Climate change will upset vital ocean chemical cycles

Sep 08, 2013
ocean

New research from the University of East Anglia shows that rising ocean temperatures will upset natural cycles of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and phosphorous.

Plankton plays an important role in the ocean's carbon cycle by removing half of all CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and storing it deep under the sea – isolated from the atmosphere for centuries.

Findings published today in the journal Nature Climate Change reveal that water temperature has a direct impact on maintaining the delicate plankton ecosystem of our oceans.

The new research means that ocean warming will impact plankton, and in turn drive a vicious cycle of .

Researchers from UEA's School of Environmental Sciences and the School of Computing Sciences investigated phytoplankton – microscopic plant-like organisms that rely on photosynthesis to reproduce and grow.

Lead researcher Dr Thomas Mock, said: "Phytoplankton, including micro-algae, are responsible for half of the carbon dioxide that is naturally removed from the atmosphere. As well as being vital to climate control, it also creates enough oxygen for every other breath we take, and forms the base of the food chain for fisheries so it is incredibly important for food security.

"Previous studies have shown that phytoplankton communities respond to global warming by changes in diversity and productivity. But with our study we show that warmer temperatures directly impact the chemical cycles in plankton, which has not been shown before."

Collaborators from the University of Exeter, who are co-authors of this study, developed computer generated models to create a model that took into account world , 1.5 million plankton DNA sequences taken from samples, and biochemical data.

"We found that temperature plays a critical role in driving the cycling of chemicals in marine micro-algae. It affects these reactions as much as nutrients and light, which was not known before," said Dr Mock.

"Under warmer temperatures, marine micro-algae do not seem to produce as many ribosomes as under lower temperatures. Ribosomes join up the building blocks of proteins in cells. They are rich in phosphorous and if they are being reduced, this will produce higher ratios of nitrogen compared to phosphorous, increasing the demand for nitrogen in the oceans.

"This will eventually lead to a greater prevalence of blue-green algae called cyanobacteria which fix atmospheric nitrogen," he added.

Explore further: First global atlas of marine plankton reveals remarkable underwater world

More information: 'The impact of temperature on marine phytoplankton resource allocation and metabolism' by A Toseland, SJ Daines, JR Clark, A Kirkham, J Strauss, C Uhlig, TM Lenton, K Valentin, GA Pearson, V Moulton and T Mock is published in Nature Climate Change. dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1989

Related Stories

First atlas on oceanic plankton

Jul 18, 2013

In an international collaborative project, scientists have recorded the times, places and concentrations of oceanic plankton occurrences worldwide. Their data has been collected in a global atlas that covers ...

Recommended for you

Clean air: Fewer sources for self-cleaning

7 hours ago

Up to now, HONO, also known as nitrous acid, was considered one of the most important sources of hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are regarded as the detergent of the atmosphere, allowing the air to clean itself. ...

There's something ancient in the icebox

7 hours ago

Glaciers are commonly thought to work like a belt sander. As they move over the land they scrape off everything—vegetation, soil, and even the top layer of bedrock. So scientists were greatly surprised ...

Image: Grand Canyon geology lessons on view

14 hours ago

The Grand Canyon in northern Arizona is a favorite for astronauts shooting photos from the International Space Station, as well as one of the best-known tourist attractions in the world. The steep walls of ...

First radar vision for Copernicus

14 hours ago

Launched on 3 April, ESA's Sentinel-1A satellite has already delivered its first radar images of Earth. They offer a tantalising glimpse of the kind of operational imagery that this new mission will provide ...

User comments : 124

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (28) Sep 08, 2013
I've but rarely read such rubbish called science. According to this article, they used a computer model for something which is readily observable in nature, and tested in a lab. This is not science, rather a work of fiction.

Next, they'll tell us a computer model proves little fairies and leprechauns come out more often in a warming climate.

...oh wait ...false alarm ...they left their game console on.

ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (30) Sep 08, 2013
If these AGW clowns have to lie, they may as well lie BIG. Their new tact: replace `might upset' or `could upset' with "WILL UPSET".
Gmr
2.9 / 5 (21) Sep 09, 2013
[Pack hunters depend much on one-another. Without the runners, those who ambush are left without prey in the right position. Ambush hunters end up waiting endlessly without runners. Each is integral to the other. As such, they tend to occupy larger territories. Their presence in a peripheral article usually policed by a bull looking for territory does not bode well. If the monsoon does not arrive soon, they might have to migrate.]
GuruShabu
1.4 / 5 (24) Sep 09, 2013
Agenda 21...
Eco-Fascism...
Pure crap and BS...
Unfortunately, people "believe" and society is drawn towards giving up its freedom on behalf a Global Government...
Gmr
2.9 / 5 (19) Sep 09, 2013
[With the arrival of a bull, prospects dim. The pack will be reduced to picking over carrion.]
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (27) Sep 09, 2013
(1) The silent user 'toot' rates one star for all skeptical commentary in threads Gmr appears in:
http://s22.postim...oots.jpg

This 'toot' account appears within minutes even at obscure hours, even in materials science articles I constructively comment on with references and molecular models.

(2) Gmr thinks us cats are dogs!

(3) "But with our study we show that warmer temperatures directly impact the chemical cycles in plankton, which has not been shown before."

In the real ocean plankton is booming due to CO₂ fertilization and steady warming after the Little Ice Age ended a few centuries ago:
http://www.scienc...abstract
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (24) Sep 09, 2013
(4) "They are rich in phosphorous and if they are being reduced, this will produce higher ratios of nitrogen compared to phosphorous, increasing the demand for nitrogen in the oceans."

In Jim Hansen's last publication, he points out how coal use is providing this nitrogen:

"We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems and field studies confirm a major role of nitrogen deposition, working in concert with CO2 fertilization, in causing a large increase in net primary productivity of temperate and boreal forests."
http://iopscience...1/011006

(5) Bulls hunt?
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (18) Sep 09, 2013
...oh wait ...false alarm ...they left their game console on.

If these AGW clowns have to lie, they may as well lie BIG.
...
Agenda 21...
Eco-Fascism...
Pure crap and BS...


You know a position has no merit when, instead of arguing with facts, they resort to name calling right off the bat.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (26) Sep 09, 2013
The silent user 'toot' rates one star for all skeptical commentary in threads Gmr appears in
I kinda' figured Toot was Otto with the letters transposed.

