Ocean acidification: First demonstration that ocean's CO2 uptake can impair digestion in a marine animal

Nov 15, 2013
Ocean acidification: Hard to digest
This shows green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) at the lab. Credit: GEOMAR

Ocean acidification impairs digestion in marine organisms, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Researchers from Sweden and Germany have studied the larval stage of green sea urchins Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. The results show that the animals have problems digesting food in acidified water.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions do not only affect the climate but also our seas and oceans. One-quarter of all CO2 released into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. Once there, the CO2 is converted to carbonic acid, making the water more acidic. Previous studies showed that marine species and ecosystems can suffer in an acidified environment. Although the reason for the sensitivity was seen in physiological processes, mechanisms remained unclear. Scientists from the universities of Gothenburg (GU) and Kiel (CAU), as well as GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) found that leads to reduced rates of digestion in larvae of the ecologically important green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. The findings are published in the international journal Nature Climate Change.

Dr. Meike Stumpp, former PhD student at GEOMAR and Kiel University and first author of the study, used novel pH micro-electrode techniques and designed new assay methods during her postdoc at the University of Gothenburg to investigate digestion and digestive enzymes in the larvae. She showed that when larvae are exposed to acidified seawater, the digestion takes longer and is less effective. "My measurements demonstrated a very strong pH dependency", Stumpp explains. "The enzymes in the ' stomachs are optimized to function at very high pH – which is different from the situation in mammals, where stomach pH is acidic and enzymes work best at low pH."

Exposed to simulated ocean acidification, the larvae work hard to maintain the high stomach pH values. "The energetic demands to maintain the stomach pH increase', says Dr. Marian Hu, co-first author of the study. Using antibody staining techniques, Hu discovered a high concentration of pH regulatory cells that cover the inner surface of the stomach. Such cells typically consume a lot of energy. Culturing experiments and feeding trials revealed that in order to compensate for the decreased efficiency of digestion, the larvae feed more.

"While earlier studies mainly focused on understanding calcification under acidified conditions, other vital processes, such as digestion and gastric pH regulation, were neglected", says Meike Stumpp. "We can now demonstrate that they deserve much more attention." "All living processes are run or controlled by enzymes. They are the key in understanding the functions and reactions of organisms, and finally ecosystems, in a changing world", AWI-scientist Dr. Reinhard Saborowski adds.

"If the organisms are unable to compensate for extra costs caused by ocean acidification, by eating more, they suffer negative consequences in the form of reduced growth and fertility and in extreme cases death", Dr. Sam Dupont points out. The researcher from the University of Gothenburg is senior author of the study.

The researchers in Germany and Sweden have spent several years developing their techniques. "Studying digestion in larvae is not easy since they are only about a fifth of a millimeter in length", Dupont admits. "But now we are able to analyze this important process and get an impression of how sea urchin larvae might react to future living conditions."

Explore further: Unprecedented rate and scale of ocean acidification found in the Arctic

More information: "Digestion in sea urchin larvae impaired under ocean acidification" Nature Climate Change 2013. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2028

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists analyze the extent of ocean acidification

Aug 25, 2013

Ocean acidification could change the ecosystems of our seas even by the end of this century. Biologists at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), have therefore ...

Baby corals pass the acid test

Aug 13, 2013

Corals can survive the early stages of their development even under the tough conditions that rising carbon emissions will impose on them says a new study from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

Ocean acidification amplifies global warming (Update)

Aug 25, 2013

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 ...

Recommended for you

Feds allows logging after huge California wildfire

8 hours ago

The U.S. Forest Service has decided to allow logging on nearly 52 square miles of the Sierra Nevada burned last year in a massive California wildfire, a move contested by environmentalists.

User comments : 98

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (31) Nov 15, 2013
Propaganda alert: CO₂ reacts with H₂O to form carbonic acid H₂CO₃ indeed but the ocean is a complex, biologically active, *basic*-pH buffer and the honest term for the overall effect is "neutralization."

When such ancient primative animals evolved, atmospheric CO₂ levels were up to 10X those of today. Slowing down the *rate* of emissions growth however would help such animals usefully adapt back to their old ways, just as textbooks show how dirty coal plants caused white moths to adapt into dark ones. However, the overly rapid emissions burst has been directly caused by hysterical bans of new fourth generation nuclear reactors and comparatively low emissions fracking that real studies by water experts say is perfectly safe since it occurs way below the water table.

Now "environmentalism" is destroying once again the very hope for a more happy ocean, namely by cluckingly crying wolf so loudly for thirty years, fueled by $bns/yr of elite funding, eggs all in a single hothouse basket.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (30) Nov 15, 2013
Oh poor Strongylocentrotus, you must eat a little more merely, to adapt, but Mr. Scientist has you dying:

"If the organisms are unable to compensate for extra costs caused by ocean acidification, by eating more, they suffer negative consequences in the form of reduced growth and fertility and in extreme cases death."

But did they report any deaths as they poured acid into already stressed aquarium animals, devoid of the full responsive ecosystem?

Did they consider, poor Strongy, the widely accepted massive boost in growth of the food you do eat caused directly by the CO₂ they so meanly want to take away from your greening ocean?

"Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass."
http://www.scienc...abstract

And Strongy, didn't Mr. Scientist just confirm that reports of your death are premature as he cited your healthy body?
Grallen
3.5 / 5 (14) Nov 15, 2013
Wow Nik. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (28) Nov 15, 2013
Here lies denial of natural climate change, denial of alarmist supercomputer model divergence from temperature, denial of the simple grassroots nature of engaged skepticism, denial of jobs for young biologists and chemists just as newly resistant bacteria threaten all Mankind, denial of raw brazen scientific fraud at the very heart of "hide the decline" climate science, denial of energy rationing genocide, denial of fertilization effects on *overall* biosphere vitality, denial of the very nature of science that is defined as immunity to mere consensus, denial of the futility of recessionary carbon taxes as China and India boom, denial of the hope of terrified students, denial of logical argument over hysteria, denial of actual on-the-ground tide gauge immunity to trend change, denial of the very oldest *real* thermometer records also immune to trend change, denial of the contemporary falsification of tree rings as hockey stick thermometers, denial of Arabian oil lobbying, etc!
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (28) Nov 15, 2013
How's that in confirming your rotten minded stereotype, single star warrior, Grallen? I gave you five for promoting my posts to filter-using readers.

