Ocean acidification amplifies global warming (Update)

Aug 25, 2013
Figure 1 : Observations of reduced DMS concentration with decreasing seawater pH from different mesocosm experiments.

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), Dr. Katharina Six, Dr. Silvia Kloster, Dr. Tatiana Ilyina, the late Dr. Ernst Maier-Reimer and two co-authors from the US, demonstrate that ocean acidification may amplify global warming through the biogenic production of the marine sulfur component dimethylsulphide (DMS).

It is common knowledge that fossil fuel emissions of CO2 lead to global warming. The ocean, by taking up significant amounts of CO2, lessens the effect of this anthropogenic disturbance. The "price" for storing CO2 is an ongoing decrease of seawater pH (ocean acidification), a process that is likely to have diverse and harmful impacts on marine biota, food webs, and ecosystems. Until now, however, climate change and ocean acidification have been widely considered as uncoupled consequences of the anthropogenic CO2 perturbation.

Recently, ocean biologists measured in experiments using seawater enclosures (mesocosms) that DMS concentrations were markedly lower in a low-pH environment (Figure 1). When DMS is emitted to the atmosphere it oxidizes to gas phase sulfuric acid, which can form new aerosol particles that impact cloud albedo and, hence, cool the Earth's surface. As marine DMS emissions are the largest natural source for atmospheric sulfur, changes in their strength have the potential to notably alter the Earth's radiation budget.

Figure 2 : Zonal averaged changes in radiative forcing (a) caused by the projected changes in DMS emission (b) for three sensitivity experiments (high, medium and low) based on the relationship shown in Fig.1 (same color coding) and a reference run (Ref).

Based on the results from the mesocosm studies the researchers from the MPI-M have established relationships between pH changes and DMS concentrations in seawater. They projected changes in DMS emissions into the atmosphere in a future climate with enhanced ocean acidification using the MPI-M Earth system model4. In the journal Nature Climate Change it is demonstrated, that modeled DMS emissions decrease by about 18 (±3)% in 2100 compared to preindustrial times as a result of the combined effects of ocean acidification and climate change. The reduced DMS emissions induce a significant positive radiative forcing of which 83% (0.4 W/m2) can, in the model, be attributed to the impact of ocean acidification alone (Figure 2). Compared to the Earth system response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 this is tantamount to an equilibrium temperature increase between 0.23 and 0.48 K. Simply put, their research shows that ocean acidification has the potential to speed up global warming considerably.

Explore further: Sierra Nevada freshwater runoff could drop 26 percent by 2100

More information: Six, K. et al. (2013): Amplified global warming by altered marine sulfur emissions induced by ocean acidification, nature climate change, Nature Climate Change. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1981. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1981

Related Stories

Ecosystems under threat from ocean acidification

Mar 29, 2010

Acidification of the oceans as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have significant effects on marine ecosystems, according to Michael Maguire presenting at the Society for General Microbiology's ...

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

May 19, 2013

A global warming "pause" over the past decade may invalidate the harshest climate change predictions for the next 50 to 100 years, a study said Sunday—though levels remain in the danger zone.

Recommended for you

The underestimated risk of ethanol fireplaces

17 hours ago

Ethanol fireplaces are becoming more and more popular. However, they are not only highly combustible – in the past, severe accents have occurred repeatedly with decorative fireplaces. The devices also pollute ...

New research shows temperatures vary block by block

17 hours ago

This summer has seen the temperature rise above the severe heat mark of 90 degrees just five times, with the latest happening Wednesday afternoon. That's far fewer times than in an average New York summer.

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (31) Aug 25, 2013
Less sulfur aerosols is basically less smog. The laugh test for climate alarm is creeping up on Democrats now, rubbing off on them, frozen deer in headlight glare. How hard is it really for thousands of coal plant sulfide scrubbers to be tweaked to indeed take advantage of these results that show that small adjustments can indeed cool the planet as needed and have bigger effects than the traditional greenhouse effect? Might cleaner air initiatives explain recent warming too? Seriously.

"Dry scrubbing systems are often used for the removal of odorous and corrosive gases from wastewater treatment plant operations. The medium used is typically an activated alumina compound impregnated with materials to handle specific gases such as hydrogen sulfide. Media used can be mixed together to offer a wide range of removal for other odorous compounds such as methyl mercaptans, aldehydes, volatile organic compounds, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide."
http://en.wikiped...Scrubber
Egleton
2.8 / 5 (18) Aug 25, 2013
Professor Lovelock said the the oceans cool themselves by releasing di-methyl sulphide into the air to form the nucleus of water droplets and thus make clouds.
Another controling feedback mechanism bites the dust.
This is not good.
DMS is that odour you get from fresh fish.
mountain_team_guy
1.8 / 5 (32) Aug 25, 2013
If you add up all the alarmist propaganda about global warming, there can only be one conclusion. We're inevitably going to burst into flames.
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 25, 2013
@nik - you are far from the first to suggest that reducing sulfur emissions from coal burning has contributed to recent warming.

