Germany’s CO2 and energy policy – about to falter?
Posted on April 27, 2014

On April 16th, 2014, a few quite remarkable statements were delivered during a discussion event at the premises of SMA Solar Technology AG, a leading German producer of photovoltaic panels and systems:

“The truth is that the Energy U-Turn (“Energiewende”, the German scheme aimed at pushing the “renewable” share of electricity production to 80 % by 2050) is about to fail”

“The truth is that under all aspects, we have underestimated the complexity of the “Energiewende”

“The noble aspiration of a decentralized energy supply, of self-sufficiency! This is of course utter madness”

“Anyway, most other countries in Europe think we are crazy”

Had this been one of the small albeit growing number of German “sceptics” casting doubt upon the XXL-sized politico-economical scam that has cost the German populace more than € 500 billion since its inception in 2000, it would not have gotten more than a footnote in the local press, crammed somewhere in between “horoscope” and “lost and found”. In fact, the media actually tried to keep a lid on the facts by giving them as little coverage as possible.

But the man at the speaker’s desk was Sigmar Gabriel, acting vice-chancellor of the German government, Secretary of Commerce with responsibility for the said „Energiewende” and chairman of the German social democrats (SPD), the second-largest political force in the country. Since December 2013, he is in charge of taming the runaway costs and growing security of supply risks that are unmasking the financial and technical nightmare of this ill-conceived project. In the past few months, he seems to have gotten some unpleasant insights causing him to admit the above-mentioned inconvenient truths when he was pushed too far by a number of aggressive lobbyists of the “renewable energy” sector. Gabriel, famous for his irascible temper that once already resulted in a heated verbal exchange with a top-dog TV journalist live on air, appears to have become quite candid when he vented his anger during the debate.

He must have realized his own political fate is in jeopardy because the task he has been assigned has conducted him into a situation that will inevitably result in failure. With respect to electric energy generation, Germany has painted itself into a corner. Since the introduction of the “Renewable Energy” law (EEG) in 2000 aimed at replacing coal and gas-fired as well as nuclear power generation by so-called renewable energy sources, the household price for electricity has jumped by more than 200 %. German customers now pay the second-highest electricity prices in Europe. At the same time, the task of stabilizing the grid against the massive erratic influx from solar and wind power plants that produce without regard for actual need has pushed the operators to their limits. Now already, with a combined share of just some 13 % of total electricity production, their unreliable input is massively imperiling the stability of the grid.

Conventional power plants – the most important units able to compensate these detrimental effects – are being pushed out of the market and shuttered at increasing rates. At the same time, Germany’s CO2 output has not diminished because coal-fired units have had to take over from closed nuclear plants. Costs are set to rise further on a ballistic path while security of supply is in free fall. At the same time, Gabriel is subjected to intense pressure from a number of factions of the “renewable” energy sector asking for ever greater slices of a cake that cannot be financed much longer. Together with inconvenient truths about feasibility limits given to him by his technical staff, this pressure seems to have risen to a level that pushed him to lecture his harassers when their clamors transgressed his tolerance limit.

This rare incident where a leading politician loses control of his words to such a degree shows that the “crash boom bang” path the German way of mishandling energy policies has indeed reached a threshold where said politicians feel cornered and unable to uphold their usual “muddling through” approach. Long-ignored financial and technical rules re-emerge and will force the German political class to abandon their “renewable” energy strategy centering on solar and wind power generation. Since the only low CO2 alternative – nuclear power – has been deviled by all political parties and the media beyond any chance of short-term oblivion, Germany will soon have to revert to coal for its power needs. And that in turn implies the country will have to abandon all aspirations to lower its CO2 emissions. German politicians might soon find out that demonizing CO2 is becoming a speedy path to ruining their career. And given the importance of the country within Europe and the pioneering role it claimed in the international crusade against climate change by limiting CO2 emissions, this might well herald the start of a paradigm shift of epochal dimensions in the whole climate change debate.

Whats your agenda our blindfolded muse?

using non renewable s like coal, oil, gas until they all run out?

Then what?

>>Whats your agenda our blindfolded muse?<<<

To refer to me as blindfolded is idiotic. I’m merely stating facts (that you don’t like) A better description of yourself.

>>>using non renewable s like coal, oil, gas until they all run out?<<<

well that wouldn’t be for centuries, so, rather than rushing in, like Germany has made the mistake of doing, we have plenty of time to create descent alternatives

The_observer said:

>>Whats your agenda our blindfolded muse?<<<

To refer to me as blindfolded is idiotic. I’m merely stating facts (that you don’t like) A better description of yourself.

>>>using non renewable s like coal, oil, gas until they all run out?<<<

well that wouldn’t be for centuries, so, rather than rushing in, like Germany has made the mistake of doing, we have plenty of time to create descent alternatives

That very much portrays your ignorance.

>>>>>>using non renewable s like coal, oil, gas until they all run out?<<<

well that wouldn’t be for centuries, so, rather than rushing in, like Germany has made the mistake of doing, we have plenty of time to create descent alternatives
<<<<<<<<<

>>>>That very much portrays your ignorance.<<<

And that’s exactly the sort of response I’d expect from you, an ignorant extremist,
void of science or any argument, but ad hominem a plenty.