People who lack passion and wit are alienated by it, I note, as they depressingly troll away, calling names, dropping insults, Grallen trying yesterday to character assassinate Dr. Roy Spenser as a "madman" whose satellite data expertise now finds outgoing radiation that falsifies climate models. Grallen is likely in the denial phase of cult burnout.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 15, 2013
Comic relief that properly inverts Grallen's madly pointed finger:
http://wattsupwit...ters.png

Background: satellite temperature data now falsifies the highly speculative positive and runaway feedback equations inside supercomputers upon which all climate alarm pivots. Activists like Grallen want laypeople to think that climate *model* skepticism equates to maverick denial of the greenhouse effect itself, a paper tiger subject actively banned on skeptical blogs.

WELCOME TO THE INTERNET
-=THE NEW PEER REVIEW=-

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
NOM
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2013
Welcome to the internet. Where any clown can claim to have a Ph.D.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (26) Nov 15, 2013
Regular Phys.org haunt NOM feigns ignorance. Do call Colin Nuckolls, NOM, recent chairman of the chemistry department at Columbia. He's my old lab mate. Ask him why he profusely thanked me in his thesis, along with our old professor and his future wife. He can also confirm that I won the best organic division Ph.D. student award which he did not himself later win, and there were a future American Chemical Society president (Breslow) and future Nobelist (Chalfie) on my defense committee. Colin now has the biggest carbon chemistry group up the street here from my Upper West Side digs. He's an old Grateful Deadhead, a real cheerful guy.

In contrast, the authors of this study are from the likes of the Christian Albrechts University.
NOM
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2013
In contrast, the authors of this study are proven identities, not some anonymous crank on the internet whose posts show that he is an idiot.
You are a phony Nik. Claim to have a Ph.D. knighthood, nobel, virginity, Oscar, 12" knob, olympic gold, whatever. It's just a claim.

OK, I believe the virginity.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (28) Nov 15, 2013
The Christian Albrechts University is depressingly seen here:
http://upload.wik...imax.jpg

Columbia's new interdisciplinary science building tower, skywalk connected to the chemistry building, dwarfs their whole campus! It's vibration isolated and cost a billion bucks. On the other hand NASA's Jim "Coal Death Trains" Hansen existed in a little corner office in a mixed office/residential apartment building above Tom's diner, two blocks from where I'm writing this.

Those real science buildings are chock full of environmentalism cynics, terrified of burdensome penalties and bans, lamenting how it now costs them more to dispose of mere laboratory quantities of expensive chemicals than it costs to buy them in the first place (!). Climatology hardly appears on their radar any more than other soft and highly political sciences such as sociology.

They didn't call it the isotope chemistry Mannhattan Project for nothing!
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (28) Nov 15, 2013
NOM in fact represents the face of *mainstream* climate alarm, now in full meltdown, as the central Hockey Stick Team character Michael Mann delivers #DenierForHire slanderous hashtags on Twitter to skeptical academics and says my *own* posts here on green energy consulting firm owned Phys.org, "Smell of Koch":
http://wattsupwit...nomenon/

That's a raunchy conspiracy theory reference to the oil processing barons of Koch Industries.
NOM
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
Oh oh! Nik's going to hit the caps-lock key soon.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (27) Nov 15, 2013
As these emergency level funded, oh-so-concerned naturalists moan about disaster *scenarios* after poking poor Strongly with a pH meter probe, about a *million* bats a year are indeed fully killed by utterly superfluous windmills that thoroughly industrialize the countryside of many a nation!
http://wattsupwit...st-year/

NOM pokes fun at me for being passionately *angry* about this.

And himself and the typical authors of studies on climate proclaim that they prefer to industrialize *all* windy nature spots with access roads, underground cables, and fragile rust collecting infrastructure so to kill ten or a hundred million bats a year, sacrificed to the crucifixes of a doomsday religion masquerading as science.

But where are the Greenpeace banners?!

Hmm....

Dead eagles don't count? Since when?! Oh, since commies took over Greenpeace, as their pro-nuclear former president Patrick Moore explained in his autobiography.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (26) Nov 15, 2013
Contemporary environmentalism and the activist scientists who support its doomsday carbon scenarios, do not want anybody I have access to cheap energy.

The LA Times featured cold fusion in '89 before its debunking. Greens were aghast!

"It's like giving a machine gun to an idiot child." – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the doubly ironically named SkepticalScience.com blog, author of "Climate Change Denial")

"I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus." - Prince Philip – WWF President

Those are the words of doomsday cultists, not old school environmentalists, of anarchists, not classic liberals.

Environmentalist author Jim Steele laments the corruption of the cause in a highly rated book:

"Global warming advocates have opposed appropriate conservation efforts simply because the concerned scientists did not blame climate change."
http://www.amazon...0390189/

Note the single bile spewing review, and reasoned follow up.
rocket77777
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 15, 2013
I would say we should ban soda. It contribute to global warming by having co2. It also blocks sensitivity so people ingest extra sugar thus gain weight and emit more co2.
Theoretically decrease sensitivity and increase in sugar might even add to sugar/food addiction too.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (27) Nov 15, 2013
They spill the beans, right in their own press release headline: after billions a year were thrown at nature scientists to detail an ongoing climate disaster, this is the FIRST study to find even a hint of metabolic distress, before they instead detail torturing poor Strongly in a mere aquarium, far from the suddenly algae fertilized oceans where Strongly now has 40% more food exactly due to CO₂.

From the paper's supplement, in fact they kept algae concentration constant:
"To prevent changes in food concentration, algae concentration and size were checked daily using a Coulter counter (Elzone 5380, Micrometrics, Aachen, Germany) and then adjusted in the experimental bottles...."

To get an alarming effect in mere days on a single unadapted generation (!) they take the pH all the way from 8 to 7.2, since 7.6 didn't hurt badly enough, whereas ocean pH so far has merely changed 0.1 pH due to emissions.

Life loves CO₂, reveals food cycle chapters of textbooks. It's greening the Earth.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"When such ancient primative animals evolved" - NikkieTard

NikkieTard apparently believes that once an organism has "evolved" it has reached some kind of end point and no longer changes.

Sadly, his mental disease causes him to say many things that he once knew were untrue, and now his neurons are so mis-wired that he can no longer remember what is true and what is only true in his fantasies.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"Oh poor Strongylocentrotus, you must eat a little more merely, to adapt" - Nikkietard

More incoherent mumbling from the brain damaged.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"Here lies denial" - NikkieTard

With emphasis on "Lies"
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"Grallen trying yesterday to character assassinate Dr. Roy Spenser as a "madman" " - NikkieTard

In July 2011, a paper co-authored by Spencer was published in the journal Remote Sensing, "[which is] a fine [peer-reviewed] journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science," RealClimate found. [6]

His paper looked at a potential connection between clouds and global warming. The paper received significant media attention, and climate change skeptics claimed that it "blow[s] a gaping hole in global warming alarmism." [7]

Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell's paper, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, so refuting Spencer's claims.