But there are problems with using such emissions to counteract the heat-trapping of CO2.
For starters, remember the acid rain caused by sulfur dioxide emission?
If we keep pumping out CO2 and pump out enough sulfur dioxide to compensate, the rain would become more and more acidic.
(This is why sulphate geoengineering advocates propose dispersing sulphates above the troposphere, so that the sulfur doesn't rain out).

Also, the atmospheric lifetime of the sulphate aerosols is far shorter than CO2, so if we were to stop the sulfur the warming could catch up over just a few decades.

NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (29) Aug 25, 2013
RealScience reminds me of the junk science behind the Acid Rain scare:

http://www.google...%20fraud
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (17) Aug 25, 2013
H2O do not forsake us!
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 26, 2013
So are they saying lightning is warming the ocean? That's my take away, but I really didn't read the article. A picture is worth a thousand words!
kochevnik
3 / 5 (16) Aug 26, 2013
So are they saying lightning is warming the ocean? That's my take away, but I really didn't read the article. A picture is worth a thousand words!
Lightning converts DMS into MSM, which is the most potent form of sulfur mammals can eat. The aloe vera plant is 50% MSM which contributes to it's healing properties.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (21) Aug 26, 2013
NikkieTard points to a sham article in the Republican propaganda publication "national review" that claims ...

"like global warming science today, the "consensus" science in 1990 — which argued that Midwest power plants were destroying Northeast lakes with acid rain — was bunk.
...

National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project) study published in 1989 – which took ten years and cost $500 million, the most comprehensive federal study ever undertaken — proved that acid rain was a minor nuisance and that passing expensive regulation would do little to address the supposed problem.
"

The the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress 2011
claimed the exact opposite of what the Conservative Propaganda outlet claims.

http://ny.water.u...s/NAPAP/

I have never encountered a Republican who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

NikkieTard is a fine example of a lying Republican.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (28) Aug 26, 2013
Wow! Somehow natural CO2 emissions don't do this. This just shows how evil we all are. I wonder if they factored in the huge increase in plankton due to Co2 fertilization? I'm thinking it doesn't suit their preconceived agenda.
"The CO2 fertilization of marine plankton can have a positive effect on climate change in the future. The greenhouse gas consumed by plankton and removed from the surface ocean when the dying cells sink to depth makes way for the uptake of more CO2. In a way, the tiny organisms act as a biological conveyer belt for the transport of carbon dioxide out of the surface and into the deep ocean."http://www.scienc...1016.htm
p.s Vendicar. I'm a Democrat.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2013
VendicarE, do enjoy my Timothy Leary quote on the following infographic after I now playfully post a growing collection of your death threats to a porn banner image hosting page, as I write this from the glorious Upper West Side of Manhattan where I still have dozens of books I selected from reviews in the old Whole Earth Catalog:
http://s11.postim...eats.gif

http://tinypic.co...&s=7

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

P.S. Your decade long existence as one of the Net's most active sockpuppet account trolls is really unraveling now after you used the fraudulent Global Warming 97% consensus claim by bitter faced conspiracy theorist Oreskes to prance around as Mr. Smart Guy...and all around psycho...even though us serious skeptics are already counted in that 97% of classic greenhouse effect adherents:
http://www.google...dds+bush
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2013
P.S.S. VendicarE, ten years before your own arrival on the Net as a thoroughly detested hyperactive troll, I was online in 1994 as -=Xenon=-, working to port the hard encryption program PGP to the Macintosh with a real interface instead of a dorky command line in the face of 1994 Republican congressional attempts to ban personal privacy software by classifying it as an armament:
https://groups.go...hPCdS2Ks
Egleton
2.1 / 5 (17) Aug 26, 2013
Breath Nik.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2013
Hey Egleton, how's your Cold Fusion investments coming along, you know the ones that will prevent reinstatement of slavery and will save us all from nuclear war?:
http://s18.postim...very.png
http://s14.postim..._War.png
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2013
Egleton of ColdFusionNow.org has been taunting me here on my favorite science site, by posting "Nick?" one liners to Global Warming articles. Those who share my morbid curiosity may witness his personal philosophy here:
http://s14.postim...list.png
http://s23.postim...st_B.png

The irony of his armageddon is that if our artificial energy rationing perma-recession does slip into a sudden depression, it will be exactly because of green boondoggle money wasted via debt financing.
ThomasQuinn
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 26, 2013
Nik:

It's time you made up your mind. You can either pretend to be a scientist knowledgeable on the subject of climatology (or, alternatively, you could try to get a degree in a subject with a little more bearing on the topic than carbon chemistry, a degree you believe makes you an expert on everything - what we might call a Sheldon Cooper-complex), thus using scientific arguments to make scientific points, OR you can be an annoying Republican pundit using every chance to hurl slurs at democrats and imply conspiracy theories by some imaginary leftist NWO. What you can't do is what you're doing right now - trying to combine the two. You can be a scientist, you can be a propagandist. But the two DON'T BLEND WELL.
vertex
3.6 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2013
I see the same group here, having the same conversation. Please, stop wasting your time. It must be multiple hours spent daily from both sides simply arguing the exact same things. Are you A) changing any minds, or B) Keeping the conversation intelligent?