This 'toot' account appears within minutes even at obscure hours, even in materials science articles I constructively comment on with references and molecular models.
Otto has a history of bullying/robo-downrankning anyone who has ever disagreed with him, using multiple sockpuppets. But then so do several other users...

Gmr thinks us cats are dogs!
Gmr appears to have issues...

"But with our study we show that warmer temperatures directly impact the chemical cycles in plankton, which has not been shown before."

In the real ocean plankton is booming due to CO₂ fertilization and steady warming
But reality doesn't jibe with their brand of "science."

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (27) Sep 09, 2013
You know a position has no merit when, instead of arguing with facts, they resort to name calling right off the bat.
What facts are you talking about? There are no facts in this article. It's all made up hokum.

NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (27) Sep 09, 2013
antialias whined: "...they resort to name calling...."

(A) satire: use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, caustic wit or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, or stupidity. Example: above.

(B) slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. Example: calling skeptics of massive water vapor amplification of the classic greenhouse effect "deniers" of that classic greenhouse effect, and then attaching the general moniker "denier" to them in debates as the junk science 97% consensus is then cited too even though it includes most skeptics of computer models.

B is indeed debate-losing "name calling," whereas A represents competent rhetoric.

(C) rhetoric: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, esp. the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (17) Sep 09, 2013
[Scarcity has drawn a second bull. Here from other picked over territory, perhaps - but long droughts make for more dramatic encounters.]
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (26) Sep 09, 2013
"New research from the University of East Anglia...."

A Climategate file named HarryReadMe was a long log of climate data analysis computer code debugging that revealed a programmer's utter ongoing exasperation about a thicket of utter incompetence at East Anglia University:

"Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well.

As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless.

It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that.

Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.0"
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (26) Sep 09, 2013
...Harry also notes some caveats to the East Anglia code:

"IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.

NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004)."
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (26) Sep 09, 2013
"Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data." - Phil "Hide The Decline Using Mike's Nature Trick" Jones of the Univ. of East Anglia, now also of Saudi Arabia:
http://mpc.kau.ed...nes.aspx
GuruShabu
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 09, 2013
Nik and ubavontuba,
Argue with Gmr and antialias is the same as argue with a wall or a stone...
The guys don't see a micron beyond their self protecting capsule ego.
In fact a huge ego so stony-heart that anyone with a different opinion from them is attacked with words such as "tard" and the arguments are all tagged as "rubbish".
They even attack some grammar mistakes and do not realise English is my third language.
And I am sure it is not too bad but sometimes in the spur of the moment one can make a mistake and they just jump on that little flaw to suggest the person is stupid, a "tard"or does not deserve any consideration..
They will see their mistake in the years ahead.
It's already 43 years since it was clearly stated in the 70 that the Earth was going towards a catastrophic increase in temperature with all disastrous consequences we are sick and tired to read on an everyday basis through the compromised media and petty scientific articles.
GuruShabu
1.7 / 5 (23) Sep 09, 2013
I will not waste my time with this sort of people any more.
Anyway, my compliments to Nik for his perseverance and good education along this endless contend.
He has always shown a very hi standard demeanour and has kept the discussion within the limits of science quoting and providing links all the time.
Uba also never has stirred towards personal offences nor has tagged anyone with derogatory words. Uba keeps on providing useful links for the great majority that reads those posts but never express themselves through the discussion we do here.
You two guys represent what I feel proud about humankind!
Enough with Gmr and antialias.
djr
3.9 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
"Uba also never has stirred towards personal offences"

Uba called me a 'lying, scumbag, hypocrite.' I have seen Nik call runrig an asshole.

Your simplistic dualism is childlike.
GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (22) Sep 09, 2013
djr,
I'm sorry I did not followed all your fights on this forum.
I have to confess I am sick and tired of this useless discussion.
But thanks for reminding me of other's behaviours so accurately.
I wish this could focus much more on DATA than people and much more on facts than believes.
Anyway, I apologise for this glitch of mine.
I remove Uba from my praises but I still do the remarks for Nik impeccable demeanour.
Also you don't need to tag me instantly as childlike...I was only ignorant if you can understand the difference.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (11) Sep 09, 2013
djr,
....I have to confess I am sick and tired of this useless discussion.
But thanks for reminding me of other's behaviours so accurately.
I wish this could focus much more on DATA than people and much more on facts than believes.
Anyway, I apologise for this glitch of mine.
....


Guru :
There would be no "fights" if one particular side stuck to the science and did not, as is evident yet again in this thread, immediately resort to to usual conspiracy ( Uni Of EA /Climategate): computer models rubbish: AGW clown's lies: society is drawn towards giving up its freedom: booming due to CO₂ fertilization: no facts all hokum.
.... Then the other side wouldn't be drawn into bad manners, frustrated at another wave of anti-science/right-wing ideology. Should we engage again, gathering together a semblance of patience and explain where they are going wrong with the science? I try but it gets wearisome.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
"I have to confess I am sick and tired of this useless discussion."

I understand your frustration. I see it a little differently. I think that there is a battle going on right now for the future of the human species. Ignorant people are fighting tooth and nail to maintain control of a very messed up world (take a look at Syria). Power brokers do not like the idea of a democratic world. Science is very democratic - it is neutral politically - only interested in the facts. Sure many scientists are themselves political - but the facts are the facts. New technologies such as solar panels, portable medical testing equipment, the internet, etc. are threatening the command and control system that benefits a few. So I see this as a proxy battle - as we embrace facts over superstition, and democratic organization over command and control. Much misinformation. I see it as growing pains. No one has a monopoly on getting frustrated and lashing out.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 09, 2013
"Uba also never has stirred towards personal offences"

Uba called me a 'lying, scumbag, hypocrite.' I have seen Nik call runrig an asshole.

Your simplistic dualism is childlike.
djr fails to mention that in the same thread I begged: "Wouldn't this be a more fruitful endeavor if you were to approach these things honestly, and with the highest integrity? "

The argument was primarily about his refusal to pin down and accept a standard, consensus definition for Gobal Warming. He chose to lie, instead.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (22) Sep 09, 2013
Should we engage again, gathering together a semblance of patience and explain where they are going wrong with the science?
Sure. Let's first agree on a standard definition for global warming, shall we?

