the surface.

          • zlop

            “we are talking the effect of radiative forcing of ALL GHGs”

            What radiative forcing? Thermodynamics
            interacts with and dominates radiation.

            ===============================

            “Without water evaporating there is no way to cool the surface.”?

            The near surface zone (net) cools.
            Look at the Potential Temperature chart.

          • Marty Gwynne

            Look up bloody heat transfer ffs SWEET JEBUS

          • zlop

            A gas blocks what it absorbs. Main internal
            energy transport is by convection/turbulence.

            Near surface Zone has lower Potential Temperature. How could that be?

          • Marty Gwynne

            No need, if sunlight is being reflected 90%, there is not enough internal energy to sustain temperature.

            Radiative forcing is a principle component of AGW, the subject at hand, are you really that stupid?

            Also, go to a desert, there is little to no evaporation, tell me if there is net cooling on the surface. Did you bang your head.

            Nothing you are saying applies to anything real, you do not even ever specify anything physical your nonsense argument applies to because you dont know what you are talking about

          • zlop

            “Radiative forcing is a principle component of AGW”
            Per standard greenhouse theory, Greenhouse factor=1/3
            Only 2/3 of the infrared window is open. 1/3 is radiated back down.
            That is insufficient to raise temperature by 133K (Moon=155K)

            “Also, go to a desert, there is little to no evaporation, tell me if there is net

            cooling on the surface.” — Desert is warmer than the Moon, because of

            thermodynamics. Refer back to Potential Temperature of the atmosphere.

          • Marty Gwynne

            Also, to make a point about nonsense CAGW, if precipitation increased 50% due to 8c warming, it would lead to 90% cloud cover, meaning cold surface temperatures.

            CAGW is junk science

          • zlop

            “90% cloud cover, meaning cold surface temperatures.”

            Radioative equilibrium below the clouds.
            Clear sky saturated greenhouse effect above.
            (per Zagony comment)

          • Marty Gwynne

            More abstract nonsense without a mechanism. No mechanism no claim

            No sunlight hitting the surface means colder surface compared to if sunlight warms surface.

            What happens when a cloud passes over the sun on a warm day huh?

            ROFL

          • zlop

            “What happens when a cloud passes over
            the sun on a warm day huh?”

            We are talking about the energy balanced
            atmosphere, approximation. Net energy flow
            is perpendicular to Potential Temperature contours.
            As per diagram, the near surface zone (net)
            loses energy gained from higher up.
            (opposite to IPCC (net) bottom swarming)

            Above the Tropics, 3 kilometer, 700 millibar,
            gains heat both from above and from below.
            Away from the Tropics, close to surface,
            radiation to space dominates.

          • Marty Gwynne

            You both agreeing doesn’t validate what you say

            Are we having more “consensus” here? 😀

          • zlop

            “You both agreeing doesn’t validate what you say”

            What do you disagree with?
            Second Law Violation is needed.
            Aa=Ed+turbulence energy transport.

          • Marty Gwynne

            Your 2nd law applies to an undefined system in your question, and undefined systems that interact. You cant apply the 2nd law to something you have not defined, I am beginning to think you are a bit of a m0r0n

            You fail to define the boundaries to which your 2nd law apples therefor it is irrelevant.

          • zlop

            Second Law does not exist where motion is direction
            dependent. Gravity gives direction to motion . .. …

          • Marty Gwynne

            “rambling” followed by a copy paste argument.

            Followed by more links and no argument, you are copy pasting your argument, mine comes from thinking and knowledge.

            Tell me how much energy evaporation removes from the surface. This is the relevant question, not answered, and the salient point above all others, before you started meandering with your copy paste arguments.

            You fail to define your argument or the systems it apples to, you are regurgitating links and segments of text.

            Now, in order to apply any logic or theory to a system of systems we must define boundaries for that system and identify all mechanisms in the chaotic non linear system

            Now, if I state that evaporation has an effect, you must deal with that, not say “rambling” and post links.

            No doubt another sort reframing reply will be the result, as has been every single answer you have provided.