It's embarrassing to read most of the time (particularly of one viewpoint). If I can help communicate anything it would be to the majority of real users of this site to disable comments via your account. Yes, you can do that, it just requires you to sign up.

There's 100,000 fans on Facebook of physorg (of which I'm actually not) -- So likely multiple hundreds of thousands of uniques. Yet, there's a whopping 20 who actually argue as quickly as the articles flow, ruining the experience for the 99.9995%.

I feel sorry for the properly intelligent people who get drawn into the nonsense. I see the loss of human potential here on a daily basis, and I've pretty much had it. Comments are off, for good.
Unbiased Observer
1.7 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2013
ThomasQuinn,

Hate to say this but Organic Chemistry is a hard science, climatology at this point in time is, at best, a soft science. I try to stay out of arguments because I prefer to look at both sides but all I see from the side supporting the idea of anthropogenic global warming are ad hominems.

Models are but a tool, but incredibly dangerous when inaccurate assumptions are artificially amplified... People have brought up valid arguments regarding the validity of the data collection which have not been addressed. Faulty data will, in all probability, cause faulty models.

I have watched Nik provide arguments that never go refuted, and I must assume its because you all have no response. I have in turn watched VendicarE provide non-stop verbal assualts and even death threats to those of the opposing viewpoint.

Do I agree with Nik? Not necessarily, but when valid points are raised, the point of a debate is to address them, not the person.
Restrider
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 26, 2013
ThomasQuinn,

Hate to say this but Organic Chemistry is a hard science, climatology at this point in time is, at best, a soft science. I try to stay out of arguments because I prefer to look at both sides but all I see from the side supporting the idea of anthropogenic global warming are ad hominems.

Models are but a tool, but incredibly dangerous when inaccurate assumptions are artificially amplified... People have brought up valid arguments regarding the validity of the data collection which have not been addressed. Faulty data will, in all probability, cause faulty models.

I have watched Nik provide arguments that never go refuted, and I must assume its because you all have no response. I have in turn watched VendicarE provide non-stop verbal assualts and even death threats to those of the opposing viewpoint.

Do I agree with Nik? Not necessarily, but when valid points are raised, the point of a debate is to address them, not the person.

I couldn't have worded it better
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
Are you the same grant seeking Thomas Quinn who is selling a boozy green energy scheme here?:

http://phys.org/n...670.html
ThomasQuinn
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2013
Are you the same grant seeking Thomas Quinn who is selling a boozy green energy scheme here?:

http://phys.org/n...670.html


No. I am the same ThomasQuinn who is an award-winning social- and political historian that goes by the name of Caspar Mulders in real life. Also, I invariably spell ThomasQuinn without a space, not in the last place to differentiate it from a real name.
ThomasQuinn
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2013
ThomasQuinn,

Do I agree with Nik? Not necessarily, but when valid points are raised, the point of a debate is to address them, not the person.


First off, I'm not saying carbon chemistry isn't "hard" or "real" science, I'm simply saying a degree in carbon chemistry doesn't qualify Nik to dismiss scientific claims in other fields offhand. He, on the other hand, considers himself an expert in the field of Everything.

What I mainly see from Nik is political nonsense like "The laugh test for climate alarm is creeping up on Democrats now, rubbing off on them, frozen deer in headlight glare." and personal attacks like "Are you the same grant seeking Thomas Quinn who is selling a boozy green energy scheme here?". There is nothing the least bit scientific about that, and any real scientific arguments he might offer from time to time are ruined by the fact that he buries them beneath verbal cr*p like the above examples.
supersubie
4.1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2013
If only I could scroll down to the bottom of a phys.org article and for once read comments that are having a meaningful and interesting conversation about the article. I don't know why I bother to read through them these days all you get is personal insults and political arguments. This site could be so much better if the comments section was actually populated with insightful debate and discussion.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
Caspar, history reveals that consensus in science is very often just bogus, right?

An ether pervades space, continents don't move, dirty hands don't kill patients, children are blank slates, non-coding DNA is "junk," infections don't cause ulcers, bacteria spontaneously generate, cholesterol and fat intake control heart disease and thus follow the Food Pyramid, and carbon dioxide controls the climate so mind your Carbon Footprint Counter.

These little mistakes are normal business but they are terribly destructive if politics and arrogance extend them out for decades after they have been technically debunked as quotes form frantic climate modellers have now indicated is the case with Global Warming (via their massive water vapor amplification of the classic greenhouse effect).