You seem to focus a lot on negative articles on climate change and renewables

Are you a politician or a reporter or maybe you work in the non renewable sector?

Can you find some positive articles on renewables

You can observe that the majority of scientists are calling for action on climate change

Are you picking on Germany because they are leading the way with Solar power?

They are doing really well from what I read.

>>>You seem to focus a lot on negative articles on climate change and renewables<<<

the facts are the facts

and

if Germany hasn’t been able to make a success of it,

well,

that says all there is to say.

>>>Are you picking on Germany because they are leading the way with Solar power?

They are doing really well from what I read.<<<

Read the F Mueller article, doesn’t align with your opinion

The_observer said:

>>>>>>using non renewable s like coal, oil, gas until they all run out?<<<

well that wouldn’t be for centuries, so, rather than rushing in, like Germany has made the mistake of doing, we have plenty of time to create descent alternatives
<<<<<<<<<

>>>>That very much portrays your ignorance.<<<

And that’s exactly the sort of response I’d expect from you, an ignorant extremist,
void of science or any argument, but ad hominem a plenty.

Observer, have you ever considered the dire situation the environment is currently in? The acidification of the sea is causing the destruction of coral and other sea creatures that require a shell made from calcium carbonate. But that is far from being all, it will also affect the growth of plankton, which is the base of the food we eat and the air we breath, below is a link from a reputable source that will provide some interesting facts for you.

Personally I would be interested if you will actually read it, because it points out the folly of not only your argument, but your world view.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/11/marine-miniatures/acid-threat-text

The_observer said:

>>>Are you picking on Germany because they are leading the way with Solar power?

They are doing really well from what I read.<<<

Read the F Mueller article, doesn’t align with your opinion

Yes, I read it

that is one article though, and yes it doesn’t align with my opinion, because that article is a negative one

There are however many other articles on Germany’s Solar Power stations thatwhich are way more positive about Germany’s solar ambitions.

>>>Observer, have you ever considered the dire situation the environment is currently in? The acidification of the
sea is causing the destruction of coral and other sea creatures that require a shell made from calcium carbonate.
<<<

Now for the facts:

Ocean Acidification Expansion
Posted on April 27, 2014 Guest essay by Steven Burnett

Point 4. Clearly There Must be Some Amazing Data Supporting the Hypothesis.

In the first essay I mentioned several points of contentions with the OA (Ocean Acidification) hypothesis. I have addressed my core mistakes
and gone into the details and quibbles I have with the rebuttal. But there was one point I made in the original essay which was never touched on
in the rebuttal. There is almost no data backing up the OA hypothesis.

As a refresher course on the history of pH; it was conceived of originally in 1909. It was later revised in 1924 to accommodate measurement by
electrochemical cells. It wasn’t until 1936 that the first commercial pH meters were available. In the 1970’s the first portable pH meter was
released. So if all of the major development in pH meters occurred in the 1900’s and the concept of pH wasn’t even thought up until 1909 how
do we get the following graphic.

From Wikipedia :Estimated change in sea water pH caused by human created CO2 between the 1700s and the 1990s, from the Global Ocean
Data Analysis Project (GLODAP) and the World Ocean Atlas

An engineer showed me that graphic during a debate over the summer regarding CO2 and OA. I love it, it’s a beautiful graphic, and it is entirely
farcical. Luckily the tag on Wikipedia mentions that it is the estimated sea change. Unfortunately most people don’t understand the difference
between a calculated value and a measured one as demonstrated by the first table on the Wikipedia page for ocean acidification. Note the field
result stated next to pre-industrial levels, luckily this has been amended to reflect this is not in the citation given.

To really understand how strong of an argument there is for OA we have to look at the data. The very first worldwide composite of pH data for
the oceans came from the GLODAP project. The goal was to establish a climatology for the world’s oceans. This is not an easy endeavor and I
do respect the attempt but the result is frankly untrustworthy. While it did define an oceanic pH value in the 1990’s it did so with some gaping
holes in its analysis.

Wikipedia describes some of the missing areas as the arctic ocean, the Caribbean sea, the Mediterranean sea and maritime southeast Asia.
However on their own website they state

“Anthropogenic CO2 was estimated for the Indian (Sabine et al. 1999), Pacific (Sabine et al. 2002), and Atlantic (Lee et al. 2003) basins
individually as the data were synthesized.”

More specifically the entire purpose of the analysis was to estimate the amount of stored anthropogenic carbon. They estimate the uncertainty
on this value to be 16% of the total inventory.

With a large part of the ocean completely unsampled, and certainly lacking regular pH measurement effort, what other data is available then?
The short answer is none. Unfortunately pH measurements and instrumentation require constant calibration which is not easily performed in
long autonomous measurements. The 2009 document from the scientific committee on oceanic research states

“If one is to get a detailed picture of ocean acid base chemistry, they need to be measured precisely with a low uncertainty, but to date such low
uncertainties have not been demonstrated for oceanic pH measurements”9

The core of my skepticism in AGW and more specifically the catastrophic elements is always questionable data. This is no different for ocean
acidification and the purported claims.