            All of this is relevant and you will deny it because then you dont have to answer questions, typical troll speak.

            Now, define the problem, this will give the right questions and help give the right answers, you are lost.

            If I state the water cycle removes more heat than radiative forcing provides, that is the point of debate. You dont get to just change my question if you disagree and reframe the question, which is what you have done since the first post. You cant answer the question, so you “ramble”.

          • zlop

            “mine comes from thinking and knowledge”
            OK — you can figure out how Second Law Violation
            nullifies Malthusian, resource limit, sophistry?

            “Tell me how much energy evaporation removes from the surface”
            Evaporation raises the height from where (net) radiation
            to space occurs.

            Without water https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/potential-temperature-vs-pressure-vs-latitudemp2008.png
            With Water https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/moist-potential-temperature-mp2008.png

          • Dan Aldridge

            Look dude, call this an argument from authority if you want, but I’ve dealt with a lotta cranks talking over my head in my time – cranks who “proved” that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, cranks that “proved” vaccines cause autism, cranks that “proved” the Twin Towers couldn’t collapse like that without demolition, etc.

            In each case, the dude talked way over my head and I was unable to identify the problem in his argument (for some reason, it’s always ~guys~ with this much hubris). But, to put it simply, there are basically two possibilities:

            1) the dude really has figured out something the majority of the experts haven’t (or they’re covering up), and deserves a Nobel Prize for his unrecognized genius or

            2) there’s something false in his premises, or his conclusion doesn’t follow logically from his conclusion, but I’m unable to see it because I just don’t know the subject well enough

            As someone who tries to be rational, which option do you think I’m going to find more likely?

            And if you really want to argue the point about Venus, why don’t you try your argument on these guys and see how it goes:

            https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/goddards-world/

          • Marty Gwynne

            “”
            You are not discussing anything, you are off on a conspiracy theory bender.

            “duh I am a m0r0n but try these guys”

            ROFL

            So essentially, you addressed not one point in the post you replied to and instead just posted a link.

            The link you gives starts out by attacking people, you want me to go there, to where they attack any source they dont like? So basically any source they dont like that I cite automatically means i lose the argument?

            Your “link” basically states anything on WUWT is wrong because it was on WUWT? Do you do logic, no apparently not, look up genetic fallacy, your cited link starts off with one and a lie, “The blog Watts up with That is famous for its attempt to reinvent climate physics on Earth” << is a lie, a complete nonsense claim.

            It's like asking me to argue with flat earth society, nothing I say would be considered valid.

            "Look dude, call this an argument from authority if you want"

            No, because the blog you cited is not an authority, you m0r0n lol

            Now do you want to actually address my post, or keep talking complete cack?

            I think I post, I dont read links and regurtitate

          • Dan Aldridge

            LOL for someone who seems to know so much about a subject, you seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. I posted that link because those guys will be happy to argue the topic with you at your level. I couldn’t give a crap what they say at the beginning and neither should you. The point is, they can argue the topic at the level at which you seem to think you know it. I can’t.

            And incidentally, I wasn’t claiming the link was “an authority”. I was saying you will call my implicit trust in consensus as expressed in my subsequent statement an argument from authority.

            And no, I’m not a moron. I can probably beat you up in MMA, but will you therefore believe I’m a world-class fighter, capable of beating professionals in my weight-class if I chose… but I’m just not interested in gaining that recognition, and am happy to fight strangers I meet on the internet? LOL Basically that’s the same situation here. Since you seem to have entirely missed my point, let me re-post it in hopes you will read more carefully:

            // I’ve dealt with a lotta cranks talking over my head in my time – cranks who “proved” that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, cranks that “proved” vaccines cause autism, cranks that “proved” the Twin Towers couldn’t collapse like that without demolition, etc.

