Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
Interestingly, the motto of The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, a.k.a. The Royal Society, is Nullius in verba. Think about it.
Radical Rodent
Apart from the fact that humans are attributed only about 3% of the present increase in CO2, I’m not sure if you are aware that a lot of the world’s oceans are bounded by such rocks as limestone and chalk. Have you ever had acid reflux? What is the treatment for that? I am sure that our resident geological expert will agree that both of these rocks (and there may well be others) tend to render water alkaline when dissolved; “increasing the acidity” – in reality, reducing the alkalinity – of the oceans will result in increasing the dissolving of these rocks; this is what is known as a self-regulating system. The paper you linked us to is so shot full of holes that even I could sink it, which, to me, is a pretty good indicator of how shoddy it is.
Radical Rodent
The imbalance in CO2 sink and sources per annum may be a few percentage points, however that imbalance happens every year. CO2 is up more than 40% and it is all manmade.
When CO2 dissolves it forms carbonic acid some of which dissociates into a bicarbonate ion and a hydrogen ion (H+).Ocean pH has dropped from 8.25 to near 8.14, which sounds insignificant until you remember that the pH scale is logarithmic - and this represents a 30% increase in H+ ion concentrations. Under an unabated emissions scenario, pH is forecast to drop to 7.85 by 2100 a factor of 2.5 increase in H+.
Yes, there is some buffering, but we are talking about gigatonnes of additional carbon, shifting the carbonate equilibrium. Basically the concentration of HCO3(-) and H(+) ions increase while the CO3(2-) concentration goes down. The decrease in CO3(2-) is potentially very bad news for anything that uses the Aragonite and Calcite saturation to form shells or corals.
But you've read the RS report, so you knew all that. I presume you will be writing to the Society to inform them where they went wrong. And you'd better cc these guys:
We, the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to:• Acknowledge that ocean acidification is a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is already having an effect at current concentrations, and is likely to cause grave harm to important marine ecosystems as CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm and above;
• Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification;
• Within the context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009, recognise the direct threats posed by increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat;
• Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them thereafter;
• Reinvigorate action to reduce stressors, such as overfishing and pollution, on marine ecosystems to increase resilience to ocean acidification.
The following academies have endorsed this statement.
• TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world
• Albanian Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
• Australian Academy of Science
• Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
• Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
• Academia Chilena de Ciencias
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
• Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Cuban Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
• Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
• Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
• Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
• The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
• Académie des Sciences, France
• Georgian Academy of Sciences
• Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
• The Academy of Athens
• Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
• Indian National Science Academy
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Islamic
• Republic of Iran
• Royal Irish Academy
• Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
• Science Council of Japan
• Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
• Islamic World Academy of SciencesTWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world
• Albanian Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
• Australian Academy of Science
• Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
• Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
• Academia Chilena de Ciencias
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
• Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Cuban Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
• Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
• Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
• Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
• The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
• Académie des Sciences, France
• Georgian Academy of Sciences
• Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
• The Academy of Athens
• Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
• Indian National Science Academy
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
• Royal Irish Academy
• Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
• Science Council of Japan
• Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
• Islamic World Academy of Sciences
• African Academy of Sciences
• Kenya National Academy of Sciences
• The Korean Academy of Science and Technology
• Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
• National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
• Akademi Sains Malaysia
• Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
• Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
• Pakistan Academy of Sciences
• Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
• Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
• Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa
• Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Slovak Academy of Sciences
• Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
• National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
• Sudanese National Academy of Science
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
• Turkish Academy of Sciences
• The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Society, UK
• US National Academy of Sciences
• Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
• Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Phil Clarke
Mar 16, 2020 at 2:04 PM Phil Clarke
Try reading a bit of science for yourself, rather than quoting misrepresentations of scientists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate
golf charlie
Mar 16, 2020 at 2:04 PM Phil Clarke
You refer to the learned wisdom of
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
http://info.hazu.hr/en/about_academy/foundation_of_academy/
I expect they are very familiar with
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krka_National_Park
and
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate
golf charlie
Mar 16, 2020 at 12:53 PM Radical Rodent
The water in Croatia is bloody hard. Freshwater streams and rivers even calcify the roots of the plants growing in them, which is apparent to those that visit the beautiful
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krka_National_Park
The remains of the first Hydro Electric Scheme are within the Park.
The water in the Adriatic is notorious for blocking up the coolant systems of yacht engines, but fortunately, or out of necessity, all small supermarkets sell hydrochloric acid for domestic Freshwater limescale removal. If there is any trace of acid in the Adriatic, I am probably responsible for a few litres of it.
golf charlie
If we're debating by wikilinks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Impacts_on_oceanic_calcifying_organisms
Phil Clarke
You are going to extraordinary lengths to “prove” me wrong, Mr Clarke, and I am very flattered by it. My immediate response to that list you gave was: “I wonder how they all justify their finances…” But, that is just me being cynical.