5. Conclusions

After finishing my research and corrections, I was certainly able to corroborate the numerical consensus regarding pH changes as a function of
CO2 concentration. However the correction did little to curb my skepticism of an anthropogenic ocean acidification hypothesis and the
purported harms. There are simply too many false assumptions required for the idea to play out through its mathematical model.

There is direct contrarian evidence to the idea that marine pH is dependent on CO2.
pH changes regularly in the ocean, to a greater magnitude than the anticipated effect of CO2 and in a shorter period of time. The ability of an
organism to adapt to changing conditions is a huge variable between species, and the ability to adapt over a period of time has not been
studied.

Beyond these factors there simply has not been a solid organized long term study of oceanic pH to validate any of the claims. As is frequent in
climate science we see gorgeous model visualizations rather than actual data, and we see claims rather than facts.

Outside of these significant factors there is another aspect of OA which frankly needs more research. The fact that pH changes in response to
biological activity, begs the question whether humankind is fully to blame for the increase in atmospheric CO2. Any factor that increases the
activity of marine life, must necessarily increase the rate of flux of marine CO2 into the atmosphere.

The_observer said:

>>>Observer, have you ever considered the dire situation the environment is currently in? The acidification of the
sea is causing the destruction of coral and other sea creatures that require a shell made from calcium carbonate.
<<<

Now for the facts:

Ocean Acidification Expansion
Posted on April 27, 2014 Guest essay by Steven Burnett

Point 4. Clearly There Must be Some Amazing Data Supporting the Hypothesis.

In the first essay I mentioned several points of contentions with the OA (Ocean Acidification) hypothesis. I have addressed my core mistakes
and gone into the details and quibbles I have with the rebuttal. But there was one point I made in the original essay which was never touched on
in the rebuttal. There is almost no data backing up the OA hypothesis.

As a refresher course on the history of pH; it was conceived of originally in 1909. It was later revised in 1924 to accommodate measurement by
electrochemical cells. It wasn’t until 1936 that the first commercial pH meters were available. In the 1970’s the first portable pH meter was
released. So if all of the major development in pH meters occurred in the 1900’s and the concept of pH wasn’t even thought up until 1909 how
do we get the following graphic.

From Wikipedia :Estimated change in sea water pH caused by human created CO2 between the 1700s and the 1990s, from the Global Ocean
Data Analysis Project (GLODAP) and the World Ocean Atlas

An engineer showed me that graphic during a debate over the summer regarding CO2 and OA. I love it, it’s a beautiful graphic, and it is entirely
farcical. Luckily the tag on Wikipedia mentions that it is the estimated sea change. Unfortunately most people don’t understand the difference
between a calculated value and a measured one as demonstrated by the first table on the Wikipedia page for ocean acidification. Note the field
result stated next to pre-industrial levels, luckily this has been amended to reflect this is not in the citation given.

To really understand how strong of an argument there is for OA we have to look at the data. The very first worldwide composite of pH data for
the oceans came from the GLODAP project. The goal was to establish a climatology for the world’s oceans. This is not an easy endeavor and I
do respect the attempt but the result is frankly untrustworthy. While it did define an oceanic pH value in the 1990’s it did so with some gaping
holes in its analysis.

Wikipedia describes some of the missing areas as the arctic ocean, the Caribbean sea, the Mediterranean sea and maritime southeast Asia.
However on their own website they state

“Anthropogenic CO2 was estimated for the Indian (Sabine et al. 1999), Pacific (Sabine et al. 2002), and Atlantic (Lee et al. 2003) basins
individually as the data were synthesized.”

More specifically the entire purpose of the analysis was to estimate the amount of stored anthropogenic carbon. They estimate the uncertainty
on this value to be 16% of the total inventory.

With a large part of the ocean completely unsampled, and certainly lacking regular pH measurement effort, what other data is available then?
The short answer is none. Unfortunately pH measurements and instrumentation require constant calibration which is not easily performed in
long autonomous measurements. The 2009 document from the scientific committee on oceanic research states

“If one is to get a detailed picture of ocean acid base chemistry, they need to be measured precisely with a low uncertainty, but to date such low
uncertainties have not been demonstrated for oceanic pH measurements”9

The core of my skepticism in AGW and more specifically the catastrophic elements is always questionable data. This is no different for ocean
acidification and the purported claims.

It is a scientific fact, that the absorption of massive amounts of co2 into the oceans will lower the pH value of the oceans. It is scientific fact that with lower pH levels it will react with calcium carbonate so organisms that grow shells will have great difficulty in doing so. These are facts, not opinions as you would have people believe.

I refer you to some scientific research that of what is likely to happen to the Barrier Reef by the end of the century.
The is research is being done on Heron Island on the Barrier Reef, where a number of large sealed tanks have been seeded with coral. All are treated the same, except the co2 levels have been varied.

