Oceans will be drastically different by 2100

[Abraham3]

You're just grabbing a handy excuse. The nature of the press release has NOTHING to do with the validity of the science.

 

[PMZ]

Science is all about evidence and new data. Slowly over time it does charge and evolve but the theory has held up pretty good.

Agree???

Of course not..

Is there some good science underneath all the uneccessary HYPE and exageration? Of course there's "some". Not as solid or landmark as the PRESS RELEASES says it is. But even these over-interpreted marine bio studies are "somewhat useful"..

You don't wrap a valid study in a stinking bag of politically correct nonsense unless you're a zealot or you're getting paid to wrap it that way... You DO IT to get the mental midgets in the press to INTERPRET the results towards favorable public policy.

Where's your evidence that that's happened? The only way to debate science is with science. Politics doesn't cut it.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're just grabbing a handy excuse. The nature of the press release has NOTHING to do with the validity of the science.

EXACTLY.. As you've discovered in this thread.. Right? No matter WHAT the abstract says about Global Warming or Anthro CO2 or Doomsday --- you should pretty much just disregard that baggage in TOTAL --- unless you've read and understood the science.

THE MEDIA never does that.. Therefore the hype and exaggerations dominate the public discussion.. Looks like you might have learned something finally about AGW publicity.

((And how to jazz up ho-hum research with a snarky title and abstract to please your sponsors and reviewers))

 

[westwall]

Doesn't it bother you [FCT] to find yourself rejecting fundamental physical realities? Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to decreased pH in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, etc. Organisms that depend on the precipitation of carbonate compounds will be adversely affected. And, as it turns out, many other metabolic, reproductive, circulatory and immune response processes in many different organisms will also be adversely affected. Spending the last week and a half yelling at us about larval oysters in the American northwest has convinced no one. The WORLD's scientists have found adverse responses to AGW and increased atmospheric CO2 everywhere they've looked.

AGW is real. It is caused primarily by CO2. Besides increasing the temperature of the Earth's land, air and seas, it is causing ocean acidification which has a strong negative impact on molluscidae, cnidarians and tube worms, just for starters. Denying these points is ridiculous.

It is nice to see you rely on faith instead of science. However, non religious types require scientific proof to back up claims like that. Science is MEASURABLE. AGW is not measurable.

Can we take it from this that you reject ALL scientific theories that you have not personally verified?

Absolutely NOT. Present us with a SINGLE MEASURABLE prediction for AGW. Just one.

 

[westwall]

So, westwall, do you believe that the hundreds of peer reviewed papers utilized by the IPCC to put out AR5 ignored the scientific method?

And how about the "research institutions" on your side of the argument? The Heartland Institute, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Global Climate Coalition, the Charles G Koch Foundation, the George C Marshall Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Energy Citizens and the American Petroleum Institute? Is that the scientific method THEY are practicing?

Yes, I do. Anyone of them that relies on computer models to the exclusion of actual observational data is an example. Go through all your wonderful little studies and find those that don't rely on computer models, and we'll dissect whichever ones you choose.

 

[PMZ]

You're just grabbing a handy excuse. The nature of the press release has NOTHING to do with the validity of the science.

EXACTLY.. As you've discovered in this thread.. Right? No matter WHAT the abstract says about Global Warming or Anthro CO2 or Doomsday --- you should pretty much just disregard that baggage in TOTAL --- unless you've read and understood the science.

THE MEDIA never does that.. Therefore the hype and exaggerations dominate the public discussion.. Looks like you might have learned something finally about AGW publicity.

((And how to jazz up ho-hum research with a snarky title and abstract to please your sponsors and reviewers))

How come we never see any scientific evidence of what you say?

 

[PMZ]

It is nice to see you rely on faith instead of science. However, non religious types require scientific proof to back up claims like that. Science is MEASURABLE. AGW is not measurable.

Can we take it from this that you reject ALL scientific theories that you have not personally verified?

Absolutely NOT. Present us with a SINGLE MEASURABLE prediction for AGW. Just one.

How is it possible to have a measurable prediction? If it's measurable it's not a prediction.

 

[PMZ]

So, westwall, do you believe that the hundreds of peer reviewed papers utilized by the IPCC to put out AR5 ignored the scientific method?

And how about the "research institutions" on your side of the argument? The Heartland Institute, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Global Climate Coalition, the Charles G Koch Foundation, the George C Marshall Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Energy Citizens and the American Petroleum Institute? Is that the scientific method THEY are practicing?

Yes, I do. Anyone of them that relies on computer models to the exclusion of actual observational data is an example. Go through all your wonderful little studies and find those that don't rely on computer models, and we'll dissect whichever ones you choose.

Virtually all of physics is based on mathematical models. If you eliminate them, very little is left. Every scientist knows and accepts that. If you don't know or accept that the only explanation is that you don't understand science. That’s OK but don't pretend otherwise.

 

[Abraham3]

You've made a mistake... on purpose I think. Your qualification "to the exclusion of actual observational data". GCMs run on observational data. Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's OHC runs were reset to observational data every ten days.

I think you have a fair idea how these models are actually run. But you take the bet that your audience doesn't. Tch tch tch.

 

[flacaltenn]

So where'd ya go Abraham?? You've got 40 or 50 more studies to read here?
And you would rather be be somewhere else defending Al Gore?

If we hadn't had this convo, you'd never know that one of your favorite citations had opening gambits like -----

However, elevated CO2 also has more broad detrimental effects on the survival, growth, and respiratory physiology of marine animals (8–10), although most of these experiments were not undertaken with ocean acidification in mind and used unrealistically high CO2 levels.