Caspar, the Republicans were easy to get through to for us skeptics after Climategate, via Limbaugh and Beck. To try to break through to Democrats, a bit of low budget activism is in order, not silence.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2013
Caspar, on the CNN web site, you wrote:

"I live in The Netherlands, and nobody here tells Jesus jokes. You know why not? Because religious nuts don't have any power here. These jokes only exist because of the power deranged religious fanatics have in some parts of your country. We don't have to make Jesus-jokes, for the simple reason that we realize that the Jesus-freaks themselves are the jokes."

I have the exact same sentiment but the doomsday religion involved has now completely infected my favorite science site, a situation that the vast majority of skeptics also lament was the reason they cancelled their formerly treasured subscriptions to the likes of Scientific American, Discover, and Science News, in my case all three! Bible Belt Republicanism doesn't lead to science magazine subscriptions in the first place. Human beings evidently have an innate affinity for religion, some more than others, and the parallels between Climatology and Christianity are ridiculously congruent.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2013
I have watched Nik provide arguments that never go refuted, and I must assume its because you all have no response. I have in turn watched VendicarE provide non-stop verbal assualts and even death threats to those of the opposing viewpoint.


You haven't been watching closely then. I have several times pulled up his "mistakes" on meteorology/climatology ( see profile ) - The last one which actually (fair-play) elicited an admission of error. Namely that Antarctica, as a whole was "mildly but steadily cooling".
As I've said to him. I'll not teach him chemistry and at he cant teach me anything about Meteorology.
Oh, you must have missed all the ad hominems by the other side too.
There is evidence aplenty for AGW without GCM's. Correlation and causation physics alike.
VDE is a one off - his science is sound, but I do not approve of some of his responses.
djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2013
"I have watched Nik provide arguments that never go refuted, and I must assume its because you all have no response."

Nik's arguments are consistently refuted - you must not be reading. I am in the middle of an exchange - on another thread. Nik claimed that the Antarctic was cooling. Data of course totally contradicts this idea - but data is really of no interest to Nik - he has made up his mind - and is clearly on a religious crusade to spam every science article that talks about the climate - with the gospel of Nik.
djr
5 / 5 (10) Aug 26, 2013
"the doomsday religion involved has now completely infected my favorite science site"

I believe that many of us feel exactly the same way. Notice one pattern. The pro science group is not attacking the articles here on Physorg. It is you and your cadre who attack every article - always claiming the great conspiracy. It is very clear from the fact that you are always attacking the science - that it is you who has an agenda - and is determined to crush the spirit of those of us who are interested in science and progress.
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2013
@Nik - Having lived in the northeast woods for over 50 years, I have seen firsthand the reduction in maple sapling density during the acid rain years (along with reduced crown cover which would normally increase sapling density), and the subsequent recovery after sulphate reduction, especially on calcium-poor soils. And that was just enough sulphate to counteract the increase in atmospheric CO2 through 1980 - we are already twice as far above pre-industrial CO2 levels, and climbing rapidly.

Note that I am not dismissing (or supporting) sulphates in the stratosphere - just your point on cleaning up sulfur emissions from coal.
If you are saying that the cleaning up of coal smoke was wrong, please go live in Bejing where they still have the coal smog that you appear to be promoting - sulphates, fine particulates, mercury, etc.

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2013
RealScience: You said:

"Note that I am not dismissing (or supporting) sulphates in the stratosphere - just your point on cleaning up sulfur emissions from coal.

If you are saying that the cleaning up of coal smoke was wrong, please go live in Bejing where they still have the coal smog that you appear to be promoting - sulphates, fine particulates, mercury, etc"

in commenting on Nik's post. If I could have given you a 10 I would have. Nik seems to be the kind of an academic that gives academics a bad name. The idea that a chemist could possibly not understand the amazing improvement in the environment that came about due to the reduction of SOx emissions just points out what a poor chemist he must be.
Gmr
3 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2013
^It doesn't have a carbon atom, so he doesn't care.

Wait - that's it! Nik isn't a shill for the Kochs or others - he's a crusader for what he sees as the much-maligned carbon molecule in all of its forms. It should be as loved as a colorless odorless byproduct of combustion as it is when fused into a diamond!
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2013
I must apologize for missing the personal attacks from Nik, the sheer volume in the other direction is overwhelming. Also I have generally seen the anthropogenic warming crowd draw first blood, and while I do not think responding as such is effective, it is justified.

"You haven't been watching closely then." - runrig
"you must not be reading" -djr

So you decide to attack me as I did not lock step to your tune? I am fully capable of reading, as I am in analyzing data and how those methods affect the stated results.

Runrig you have stated you were a meteorologist, congrats? If that is the case, you are most likely familiar with weather, not climate. In the words of Lewis Black, you know what meteorologist means in english? Liar.

If you can provide links to some of these refutations I would be interested in the accounting for the southern drift of the ocean measurement points, the normalization of localized surface measurements due to urbanization, amoung many other issues.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2013
Runrig you have stated you were a meteorologist, congrats? If that is the case, you are most likely familiar with weather, not climate. In the words of Lewis Black, you know what meteorologist means in english? Liar.