Consensus definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
"He chose to lie, instead."

Hope you can see the problem Guru. Uba and I disagree - Uba calls me a liar. I could get defensive and argue around in circles - but not interested in that game any more. I am aware enough to understand that people disagree - but that does not make the other person a liar - they have a different view. The minute words like liar get dropped - the defenses come up - and we start lashing out. I am not at this point claiming the high ground - just pointing out that saying the ramped up rhetoric is the perview of one side or the other exclusively is not accurate.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (26) Sep 09, 2013
runrig ignored my dual links to fertilization and called it: "booming due to CO₂ fertilization: no facts all hokum."

Therefore, today, in two minutes work on an iPhone, I won a debate by the standard rules of decorum. I could care less about politics except that green schemes cripple economies and render people stupid, but the whole crux of my argument is that AGW is a textbook example of junk science, and that the whole attempt to tamp down satirical criticism is but a smokescreen for crap that utterly fails even the laugh test, such as this article about how "ocean warming will impact plankton, and in turn drive a vicious cycle of climate change."

For the record, if you refer to skeptics "deniers," their arguments as "denial," and their refernces as "hokum" then you will be accurately called what you clearly are: an asshole.
shavera
3.9 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
It's denial when every single expert on the matter says it's happening, but people with no expertise on the matter say it's not. That's not skepticism that's denial.
Gmr
2.9 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
[One bull cedes the field as the other trumpets in triumph. The display is grandiose, gaudy even; the pressure to assemble a harem is intense in lean times. Pawing at the turf, a succession of charges at a mock foe try to serve both as warning and enticement. The rolling eyes and sweat the betrayers of the true desperation attendant.]
runrig
4.2 / 5 (11) Sep 09, 2013
For the record, if you refer to skeptics "deniers," their arguments as "denial," and their refernces as "hokum" then you will be accurately called what you clearly are: an asshole.


Ah, hit a nerve and brought out the best in you again Nik: that makes 2 Assholes to Nil - You're winning again, as you seemingly always do in your own mind.

For the record, the "hokum" thing was a mangled quote. I was not using the word myself - besides it is not in common usage in British English. I prefer crap, bollocks or rubbish..

Oh, and I don't have to refer to your link re "booming" as this study is about the effect of temperature on plankton and any fertilization" is irrelevant" and goal-post shifting.

PS: a denialist is what you are. Sorry (not) you don't like the word but what else best describes someone who resorts to conspiracy theory and character assassination to argue a position. "Skeptic" most assuredly does not fit. Mmmm, perhaps "Asshole" does.
GermanJoey
3.6 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
Since when is calling someone an "Asshole" part of "the standard rules of decorum"?

Therefore, today, in two minutes work on an iPhone, I won a debate by the standard rules of decorum.

You're a tool.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (22) Sep 09, 2013
"He chose to lie, instead."

Hope you can see the problem Guru. Uba and I disagree - Uba calls me a liar. I could get defensive and argue around in circles - but not interested in that game any more. I am aware enough to understand that people disagree - but that does not make the other person a liar - they have a different view.
It wasn't simply a matter of having a different point of view.

The minute words like liar get dropped - the defenses come up - and we start lashing out. I am not at this point claiming the high ground - just pointing out that saying the ramped up rhetoric is the perview of one side or the other exclusively is not accurate.
Instead of getting "ramped up," why don't you just make it a point to be honest to begin with?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 09, 2013
PS: a denialist is what you are. Sorry (not) you don't like the word but what else best describes someone who resorts to conspiracy theory and character assassination to argue a position. "Skeptic" most assuredly does not fit. Mmmm, perhaps "Asshole" does.
So since you just resorted to character assassiniation, what does this make you?
jakack
1.7 / 5 (23) Sep 09, 2013
It's denial when every single expert on the matter says it's happening, but people with no expertise on the matter say it's not. That's not skepticism that's denial.


Every single expert you say? Even the surveys taken of the experts have been twisted to make you ibelieve that there is a consensus among experts when there really is not.
http://www.prweb....2757.htm

I think there is more denial from those who can't believe the fact that there actually are quite a few experts out there who are skeptical/critical of the mainstream AGW theories.
GuruShabu
1.3 / 5 (23) Sep 09, 2013
It's tough, I can see.
But it's worth trying to respect the other side, ain't?
BTW, Shavera, what u are saying is not correct.
Not ALL "experts" agree.
That's the simple reason we are here like bulls fights tooth and nail about something that is smeared with controversy created by a group trying to control the world through fear.
By the way, any one here has read the book State of Fear? (http://www.goodre...of_Fear)
It is a trove of citation every one can double check.
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
Guru - who do you think is trying to take over the world? I am at work right now - and could not access the link you posted. I will check later. I am very curious what group you think is trying to take over the world. Do they have leaders? - a structure? How did you come to be aware of this group, and their motivations?
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (22) Sep 10, 2013
djr,
PLEASE have you ever heard about Agenda 21????
It was signed by G.W Bush in Rio de Janeiro in 1992....20 years now...
Open you eyes mate.
It comes under the umbrella of "sustainable development" UN driven...
You can download the entire PDF file here:
http://sustainabl...da21.pdf
Then go to youtube and just type Agenda 21...
For sure you will find always the rubbish inherent to the Internet (UFOs, Conspiracy Theories, extremists) but I trust you can separate the wheat from the chaff.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
PS: a denialist is what you are. Sorry (not) you don't like the word but what else best describes someone who resorts to conspiracy theory and character assassination to argue a position. "Skeptic" most assuredly does not fit. Mmmm, perhaps "Asshole" does.
So since you just resorted to character assassiniation, what does this make you?