In Andrew Dessler's view, "[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he's been wrong too many times). Rather, he's writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants."
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
Exposing Dr. Roy Spencer.

http://www.desmog...-spencer

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"I would say we should ban soda." - Fool

You mean because it re-introduces CO2 into the air that was taken from the air in the first place?

You seem very confused, and childish to me.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"Contemporary environmentalism and the activist scientists who support its doomsday carbon scenarios, do not want anybody I have access to cheap energy" - NikkieTard

You need to stop combining your anti-psychosis medication with alcohol Tardieboy.

Isn't there a desk lamp somewhere that you should be completing?
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"about a *million* bats a year are indeed fully killed by utterly superfluous windmills" - NikkieTard

And again, NikkieTard's own reference does not support his own claim.

From his own link....

Study shows wind turbines killed 600,000 bats last year

1 million = 0.6 million only in the land of self delusion.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (27) Nov 15, 2013
Headline news from early this year:
"Rapid adaptation could be sea urchins' primary weapon against acidification and climate change as the carbon content of the ocean increases."
http://www.futuri...survive/

But alarm pays the bills of both scientists and journalists, so madness reigns, but they tied it all to rapidly flailing supercomputer climate models like some old sci-fi movie about electronic brains or that Bowie tune where the computer god laments:

Don't let me stay, don't let me stay
My logic says burn so send me away
Your minds are too green, I despise all I've seen
You can't stake your lives on a Saviour Machine
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"You are a phony Nik." - NOM

To NikkieTard, he must have a university education since he lives in University subsidized housing and makes desk lamps for a living..

His arrest for child molestation didn't help his career.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
Unmask Wikipedia sock puppets by the way they write

Last month, Wikipedia announced that it had blocked some 250 "sock puppet" accounts – fake accounts set up by users who are often paid by companies to edit articles in their favour. Now, Ragib Hasan at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and his colleagues have developed a tool that analyses the way articles are written and spots if they are edited by the same person.

http://www.newsci...7vtIjLFA
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 15, 2013
These are the sort of slanderous people who would cheer a guy getting cancer. In fact, Phil "Climategate" Jones now of a literal Saudi university did just that, e-mailing to Michael "Climate Wars" Mann when one if the most influential early skeptics died:

"In an odd way this is cheering news!"

I dedicated my astronaut skeptical infographic to the late John Daly:
http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg

The Climategate e-mails revealed that the literal PR firm tutored public disinterest in skeptics concealed a near daily obsession with them. They were frantically worried!
hrfJC
1.5 / 5 (22) Nov 15, 2013
CO2 forms rather weak carbonic acid causing minimal pH drop as little as an inconsequential 0.1 unit. But have they looked at SO2 levels? Note that SO2 forming a stronger sulfurous acid and ultimately sulfuric acid from coal burning power plants, often thousands of milles distant, is the major cause of serious lake acidication in the USA. Also, SO2 from natural global volcanic activity probably is a more serious problem than CO2 in ocean water acidification.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"The Climategate e-mails revealed that the literal PR firm tutored public disinterest in skeptics concealed a near daily obsession with them." - NikkieTard

More incoherent blabbering from Tardieboy.

He does have the occasional moment of mental clarity, but none have been apparent in the last week or so.

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"Also, SO2 from natural global volcanic activity" - Denialist Retard

What increase has there been in SO2 emissions from volcanoes, Tardieboy?

You are living a lie on the planet of self delusion.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (28) Nov 15, 2013
CLIMATEGATE 101: "For your eyes only...Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I
think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.... Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that." - Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones to Michael Mann

And yet to this very day Phil Jones is still putting out the major temperature index used by climate scientist, putting all of their papers in the waste basket since CRU claimed they *lost* their original data!:

"We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data." - Phil Jones, 2010
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (27) Nov 15, 2013
The major index used now by climatologists is called HadCRUT4, and just last year it was updated yet again to show significantly more recent warming by retroactively changing the past decade:
http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

HadCRUT stands for the Hadley Center Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia that has been led by Phil Jones for years.

Physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley who created an innovative new global average temperature points out:
"The standards held over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods…."

Yet HadCRUT4 temperature data now stands at the center of recent climate science studies.

Climate science relies on data series that do not meet standard scientific methods.

The raw data isn't even still available, by admission of the man who creates the final product!

Why don't they just switch to satellites?!

Hmm....
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2013
"For your eyes only...Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them." - NikkieTard

Good advice from NikkieTard even though he isn't aware enough of the world around him to realize why.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013
"Physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley who created an innovative new global average temperature points out:" - NikkieTard

"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." - Richard Muller - The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (26) Nov 15, 2013
As recent warming has boomed in global average temperature sets, a striking conversion has taken place from apples to oranges. As billions of dollars are thrown into proving a theory instead of trying to falsify it like is the task of *real* scientists, the bulk of real ground thermometer stations have been SHUT DOWN:
http://postimg.or...ia4snwv/

And look at the correlation with a claimed warming spike!

[Details: http://joannenova...ometers/ ]

NASA's Jim Hansen shows United States temperatures now as being hotter than the dust bowl era when whole states were nearly abandoned:
http://data.giss....ig.D.gif

And even Hansen admitted it in 1999:
"Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/

Yet these now up-adjusted contemporary series remain the backbone of climatology.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (27) Nov 15, 2013
Muller was never a skeptic:
"...back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming."

Muller the opportunist claimed to be a skeptic in a grant proposal actually then funded by the Koch brothers, but the Internet revealed his deception. He did produce his own hockey stick, one that is falsified by the Science 101 act of looking at the longest continuous thermometer records to see if they confirm it, which they do *not*. His method chops each and every record up into little independent series based on computer code instead of real station change data, and he *changes* their values not based on *any* physical changes.

His outlier series is rarely referenced now.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013
Propaganda alert! Propaganda alert!

You know it's propaganda when @NikFromNYC begins a comment thread with propaganda! From the article;
Ocean acidification impairs digestion in marine organisms, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Researchers from Sweden and Germany have studied the larval stage of green sea urchins Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. The results show that the animals have problems digesting food in acidified water.

So Nik, what's your problem with that? If you think it's wrong, go get an aquarium, throw some fish in it, and start dropping some acid in it and measure how much they eat. A Jr- high-school kid could do it. Then just go out a measure the pH of the ocean (or get it from NOAA) and you have the paper.