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120521/srep00413/full/srep00413.html

This is a simpler explanation.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/07/173702462/australias-heron-island-a-canary-in-the-coal-mine-for-coral-reefs

>>>It is a scientific fact, that the absorption of massive amounts of co2 into the oceans will lower the pH value of the oceans.
It is scientific fact that with lower pH levels it will react with calcium carbonate so organisms that grow shells will have great
difficulty in doing so. These are facts, not opinions as you would have people believe.
<<<

Comprehensive Study Makes Key Findings of Ocean pH Variations
Some organisms already experiencing ocean acidification levels not predicted to be reached until 2100

A group of 19 scientists from five research organizations have conducted the broadest field study of ocean acidification
to date using sensors developed at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.

The study, “High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison ,” is reported in today’s issue of the journal PLoS One.

They found that in some places, such as Antarctica and the Line Islands of the south Pacific, the range of pH variance is much more limited
than in areas of the California coast subject to large vertical movements of water known as upwellings.

In some of their study areas, they found that the decrease in seawater pH being caused by greenhouse gas emissions is still within the bounds of natural pH fluctuation.….

……(in other words, they cannot detect any fingerprint of human causation)……

….but check this out….

Some areas already experience daily acidity levels that scientists had expected would only be reached at the end of the 21st Century.

……daily alkalinity fluctuations that bottom out at a lower level than the catastrophic predictions for the year 2099 …and it’s all natural

————————————————————————————-

Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable
(1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable
(esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and

(2) and some spots vary so much they >>>reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.<<<

perm, check out the minimums & maximums over a month for the reefs in the graph….http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028983.t002&representation=PNG_L

Palmyra, fore reef . . . . . . . Max 8.035. . . . . Min 7.915 .. . . .Range _ 0.121

Palmyra, reef terrace. . . . .Max 8. 104. . . . . Min 7. 851 . . . .Range _ 0.253

Moorea, fringing reef. . . .. .Max 8.118. . . . . Min 8.017. . . . .Range _ 0.101

Mohawk Reef . . . . . . . . . . .Max 8.244. . . . . Min 7.700 . . . . .Range _ 0.544

the expected change in reduced alkalinity from co2 is nothing compared to natural variation on a monthly to daily time frame.

The_observer said:

>>>It is a scientific fact, that the absorption of massive amounts of co2 into the oceans will lower the pH value of the oceans.
It is scientific fact that with lower pH levels it will react with calcium carbonate so organisms that grow shells will have great
difficulty in doing so. These are facts, not opinions as you would have people believe.
<<<

Comprehensive Study Makes Key Findings of Ocean pH Variations
Some organisms already experiencing ocean acidification levels not predicted to be reached until 2100

A group of 19 scientists from five research organizations have conducted the broadest field study of ocean acidification
to date using sensors developed at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.

The study, “High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison ,” is reported in today’s issue of the journal PLoS One.

They found that in some places, such as Antarctica and the Line Islands of the south Pacific, the range of pH variance is much more limited
than in areas of the California coast subject to large vertical movements of water known as upwellings.

In some of their study areas, they found that the decrease in seawater pH being caused by greenhouse gas emissions is still within the bounds of natural pH fluctuation.….

……(in other words, they cannot detect any fingerprint of human causation)……

….but check this out….

Some areas already experience daily acidity levels that scientists had expected would only be reached at the end of the 21st Century.

……daily alkalinity fluctuations that bottom out at a lower level than the catastrophic predictions for the year 2099 …and it’s all natural

————————————————————————————-

Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable
(1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable
(esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and

(2) and some spots vary so much they >>>reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.<<<

perm, check out the minimums & maximums over a month for the reefs in the graph….http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028983.t002&representation=PNG_L

Palmyra, fore reef . . . . . . . Max 8.035. . . . . Min 7.915 .. . . .Range _ 0.121

Palmyra, reef terrace. . . . .Max 8. 104. . . . . Min 7. 851 . . . .Range _ 0.253

Moorea, fringing reef. . . .. .Max 8.118. . . . . Min 8.017. . . . .Range _ 0.101

Mohawk Reef . . . . . . . . . . .Max 8.244. . . . . Min 7.700 . . . . .Range _ 0.544

the expected change in reduced alkalinity from co2 is nothing compared to natural variation on a monthly to daily time frame.

Well obviously you did not expect me to read that paper The_observer, otherwise you would not have drawn your distorted and misleading conclusions. As this post is rather long, I shall deal with some of the pages of copy I collected that illustrates your deception.

For a start, the variation of pH was due to different habitats, some in shallow estuarine waterways that would be greatly influenced by rainfall draining into the estuary. Kelp beds producing co2, or it being introduced from groundwater springs and vents. Ocean upwelling also change the pH. However it was in polar regions where the pH changes are most likely to impact first.

>>Biologically speaking, the Southern Ocean is a region expected to experience acidification and undersaturated conditions earlier in time than other parts of the ocean , and calcifying Antarctic organisms are thought to be quite vulnerable to anthropogenic OA given the already challenging saturation states that are characteristic of cold polar waters –. Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments have shown that Antarctic calcifying marine invertebrates are sensitive to decreased saturation states.
Antarctic organisms may experience more variation than might be expected, a situation that will influence their resilience to future acidification.<<

As is alluded to in the above extraction, continued massive anthropocentric co2 contamination will only increase the problem and we are merely at the beginning.