As for
This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning…my cynicism kicks in, yet again. This “relentless rise” has been shown to be a suspect claim; a paper published around 1910 stated that the CO2 levels were 400ppm, then (it’s on the interweb thingy somewhere, and I do not have the time, presently, to search for it for you); also this “relentless rise” has been more or less uniform, yet the human consumption of fossil fuels has been exponential, such that more than 30% of our total consumptions have been in this century, so I have trouble buying into that malarkey.
Radical Rodent
Mar 16, 2020 at 3:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Thank you, the info you are posting comes from thie propaganda outfit that produced this:
"For the remainder of the 21st century and beyond, climate change poses an existential threat to humanity.
Decisions on how to tackle the effects of climate change, however, need to be based on sound science and rational judgement. They will also need to be made through the coming years – so it is the younger generation, currently in schools and learning about science, who will need to make those decisions.
The Paris Climate Agreement (UN, 2015) recognizes this by stating that “Parties should take measures ... to enhance climate change education” (Paris Agreement, Art.12)."
It just confirms that no one need risk flying to Glasgow for COP 26
golf charlie
a paper published around 1910 stated that the CO2 levels were 400ppm, then (it’s on the interweb thingy somewhere, and I do not have the time, presently, to search for it for you);
Nullius in Verba, as they say at the Royal Society, 'Take no-one's word for it'.
Could it have been the work of Ernst-Georg Beck?
This attracted a lot of critical attention, shall we say?
Comment 1
Comment 2 (Free registration required).
Beck to the Future
Amateur Night
In summary, Beck was treating readings taken, for e.g. in Paris, Parc Montsouris, Copenhagen and Dieppe as representative of the atmospheric background, which they certainly were not.
Phil Clarke
Mar 17, 2020 at 10:39 AM Phil Clarke
Does Climate Science have a Planet B to extract money from, because Planet A may conclude that Climate Science is at High Risk of Austerity Funding?
If you are going to look at Science and History from before WW1, why not try going back further to the causes of the LIA and MWP?
golf charlie
No, Mr Clarke, not he. I do note that the one of the critics of Ernst-Georg Beck is Ralph F. Keeling – someone closely associated with the Keeling Curve, perhaps, so might have a vested interest? Certainly, for a scientist to include the sentence: “Unfortunately for Beck—as well as for humanity—the claims don’t stand up.” [my bolding] does indicate a lack of objectivity. However, he does call into question one thing that you assert, with no explanation of why: “…readings taken, for e.g. in Paris, Parc Montsouris, Copenhagen and Dieppe as representative of the atmospheric background, which they certainly were not.”
Keeling had discovered what is now known as the atmospheric “background”, i.e. the bulk of the atmosphere remote from the land surface in which the CO2 concentration is quite constant. Further measurements by Keeling and colleagues on air sampled from ships, airplanes, and the ground confirmed the relative constancy of this background.So, what is wrong with Beck’s source of readings?
Radical Rodent
Also, one comment on another of your links is worthy of note:
Zane Lewis says:Shocking indeed.
1 May 2007 at 9:57 PM
It is shocking that such a paper could attain the “peer reviewed” status unless one accepts that manufacture uncertainty is occurring.
And another:
bjc says:Is the effect of CO2 selective, then?
2 May 2007 at 12:07 PM
This is probably a dumb question, but with the high concentration of CO2 in urban areas wouldn’t we expect to see a bigger UHI effect?
Radical Rodent
Anyhoo…. Here’s another link for you, Mr Clarke, to summarily dismiss.
Radical Rodent
Ah yes Nikolov and Zeller. That paper has an interesting history. It was first published and then retracted as the authors had used the false names Volokin and ReLlez, their real names reversed. As Gavin Schmidt tweeted
Top tip for climate contrarians: When you submit nonsense papers to journals, spell your name backwards so no-one knows who you are.
:-)
Anyhow, it was subsequently published correctly. It's basically the discredited and unphysical theory that surface temperature is a consequence of surface atmospheric pressure, a favourite of your mate Tony Heller (another pseudonym fan). It's dressed up in some fancy curve-fitting, but that's basically it.
There are numerous debunkings around, including by astronomer ATTP, Eli, even Roy Spencer
Keep 'em coming.
Phil Clarke
It's basically the discredited and unphysical theory that surface temperature is a consequence.....
Mar 18, 2020 at 9:42 AM Phil Clarke
Mann's Hockey Stick is a discredited paper based on faked evidence, that he can't present in Court.
golf charlie
Are people here seriously still debating the existence of the greenhouse effect and whether or not the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic?
...and Then There's Physics
Mar 18, 2020 at 12:54 PM ..and Then There's Physics
You still haven't confirmed your expert view of Mann's Hockey Stick.