It makes me someone replying to someone who called me an "Asshole"..
Simple.
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (19) Sep 10, 2013
Yes, we have gone down the sink again...
Why you guys keep on arguing on personal ground?
Why do not stop with this mutual accusations and tagging?
Do you really think asshole adds anything to the subject?
That's the best you can do?
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (22) Sep 10, 2013
Well assholes do produce methane, a powerful GHG, so it's understandable why those in the AGW cult would take offense to the designation and truth.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (17) Sep 10, 2013
Well assholes do produce methane, a powerful GHG, so it's understandable why those in the AGW cult would take offense to the designation and truth.

https://www.googl...rd%2BAGW
https://www.googl...alarmist
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (17) Sep 10, 2013
djr,
PLEASE have you ever heard about Agenda 21????
It was signed by G.W Bush in Rio de Janeiro in 1992....20 years now...
Open you eyes mate.
It comes under the umbrella of "sustainable development" UN driven...
You can download the entire PDF file here:
http://sustainabl...da21.pdf
Then go to youtube and just type Agenda 21...
For sure you will find always the rubbish inherent to the Internet (UFOs, Conspiracy Theories, extremists) but I trust you can separate the wheat from the chaff.


Tea Party Activists Fight Agenda 21, Seeing Threatening U.N. Plot
http://www.huffin...politics
shavera
4.3 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
When I say "experts" I mean climate scientists. Not engineers. Not physicists. Not Chemists or biologists or psychologists. But people whose primary research field is climate science. And it's a nearly universal consensus.
GuruShabu
1.2 / 5 (22) Sep 10, 2013
No Shavera, there is no such a thing as "consensus" amongst experts.
Not even amongst YOUR experts.
You are day dreaming or you do not read a line about the subject but newspapers.
Just check this out: Fabricating Climate Doom – Part 3: Extreme Weather Extinctions Enron Style (http://wattsupwit...-style/)
NASA Scientist denies Global Warming (http://www.youtub...zhoS67I)
shavera
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 10, 2013
No Guru, one or two scientists (who may not actually be climate scientists, I'm at work so youtube is not available to me) do not count as breaking consensus. Having the name "NASA" attached to you is no guarantee of quality. The IPCC and others are actual climate scientists who have reviewed all the published science and concluded that yes, climate change is occurring, and the only way to account for its occurance is including human-driven effects like CO2 emissions. That's the consensus, it's the overwhelming evidence from all sides. Cherry picking, you will surely find dissenters, no doubt. But there are people who think evolution didn't happen, nor the big bang either.
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
Uba -" Instead of getting "ramped up," why don't you just make it a point to be honest to begin with?"

I always do.

BUT - no one was talking about the reasons that cause you to devolve the conversation into childish insulting name calling. We were just helping Guru understand that neither side in this debate has a monopoly on getting frustrated and lashing out in that frustration. Not interested in re-litigating any past points with you - you know my opinion of your obfuscation and lack of reasoning skills....
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 11, 2013
Uba -" Instead of getting "ramped up," why don't you just make it a point to be honest to begin with?"

I always do.
That, in itself, is another fabrication.

If you're so honest, why are you (and runrig) unwilling to accept the consensus definition of global warming?

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....5/trend

So, just who are the "deniers," now?

runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 11, 2013

If you're so honest, why are you (and runrig) unwilling to accept the consensus definition of global warming?
................http://www.woodfo....5/trend
So, just who are the "deniers," now?

Because we are taliking about a complex system that plays out oscillations in its temperature distribution betwixt ocean and atmosphere over time scales of decades. You yourself argue that the PDO/ENSO/AMO is a driver of climate variation and to exclude their influences by cherry-picking a time scale where they have had a cooling influence that has mitigated the AGW signal is not reasonable. Unless you deliberately want to deny the science.
This is the differential signal that ENSO imposes over the anthroprogenic warming. We have come down from the red regression line to lie between the blue/green. Hence the hiatus.
http://blog.chron...ines.pdf
djr
4.2 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

I have never said that I am unwilling to accept such a definition of global warming. Uba and I have been around and around this a million times. The big question is - what is the appropriate time frame. If the average atmospheric temperature is cooler today than it was yesterday - does that disprove gw? What about this week vs last week? I have pointed out so many times - as has runrig - that if you look at the past 100 years - you see that gw is on track. http://www.woodfo....5/trend

There is a 40 yr plateau in there from about 1940 to 1980. No one says this disproves gw. We appear to be on a similar plateau currently - about 20 yrs in. Give it another 30 or 40 yrs - and we will see what what the trend is. I hope the models are wrong - and we get cooling.
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
"That, in itself, is another fabrication."

Is not.

Is too.

Is not.

Is too.

Is not.

God Uba is tedious.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 13, 2013
New research from the University of East Anglia

Yep, that source of science that you can truly trust.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2013
New research from the University of East Anglia

Yep, that source of science that you can truly trust.


Certainly can - as it agrees with all other research centres.
GuruShabu
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 13, 2013
In spite of the same schism separating our contenders from both sides and the sheer disagreements we can see such as the one above (quite amazing indeed as tow people well educated can refer to the same source to disagree!), I am happy to see a much higher level in the discussion.
It's a relief. Small but truly pleasant.
GuruShabu
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 13, 2013
It is amazing how pure childish rivalry drives some guys here.
I just received a 1 for praising an improvement on discussion level!..hahaha
The guy above deserves a special award: baby boy!

BTW here is a NEW (I just highlightedNEW because I've posted a CO2 Science website link dated from 2008 and it was criticised as if research done in past did not serve and old data were invalid because today's "climate is different from 2008) research posted today at the London DailyMail
-Climate change models may not be accurate after all as study finds most widely overestimated global warming: http://www.dailym...ing.html
GuruShabu
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 13, 2013
I am sure these 1s do not come from the debating guys...they come from a kid that has no clue about respect, science or just basic social interaction.
GuruShabu
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 13, 2013
Well, it's easy to just click the link to attribute a star.
Difficult is to accept differences and be fair still.

Fabricating Climate Doom – Part 3: Extreme Weather Extinctions Enron Style (http://wattsupwit...-style/)

"...the world's most viewed climate website"
- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming (http://www.amazon...;sr=1-1)

"...invaluable"
- Steven F. Hayward, The Weekly Standard (http://www.weekly...26.html)

"...changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming.
- Jonathon Moseley, American Thinker (http://wattsupwit...theory/)

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2013
Guru:

I notice you include several links to notoriously Anti-AGW sites and a link to a daily Mail article (a paper I read regularly online and know to be again rabidly Anti-AGW ).