>>In summary, together, these pH time series create a compelling argument for the collection of more continuous data of this kind. Specifically, these data represent a critical step in understanding the consequences of ocean change: the linkage of present-day pH exposures to organismal tolerance and how this translates into ecological change in marine ecosystems.<<

There is a great deal more I can bring to the table Observer, so please bring it on.

>>> Well obviously you did not expect me to read that paper The_observer, otherwise you would not have drawn
your distorted and misleading conclusions. As this post is rather long, I shall deal with some of the pages of copy
I collected that illustrates your deception.
<<<

Firstly from the Scripps paper –
quote

“The effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is quasi-predictable at best.
While perturbation studies, in the form of incubations under elevated pCO2, reveal sensitivities
and responses of individual species, one missing link in the OA story results from
a chronic lack of pH data specific to a given species’ natural habitat.

Now for your is deception!

>>> For a start, the variation of pH was due to different habitats, some in shallow estuarine waterways that would
be greatly influenced by rainfall draining into the estuary. Kelp beds producing co2, or it being introduced from groundwater
springs and vents. Ocean upwelling also change the pH
<<<

What the paper actually says, quote –

“Though the patterns observed among the various marine ecosystems are driven by a variety of oceanographic forcing
such as temperature, mixing, and biological activity, we do not provide a separate analysis of controlling factors on pH at each location.”

In any case, who cares. pH changes for many reasons

>>> Kelp beds producing co2<<< WTF

What the paper actually says, quote – “Kelps may respond positively to increased availability of CO2 and HCO3−, which may
allow for reduced metabolic costs and increased productivity . Increased kelp production may elevate pH within the forest
during periods of photosynthesis, causing wider daily fluctuations in pH, though this is speculative at this time. As a result, kelp
forests, particularly those of surface canopy forming species such as Macrocystis pyrifera, may contain a greater level of spatial
heterogeneity in terms of the pH environment; vertical gradients in pH may form due to enhanced levels of photosynthesis at
shallower depths. Such gradients may increase the risk of low pH exposure for benthic species while buffering those found within
the surface canopy. Kelp forests provide habitat to a rich diversity of organisms from a wide range of calcifying and non-calcifying taxa.”

Yes, there are many reasons for natural variation in pH levels in various locations, & as Scripps says, natural & normal changes over a month,
“(2) in some cases, seawater in these sites reaches extremes in pH, sometimes daily” are greater than anything expected by the year 2100 due
to ocean acidification (anthropogenic alkalinity reduction,) & organisms cope quite well in this, their natural environment.

“This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that
major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions”

Now, on your quote – “Biologically speaking, the Southern Ocean is a region (expected to) experience acidification and undersaturated
conditions earlier in time than other parts of the ocean , and calcifying Antarctic organisms (are thought to be) quite vulnerable to
anthropogenic OA given the (already challenging saturation states) that are characteristic of cold polar waters –.

(Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments) have shown that Antarctic calcifying marine invertebrates are sensitive to decreased saturation states.

(now the bit you left out there) . “although the number of species-level studies and community-level studies are very limited.”

And in regards to >> Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments <<< –

You cannot forcibly change the pH in a controlled system with a sensitive organism and claim significant results when the natural environment
has variability that exceeds the control parameters for the experiment.

Secondly in almost all cases studies evaluate organisms over a very short time span, typically 6-8 weeks. This is not the same as evaluating a
stable colony, nor is it akin to studying the adaptability of a species to a change in conditions. For calcifiers the ability to regulate pH at the site of
calcification is important to their ability to calcify. The time to ramp up synthesis of required compounds to maintain a high pH at calcification
sites may exceed the period of study. While calcification rates may decrease this is not the same as shell dissolution

A study evaluating the ability of 18 different organisms to calcify under varying pCO2 conditions found that in 10 cases, when the solution was
under saturated with aragonite calcification rates dropped. For 7 of the species calcification rates actually increased with moderate pCO2 and
for 3 of the 7 they received the highest calcification rate at a pCO2 reflecting 2856ppm.
The study concluded

“whatever the specific mechanisms involved, our results suggest that the impact of pCO2 on marine calcification is
more varied than previously thought”

Simply put you cannot take a system which neglects: temporal, generational, ecological and habitat based variables and apply those results, no
matter how significant, to a system which does experience these effects. There have been no studies performed which demonstrate harm from OA.
.
.

>>>>There is a great deal more I can bring to the table Observer, so please bring it on.<<<<

what ever, your clutching at OA as being catastrophic aspect because there’s been
no warming for 17 years,
models all produce too much warming,
estimates for sensitivity are falling,
the IPCC admits that there is no evidence to link co2 to extreme weather,
events of flooding, hurricanes, drought etc show no increase.

So cataclysmic OA is your last desperate argument to ban fossil fuel use.
Cataclysmic OA doesn’t depend on warming occurring.

Your precious reefs, & the GBReef didn’t exist, at least in current form, 4 to 5,000 years ago.

There were kangaroos hopping around on the continental shelf where the corals & fishes are now under water.

When the next ice age comes, & ocean levels drop by 160 metres, the present reefs will all die.

What’s your solution to that?