You deniers, like tea party spawn that created you, can't punch yourselves out of a brown paper bag. Just because you *believe* non-sense doesn't mean that you can hoist a bunch of BS onto everyone.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013
"Muller was never a skeptic:" - NikkieTard

Changing Views About A Changing Climate

"Call me a converted skeptic," physicist Richard Muller wrote

http://www.npr.or...-climate

NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (25) Nov 16, 2013
Another study from 2008 cites another effect this paper failed to, uh, mention...that recent warming itself makes sea urchins thrive by about 10X normal abundance:

"Larvae of sea urchins form skeletal parts comprising magnesium-bearing calcite, which is 30 times more soluble than calcite without magnesium (Raven et al. 2005). Lower ocean pH should drastically inhibit the formation of these soluble calcite precursors, which are essential for echinoderm shell construction. Echinoderm larvae from the CPR in the North Sea are dominated by the sea urchin Echinocardium cordatum and they have exhibited a 10-fold increase in recent times. This increase is linked predominantly to warming (Kirby et al. 2007), and there is no observable negative effect of pH."
[Reference: http://aslo.org/l...2040.pdf ]
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2013
"Muller the opportunist claimed to be a skeptic in a grant proposal actually then funded by the Koch brothers, but the Internet revealed his deception." - NikkieTard

All of Muller's data and methods are on his website.

Feel free to challenge them. So far no denialist has had the balls or the brains to do so.

You also have neither... Tardieboy.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
Another study from 2008 cites another effect this paper failed to, uh, mention...that recent warming itself makes sea urchins thrive by about 10X normal abundance:

Apparently it's the same with Jellyfish! It make for a lovely beach experience these days. It doesn't make the study wrong, just dated.

NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (22) Nov 16, 2013
Muller 2003: "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
http://www.techno...3/page2/

Muller 2008: "There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it's going to get much, much worse."
http://www.wired....the-nex/

Muller 2011 on Climategate: "So that's what they did. And what is the result in my mind? Quite frankly as a scientist? I now have a list of people whose papers I wont read any more. You are not allowed to do this in science. I get infuriated with collegues of mine who say well you know, it's a human field, you make mistakes. And then I show them this and they say, uh, no…that's not acceptable."
http://www.youtub...pciw8suk

Rats on a sinking ship!

But not speaking to NPR.
VENDItardE
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 16, 2013
oh Scott, just STFU and off yourself already. You know you want to. JUST DO IT
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 16, 2013
Muller shows a hockey stick that is *way* crazy at the end, just as thermometer station numbers plummeted with *no* explaination. It's such a whoppingly embarrassing outlier that the mild outlier of Hansen's controversial GISS series is dwarfed by it and that's likely why skeptics needn't debunk it so much as let that baby die of natural causes by not being cited in peer reviewed studies, since it would be hard to get a paper published if you did cite it as your standard global temperature data! Climatologists have themselves rejected it, already. I mean why did John Cook's blog partners at SkepticalScience.com just make a Frankenstein satellite/thermometer mash up to achieve a similar outlier, if they already had Berkeley to rely on?

http://www.woodfo.../mean:12

Muller's result positively skyrockets at the end.

But is it hot out?!

Muller 2010: "It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic."
Howhot
2.9 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
It always fun when you see.
Rats on a sinking ship!
All you deniers are just doing mental masturbation when you try to prove climate change isn't happening Your a joke man.@Nik, do you get it? You a joke. Go to bed, read a book and come to Jesus or something.
Howhot
3.1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
Muller shows a hockey stick that is *way* crazy
And who is really crazy? When you look at CO2 levels, which was 240ppm for the past 10,000 year or better and the within 20 years spikes to 400ppm. That is a hockey stick, and we the "people of the world" are going to pay for it! Of course with CO2 and a Hockey-stick that is not a laughing matter. You can expect major climate changes mostly for the detriment of every living thing.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
Howhot asks: "The results show that the animals have problems digesting food in acidified water. / So Nik, what's your problem with that?"

That they failed to allow the connected biosystem to operate by artificially re-adjusting the algae levels instead of letting them thrive due to the added CO₂ but then they issue a press release with serious policy implications. They starved the normal co-evolved urchin/algae system of the dominant food supply then noted that the urchin larvae didn't grow as quickly. If you add CO₂ to an aquarium full of algae, what happens? Those using algae to sequester CO₂ have a clue!
http://blacklemag...biofuel/

The science is fine, for what it is, but they don't leave it at that, they claim alarming results overall as their blessed ocean greens.

Howhot bitches: "You deniers, like tea party spawn that created you...."

The Upper West Side Tea Party doesn't exactly exist, I'm afraid.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 16, 2013
Howhot stuffs straw in my shirt: "All you deniers are just doing mental masturbation when you try to prove climate change isn't happening."

Howhot the Gorebot is using a disinformation strategy, parroted from the usual conspiracy theory books and literal Al Gore training workshops. Here he implies that skeptics deny that the climate is changing, when in fact it has been alarmists via fraudulent hockey sticks who in fact deny that climate changes on its own, which any historian can readily debunk.

Then he implies Tea Party creation of skeptics, when in fact the Tea Party arose in 2009 whereas the most prolific and influential skeptic of all time, John Daly, died in 2004:
http://www.john-daly.com/

What skeptics did, however, is not scream at our opposition, so we didn't alienate normal people, and with a bit of outreach, we captured real media attention after Climategate, ready with years of crowd sourced material so the Tea Party types were suddenly armed with *competent* skepticism.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 16, 2013
Recently the American Meteorological Society was discovered to have a whopping 48% of skeptics amongst its membership. As climatologist Judith Curry points out: "52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as 'deniers'."
http://judithcurr...nsensus/

Well, Howhot, that's 3400 Tea Party fueled deniers for you to scream at, all professionally trained climate experts.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
Well, let me confess something; I love sushi. I love it a lot. And my favorite sushi is 1Hr Fresh Uni. If you never had it, it's the best Sea Urchin sushi you will ever taste. It's a unique taste all by itself. Fresh Uni is one of the worlds great taste treasures.

Ok, with that disclosure out of the way, @Nik seems to claim the report somehow failed to allow the biosystem to operate naturally. If your objection is valid, then it seems the normal response avenue would be to write the editors with your critique. Yeah, but if your normal, you bitch like I do on a forum like this.

I know people studying the "add CO₂ to an aquarium full of algae," and while it seems like a great idea, (and it is), the technical and economic engineering issues are actually difficult. Your objections and grandstanding against valid science like this article, make it harder for scientist to do those kinds of studies. I hope it changes.

NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
Howhot has evidently not heard that the history of science is strewn with abandoned mainstream consensus theories, such as the diabetes and heart disease promoting Food Pyramid:

"The evidence is pretty persuasive. The essence of it is: recent studies have failed to support any significant association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular risk. Indeed, saturated fat has actually been found to be protective...."

"The saturated fat/cholesterol theory of heart disease resembles the serotonin model of depression in that it's a gross simplification of complex and poorly understood mechanisms."

http://blogs.tele...he-menu/

Temperature history reformer Michael Mann seems to be a modern day Ancel Keys who politically promoted the single bullet theory of heart disease, sadly from my old U of MN campus. Now scandal tolerating Penn State carries the junk science torch.
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2013
Recently the American Meteorological Society was discovered to have a whopping 48% of skeptics amongst its membership. As climatologist Judith Curry points out: "52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as 'deniers'."
http://judithcurr...nsensus/

Well, Howhot, that's 3400 Tea Party fueled deniers for you to scream at, all professionally trained climate experts.


Well, I hope they can scream loudly, because everyone and anyone that knows anything will be laughing their ass's off.
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2013
@Nik says;
Howhot has evidently not heard that the history of science is strewn with abandoned mainstream consensus theories...
I've had my share of it. I'm not a history buff.
So then you lash into Mann like your Dante and Mann is some demon you have to battle in the Inferno. The hockey stick is what it is. Just like the economic crash of 2008 looks like a hockeystick on backside, CO2 levels (averaged BTW from over several globally distributed measuring stations) does track a an upright hockeystick shape. How anyone wouldn't see that in CO2, is befuddling to me.

Once you have a hockeystick in CO2, you can use physics to predict the rest .But we don't have to, we can measure directly the temperatures of the globe. They fit perfectly with physics models. (And it doesn't bode well for humanity).

So you point is what @Nik?
runrig
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
HadCRUT stands for the Hadley Center Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia that has been led by Phil Jones for years.

Physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley who created an innovative new global average temperature points out:
"The standards held over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods…."


Mr Muller appears to be a bit of a hypocrite or at least was one…

http://www.youtub...uKxXUCPY

If changing broken proxy data – see ….
www.ncbi.nlm.nih....3_65.pdf

in the (recent) instrumental record WITH THAT instrumental record to create a graph for a glossy publication (& NOT a peer reviewed paper) is "not up to what we consider standard scientific methods" – then Mr Jones is guilty as charged.

http://www.youtub...VQ2fROOg
runrig
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
just as thermometer station numbers plummeted with *no* explaination.


Err no, yet again Nik:
For those who would like to read the explanation as to why historical temp data NEED to be corrected on occasion then go to…
https://www.ncdc....ring.php
"The weighting scheme used to rate stations for the initial selection in the GSN clearly indicates the biases climatologists have in favor of stations that have been in operation for a long time, that are rural, are agricultural research sites, and are distributed throughout the world with increasing density the farther they are away from the tropics. The result of all these efforts is that GHCN has data for many thousands of stations in the period from the 1950s to the 1990s that cannot be routinely updated, thus the number of stations drops considerably in recent years."
runrig
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
Recently the AMS was discovered to have a whopping 48% of skeptics amongst its membership

AMS's view on climate change…
http://en.wikiped..._Society

Also..
http://www.climat...f(1).pdf
"70% of Unconvinced weathercasters and 41% of Undecided ... said that claims of human-caused CC are a cover for a political agenda to increase government control of society."

And.. http://journals.a...-00091.1
"While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing
GW as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology
and perceived consensus. At least for the measure of expertise that we used, climate science
expertise may be a less important influence on global warming views than political ideology or
social consensus norms.

Again US politics triumphs over the science.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
runrig, that's not a logically meaningful "explanation" as much as word salad, in hilariously Freudian slip fashion mentions "clearly indicates the biases climatologists have" then connects these *biases* to the great dying of thermometers as "many thousands of stations in the period from the 1950s to the 1990s that cannot be routinely updated."

These noble cause corrupted activists threw out the bulk of thermometer stations just as billions of dollars of funding suddenly arrived in their small town. Like faithful Hockey Stick players they THREW OUT the bulk of their recent data and to this day conceal their actions in a mere web site single cryptic paragraph but not in peer reviewed detailed publication that would allow them to call themselves *real* scientists. It's as if cancer researchers suddenly tossed out most of their test subjects just as they announced a breakthrough.

Thanks for confirming this fact unknown to most any layperson due to an profitably alarmist media.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
"You can keep your climate data if you like your climate data." - Obama describing his Affordable Climate Act
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
Enter the Affordable Climate Act:

"This is a tale of misfortune and woe so Shakespearean that only history's greatest bards could have ever dreamed it. So many liberals sacrificed so much to bring this creation to life. As it has become clear that their creation is a monster, they are struggling against the increasingly inescapable realization that they may have to kill it in order to save themselves, and their party, from an age in the wilderness."
http://www.mediai...tragedy/

Australia, Canada, England, Japan, China, India and France scoff at artificial energy rationing in the middle of the longest ever recession, and the Teflon coating of US liberals falls.

Now with Cook 2013, Lewdanowski 2013, and Marcott 2013 junk science papers served to skeptics like a delightful dessert plate, runrig's own UK MET Office decided to stop killing low income folk with activist hothouse winter predictions.

runrig has a horse in this race.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
Howhot the Gorebot boringly implies that skeptics deny that CO₂ forms a hockey stick, which is a mere Google search away:
http://s6.postimg...7_21.jpg

Howhot uses a clearly canned disinformation strategy. That is what profiteer Al Gore teaches Climate Crusaders (actual term used on his RealityDrop.com Astroturfing site!) to do. Gore teaching workshops on how to lie online, namely to accuse skeptics of ignoring the rise in CO₂ or of denying the classic unamplified greenhouse effect that itself is not alarming.

Howhot is it though? Great question! runrig's own MET Office tells us not only is it no hotter than last decade but that skeptics are correct that the pause will likely continue to further falsify alarming positive feedback scenarios because feedbacks are in fact *negative*:
http://tallbloke....orecast/

Does Howhot *really* not know models *amplify* the greenhouse effect?!
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
Howhot claims: "Once you have a hockeystick in CO2, you can use physics to predict the rest."