Or ---

The synergistic effects of elevated CO2, hypoxia and temperature, are, to date, completely unexplored.

So we WERE LEARNING STUFF.. We're we not?

Certainly, there must be MORE uncontrovertable evidence of this belief you have.
Let's pick a couple and see what science these "beliefs" are based on. Other than the headlines and the hype that the Average Joe has been force-fed...

 

[Abraham3]

You might if you hadn't already invested it in an irrational and unsupportable position.

 

[Abraham3]

It is nice to see you rely on faith instead of science. However, non religious types require scientific proof to back up claims like that. Science is MEASURABLE. AGW is not measurable.

Can we take it from this that you reject ALL scientific theories that you have not personally verified?

Absolutely NOT. Present us with a SINGLE MEASURABLE prediction for AGW. Just one.

Show us a "measurable prediction" that anyone has ever made on any topic.

Your desperation is showing.

 

[flacaltenn]

You might if you hadn't already invested it in an irrational and unsupportable position.

First off. I'm on record as worrying about OceanAcidification for a BRIEF period of time about 2 years ago on this board. I THOUGHT at the time, it was the STRONGEST argument for damages associated with AGW.. The more I looked -- the less it looked like a stronger case than just the "costs of warming"..

Why? Lots of reasons that I've mentioned and you've completely passed on. But the one I haven't mentioned is this one.. You warmers are contradicting yourselves in theory.. The AGW theory says that Ocean Surface Warming is one of those positive feedbacks that DRIVE CO2 from a nuisance level to doomsday proportions. As the surfaces warm, the amount of CO2 capable of being SUNK into the ocean will decrease.. YES -- YOUR THEORY STATES THAT.. (and could actually be correct) So -- this amounts to double bookkeeping on "feedbacks".. You can't have BOTH.

I guess you REALLY DON'T want to open up any more of OA (or general ocean) evidence you puked out and examine it. That's a shame -- because that's WHY I'm here.. NOT to just trade Pokemon Cards and witty barbs.

If you change your mind --- OR you continue to assert stuff you don't want to examine for truth --- we always have this thread to come back to..

 

[mamooth]

It's not possible to refute what the voices told you, given how they're your voices. Hence we don't try.

If you want to consider that to be a great victory, have at it. I'm sure your fellow choir members here will be in full agreement. You've all scored a crushing victory in your anti-reality bubble. You just have that bit of a problem with how the rest of the world isn't paying any attention to you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Another believer passing up discussing the science..
Can we get some warmers who are interested in the facts and prevailing evidence?

 

[westwall]

Can we take it from this that you reject ALL scientific theories that you have not personally verified?

Absolutely NOT. Present us with a SINGLE MEASURABLE prediction for AGW. Just one.

How is it possible to have a measurable prediction? If it's measurable it's not a prediction.

Holy shit! The stupid is strong with this one!

 

[flacaltenn]

Can we take it from this that you reject ALL scientific theories that you have not personally verified?

Absolutely NOT. Present us with a SINGLE MEASURABLE prediction for AGW. Just one.

Show us a "measurable prediction" that anyone has ever made on any topic.

Your desperation is showing.

Uhhhh.. I remember astronomers predicting several asteroids that would not hit the earth.
And I can hold my local meterologist accountable for measurable rainfall, temperature predictions.

When the doc says --- you've got 4 months to live.. That will turn into a measurable prediction.. Will it not?


On the other hand -- you have the Neville Chamberlain "peace in our own time" speech and AGW predictions..

 

[polarbear]

virtually all of physics is based on mathematical models. If you eliminate them, very little is left. Every scientist knows and accepts that. If you don't know or accept that the only explanation is that you don't understand science. That’s OK but don't pretend otherwise.

Physics is based on equations which have been confirmed with experiments and measurements that can be duplicated with great accuracy. That`s what it takes to qualify.
If all you got is a "climate science" mathematical model that can`t even mimic reality in so called "hind casts" with any degree of accuracy then you got nothing that would qualify as science, especially not within the framework of exact physics.
All you got then is nothing more than the same "mathematical model" which bookies and gamblers employ.
At least they face up to it when their bets were wrong, which "climatologists" refuse to to.
Your future trend predictions which were based on a largely falsified past failed to materialize 15 years in a row and counting.
So far all you got is a tree that yielded a hockey stick trend and now a dead mushroom which perpetuates the same hallucinations.
If we are all supposed to buy "carbon credits" to keep financing this crap, then the rest of us should start trading with derivatives that are based on how wrong your "temperature" etc futures were...same as any other futures market.
You would have lost your shirt a long time ago.

 

[Abraham3]

Absolutely NOT. Present us with a SINGLE MEASURABLE prediction for AGW. Just one.

Show us a "measurable prediction" that anyone has ever made on any topic.

Your desperation is showing.

Uhhhh.. I remember astronomers predicting several asteroids that would not hit the earth.

And before those asteroids came back; when the predictions were still predictions, what was there to MEASURE?

Do you get my point? Westwall's comment was syntactically flawed nonsense. But, of course, you won't admit that, him being your bro and all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Show us a "measurable prediction" that anyone has ever made on any topic.

Your desperation is showing.

Uhhhh.. I remember astronomers predicting several asteroids that would not hit the earth.

And before those asteroids came back; when the predictions were still predictions, what was there to MEASURE?

Do you get my point? Westwall's comment was syntactically flawed nonsense. But, of course, you won't admit that, him being your bro and all.

Why of course that would be the estimate of how much distance they would miss us by. You didnt think there wasnt any math involved ------ didya?