Human nature being what it is, even a few "experts" will have a contrary (to consensus) view - and that is the sort of view that the likes of WUWT latch onto and blow up as being "proof" and trumpeting "now discredited" to the converted, convinced in their denial.
I come on here and repeatedly point out failings in both this thought process and the science of Meteorology/Climatology.
Coming at the science from the point of view of ideology and finding "evidence" that you are right is NOT science.
BTW: any post that uses ideology and character assassination of AGW proponents will get an instant 1 from me.
When you have been on here long enough you will realise the above and how mythic denial comes around and around and around. It does make it hard to be patient.
GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (19) Sep 14, 2013
I see your point runrig.
Just to clarify, I've been "around" since the Physorg was launched years ago.
I might not post on it regularly and I only commit this insanity when I cannot help myself...:)
It's nice to see a good conversation level even if disagreeing 100%.
What about a paper on Nature?
Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds
http://www.foxnew...y-finds/
Read the full study in the journal Nature http://www.see.ed...mate.pdf
Cheers!
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2013
Guru - none of your links are working for me.

Anyhow - here is the question i would have for you.

It is clear to me that you have a set perspective on the issue of climate change (as have I). My perspective is that I will follow the developments of science. I am aware of the limitations of science - and as you point out - some past predictions missed the mark (others did not). This does not invalidate the science - anymore than when the weather forecaster predicts rain - and it does not rain. However - what I see you and others doing - is every time there is an article on Physorg that explains some research on climate - you scurry off to a site such as WUWT, or C02 science - and look for information to counter the science being presented. Do you see the problem with this level of confirmation bias?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 14, 2013
This does not invalidate the science

Really?
If Einstein's theories missed their mark, science must reject his theory.
When the fundamental theory of AGW misses its mark, their followers make excuses for its failure.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (15) Sep 14, 2013
delete duplicate
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2013
I will not waste my time with this sort of people any more.


Good, you're a complete idiot anyway. Go away.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2013
[ djr fails to mention that in the same thread I begged: "Wouldn't this be a more fruitful endeavor if you were to approach these things honestly, and with the highest integrity? "

The argument was primarily about his refusal to pin down and accept a standard, consensus definition for Gobal Warming. He chose to lie, instead.


I don't often comment on the stupidity of comments like this, given the stupidity is so self evident they don't require comment, but this bald-faced lie by one of the worst denialists on this site just could not be left unchallenged.

I engaged you too, liar. After claiming conspiracy, moving the goal posts, misrepresenting both the data and the scientists, and doing every single thing a typical denialist does, you went and hid back under your rock for a while. You should go hide under it again.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2013
"Skeptic" most assuredly does not fit. Mmmm, perhaps "Asshole" does.


Indeed. Well said.
djr
4.4 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2013
"If Einstein's theories missed their mark, science must reject his theory."

And being that Rygg is obviously not aware of the process of science - and yet feeling the need to poison a really cool science site with ignorance - perhaps Rygg would like to read this article - http://discoverma...gMMasjLQ and come to an understanding of how many times Einstein was actually wrong.

Now being wrong in science - does not invalidate the process of science. Why do we update text books every year? Because we discover new information - and correct the errors of the past. So Ryggy demonstrates a fundamental refusal to understand science - and yet spreads discouragement (regarding the state of the American culture) at every opportunity.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2013
Guru:
Thanks for being reasonable in response - a refreshing change.

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds


Sorry, I couldn't follow your links - broken. Your previous links are bust too. Copy links direct into Phys.org and not via word/notepad etc.

I would disagree with your statement. This paper explains....
http://iopscience.../article

Taking out natural variations the projections are doing fine.
Sea-level rise is right at the top of expectations - also Arctic ice melt is well above IPCC projections - though I do believe there is likely a natural current warming cycle overlying the AGW signal there.
djr
4.5 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2013
Very cool paper runrig - I bookmarked that one. Thanks.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 14, 2013

Now being wrong in science - does not invalidate the process of science.


I do believe there is likely a natural current warming cycle overlying the AGW signal there.

Believe?
What I and many others assert is the conclusions based upon such noisy, uncertain, data using models that are, while complex, lack detail.
Have fun playing at science with the GCM, but making wild claims 100 years in the future that require govts to take over more of the world's economies demand better results than belief.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (18) Sep 14, 2013
So Ryggy demonstrates a fundamental refusal to understand science

I understand science and its limits.
I have no faith that following the process of science will answer ALL the questions of the universe as does dj.
And neither do many scientists.
djr
3.8 / 5 (11) Sep 14, 2013
I have no faith that following the process of science will answer ALL the questions of the universe as does dj.

I know that. It must suck to be ignorant - but maybe stupid people don't mind - they don't realize what they are missing.
GuruShabu
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 14, 2013
Hi djr,
Thanks for the feedback.
When I post a link I just cut and paste it from the browser but I know what has happened with the previous ones. I've copied them from my previous post at another Physorg post
So please find the pdf file here:
http://www.see.ed...mate.pdf
On the point of "science" I'll post directly to you because this 1000 words restriction is not good enough for such a complex matter, ok?
I am happy that we are reaching a mutual respect middle ground.
Otherwise is very sad adults simply offending and calling names on a "scientific dispute"...hahaha
Ain't?
It might take a while until I post you directly but it will be worth waiting.
Regards
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 14, 2013
I have no faith that following the process of science will answer ALL the questions of the universe as does dj.

I know that. It must suck to be ignorant - but maybe stupid people don't mind - they don't realize what they are missing.

dj has faith? I thought he was atheist.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2013
dj has faith? I thought he was atheist.

djr is an atheist. djr does not have faith. djr is open minded enough to understand that the future is incredibly interesting for the human race. We will reach that incredibly interesting future a lot faster when we rid ourselves of the shackles of ignorance - such as displayed by the racist, intolerant religionists that poison this board with their garbage, and we start listening to the interesting science - such as that presented in this interesting article.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2013
"Scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway found the ECS levels would be lower than the models showed. Three papers followed, including one produced by 14 lead authors of the IPCC report, that backed the evidence. Francis Zwiers and others at the university of Victoria, British Columbia found that global warming was overestimated by 100% over 20 years. "
http://www.breitb...-Warming

I will not go into the IPCC report until it is officially published and while it is being spun by conservative sites and the Daily Mail et al.
Suffice to say the "overestimated by 100% over 20 years" is explainable by the well known cool ENSO cycle most notably, which if removed shows a continued warming pretty much straight down the middle of IPPC estimates, as shown by my link below.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2013
I do believe there is likely a natural current warming cycle overlying the AGW signal there

Believe?
What I and many others assert is the conclusions based upon such noisy, uncertain, data using models that are, while complex, lack detail.
Have fun playing at science with the GCM, but making wild claims 100 years in the future that require govts to take over more of the world's economies demand better results than belief.