You can predict the detailed and whole behavior of the biggest throbbingly fluid dynamic heat engines known, subject to plate tectonic vulcanism and hot spots, subject to solar system cycles, vast ice ages, biological feedbacks galore, myriad anthropogenic forces, unknown unknowns, future bio/nano tech breakthroughs in mitigation, data activism, fertilization effect greening, complex cloud cover feedbacks, chaotic/cyclic solar magnetism, shifts in winds coupled with ocean currents above a bizarre fractal landscape, ice core temperature proxy charts chock full of brief warm spikes, obscure atmospheric chemistry, global dimming effects of coal use in China, nitrogen fertilization from coal, terraforming breakthroughs for a Sahara jungle, and a Star Trek level future society?

ALL FROM SIMPLE GREENHOUSE EFFECT PHYSICS?!

Did someone coach you to say this ridiculous thing, Howhot?
runrig
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
runrig's own MET Office tells us not only is it no hotter than last decade but that skeptics are correct that the pause will likely continue to further falsify alarming positive feedback scenarios because feedbacks are in fact *negative*:
http://tallbloke....orecast/


Oh, that's the decadal forecast ….
"Decadal forecasts, also called 'near-term' climate predictions, range up to a decade ahead. Predictions account for natural variability and climate change as these are expected to be of similar size in many places. Forecasts are experimental, so at this early stage of development skill levels vary from place to place and for different variables."

You get that? "account for natural variability". Which is what the IPCC AGW forecasts DON'T do. They are long term forecasts and the short-term variability can't be FORECAST into the long term.

You (Tallbloke) are comparing apples and oranges.
http://www.metoff...cadal-fc
runrig
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
runrig, that's not a logically meaningful "explanation" as much as word salad, in hilariously Freudian slip fashion mentions "clearly indicates the biases climatologists have" then connects these *biases* to the great dying of thermometers as "many thousands of stations in the period from the 1950s to the 1990s that cannot be routinely updated."


Nik: It's only Freudian if you're looking for the –ve denier definition.

AGAIN
"clearly indicates the biases climatologists have in favor of stations that have been in operation for a long time, that are rural, are agricultural research sites, and are distributed throughout the world with increasing density the farther they are away from the tropics."

What objection do you have then to the above … would you like instead..

Short-time
Urban
Non-professional sites
Not well distributed and favouring the tropics. ????

Well the last obviously as that's where AGW is least apparent.
runrig
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
you can predict the detailed and whole behavior of the biggest throbbingly fluid dynamic heat engines known, subject to plate tectonic vulcanism and hot spots, subject to solar system cycles, vast ice ages, biological feedbacks galore, myriad anthropogenic forces, unknown unknowns, future bio/nano tech breakthroughs in mitigation, data activism, fertilization effect greening, complex cloud cover feedbacks, chaotic/cyclic solar magnetism, shifts in winds coupled with ocean currents above a bizarre fractal landscape, ice core temperature proxy charts chock full of brief warm spikes, obscure atmospheric chemistry, global dimming effects of coal use in China, nitrogen fertilization from coal, terraforming breakthroughs for a Sahara jungle…?

ALL FROM SIMPLE GREENHOUSE EFFECT PHYSICS?!


NIK: YES. In the end it's just Solar in (known to within a w/m^2) MINUS IR out ( also known).

Taking away the red-herrings of the solar system cycles/ice ages/magnetism

cont
runrig
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
cont

- You're babbling about the internal variables that merely redistribute the solar-IR over the planet. That is why the IPCC forecasts have error bounds – but your ilk continue to only be able to conceive in absolutes and see them as steady rises. The Earth's energy budget is in reality strictly defined. The problem is finding where all the bits of the surplus getting left here are hiding – however the trend line must always be up so long as CO2 is restricting IR to space.

BTW: If you look at the Greenland ice-core you get data for the climate of Greenland and not the planet. I've explained the reasons for the "spikes" to you before. (others-it's likely sea-current/thermohaline changes around the Continent).

Upshot is you use the complexity of the system as an argument to bolster your simplification of the system. Muddled thinking my friend. And wrong.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
rr, the MET office apples of the global average temperature are the same global average temperature apples used to confirm or falsify alarming positive feedbacks hypotheses.

Phil Jones of the CRU who manages the HadCRUT global average temperature set involved, in a Climategate e-mail claimed worry after 15 years of pause that your MET office now extends out into the future to 20.

Jim Hansen told the media about *multiple* degree extra warming *already* by now, back in 1986:
"Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Hansen's findings. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade."
[Reference: http://news.googl...mp;hl=en ]

There's a phrase to describe your paper tiger insistence on model validity: spherical cows!

Their predictions FAILED.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 16, 2013
Thanks Steve Jobs! These faux Gaian blokes can't lie anymore. Newspaper archives in our pocket, no less! The Mann lost this propaganda war of hate speech attacks on critical thinkers. Your insistence on an insanely (great) ultra-high resolution display turned the tide. R.I.P. fellow trippy hippie, and you're forgiven for having Al Gore on the board that once stupidly fired you.

http://youtu.be/nmwXdGm89Tk

"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."
runrig
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
rr, the MET office apples of the global average temperature are the same global average temperature apples used to confirm or falsify alarming positive feedbacks hypotheses.


The expected has arrived.
I shall say again.
The DECADAL forecast CANNOT be compared to the IPCC forecasts UNLESS you use their error bounds. As the UKMO decadal forecast TRIES (experimental) to incorporate them into the integration. The (mean ensemble) IPCC forecasts that you continue to think of as a steady rise (disregard the error bounds) are NOT the same. Hence the UKMO's 10 year forecast is as far as can be gone. The IPCC forecasts extend to the end of the century.
The chief +ve feedback is the H2O one. Which is incontrovertible science. Think about it my friend. You may be able to summon up personal enlightenment on the ability of warm air to be more humid.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (20) Nov 16, 2013
runrig theorized: "You're babbling about the internal variables that merely redistribute the solar-IR over the planet."

There's a spherical cow!

Literally hundreds of papers show solar magnetic influence on climate, but a small group of politically (IPCC etc.) connected hacks idly dismiss them with the mantra of falsehood that the sun isn't an influence just because its radiative variation is so minimal.

Then runrig dismissed century scale internal variability with the mere wave of a snotty hand.

Anything satisfies their octopus narrative, just a sound bite is needed for them to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that recent variation is truly boring.

Solar in/out is dominated, obviously to anyone on a picnic, by huge blobs of reflective water mist called clouds, something Howhot claims are predictable in variation by basic physics.

More heat might mean more humidity right? They say so themselves as a basic for all positive feedback alarm. More humidity, more clouds? Yup!
runrig
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
Their predictions FAILED.