That sir says far more about you than ever it does about the science of meteorology, because you equate it with a man on a tv and think that because he is wrong sometimes weather forecasts are always wrong and Meteorologists worthless. Do you think I've not heard that before? And typical of certain people on here who have no respect for authority of knowledge. Tell me your profession and I'll ridicule that for a cheap joke.

If you can provide links to some of these refutations I would be interested in the accounting for the southern drift of the ocean measurement points, the normalization of localized surface measurements due to urbanization, among many other issues.


Look for them yourself - there is a search function you know.

Unbiased Observer
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 27, 2013
Ah runrig, it was a joke, not a personal attack. Your behavior is very revealing to what kind of person you are though.

"Authority of knowledge"? If you are refering to yourself, that is quite arrogant. Very revealing as well. I think you have been one of the people getting fairly hairy when people confuse weather and climate and then you argue climate when you know weather. Both being soft sciences. Which, relevant to this discussion and from this site as a bonus...

http://phys.org/n...rst.html
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2013
"I must apologize for missing the personal attacks from Nik, the sheer volume in the other direction is overwhelming. Also I have generally seen the anthropogenic warming crowd draw first blood, and while I do not think responding as such is effective, it is justified."

You are not in the least bit unbiased. The pro science group almost never draws first blood - folks like runrig have all they can handle responding to Nik, and Anti, and shootist, and uba, and VendiTARD, etc. Look at almost every article that mentions GW. Just look who first responded to this article. Look at this article - http://phys.org/n...bal.html

I don't really understand it - but there is a group out there seem to make it their purpose in life to kill hope - to push back against the progress of our species. It can be very discouraging.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2013
"you know what meteorologist means in english? Liar."

And yet we all glue ourselves to the boob tube every night to see what the weather is going to bring tomorrow. I guess the majority of us have a much better understanding of the realities of the science of meteorology than you or Lewis Black. We know it is complex - and fully understands it's limits. Right now - the weather channel is predicting 0 chance of rain here in Oklahoma for the next 10 days. I bet they are on target.
Unbiased Observer
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 27, 2013
"You are not in the least bit unbiased. The pro science group almost never draws first blood"
--djr

So you link me to an article were the first person has a nonsense post with no direction of attack outside of at the article itself (stupid, but not personal). You then post a personal attack against this person? Seems to me there is a warping of reality. Perhaps another example is in order? I then see Nik post articles outlining an argument while VendicarE then attacks the person...

If posting an opinion different from your own constitutes a personal attack, there is a problem, and its not with them.

Overdramatic much, and how do you even support such a statement?

You are not pro science. A more accurate statement would be pro unproven model supporter. It follows that a model that has trouble with historic data will....

And side note. When I was giving my thesis I was encouraged to mention global warming... not based on science. But for funding reasons. Very revealing is it not?
djr
5 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2013
"Seems to me there is a warping of reality. "

I agree. Almost every time there is a science article that discusses GW - it is attacked by the anti science cadre. There exactly is the problem. The scientists are doing their job - trying to advance our understanding of the world we live in. Constantly under attack by the anti science thugs - taking it in turns to tie up the discussion thread. But the science is just that - the science. We continue to make this point - 'if you don't like science - why are you here?' But nothing changes - and yes it is very discouraging to see how ignorant so much of our world is - and how determined many of you are to delay progress.

"Overdramatic much, and how do you even support such a statement?"

What statement are you referring to?

I see you created your profile very recently. We have a big problem on this board with sock puppets. Every so often one is exposed - it is very discouraging to see the ignorance.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2013
"When I was giving my thesis I was encouraged to mention global warming... not based on science. But for funding reasons. "

I would have fired my advisor - and reported them to the ethics committee - but then I believe in science - and the strong tradition of ethics within science.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2013
.. it was a joke, not a personal attack. Your behavior is very revealing to what kind of person you are though.

I said: "Tell me your profession and I'll ridicule that for a cheap JOKE"
A joke .. in very poor taste, as you well know and one I am bound to be sensitive to.
I reacted to your insult and that makes me revealing (?) Your snide remarks about Meteorology came first.
"Authority of knowledge"? If you are referring to yourself, that is quite arrogant.

You're a hypocrite as well, as you have not mentioned your Nik who brags about having a phd in Chemistry (now that is relevant in climate science).
I think you have been one of the people getting fairly hairy when people confuse weather and climate and then you argue climate when you know weather. Both being soft sciences. Which, relevant to this discussion and from this site as a bonus...

Pointing out confusion of weather with climate when it is used to ridicule GW is precisely what a Meteorologist should do
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2013
@ Thermo - thanks. One of my summer jobs was measuring plant growth for some of that research, so it brought back memories.

But I don't agree that
The idea that a chemist could possibly not understand the amazing improvement in the environment that came about due to the reduction of SOx emissions just points out what a poor chemist he must be.