I'll use a different word then ...
I do SUSPECT there is likely a natural current warming cycle overlying the AGW signal there.

Hadn't you noticed that I was supporting ( to a limited extent ) your view of "natural variation"?
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (17) Sep 15, 2013
Ryggie: "Has the website been hacked or is physorg censoring comments they don't like?
What's with the -1 ranking?"
Actually, it's part of my sinister plot to help Pinky and the Brain do what they try to do every night -- take over the world! Muhahaha....
Kiwini
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 15, 2013
Hail Pinkie!
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 16, 2013
Hail Pinkie!
"Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?" LOL!

GuruShabu
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 16, 2013
IPCC Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change IPCC
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.
In SUM: NO HARM dude
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 16, 2013
Now my comments have disappeared without a notification from the 'moderator'.
Hadn't you noticed that I was supporting ( to a limited extent ) your view of "natural variation"?

No.
If you had said you suspected there is an AGW signal overriding natural variation you be closer to my view and the views of many others.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 16, 2013
If either the 'moderators' or some hacker is deleting comments with a -1 rank, they are only doing this to comments critical of AGW.
Which, again, reinforces the fact AGWites refuse to acknowledge, address or discuss any criticism of there faith.
Censorship, is always the choice of tyrants.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2013
"Censorship, is always the choice of tyrants."

I don't know what is happening with the rating issue. Guess it could be a hacker. I am hopeful that it is moderators trying to reign in the level of politicization of this science board by you and your buds. I do know that I have reported a number of your posts, Free's, and socks's posts recently for your childish politicization (you know - all liberals are such and such). Also the hateful racism towards President Obama. I encourage others to do the same.

Here's an idea - stay on topic - keep the politics out of it - and let us enjoy a science web site - without your poisoning it with politics. See if the moderators are comfortable with that.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 16, 2013
moderators trying to reign in the level of politicization of this science board

How can they when it is the moderators who keep posting articles that are political in nature?
keep the politics out of it

Let's tell this to the UN, the EPA and the IPCC, which is a political organization and promotes more socialist policies than science based policies.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2013
"How can they when it is the moderators who keep posting articles that are political in nature?"

I am not talking about a few of the articles that are overtly political - just as some of the articles introduce the topic of religion. I am talking about you and your buds having to pollute every comment thread with your political ideology.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 16, 2013
From this article:
"The new research means that ocean warming will impact plankton, and in turn drive a VICIOUS cycle of climate change."
From the paper:
"Global climate change will redirect the fine-tuned balance between temperature and the biological evolution of phytoplankton in the global upper ocean. "

As I noted at White Sands NM, life adapts and the dire warnings from this article don't, or can't predict what live will do in response to the dire warnings.

djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2013
As I noted at White Sands NM, life adapts and the dire warnings from this article don't, or can't predict what live will do in response to the dire warnings.

Of course no has any problem with you quibbling with the way an article is worded.

I am talking about the posts that you author - that say things like 'all progressives are liars'. Do you understand the qualitative difference between these two kinds of statements?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 16, 2013
that say things like 'all progressives are liars'.

If you are not 'progressive', why do you care?

But, since you raised the point, those that called themselves 'progressive' over 100 years ago, and reverted to the term recently, lied about the very term they describe themselves to be. They stand for nothing that creates progress for individuals. The only 'progress' they stand for is to increase the size and scope of the state.
Using the scientific method, observing, hypothesizing, collecting data...it is quite clear increasing size, scope and power of the state impoverish individuals.
Words have meaning and dj or other 'progressives' or 'liberals' can call themselves such, or ducks, but that does not make them so. Its not very scientific, to keep changing the meaning of words to sell yourself to voters. Science requires precise definitions and standards to make real progress.
djr
4.4 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2013
If you are not 'progressive', why do you care?

Because you want to take every science article and turn it into a political - bash liberals - bash President Obama - stupid ass shit.

But I just told you that - and you went and did exactly the same thing again - I guess you can't read.

By the way I have no label - sorry - I am sure that blows your mind. If anything - I have conservative/libertarian leanings.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 16, 2013
Censorship, is always the choice of tyrants.
Well said.

I never before discussed any political views regarding AGW, because I simply didn't believe it should be a political issue. However, as blatant censorship has come to PHYS.ORG, it has become clear to me now the AGWites really do have a political agenda and reallly are against freedom and democracy.

Shame. Shame on you all.

Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (15) Sep 16, 2013
I've but rarely read such rubbish called science. According to this article, they used a computer model for something which is readily observable in nature, and tested in a lab. This is not science, rather a work of fiction.

Next, they'll tell us a computer model proves little fairies and leprechauns come out more often in a warming climate.

...oh wait ...false alarm ...they left their game console on.


I will refrain from suggesting that you pull your head out of your game console. I suspect it might be somewhere else.
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (16) Sep 16, 2013
New IPCC report. A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming.
AR5 report to dial back climate sensitivity
http://online.wsj...464.html
Pls don't give me 1s.
I am just providing a link for the next IPCC report!
Specifically, the draft report says that "equilibrium climate sensitivity" (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is "extremely likely" to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), "likely" to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and "very likely" to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was "likely" to be above 2 degrees Celsius and "very likely" to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (17) Sep 16, 2013
That's it.
Give a 1 for a link of the official organ on climate science.
This shows how intelligent, neutral and open minded the person that clicks that link anonymously is.
You hide behind the link to behave like a child or a TPMed woman...hahahaha
Well done mate!
Good contribution for the discussion.
I love your civilised manners.
Kind regards and keep up the nice work!
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (19) Sep 16, 2013
I simply didn't believe it should be a political issue.