Only in the denialoblogosphere my friend.
Inability to follow the logic of the science is unfortunate but unavoidable given the range of human behaviour.
That does not make the "predictions failed".
Those that understand what the IPCC forecasts are doing (and importantly – not doing) know that bald assertion comes from the rabbit-hole.
Unfortunately it is slowing public perception of the problem by having undue political and media backing. I will continue to assert that those in the minority have lost. AS in an election. Not perfect but the only way it can be done.
Let's hear it "you good ole folks" … Not with my Tax dollars.
Selfishness is such a revolting human trait.
runrig
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
Literally hundreds of papers show solar magnetic influence on climate, but a small group of politically (IPCC etc.) connected hacks idly dismiss them with the mantra of falsehood that the sun isn't an influence just because its radiative variation is so minimal.

They do – and what do they show?
The influence of UV on the Strat. A tiny proprotion of the Sun's energy impacting on a part of the atmopshere that has a density of between 1/100th and 1/1000th of the lower Trop. It alters the Strat Polar vortex and this influences the Trop vortex, which affects the distribution of heat over the surface (+/- AO). This all averaging out to zero change hemispherically.
Solar variation is known (from Solar study and from distant stars ) down to fine detail. Total variation does not exceed 0.2%…eg..

cont
runrig
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
cont

"It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions)."
Then runrig dismissed century scale internal variability with the mere wave of a snotty hand.

No - well maybe snotty … I have a cold at the moment …but correctly - in the great scheme of things internal cycles are irrelevant. Just like the water in a pan of boiling water is churning around and moving heat hither/thither – the water in the pan duly gets to boiling point in the specified time after the specified input of energy.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
What happened as climatology devolved into the doomsday cult phenomena of Climatology is that the theory guys were appointed as keepers of the empirical archives so they theorized all manner of little cumulative "improvements" to that data and the CRU even *threw* away the raw data until years of lies about mere intellectual property contracts (that did not exist!) preventing disclosure.

Where's the raw data for HadCRU for me to plot, runrig? I want to do a difference curve to reveal their own adjustment hockey stick, but I can't do that, by Phil "HadCRUT" Jones' own admission.

"We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data." - Phil Jones, 2010

This is a quote from the man who e-mailed Mann about purposefully deleting data to thwart the FOIA act, while Mann was e-mailing a colleague to delete e-mails concerning preparation of an IPCC report.

And these guys are *still* in charge of a house of cards.
runrig
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
Solar in/out is dominated, obviously to anyone on a picnic, by huge blobs of reflective water mist called clouds, something Howhot claims are predictable in variation by basic physics.
More heat might mean more humidity right? They say so themselves as a basic for all positive feedback alarm. More humidity, more clouds? Yup!


"More heat might mean more humidity right" … Err no. The ABSOLUTE humidity will increase, but the RELATIVE humidity stays the same … ergo same clouds. Look Nik: the hydrological cycle constrains H2O/WV to cycle twixt surface/air/surface in a days - this averages out the albedo (and GHG retention effect BTW). Any large scale effect (if there is one – Spencer) due the ENSO cycle with then play out and reverse with the ENSO cycle. It all plays out and cycles back to an averaged ZERO.
It is ONLY Solar vs outgoing IR that comprise the equation **in the long term**.
runrig
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
Where's the raw data for HadCRU for me to plot, runrig? I want to do a difference curve to reveal their own adjustment hockey stick, but I can't do that, by Phil "HadCRUT" Jones' own admission.


http://www.metoff...perature

Here:

http://www.metoff...adcrut4/
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
The word denialsphere has no place in science. It is a fanatical religious construct. For years similar skeptics of the cholesterol single-bullet theory of heart disease carried out their whistle blowing campaign in books, and only lately on blogs too. But there wasn't a doomsday religious aspect so there was no hate campaign. In the Climatology blogosphere you will find daily obsession with a dehumanized foe, in the extreme. Deniers this, deniers that. It's highly appealing to envious geeks who rant about the usual Occupy Wall Street lamentations while they aren't burning down new houses, mailing bombs to nanotechnologists, and key scratching SUVs.
runrig
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2013
The word denialsphere has no place in science. It is a fanatical religious construct.


I agree it's unfortunate, but as I say – all life is here and if those that fit the title don't like it – then shame.

If you/they were to show the merest glimmer of understanding, of taking the consensus science into consideration then fine. Then you would be correct. You/they most assuredly do not. As don't those inhabiting the likes of WUWT.
A skeptic has an open mind and will consider both sides equally. You/they do not.

What name do you suggest for people who refuse to assimilate consensus science and talk to the converted via the "blogosphere"? Thus reinforcing their perceived importance and number beyond reality.

Science isn't religion. What do you call the rejection of science? And no, science is not the odd maverick in the field – it's the majority.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
If there was simple empirical evidence linking emissions to warming there would be little mainstream skepticism. Instead there isn't even *correlation*! But most damning is how nobody in Climatology said anything as Jim Hansen cumulatively *erased* the dust bowl in his US temperature record. Instead, Climatogy members cited his GISS product in their *own* studies. Not one fraud had been even remotely punished. You even have Heartland identity theft and slanderous document *forger* Peter Gleick still running an institute.

No wonder runrig wants to debate theoretical footnotes!

His field of political science is a mafia, likely to be soon subject to racketeering charges, spherical cows be damned.

How is it science, runrig, for Hansen to *delete* 1999 NASA data revealing the dust bowl instead of archive it?

But relative humidity, you say?
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
runrig, the term "consensus science" is an oxymoron.

(A) John Cooks 97% consensus study re-Tweeted by Obama was one of the most absurd hoaxes of all time, using the rarely used term "global climate change" to select study abstracts, and the actual study scientists rejected his classifications!

(B) Your so-called denialsphere now dwarfs your beloved alarmosphere in popularity.

(C) Skeptics are *also* within the original Orsekes (a political activist, no less!) 97% survey claim.

YOU FAIL TO DEFINE YOUR TERM:

"consensus"

...then misapply it to Science which is itself proudly categorized and defined by immunity to consensus.

"Science is belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman
runrig
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
But relative humidity, you say?


Yep – the ability of air at 32C to (be able) to hold 3x the WV of air at 15C. But still have the same rel hum. See..
http://en.wikiped...humidity

This happens because of the churning of air (convection, advection, ie movement from various sources – desert dry, ocean moist). But even maritime air mixes with drier air aloft via convection/subsidence to prevent saturation. A few special cases exist ie fog (shallow layer at surface due radiative cooling of moist air). Or in cloud layer (air lifted to condensation level via convection or orographic uplift or cyclonic entrainment ).