The_observer said:

>>> Well obviously you did not expect me to read that paper The_observer, otherwise you would not have drawn
your distorted and misleading conclusions. As this post is rather long, I shall deal with some of the pages of copy
I collected that illustrates your deception.
<<<

Firstly from the Scripps paper –
quote

“The effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is quasi-predictable at best.
While perturbation studies, in the form of incubations under elevated pCO2, reveal sensitivities
and responses of individual species, one missing link in the OA story results from
a chronic lack of pH data specific to a given species’ natural habitat.

Now for your is deception!

>>> For a start, the variation of pH was due to different habitats, some in shallow estuarine waterways that would
be greatly influenced by rainfall draining into the estuary. Kelp beds producing co2, or it being introduced from groundwater
springs and vents. Ocean upwelling also change the pH
<<<

What the paper actually says, quote –

“Though the patterns observed among the various marine ecosystems are driven by a variety of oceanographic forcing
such as temperature, mixing, and biological activity, we do not provide a separate analysis of controlling factors on pH at each location.”

In any case, who cares. pH changes for many reasons

>>> Kelp beds producing co2<<< WTF

What the paper actually says, quote – “Kelps may respond positively to increased availability of CO2 and HCO3−, which may
allow for reduced metabolic costs and increased productivity . Increased kelp production may elevate pH within the forest
during periods of photosynthesis, causing wider daily fluctuations in pH, though this is speculative at this time. As a result, kelp
forests, particularly those of surface canopy forming species such as Macrocystis pyrifera, may contain a greater level of spatial
heterogeneity in terms of the pH environment; vertical gradients in pH may form due to enhanced levels of photosynthesis at
shallower depths. Such gradients may increase the risk of low pH exposure for benthic species while buffering those found within
the surface canopy. Kelp forests provide habitat to a rich diversity of organisms from a wide range of calcifying and non-calcifying taxa.”

Yes, there are many reasons for natural variation in pH levels in various locations, & as Scripps says, natural & normal changes over a month,
“(2) in some cases, seawater in these sites reaches extremes in pH, sometimes daily” are greater than anything expected by the year 2100 due
to ocean acidification (anthropogenic alkalinity reduction,) & organisms cope quite well in this, their natural environment.

“This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that
major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions”

Now, on your quote – “Biologically speaking, the Southern Ocean is a region (expected to) experience acidification and undersaturated
conditions earlier in time than other parts of the ocean , and calcifying Antarctic organisms (are thought to be) quite vulnerable to
anthropogenic OA given the (already challenging saturation states) that are characteristic of cold polar waters –.

(Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments) have shown that Antarctic calcifying marine invertebrates are sensitive to decreased saturation states.

(now the bit you left out there) . “although the number of species-level studies and community-level studies are very limited.”

And in regards to >> Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments <<< –

You cannot forcibly change the pH in a controlled system with a sensitive organism and claim significant results when the natural environment
has variability that exceeds the control parameters for the experiment.

Secondly in almost all cases studies evaluate organisms over a very short time span, typically 6-8 weeks. This is not the same as evaluating a
stable colony, nor is it akin to studying the adaptability of a species to a change in conditions. For calcifiers the ability to regulate pH at the site of
calcification is important to their ability to calcify. The time to ramp up synthesis of required compounds to maintain a high pH at calcification
sites may exceed the period of study. While calcification rates may decrease this is not the same as shell dissolution

A study evaluating the ability of 18 different organisms to calcify under varying pCO2 conditions found that in 10 cases, when the solution was
under saturated with aragonite calcification rates dropped. For 7 of the species calcification rates actually increased with moderate pCO2 and
for 3 of the 7 they received the highest calcification rate at a pCO2 reflecting 2856ppm.
The study concluded

“whatever the specific mechanisms involved, our results suggest that the impact of pCO2 on marine calcification is
more varied than previously thought”

Simply put you cannot take a system which neglects: temporal, generational, ecological and habitat based variables and apply those results, no
matter how significant, to a system which does experience these effects. There have been no studies performed which demonstrate harm from OA.
.
.

>>>>There is a great deal more I can bring to the table Observer, so please bring it on.<<<<

what ever, your clutching at OA as being catastrophic aspect because there’s been
no warming for 17 years,
models all produce too much warming,
estimates for sensitivity are falling,
the IPCC admits that there is no evidence to link co2 to extreme weather,
events of flooding, hurricanes, drought etc show no increase.

So cataclysmic OA is your last desperate argument to ban fossil fuel use.
Cataclysmic OA doesn’t depend on warming occurring.

Your precious reefs, & the GBReef didn’t exist, at least in current form, 4 to 5,000 years ago.

There were kangaroos hopping around on the continental shelf where the corals & fishes are now under water.

When the next ice age comes, & ocean levels drop by 160 metres, the present reefs will all die.

What’s your solution to that?

Again Observer you cherry pick information and even then get it wrong. That paper clearly states that acidification of the oceans is happening and although it is still in the early stages, it will impact heavily on the environment as time progresses and as co2 saturation increases. This is fact Observer, regardless of the spin you wish to place upon it.