            In each case, the dude talked way over my head and I was unable to identify the problem in his argument (for some reason, it’s always ~guys~ with this much hubris). But, to put it simply, there are basically two possibilities:

            1) the dude really has figured out something the majority of the experts haven’t (or they’re covering up), and deserves a Nobel Prize for his unrecognized genius or

            2) there’s something false in his premises, or his conclusion doesn’t follow logically from his conclusion, but I’m unable to see it because I just don’t know the subject well enough

            As someone who tries to be rational, which option do you think I’m going to find more likely? //

          • Marty Gwynne

            Again more absolutely old pensioner rambling, off topic, genetic fallacies and appeals to perceived authority

            You still have not dealt with anything in the post.

            You cite rationale, that says it all, logic not rationale, rationalizing is for idiots, idiots trapped inside idiotic concepts and filter bubbles.

            Logic is independent

            You have no knowledge so you blather on and on, either address my post or dont bother at all.

            Debate is not for you

          • Dan Aldridge

            LOL and you still seem to have reading comprehension problems. There you go again, trying to prove yourself a champion MMA fighter by beating up some stranger on the internet.

            No, logic isn’t independent. Deductive logic ultimately depends on inductive logic (and inductive logic is circular). But whatever. Go ahead and think you’ve upended all the knowledge in the textbooks if it helps you justify your belief in your political ideology.

          • Marty Gwynne

            Again talking about the issue in the abstract, and not actually talking or debating my post, it’s points or the issue.

            That is usually the recourse of people who dont understand the subject but feel compelled to speak. Go do a lot of reading and come back with an actual argument relating to my post

          • Dan Aldridge

            It ~does~ relate to your post, because for people here in the real world, the truth is what matters, not who “wins” the debate.

            Look, if we take your argument to Vegas, and we show the bookies there, “Look! This guy has a great argument! Read it for yourselves!”

            The bookies, not knowing much about atmospheric physics… what odds do you think they’re going to give you against Bullock and Grinspoon, Wallace and Hobbs, Hartmann, Salby, Houghton, etc.?

            You might say, “Yes… but those bookies don’t understand the topic EITHER!!!” You’re right. But what they do understand – and it should be obvious to everyone – is that if your argument overturns what the majority of experts are saying, there’s a tiny tiny chance you are a friggin’ genius… and a much much bigger chance you’re just a crank.

            The first principle of skepticism: the easiest person to fool is yourself

        • zlop

          “According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”?

          Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a law — it is a solution in a homogeneous system, where velocity is direction independent.

          In an energy balanced atmosphere; Aa>Ed (Atmosphere absorbed>Emitted down)

          To balance emerges, add perpetual turbulence.

          • Marty Gwynne

            Oh stop you

            Difference in temperature is why we have weather, without a temperature difference weather would be static, weather uses heat to do it’s work and as such needs temperature difference potential to move air and water vapor around.

            The system is always looking for equilibrium but can never achieve it.

            The bigger the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles the more extreme the weather where the hot meets the cold, which is why weather was far more extreme in the past pre 1980 and more extreme the further back you go.

            I suggest you look up the difference between heat and temperature for a start before you start talking about thermodynamics

          • zlop

            “The system is always looking for equilibrium but can never achieve it.” — Hence Second Law Violation.

            Aa >Ed because of the near surface lapse.
            How are energy fluxes balanced?

          • Marty Gwynne

            It’s not a violation, the system is chaotic and non linear. That’s why equilibrium cannot be achieved, turn the heat up a few 100 degrees and you will be closer to equilibrium.

            Put a pot of water in an oven and warm it, equilibrium will not be achieved until all the water is gone, simplistic I know, and not representative of the earth, but it still makes a point

          • zlop

            Perpetual turbulence is not a Second Law Violation?