What it does show is how OUTSIDE of his area of expertise, Nik's comments are not to be taken seriously. Within his field he may (or may not) be a solid scientist.
Some scientists are broad-minded observers, while others are so focused on their work that they don't notice the world around them, and Nik may be that kind.
Nik also lives in New York City, so he may not have much experience with clean air. When my brother lived there he said that he didn't trust air that he couldn't see.
And NYC air isn't spectacularly bad, either (thanks to wind and to the clean air laws that Nik appears not to like).

runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2013
......and where I have have the knowledge - that's not arrogant - it's just obvious sense. Now go tell that to Mr Nik.
You are clearly not an "Unbiased observer" as all you've done on here is make snide remarks at the defenders of science and "big-up" the denier.
You are demonstrating that now in denigrating knowledge of science. Climate is a long period of weather. To say I am not qualified to talk of climate is like saying that although I know about the workings of a heart I cant possibly know anything about the long term life of a heart.
BTW: Here's a definition of a hard science from Wiki ( meteorology/climatology meet all )
"features often cited as characteristic of hard science include: producing testable predictions; performing controlled experiments; relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models; a high degree of accuracy and objectivity; and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method."
No doubt my idea of accuracy and yours will differ but whatever.
Unbiased Observer
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 27, 2013
I lurk, the death threats I saw on this site were too much and I had to create a profile.

This one.

"I don't really understand it - but there is a group out there seem to make it their purpose in life to kill hope - to push back against the progress of our species. It can be very discouraging." -djr

You cannot stop the personal attacks can you?

You obviously are claiming the banner of science when it was never yours to claim. Science is the study of nature by observation and experimentation. Flawed experimentation yields to false conclusions. Poor data collection techniques contributing to misweighted variables compounded by an over reliance on unproven and unreliable models yields nothing of value...

You still don't see your hypocrisy do you? If they don't BELIEVE what you do, they are anti-science, when the banner cannot and does not belong to you.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2013
"You still don't see your hypocrisy do you? If they don't BELIEVE what you do, they are anti-science, when the banner cannot and does not belong to you."

No - I don't see my hypocrisy - in fact I see that my position is very consistent. I come to a science web site - to enjoy watching the progress of our species - as we learn how the universe works - and how we can adapt things to our own development. I do not attack the science. Science has it's own process, and does a good job of policing itself. Here is an example - http://www.sacbee...sed.html

What I personally believe is totally irrelevant - what is relevant for me is the forward progress of our species. I do take it seriously. I understand that if we evolve fast enough - I will get to experience immortality. If not - I may never get to see my grandchildren. So - if you come on to a science web site - with a predetermined personal vendetta against science (cont)
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2013
then I will try to do a little in terms of push back. I do know limits - and sadly there are a number of posters on this site that I will not respond to - they are probably mentally ill - but certainly not interested in science, knowledge, or reason. I will in general throw in my two cents as far as defending the process of science. And again - if you don't like science - why are your here? I suspect it is like many of the other posters - to promote a personal political agenda.
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2013
I was curious what it would look like if Nik created a sockpuppet. His narcissism, I figured, wouldn't allow him to keep his credentials or other facets he considers important to that self aggrandized construct he calls an ego quiet for long.

He found a way. A rather onanistic way, but a way.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2013
djr, the only thing correct with your statements is that the goal of science is to try to understand how nature works.

Science is simply a study and it is performed by humans, who are falliable. It seems that you have placed science as a god, you worship what you do not understand rather than actually trying to understand it. You seem to view scientists as religious figures, which they are not. Scientists are just people...

You seem to have associated models with science, which they aren't. You have associated a predetermined outlook as the true regardless of data or logic, instead substituting models. Are models a useful tool? Yes! But when they are accurate and can be supported and work with experimentation. You do not hold the banner of science, you burned that flag when you could not and would not seperate yourself from your preconceived opinions.

Immortality? Just wow.

Gmr
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
Nik,
Let us not leave your other alt "Restrider" out of this... after all, who else is going to admire your admiration of yourself?

I mean, only somebody as brilliant as you could invent metastroking.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2013
runrig,

"BTW: Here's a definition of a hard science from Wiki ( meteorology/climatology meet all )
"features often cited as characteristic of hard science include: producing testable predictions; performing controlled experiments; relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models; a high degree of accuracy and objectivity; and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method."" -runrig

Climatology meets very little of those requirements. Testable predictions & controlled experiments- you are looking at the world. Hard to test to begin with. Variable elimination? They have even gotten all the variable on paper, let alone proper weights, and furthermore started full variable isolation. However, they then use models that fail to accurately predict current conditions without excessive error bands. Relying on data, not if flawed data collection is the basis... Climatology has not demostrated a pure scientific method for a long while... sadly.

GMR- Seek help!
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
And that just about confirms it.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2013
gmr- You do need help. That is not normal or acceptable human behavior. You will shatter djr's belief that humanity is 'evolving' with such unscientific foundations. Side note your obsession with Nik is troubling. An interesting twist to this would be gmr is actually an alternate personality of Nik that obesses over its other personality in a constant struggle for dominance... But in all seriousness, that's not healthy.

