Home | About | Donate

Under Global Warming, Oceans Face Biological Changes Unseen in Millenia


#1


#2

"Warming is more dangerous than the past three million years? Ha!
* What we're worried about is damage to our latest three million dollars!"
* 0.001% spokesman.
;-})


#3

The whale penis distracts from the article. But I think I'll go with 98% of all scientists that know global warming is real.


#6

Did you even read the article you referenced? Here are a couple of gems from it:

"Each scientist listed here has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology."

"As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations."

Comments like yours remind me of the fact that when you consider the average intelligence of a human being, about half are dumber than that.


#8

Here is the abstract from a peer-reviewed article in the technical journal Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, published on May 15, 2013 entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." If the result is not a consensus I would argue that you don't know what the word means.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."


#10

It may be futile to engage the physics non-believers at this point. They seem to enjoy the perception management or are part of it, that is, they have a cube and a computer and a salary at the American Petroleum Institute.

The warming data, however, is coming fast and furious now. I suggest the site robertscribbler for those who are interested. It is well documented and discussed and the commenters are first rate. It is not for the faint of heart though.

Peace
Po


#11

"Men can't even make it rain in areas affected by drought, let alone change the climate of the whole planet."

What a manifestly idiotic, imbecilic statement! It hits several categories of non sequitur at once!

Making it rain and filling the atmosphere with a greenhouse-gas pollutant have nothing to do with each other!


#14

Matt,

Like a number of other CD commenters, you are descending more deeply into psychotic nuttiness by the day. Neologisms like "Scientism" - all the symptoms are there.

And where are these skeptics of plate tectonics? Are they like the people who regard fossils in ancient rocks as "tricks God is playing on us to test our faith"?


#16

Give it up.


#17

Matt, there have been several inquiries that proved there was nothing to "climategate". I think the massive changes underway are proof enough of AGW and point to catastrophe, as the onset has been in the blink of an eye relative to geological time.

I don't think the "Catastrophism" will be noted as a blunder within even a few decades. But then I'm just a Chicken.


#18

If only there were legal ramifications for your deliberate game of deception.


#19

Most of that age of the biosphere predated the "arrival" of human beings, and as such what happened prior to that is kind of a moot point. In fact, it is really only the last several decades of the existence of human beings on this planet that has impacted the biosphere in an unprecedented way.


#20

Yunzer is parsing one particular loaded statement you made. You aren't defending what you said, which suggests Yunzer's criticism is correct.


#21

We could do it your way and do nothing. We could even prove that doing nothing were the correct decision by showing the carbon concentration in the atmosphere and oceans is exactly as it was prior to the Industrial Revolution. No one would have a prayer's chance of arguing with us. I like that idea. By the way, what is the carbon concentration in the atmosphere and oceans? It is the same, isn't it?


#22

and realclimate.org.


#23

It is cooler than usual here today and raining.

Global warming IS A HOAX!


#24

I was only pointing out your the glaring, and yes, idiotic logical fallacy that you were using in your argument. But yes, your logical fallacy does somewhat damage the credibility of your argument against the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW. And, I was calling your argument idiotic, not you.


#29

You failed to defend the sentence you wrote which Yunzer was calling idiotic. The sentence was "Men can't even make it rain in areas affected by drought, let alone change the climate of the whole planet."

Yunzer pointed out that making it rain in drought affected areas and affecting planetary climate have nothing to do with each other. He is correct with respect to how you wrote that statement.

Maybe you weren't talking about cloud seeding, though; maybe you were implying that humans can't make it rain in arid regions because of your false claim that humans can't change the climate. Maybe you don't know what climate is. Weather (in your case, rain) is not the same thing as climate. If humans change the Earth in any way, they can conceivably change the climate. Pumping industrial levels of CO2 into the atmosphere necessarily changes the Earth. Math, physics, and the other sciences tell us the rest of the story, the part you can't see directly with your own eyes.

If you care to defend your statement, please do. Otherwise, you've been successfully called out for making such a statement.


#30

You only used nine letter 'a's in your comment, therefore your comment is disqualified.


#31

Daaaaaaaaaamn!

Tried to post with just the top line. Got stopped by this: "Body is invalid; try to be a little more descriptive"