What you believe doesn't matter.
It was and is a political issue from its inception. It IPCC is a political organization because any solution would demand state force to implement.
Enron jumped on the bandwagon early hoping for Kyoto treaty was signed so they cold profit from distributing natural gas.
And, of course, their is Senator/VP Algore who has profited handsomely promoting AGW.
If AGWites refuse to acknowledge the political aspects they are lying to themselves or hope to benefit some way (grants, carbon credits, etc) from its promotion.
By the way I have no label -

So you say. But you were very quick to cry 'racist' and most people who do so are 'liberals'/'progressives'/socialists.
djr
3.9 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2013
But you were very quick to cry 'racist' and most people who do so are 'liberals'/'progressives'/socialists.

Does Ryggy know what the word MOST means? Probably not. So if a conservative saw Ryggys racist posts - and called Ryggy a racist - does that make the conservative a liberal?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 17, 2013
Conservatives DID see my posts and did NOT cry racist as dj did.
djr
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2013
Conservatives DID see my posts and did NOT cry racist as dj did.

I am glad that it really bothers you that you got caught. I hope that it will make you think twice before poisoning internet boards with your hateful racism again. That is probably too much to ask. You do recall that several other posters were aware of your racism - and commented to that effect. I cannot speak for their politics - as I don't need to participate in the group think that so clearly poisons your view of others.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (18) Sep 17, 2013
'Most' means there are a few 'liberals' who admit they have overplayed the race card so not ALL liberals play the race card when they can't make a cogent defense for their socialism.

got caught

?
Caught doing what? Stating BHO father was a Marxist from Kenya?
BHO's father grew up under British rule and chose to be a Marxist.
Ted Cruz's father experienced communism in Cuba and is adamantly opposed to communism.
djr
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2013
'Most' means there are a few 'liberals' who admit they have overplayed the race card so not ALL liberals play the race card when they can't make a cogent defense for their socialism.

You can't even follow an argument Ryggy. You said that MOST people who cry racist are liberal. Meaning that some people who cry racist are NOT liberal. In the sentence above you have turned the argument around to say that SOME liberals do not cry racist. You can't even follow an argument.

"Caught doing what?"

Enough with needing to re-litigate everything a thousand times. No matter how loud you scream - you cannot erase the facts Ryggy - you went on an international science board - and advertised your racism. One could hope that you will think twice before being so hateful again - but you clearly canniot acknowledge the facts as they stand. I would just put my head down and maybe do some introspection - probably too much to ask.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 17, 2013
Meaning that some people who cry racist are NOT liberal.

I acknowledge there are some 'liberals' who think the race card has been overplayed, but I have not observed non-liberals play a race card when they can't defend their arguments.
international science board

That posting articles accusing tea parties of racism in their opposition to BHO's socialism.
dj defends BHO's socialist policies but doesn't want to be called a socialist. If you don't want people to think you are 'liberal', don't support 'liberals' and their socialist policies.
The cure for racism is conservatism. Any black who becomes a conservative is no longer black according to 'liberals'. It is therefore the 'liberal' who IS racist as he uses race, gender,.... to sort individuals into these groups to keep political power.
'Liberals' are quick to cry 'racism' as race is foremost on their mind.
dj and others here demonstrated that on the thread quite well.
djr
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2013
Once again Ryggy - you hijack a science site - to rant on about your political ideology. I don't care what you call me - or think of me. What is important to me is that science does not get hijacked by childish idealogues like you. I think it is out of my control. What I can at least do is hold your feet to the fire for being a hateful little racist - and advertising that fact on a science site that is on the internet (hint - now the whole world knows).
djr
4.3 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2013
Ryggy says that the cure for racism is conservatism. Ryggy may want to check the research out there - maybe do a search for 'the correlation between conservatism and racism'.

Here is a starter article - there really is a lot of interesting science out there. I do love science....http://aattp.org/...low-i-q/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 18, 2013
Every conservative black I know of is vigorously attacked by 'liberals', white and black, yet no one accuses the 'liberals' of racism for attacking black conservatives.
The only black US senator is a conservative.
It was a conservative president who put a black women and a black man in high positions on his staff. It was a conservative president who nominated a conservative black to the SCOTUS and was vigorously attacked by 'liberals'.
So if you are a minority and want to participate in a political organization that doesn't really care about the color of your skin, only the content of your character, seek out conservative groups.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 18, 2013
"In an interview that appears to have thrown a number of MSNBC hosts under the bus, President Obama admitted to PBS "NewsHour" hosts Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff that he does not believe race is a factor in opposition to his policies, Matthew Sheffield reported at Newsbusters Thursday."
http://www.examin...rvatives
The 'Dear' Leader as spoken.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 18, 2013
"Black conservatives are rankled by the liberal flavor of events commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

They contend the left is appropriating the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s memory and willfully understating the degree of progress the United States has made in overcoming the egregious racial injustices that characterized an earlier era."
" Mia Love, the Republican mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, is black and was born in Brooklyn, N.Y.

She contends that modern-day civil rights activists, in league with the Democratic Party, de-incentivize personal responsibility and economic independence."

Read more: http://thehill.co...fGYfw8lQ
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2013
The most vocal Ubbatuba says;
I've but rarely read ...
Yeap, that sounds about right.
Then the wingnuts howl! Here is R2 going all racial like; "They contend the left is appropriating the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s memory and willfully understating the degree of progress the United States" Give it a break Beavus. That has nothing to do with modern science! Or the scientific observation that there is a connection between ocean chemistry and the atmosphere.

R2 = Beavus.
The Ubbatubba = Butthead.

Huhhuhh ... right wing dim bulbs.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 19, 2013
The Ubbatubba = right wing dim bulb.
Actually, you have it wrong. I vote to the right.

Do you even vote, at all? ...Seems doubtful.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 19, 2013
That has nothing to do with modern science!

Politics has everything to do with modern science today.
I have heard the NIH whine about losing money in the sequester asserting it will delay a cure for cancer.
EVERY govt funded science program must play politics to be funded.
Since the govt pays well for anything to do with AGW, much research is conducted to support AGW.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2013
Is that so,
Actually, you have it wrong. I vote to the right.
Well excuse me for doubting your credentials (as useful as they are @ubbatubba).