          • Marty Gwynne

            earth is not an isolated system mate, not in the sense of the 2nd law

          • zlop

            Imagine a tall well insulated tube with a gas inside.
            Photons go up and are absorbed.
            Downward emission is from a colder zone,
            therefore, Absorbed is greater than Emitted down.
            (Ferenc Miskolczi also had Aa>Ed)

          • Marty Gwynne

            I can copy paste too, you complete m0r0n, I dislike disingenuous people who pretend to know what they are talking about. Going to blogs and copy pasting text from them in a pretense of having knowledge is pathetic, which is proven by your denial of argument on the questions I raise, you are wandering not knowing where you are headed, you dont understand the question

            here is your response to that copy paste, with my copy paste, I am honest, you are not

            “For those following Miskolczi’s work, and his claims regarding
            “Aa=Ed”, if those two radiative fluxes (Aa and Ed) are not EXACTLY
            equal, then Miskolczi has found nothing that disagrees with current
            greenhouse theory. That they are NEARLY equal has been known for a long
            time (e.g. Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997). Their near-equality is due to
            the fact that IR radiative flows are continuously “trying” to achieve
            radiative equilibrium between layers of the atmosphere, and between the
            atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. If those two quantities were more
            “un-equal” then they are in nature, then radiation-induced temperature
            changes in the atmosphere, and at the surface, would be much larger than
            we observe.

            Again…if Aa does not EXACTLY balance Ed, then Miskolczi has found
            NOTHING that departs from the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse
            effect.
            ADDENDUM…his additional finding of a relatively constant greenhouse
            effect from 60 years of radiosonde data (because humidity decreases have
            offset CO2 increases) is indeed tantalizing. But few people believe
            long-term trends in radiosonde humidities. His result depends upon the
            reality of unusually high humidities in the 1950s and 1960s. Without
            those, there is no cancellation between decreasing humidity and
            increasing CO2 as he claim”

            is your answer

            “Their near-equality is due to
            the fact that IR radiative flows are continuously “trying” to achieve
            radiative equilibrium between layers of the atmosphere, and between the
            atmosphere and the Earth’s surface”

            As I said, trying, looking for equilibrium. You dont even understand your own argument, because you dont know what you are talking about, if equilibrium is not sought, and is achieved (it obviously isnt), what do you think the result would be?

            You didn’t even know you were defining a mechanism, that’s what makes me laugh at you, clueless

          • zlop

            Roy Spencer missed that, turbulence makes the energy fluxes equal.
            (Second Law Violation)

          • Marty Gwynne

            The earth is not a gas tube, you can define a tube and the gas, now define the physical system interactions and mechanisms you are applying this argument to, otherwise you are leaking out your backside, cant you see that? Baahahahahaha

            Reductionist thinking does not work for the planet and atmosphere because we dont understand much of what we are trying to define, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

            You cant simplify it, m0ron

            Ferenc Miskolczi also discovered nothing, nothing not already known btw

            Trenberth already published

            Besides it confirms what I say re a system (a physically defined one you seem to think is irrelevant) seeking equilibrium.

            You keep saying perpetual this or that defies 2nd law, which in the context of what I say is utterly meaningless.

          • Marty Gwynne

            and I am unsure of this “Perpetual turbulence is not a Second Law Violation?” to be totally honest

          • zlop

            Second Law does not exist in a gravitational field. “In the presence of gravity there is no proof (now and never will). The 2nd law was stated outside of gravity environment. – Helder Velez” http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/6/1/76

          • Marty Gwynne

            The fact you cant simplify your argument and apply it to atmospheric physics in relation to the salient points shows you dont understand it.

            “Second Law does not exist in a gravitational field. “In the presence of gravity there is no proof ”

            ^what is this the actual answer to?

          • zlop

            Like flat Earth survey methods, Second Law is a local approximation.

          • Marty Gwynne

            quickly before I do, “Perpetual turbulence is not a Second Law Violation?”

            There is no such thing as perpetual turbulence. But we cant apply a simple rule to such a non linear chaotic system. I don’t see how it applies to the earth’s chaotic system, as in we have not reached temperatures where this would be an applicable question, though more reading on my part is always needed, it never ends :p

          • zlop

            “There is no such thing as perpetual turbulence.”
            Then, in an energy balanced atmosphere,
            Aa is forced to be Ed
            That was the result from Ferenc Miskolczi
            (It had to be fudged with turbulence?)

          • Marty Gwynne

            Enough of this Bollocks, I am going to watch Harlock space pirate. Bette use of my time 😀

          • zlop

            So Sad, I thought there was hope for you.