Clouds even out in the longer term globally irrespective of absolute humidity because of this "churning" to a relative humidity.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
f there was simple empirical evidence linking emissions to warming there would be little mainstream skepticism. Instead there isn't even *correlation*!


There's enormous correlation. Though uniquely in it following CO2 via the carbon cycle (recent human pollution being unique ( the cycle is a cycle – as in being able to go BOTH ways )…
http://en.wikiped...on_cycle
That is the way it should go unless there is global out-gassing from vulcanism.

The GHG behaviour of CO2 has been known about for ~150 years it's not new or controversial (demonstrated in labs) and as I've explained neither is the WV enhancement of it.

http://en.wikiped...plot.svg

Just because there is no (IMO) evidence of CO2 first - then temp rise in the paleantological record does not mean that it cannot occur. It must have happened in the past and the science is irrefutable that it does.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
YOU FAIL TO DEFINE YOUR TERM:


http://en.wikiped...onsensus
runrig
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
"Science is belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman


Maybe … but that still trumps belief in the ignorance of laymen.

We have little surety of things in life my friend - there's no need to extend it further and beyond the bounds of probability.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2013
runrig, *none* of your professional society, activist overrun Wikipedia references, about the claimed *strong* version of a consensus (Man = dominant) is supported by any scientific peer reviewed and data archived studies. The main actually published study is Orsekes and that 97% claim was only for a *weak* version that skeptics themselves, in the main, fit into. That Cook's confirmation of the exact same 97% claim based in study abstracts was shot full of holes by the likes of climatologist Mike Hulme, puts peer review in climate "science" itself highly into question.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 16, 2013
Dr. Mike Hulme: "The "97% consensus" article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of 'right' and 'wrong' to that adopted in Anderegg et al.'s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into 'believers' and 'non-believers'. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven't they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?"

CARTOON VERSION:
http://wattsupwit...hame.jpg

OBAMA grants COOK desperately desired FAME:
http://wattsupwit...wers.png
runrig
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
runrig, *none* of your professional society, activist overrun Wikipedia references, about the claimed *strong* version of a consensus (Man = dominant) is supported by any scientific peer reviewed and data archived studies.


You see Nik: another one of your self-fulfilling prophecies. Give me the numbers (peer-reviewed) in your camp.

.. puts peer review in climate "science" itself highly into question.

Only in the denialist's mind and that can't be equated to the real world (the probabilistic one).
Peer review is not perfect – just as the person giving me my annual review when I worked for the UKMO could have had an agenda - he disliked me say. IT'S THE CONSENSUS that evens out these biases - nothing in life is perfect, but you want to throw it all away because it MAY be imperfect. Just accept that all things in life are imperfect and move on. THERE IS NO BETTER WAY. It is this inability to rationalise things that is at the root of the denialist's convictions
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
CARTOON VERSION:
http://wattsupwit...hame.jpg

OBAMA grants COOK desperately desired FAME:
http://wattsupwit...wers.png


Nik: I've told you – mockery of/deifying of personalities is beyond relevant and in fact childish.

The ignorant in last resort turn to mocking the messenger and not the message.

Mr (weathercaster) watts is a fine example (via posts on his Blog) … which of course has the scientific world hold in thrall.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2013
Oh hello verkle ... so nice to meet you. Some interesting thoughts you have there. You're welcome to join in the discussion you know. I'll not shout at you.

BTW feel free to express your outrage via a 1/5
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 16, 2013
I hate when this stupid virtual smart phone keyboard allows if/of typos as I cage-fight runrig.

But I have no horse in this race. I'm an empirical chemist, distilling the crowd-sourced skeptical knowledge base, trying to purify it into an angel in the sky, and runrig knows that over time, he'll catch me out at some Chinese cafe with free white wine...being bored and philosophical:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

You see there are few intellectual pardners on the narrative-corrupt Upper West Side.

Tony is almost a perfect man.

His instincts are right, though I fear the testosterone pill man is losing his religion.

Tony...what do you WANT?
runrig
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
Tony...what do you WANT?


Nik: I don't want anything … because by the balance of probability it won't happen. You see I realise that I'm fighting the unfightable. I only push back a little because ignorance is an abhorant human trait and entirely contrary to it's best instincts and potential.

I merely accept that life and human behaviour encompasses all things and move on. To rail against the inevitable and overwhelmingly probable is futile and self-defeating.

I have opinions on the meaning of life and the place of consciousness in the universe and it's possible supremacy to matter … but I accept that science will never (in my life-time) label it any other than the "paranormal" If I were to speak of this as forcefully as you do against the scientific consensus I would be ridiculed too. So I keep it to myself and dig deeper – always realising this. You see, I am perhaps not as mainstream science orientated as you thought. We are all complex personalities my friend.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2013
Tony defines honor, and mystery, and the human condition. He is a true scientist, and philosopher too. I could have never even have hoped, for a better foe.

Old books, I believe, we both read.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2013
BTW Nik: I also have issues re BB theory and the consensus of science that allows no discussion against Einstein. Same applies - the science wins - observation (or at least the interpretation of it) trumps all. I know this and accept that a peer-review paper coming up with an alternative to Einsteinian physics will not happen.
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Yes indeed, Mr William Shakespeare (greatest human ever to leave behind his legacy) said it all.
The fact remains though, we live in an uncompromising world. We can dream, as it seems you do, but we are dragged back to Earth with a bump by the laws that must govern it's inhabitants discourse.

You catch me in a rare verbal expression of, but by no means unusual contemplation on the meaning of life. Late now here in England and tiredness/red wine/ale has taken a toll.

I do know that in the absence of anything else the balance of probability is best sided with.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2013
Good night, Tony.
goracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2013
In contrast, the authors of this study are proven identities, not some anonymous crank on the internet whose posts show that he is an idiot.
You are a phony Nik. Claim to have a Ph.D. knighthood, nobel, virginity, Oscar, 12" knob, olympic gold, whatever. It's just a claim.

OK, I believe the virginity.

He's got one ticket to paradise.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2013
@Runrig say;
You see I realise that I'm fighting the unfightable. I only push back a little because ignorance is an abhorant human trait and entirely contrary to it's best instincts and potential.

I merely accept that life and human behaviour encompasses all things and move on. To rail against the inevitable and overwhelmingly probable is futile and self-defeating.

My feelings exactly. Well stated sir. Very well stated.
Jimee
3 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2013
Looking at the amount of squealing by climate denier ignoramuses, I have to wonder how much they are paying these nuts?
beachy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2013
Thanks for adding the article link, phys.org!!