R2 says;
Politics has everything to do with modern science today.
And it is sad to say that is the truth. The rightwing of American politics is determined to tank science in favor of the more fervent religious positions of the constituents. Thank god you guys are in a minority most of the time, otherwise the good old USA would be like IRAN but with a red-white-and-blue flag.

Deny AGW as much as you want, but facts are facts my friend.


ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 20, 2013
Is that so,
Actually, you have it wrong. I vote to the right.
Well excuse me for doubting your credentials (as useful as they are @ubbatubba).
Sorry for the confusion. i meant to say, I lean to the right when I vote to the left.

I noticed you avoided my question about your voting history. Why is that?

runrig
4 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2013
Politics has everything to do with modern science today.


No, wrong way around - the outcome of science has everything to do with Politics - if, as is the case with AGW, a world-wide response is needed.

What scientists discover about the world is not informed by Politics in the sense that scientific truth is altered - what is discovered may be directed in a particular direction because of Politics - but not the outcome. Unless you run to conspiracy theory, and although popular amongst a certain Internet trolling types - is beyond bizarre in real life.

What I/others object to is the criticism (read rabid denial) of the veracity of the science because you perceive it to be lies made up by Politicians. You have the cart before the horse.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2013
criticism (read rabid denial) of the veracity of the science because you perceive it to be lies made up by Politicians.


But the scientists being criticized ARE politicians with agendas.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 21, 2013
New research from the University of East Anglia

Yep, that source of science that you can truly trust.


Certainly can - as it agrees with all other research centres.

Yep, and the Climategate emails confirmed how they came to that agreement.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2013
New research from the University of East Anglia

Yep, that source of science that you can truly trust.


Certainly can - as it agrees with all other research centres.

Yep, and the Climategate emails confirmed how they came to that agreement.


Yes the 100's of scientists involved with producing independent "hockey-sticks" all sent themselves emails and conspired to en-mass falsify their data. Of course the world would never find out. Beyond bizarre thinking (yours not theirs).
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2013
Jim Hansen is now free to be himself.

"Why did James Hansen retire on April 2 after 32 years as director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies? "
"That means full-time activism for the 72-year-old, and perhaps the risk of getting arrested at more coal-mine or tar-sand protests."
"After decades spent trying to move society as a scientist—including the first testimony to the U.S. Congress urging action on global warming in 1988—he will now focus on educating and influencing the public and policy leaders as an activist."
http://blogs.scie...t-video/
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2013
"Scientists and even professors in social sciences have told of colleagues or university officials warning them that non-alarmist research could damage their careers or cause the loss of a government grant. In his book "Eco-Tyranny," Brian Sussman exposed the Society of Environmental Journalists, a group that provides lists of scientists that either are recommended for interviews (alarmists) or not recommended (skeptics)."
"Rule three of IPCC procedures states, "Documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments." The IPCC's policymaker summaries (the ones the media rely upon) are produced by a committee of approximately 50 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists."
http://www.forbes...armists/
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 22, 2013
New research from the University of East Anglia

Yep, that source of science that you can truly trust.


Certainly can - as it agrees with all other research centres.

Yep, and the Climategate emails confirmed how they came to that agreement.


Yes the 100's of scientists involved with producing independent "hockey-sticks" all sent themselves emails and conspired to en-mass falsify their data. Of course the world would never find out. Beyond bizarre thinking (yours not theirs).

And everyone of those hockey schticks have been proven to be the lies they are. To someone who is in denial that Climategate happened, all I can say is, keep your head buried in the snow and blind to the truth.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2013

And everyone of those hockey schticks have been proven to be the lies they are. To someone who is in denial that Climategate happened, all I can say is, keep your head buried in the snow and blind to the truth.


Ah right, so there we have it... it's all a conspiracy by the PTB.

I'm sorry, but in a rational and sane world that premise is beyond bizarre and quite frankly staggeringly stupid. It is somewhere you go that makes you isolated from rational discussion.

runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2013
Jim Hansen is now free to be himself.

"Why did James Hansen retire on April 2 after 32 years as director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies? "
"That means full-time activism for the 72-year-old, and perhaps the risk of getting arrested at more coal-mine or tar-sand protests."
"After decades spent trying to move society as a scientist—including the first testimony to the U.S. Congress urging action on global warming in 1988—he will now focus on educating and influencing the public and policy leaders as an activist."
http://blogs.scie...t-video/


More character assassination.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (16) Sep 22, 2013
Jim Hansen is now free to be himself.

"Why did James Hansen retire on April 2 after 32 years as director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies? "
"That means full-time activism for the 72-year-old, and perhaps the risk of getting arrested at more coal-mine or tar-sand protests."
"After decades spent trying to move society as a scientist—including the first testimony to the U.S. Congress urging action on global warming in 1988—he will now focus on educating and influencing the public and policy leaders as an activist."
http://blogs.scie...t-video/


More character assassination.

More like suicide.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2013
Regardless of what you think R2, Hansen is a hero and a worthy scientist. People who use there knowledge and science abilities to the betterment of mankind deserve the respect that one would show a hero. It is unfortunate that some people are born with an attitude that will not let them view another position. You lack the ability to *Step into the otherside's shoes*. Without that skill you will always be the anti-thesis to a progressive. I would think your only purpose is to make other people feel bad, ... isn't that the definition of a disease? The R2 syndrome?

Then @anti goes off on his super lame "I can read a graph!" rant and tells us that an exponential graph is not a hockey stick and the underlying data is a lie. To be expected from a lying tea bagged wingnut! Next up, Al-Gore, Agenda-21 and preparations at FEMA park 3!

Here for some pretty graphs of the hockeystick @anti, please read and shut-up;

http://www.skepti...ott.html

More news stories

There's something ancient in the icebox

Glaciers are commonly thought to work like a belt sander. As they move over the land they scrape off everything—vegetation, soil, and even the top layer of bedrock. So scientists were greatly surprised ...

Clean air: Fewer sources for self-cleaning

Up to now, HONO, also known as nitrous acid, was considered one of the most important sources of hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are regarded as the detergent of the atmosphere, allowing the air to clean itself. ...

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers

(Phys.org) —Four freshmen at the University of Pennsylvania have taken Apple's personal assistant Siri to behave as a graduate-level executive assistant which, when asked, is capable of adjusting the temperature ...