          • Marty Gwynne

            My area of knowledge is primarily chemistry, namely water chemistry, and as such I know for a fact Ocean acidification is junk science.

          • zlop

            “My area of knowledge is primarily chemistry” — What about perpetually cycling chemical reactions? Where does the energy come from? (UncleAl pointed out that, attempts to publish these reactions by Russian chemists, were rejected, because they violated the Second Law)

            For Second Law violation, velocity has to be direction dependent. For example, lapse exploitation can be used to drive a heat engine. (different gases have different lapses)

          • Marty Gwynne

            There is no such thing as perpetual anything, nothing can provide it’s own energy in perpetuity. What are you talking about. Something is always lost in conversion, ALWAYS

            Even a gravitational field can only supply its own energy if a mass is present to actually create the energy field (if you are a relativist I am not) so technically a gravitational field does not supply it’s own energy, no intrinsic perpetual energy mechanism

            Tell me how this relates to Ocean acidification? The second law does not apply AT ALL to the question

            You keep fixating on the second law and ignoring the physical systems and mechanisms you are trying to apply it to, m0ronic stupidity. Copy paste trolls are clueless, scrutiny is not something you like is it. It’s why you keep repeating the same thing, it’s literally all you have.

            You cant fix stupid lol, now lets see you deny you are a fool :p

          • zlop

            “There is no such thing as perpetual anything”?
            Molecules perpetually bounce around in a gas.

          • Marty Gwynne

            Now tell me how that relates to Ocean acodification? Simply, because if you understand it, tell me how this affects the problem of solving OA validity?

          • zlop

            I am curious what drives perpetually cycling reactions.
            UncleAl pointed them out, without further analyzing.
            Then, there is the phonon diode.

          • Marty Gwynne

            There is NO closed network you have defined, you are applying the second law to nothing, just stating it by itself. nonsense

            You MUST define the closed loop in order to apply the rule. Where is this closed loop? Define it.

          • zlop

            ” Where is this closed loop? Define it.”
            Imagine a long, tall, well insulated, cylinder.
            It can be cooled by a lapse exploration heat engine.
            (Xenon lapses 60K/kilometer . .. …)

          • Marty Gwynne

            I gotta go to work mate, we disagree obviously.

            I do note that you don’t resort to ad homs and “denier” crap, so fair play you make your argument.

            Later

          • Dan Aldridge

            To zlop, you first said,

            “the second law of TD is a theory m0r0n.

            There is no closed loop for energy to move around in, you have not defined the closed loop, you are an idiot”

            Then later…

            “I do note that you don’t resort to ad homs and “denier” crap, so fair play you make your argument.”

            Now by “ad homs”, I assume you mean personal insults (though that’s not what they actually are, at least not in the sense of the logical fallacy), but in any case, don’t you see a ~little~ bit of irony in what you’ve written here? Maybe time for some self-reflection?

          • Marty Gwynne

            the second law of TD is a theory m0r0n.

            There is no closed loop for energy to move around in, you have not defined the closed loop, you are an idiot, I cant make it any simpler, there is no entropy caused by solar input into a “closed loop”

            You dont know what you are talking about, I hope you are not educated in physics, jesus christ!

      • Marty Gwynne

        You talk like a flat earther, not a shred of science from you

  • Marty Gwynne

    The Great barrier reef is a giant calcium reactor, the very stuff it is made from raises pH
    Aragonite (coral skeletons) raises pH, coral sand raises pH.

    OA in the GBR is pseudo science.

    Coral growth actually lowers pH of water it strips of calcium ions, all shelled creatures also do same, none produce acidic water.

    To lower sea water to pH 6, which is borderline for preventing calcium structures to survive, in sea water dKH 8 and pH 8 requires 240mg of CO2 PER LITER OF SEA WATER.

    Only a small fraction of that unimaginably high level of dissolved CO2 in sea water would become carbolic acid, and even less drops protons causing acidity.

    But there is just no way sea water will contain that level of CO2, it’s junk science

Close