However, I spoke unclearly,

"They have even gotten all the variable on paper, let alone proper weights, and furthermore started full variable isolation."

Should for the sake of clarity read,

"They have not even gotten all variables on paper, let alone assigned the proper weights and haven't demostrated variable isolation."
Gmr
3 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2013
Nik,
With the addition of projection, I'd almost call it a closed case.

Really, it was the extremely biased and self-blind admiration you posted that was the clue. A person as self aggrandizing as apparent from previous devolvement into swinging credentialism can't seem to resist the idea of self promotion.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2013
gmr- Seriously. Seek help. I must assume you are utterly incapable of rational thought. Based upon your assertions and accusations which share nothing with reality and exist in naught but your imagination...

I have not made my personal opinion known. I have expressed a discontent with the lack of scientific engagement as opposed to name calling and personal attacks from the anthropogenic global warming supporters. I have expressed that there is a problem with over reliance on untested and unproven models which do not have a readily available experimental platform. I have also expressed that is there is problems with non-isolated data masquerading as such.

Just as I will probably never met you, I will not meet Nik. I don't know who he or she is. Just as I don't know who you are.
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
Nik,
I'm not sure why this other person who claims to be not you keeps responding to posts titled and addressed to Nik.

Especially given that one could presume to ignore posts that are directly addressed to somebody else.

Perplexing, no?
Unbiased Observer
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
gmr- You were quite obvious in your references, implications, and attacks. What's perplexing is if you actually believe what you say or are just that stupid....

I'm leaning towards a rare case of narcissism combined with a severe undiagnosed learning disorder, which would be hard for you to see in yourself after being told for 42 years that you were special and mommy's little angel.
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
Definitely Nik.
- could only be him, not anybody else ( narcissistic world view )
- abusive invectives coupled with details from profile designed to intimidate and give an impression of omniscience
- again, projection.
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
Narcissism doesn't spring from nurturing parenting, by the way, but from deeply seated insecurity that necessitates tearing others down as well as exaggerating achievement.
Unbiased Observer
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 28, 2013
gmr- You attacked me and then claim to be a victim when I respond.... You have offered nothing but insults. You have a problem.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2013
Unbiased" "It seems that you have placed science as a god, you worship what you do not understand"

This is canned response - that we see over and over from the anti science mob. I do not worship anything. I see science as the tool we have to free ourselves from our ignorance. It is just that - a tool. Of course scientists are just people - some of them very unethical. Science has a process to smoke them out. I do not worship science - but I respect the process of science. I still wonder - and never get an answer - if you don't like science - why are you here?

"Immortality? Just wow."

To me - this reflects your inability to see the possible. Many scientists share this flaw. Many other scientists understand that in time - we will cure all disease - become gradually more and more inorganic - and eventually attain immortality. I would suggest that you do some reading of folks like Aubrey de Grey - but I don't think you are here to learn.

Gmr
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2013
gmr- You attacked me and then claim to be a victim when I respond.... You have offered nothing but insults. You have a problem.

Nik:
Correction: my comments were directed at Nik. And if you are Nik, I'd hope your effort to provide a pseudo-external validation would maybe guide you into the notion that your strident tone and obsession with your own PhD will neither win friends nor influence people.

You could try contributing without hyperbole and in a reasonable manner and see what thay does.

Oddly enough, I'd wipe the slate clean in that case.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2013
Biased Observer:
You signed up on here very recently under the name "Unbiased Observer" and came on with a post praising a noted "skeptic" (though only a denier would reflexively criticise all AGW related science and those at the head of that science). Namely NikfromNYC.
In reply I merely pointed out that you must not have noticed posts that countered his omniscience and mentioned one such that I had caught him out on (and graciously said he acknowledged same).
You then came back attacking Meteorology (with a bad taste joke) and proceeded to slate "Meteorology and Climateology" as "soft sciences" - which I then pointed out to you were not. Back you come again in an obvious attempt to ridicule the science once more and inflate your's/denier's self-importance and rightness in their criticisms.
Again, both Met. and Climate., are studies of the atmosphere and the climate system.

cont
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2013
They gain knowledge from observation and study and produce testable prediction via NWP and GCM models, which are continually evaluated and improved against new knowledge gained from those studies. In the case of Meteorology verification of forecasts and improvement on modeling is continuous.
BTW: I performed an experiment every time I went to work - I forecast the weather and observed it's behaviour against that forecast//model, it then going into my knowledge bank for the next time. In it's wider context atmospheric models are similarly influenced. The planet is the laboratory, performing the experiment 24/7.
Now, can you please lay off. You are not going to turn logic on its head by implying that the more you know, then the less you know. and vice versa.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2013
Unbiased said: "I have expressed that there is a problem with over reliance on untested and unproven models which do not have a readily available experimental platform. I have also expressed that is there is problems with non-isolated data masquerading as such."