To quote your own words, "put up or shut up"
golf charlie
Curious. When others attempt to debunk, they can be in for a shock. But others have also shown what you dismiss to be the more probable case. Why not try and actually argue against the case, rather than wave your hands and say, “Well, Gavin says it is rubbish, so it must be so…” In the first link, the prof actually set out to prove the “greenhouse gas” theory, and came up with a surprise – as he said, it was as if the bottom had dropped out of his world, when what he had believed for 30 years was shown to be wrong! Credit to the man for being so honest with that; as Richard Feynman has said: “It does not matter who how beautiful the theory or who said it, if the evidence does not fit the theory, then the theory is wrong!” Now he was a TRUE scientist, with no fear of being wrong.
I have yet to see any debunking of the second, either, though there have been an awful lot of ad hominems against the author… what a surprise, eh? The interesting thing is that, if you apply his equations to other planets in the Solar System, you get very close to the known data – and all these planets have close to 100% “greenhouse gas” atmospheres, so perhaps it is the entire “greenhouse gas” theory that is bunkum.
Out of interest, you are probably aware of the idea that, without an atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be about -18°C; do you happen to know what the average temperature of the atmosphere is? Curiously, it is about -20°C; what a spooky coincidence….
Radical Rodent
I guess that answers ATTP's question.
Huffman again? Really?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=354&p=6#129128
The Youtube link gives 'Video Unavailable'.
The average surface temperature on Earth is around 15C, exactly as greenhouse theory predicts.
Phil Clarke
We’ll leave that one for now, Mr Clarke, as the limited internet connection I have did not allow me to check the link to Youtube when I posted it – so, sorry about that; it was still extant the last time I checked, just a few weeks ago – and is not allowing me to view the whole picture of that article. From what I can see, it is the best counter-argument I have seen, mainly because it is the only counter-argument I have seen – all that most people seem to go on is that they do not like Mr Huffman. It still does not reveal why the equations given by Mr Huffman give correct figures for almost all the other planetary bodies in the Solar System for which we have the data – indeed, as they do for Venus over a 10 km range of altitude (which the nice Mr Huffman also noticed, but could find no explanation other than “cloud layers”)… but, let’s ignore that, shall we?
One very interesting explanation of climate change can be found here. Note: the author is NOT saying that this is so, but that he put this model together, based upon his own knowledge and experience, and was surprised by the result. He has explored further, and is continuing to explore, but I don’t have the links for those. He is open for discussion, too, if you wish to engage with his reasoning.
Radical Rodent
From what I can see, it is the best counter-argument I have seen, mainly because it is the only counter-argument I have seen – all that most people seem to go on is that they do not like Mr Huffman.
That's absurd. As I and others have pointed out almost ad nauseum his proposal fails because it assumes each body has the same albedo.
These clouds give Venus an albedo of 0.6 which means 60%of the suns energy is reflected back out to space, 40%is absorbed. Earth by comparison has an albedo of 0.3 which means 70% is absorbed. The net difference in energy absorbed between Earth and Venus is thus the inverse ratio of distance to the sun squared time the difference in fraction of energy absorbed.Venus only absorbs 10% more solar energy than does Earth yet its temperature at equivalent atmospheric pressure is 66C vs 14C. The difference in black body emission is 749 watts/sqM versus 390 watts/sqM. The close equivalence cited by Mr Huffman would appear to only exist if one ignores the difference in albedo.
Add in the fact that Huffman's Venus-Earth equivalence only actually applies across the narrow range of 50-60km and you have a classic crank theory. Neither of the articles I linked expressed any personal animosity towards Huffman, you just made that up.
I tend to ATTP's incredulity that people are still doubting the greenhouse effect, 124 years after Arrhenius, placing their faith instead in any random pseudo-scientist who confirms their worldview.
Phil Clarke
Mar 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Phil Clarke
Do you share his inability to defend Mann's Hockey Stick?
golf charlie
And, when the world cools and carbon dioxide still continues to rise, in spite of the “greenhouse effect”, you will no doubt say: “Well, of course I knew that it was all a load of tosh – it was always the Sun wot done it!” 😂 🤣 😂 🤣
The religion of Science has been proven wrong on more than one occasion.
Radical Rodent
Oh, dear… argumentum ab auctoritate, now, are we, Mr Clarke, as ad homs don’t seem to be too effective. The accepted pH of the world’s oceans seems to be around 8.2; if all the atmospheric CO2 were to dissolve into the oceans, this would lower the pH to, perhaps, 8.1. Aside from the fact that much of the oceans remain totally unmeasured, so this figure is really just a wild guess, I’m not sure where the beef is, here – it is known that many areas of the oceans have massive variations in pH, with many different factors causing it – time of day, state of tide, season, etc, etc. Some areas actually DO go acidic, yet they all still live. Makes you wonder why, doesn’t it?