I repeat the following passage from the paper that you choose to ignore:

>>Biologically speaking, the Southern Ocean is a region expected to experience acidification and undersaturated conditions earlier in time than other parts of the ocean , and calcifying Antarctic organisms are thought to be quite vulnerable to anthropogenic OA given the already challenging saturation states that are characteristic of cold polar waters –. Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments have shown that Antarctic calcifying marine invertebrates are sensitive to decreased saturation states [
Antarctic organisms may experience more variation than might be expected, a situation that will influence their resilience to future acidification.<<

Do I really need to go on and waste my time pointing out the lack of content in your arguments, the above I think says it all.
————————————————————————
As for the >>no warming for 17 years, models all produce too much warming, estimates for sensitivity are falling.<<

What garbage is this? In recent years global temperatures have broken every record you can think of.
————————————————————————————
>>the IPCC admits that there is no evidence to link co2 to extreme weather, events of flooding, hurricanes, drought etc show no increase. <<

Well of course you can’t point to a specific event and say that is due to global warming, but what is a fact, is those events are stimulated by hotter weather and are therefore influenced as temperatures increase due to global warming. Those events many not be more numerous, but they have been more severe.
———————————————————————————————
>>Your precious reefs, & the GBReef didn’t exist, at least in current form, 4 to 5,000 years ago.
There were kangaroos hopping around on the continental shelf where the corals & fishes are now under water.
When the next ice age comes, & ocean levels drop by 160 metres, the present reefs will all die.
What’s your solution to that?<<

I think your timing is out to some degree, but it certainly was during the height of the last Ice Age (more like 20,000 years ago and when there was a land bridge connecting Australia with PNG) that where the Barrier Reef is now, would have been dry land.

The difference between then and now, is the changes to the climate then happened over thousands of years, thereby permitting the reef organisms to adjust to the conditions and to colonise other suitable habitat as temperatures and sealevels changed. Currently unless we reduce our co2 levels, temperatures are likely to increase by 4 degrees and sea levels rise by around a metre, by the end of this century.

Some corals and marine organisms are beginning to move further south as temperatures increase, but this will not happen for various reason to the great majority of organisms currently inhabiting the reef and our likelihood of losing many of these species is extremely high and acknowledged by people studying the situation.
————————————————————————————————
I recall you calling me an extremist, which if this is the case, so are most climate scientists and biologists ie. people working directly on the problem and who would know more it than anyone else, especially those with little environmental interest or empathy.

Most years I listen, view or read between 50 and 100 climate scientist discussing their work, and not once have any said things will be alright. In fact all have expressed great concern, with many predicting catastrophic consequences unless we do something about reducing CO2 emissions and do it now, not sometime in the future. We really are running out of time!

>>>I repeat the following passage from the paper that you choose to ignore:

>>Biologically speaking, the Southern Ocean is a region expected to experience acidification and undersaturated conditions earlier in time than other parts of the ocean ,

and calcifying Antarctic organisms are thought to be quite vulnerable to anthropogenic OA given the already challenging saturation states that are characteristic of cold polar waters –.

Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments have shown that Antarctic calcifying marine invertebrates are sensitive to decreased saturation states [

Antarctic organisms may experience more variation than might be expected, a situation that will influence their resilience to future acidification.
<<<<

ignore????

no I covered that in my previous post -

Now, on your quote – “Biologically speaking, the Southern Ocean is a region (expected to) experience acidification and undersaturated
conditions earlier in time than other parts of the ocean ,

and calcifying Antarctic organisms (are thought to be) quite vulnerable to
anthropogenic OA given the (already challenging saturation states) that are characteristic of cold polar waters –.

(Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments) have shown that Antarctic calcifying marine invertebrates are sensitive to decreased saturation states.

(now>>>again<<< the bit you left out there) . “although the number of species-level studies and community-level studies are very limited.”

And in regards to >> Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments <<< –

You cannot forcibly change the pH in a controlled system with a sensitive organism and claim significant results when the natural environment
has variability that exceeds the control parameters for the experiment.

Secondly in almost all cases studies evaluate organisms over a very short time span, typically 6-8 weeks. This is not the same as evaluating a
stable colony, nor is it akin to studying the adaptability of a species to a change in conditions. For calcifiers the ability to regulate pH at the site of
calcification is important to their ability to calcify. The time to ramp up synthesis of required compounds to maintain a high pH at calcification
sites may exceed the period of study. While calcification rates may decrease this is not the same as shell dissolution

A study evaluating the ability of 18 different organisms to calcify under varying pCO2 conditions found that in 10 cases, when the solution was
under saturated with aragonite calcification rates dropped. For 7 of the species calcification rates actually increased with moderate pCO2 and
for 3 of the 7 they received the highest calcification rate at a pCO2 reflecting 2856ppm.
The study concluded

“whatever the specific mechanisms involved, our results suggest that the impact of pCO2 on marine calcification is
more varied than previously thought”

Simply put you cannot take a system which neglects: temporal, generational, ecological and habitat based variables and apply those results, no
matter how significant, to a system which does experience these effects. There have been no studies performed which demonstrate harm from OA.