Can you please explain what you mean by "...non-isolated data masquerading as such..."

Thank you in advance for the information.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2013

Nik:
Correction: my comments were directed at Nik. And if you are Nik, I'd hope your effort to provide a pseudo-external validation would maybe guide you into the notion that your strident tone and obsession with your own PhD will neither win friends nor influence people.

You could try contributing without hyperbole and in a reasonable manner and see what thay does.

Oddly enough, I'd wipe the slate clean in that case.


You were quite obvious with your attacks. You made a decision to attack someone because they didn't agree with you. I offered no insult to you, but that made no difference.

There is no doubt that you need help, I can only hope that you seek it.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2013
runrig- so you start with an attack, how tried and true of the anti-science crowd.

I have addressed your first point already. You seem to lack reading comprehension as well. Was that the reason you were forced into retirement?

I praised the person, that over the course of time, I noticed would actually attempt to debate. You have not displayed such without attacking the person if you even tried to refute a point.

Neither are hard sciences. You have not addressed this point.

What you describe is not science. Data collection? Yes. Useful? Yes. But not a hard science. Filling in data points and fitting a trend line is not necessary science. If you cannot predict with great accuracy (you can guess, but current climate models w/o very large error bands do not match reality at this pt).

I ridicule nothing. I point out you follow faith in models instead of science. There is a method to science. Unproven models are not it.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2013
Unbiased said: "I have expressed that there is a problem with over reliance on untested and unproven models which do not have a readily available experimental platform. I have also expressed that is there is problems with non-isolated data masquerading as such."

Can you please explain what you mean by "...non-isolated data masquerading as such..."

Thank you in advance for the information.


Sure. I dislike the southern drift of ocean data points. There is no accounting for localized temperature collection and the upward trend that can result from urbanization. There are many many more. But suffice to say, without isolating as many variables as possible... corrupt models arise.

But variable isolation is one of the keys to good hard science and allow analysis. There are very few published papers without documented and repeatable results in a hard science journal. As it stands now climate science is hardly repeatable. Cherry picked data is more the norm in this soft science.
Gmr
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2013
[The bull's patterns persist, though camouflage is used. Its habit of rapidly charging three or four times in succession remains, as patterns developed in adolescence carry over into the business of acquiring territory and assembling a harem.]
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2013
Unbiased: You said: "But variable isolation is one of the keys to good hard science and allow analysis. There are very few published papers without documented and repeatable results in a hard science journal. As it stands now climate science is hardly repeatable. Cherry picked data is more the norm in this soft science."

Variable isolation is the way statistics was taught in the 1960s. Since then it has become easier to crunch data with computers and we try to look for interactions of variables in systems. It turns out it is much more efficient to allow interactions unless you have a system with truly isolated variables. If there are interactions you want the statistics to point them out.

Here are some sites with good explanations of the process.

http://en.wikiped...eriments

http://www.jmp.com/sitemap/

https://www.mores...ents.cfm

Continued:

thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2013
Continued for Unbiased: You will notice that I have linked you to sites with "controlled experiments" as an introduction to the process of looking for interactions between variables. The next step is to analysis of uncontrolled measurements and apply valid statistical tests to tease a weak signal out of noise:

http://www.ats.uc...hatstat/

www.itc.nl/~rossi...o.pdf‎

There are hundreds of books on statistical analysis and they will show you why you must look at the interaction of the variables in complex systems.

You mention the urban heat island effect. That is a good example. The BEST team set out to prove the urban heat island effect and, instead, showed it was not a significant contributor to the measured increase in temperature.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

They have done the most complete job I have seen on the application of modern statistics.

Let me know if you have any questions about what I have shared.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (11) Sep 04, 2013
Thermo, I am familiar with statistics and DoE. I am well aware of the strengths that they can provide.... as well as the weaknesses. They can show relations... but they don't always help answer the why. Then you have to filter for 'false positives' if you will. For a DoE to work, at the end of the day, there needs to be a moderately controllable variables. Interactions are important and it is quite likely more than a few remain undiscovered (for climate science).

I will eventually take a look at the Berkeley site (when I have some free time...), but if it is associated with the University... that is hardly a neutral source... And a quick glance at the quick facts makes it obvious what they believe. I'll look into the methodology and whatnot. Assumptions are dangerous things in a statistical analysis.

Thermo, I'd appreciate it in the future if you'd try to be a little less condescending in your posts in the future. I don't know if its intentional, but that how you came across to me.
Unbiased Observer
1 / 5 (11) Sep 04, 2013
Double post. Please ignore.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2013
The science is as hard as ice.
Build your wisdom from from the mechanisms of the blessed Element and all are revealed.
It is those who would bear false witness who deceive us otherwise.
The key to the past, present and future lies in the Water.
As the the Earth "warms," the blessed avatar of Water, ice, melts, saving us from our folly.
Even should the ice disappear, Water will bless us and keep, as it did in ties long past.