AND AGAIN

from the Scripps paper –
quote

“The effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is *{quasi-predictable at best.}}
While perturbation studies, in the form of incubations under elevated pCO2, reveal sensitivities
and responses of individual species, one missing link in the OA story results from
{a chronic lack of pH data specific to a given species’ natural habitat.}

Go read this and learn something perm

6.3 Ocean “Acidification”

http://nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Chapter-6-Aquatic-Life.pdf

The_observer said:

>>>I repeat the following passage from the paper that you choose to ignore:

>>Biologically speaking, the Southern Ocean is a region expected to experience acidification and undersaturated conditions earlier in time than other parts of the ocean ,

and calcifying Antarctic organisms are thought to be quite vulnerable to anthropogenic OA given the already challenging saturation states that are characteristic of cold polar waters –.

Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments have shown that Antarctic calcifying marine invertebrates are sensitive to decreased saturation states

This is just so silly, according to you unless all the research is in and everything proved 100%, you should just ignore it. I’m sorry, but I just do not understand that mentality, especially when the likely consequences are so catastrophic.

The_observer said:

AND AGAIN

?

>>>especially when the likely consequences are so catastrophic.<<<

god, there you go again.

oooooh, catastrophe

The_observer said:

from the Scripps paper –
quote

“The effect of Ocean Acidification (OA) on marine biota is *{quasi-predictable at best.}}
While perturbation studies, in the form of incubations under elevated pCO2, reveal sensitivities
and responses of individual species, one missing link in the OA story results from
{a chronic lack of pH data specific to a given species’ natural habitat.}

We know that increased co2 in the oceans will lower the pH. We also know that marine organisms that make calcium carbonate shells will be severely affected. What we don’t currently know, is the extend and the time frame. But again, you just look the other way, as it the problem did not exist.

My dinner is now ready, but I shall be back later.

>>>We know that increased co2 in the oceans will lower the pH.

We also know that marine organisms that make calcium carbonate shells will be severely affected<<<

severely affected….No We Don’t

Can I just get some clarification observer?

Let’s just suppose the overwhelming evidence for AGW and it’s associated spin offs is completely wrong.

What do we loose by cleaning up our act?
A few outdated ideas and the status quo. Yeah, the economy may take one for the team, but it will survive and the world will be a nicer, cleaner place for our descendants.

If the overwhelming evidence points to anywhere near the truth, even in a mild form, our descendants are already deep in the shit. Not to mention most forms of life on this little lump of mud we call home.

It’s a no brainer really.

>>>Can I just get some clarification observer?

Let’s just suppose the overwhelming evidence for AGW<<<

sorry, I need to stop at the part where you suggest there is overwhelming evidence

>>>My dinner is now ready, but I shall be back later.<<<

don’t bother on my account

Do you realise that you are conducting an argument with someone who believes that you are a composite of three posters?

Stop with the bull shit semantics. You need to address the premise in the question I asked.

What do we have to lose vs. what we have to gain?

>>>Do you realise that you are conducting an argument with someone who believes that you are a composite of three posters?<<

no, but that doesn’t surprise me.

>>>Do you realise that you are conducting an argument with someone who believes that you are a composite of three posters?<<

no, but that doesn’t surprise me.

>>>Do you realise that you are conducting an argument with someone who believes that you are a composite of three posters?<<

no, but that doesn’t surprise me.

That was badly written, it’s way past my bed time.

Stop with the bullshit semantics. You need to address the question I asked.

What do we have to lose vs. what we have to gain?

Better.

>>>>Stop with the bull shit semantics. You need to address the premise in the question I asked.<<<

No, I don’t actually!

>>>What do we loose by cleaning up our act? <<<<

a fucking lot of money wasted on an alarmist hypothesis, money that could be used in far better ways.

>>> but it will survive and the world will be a nicer, cleaner place for our descendants.<<<

what evidence do you have that extreme action now, at any cost, with technology that is incapable of taking the place, at present of fossil fuels,
will result in a “ nicer, cleaner place for our descendants” ?

>>>If the xxxxxxxx evidence points to anywhere near the truth, even in a mild form, <<<

we’ll go through a mild warming, resulting in temperatures the earth has experienced before, that will be benificial to all

morrie said:

Do you realise that you are conducting an argument with someone who believes that you are a composite of three posters?

—-

Hey morrie, did you ever find out what Union Carbide did with the dioxin?

I am tempted to laugh, but I have come to realise that these things aren’t funny. More sad and pointless. Perhaps you will realise that too at some point.

tauto said:

morrie said:

Do you realise that you are conducting an argument with someone who believes that you are a composite of three posters?

—-

Hey morrie, did you ever find out what Union Carbide did with the dioxin?

No, lost contact with it. I did have some contact with a journalist who wrote about the effects on the fish in Sydney harbour a couple of years ago, but that didn’t come to much.

morrie said:

I am tempted to laugh, but I have come to realise that these things aren’t funny. More sad and pointless. Perhaps you will realise that too at some point.

—-

I still don’t know if my exposure has long term effects.

>>>I am tempted to laugh, but I have come to realise that these things aren’t funny. More sad and pointless. Perhaps you will realise that too at some point.<<<

arguing with the perm is anything but funny,

I really shouldn’t bother

tauto said:

morrie said:

I am tempted to laugh, but I have come to realise that these things aren’t funny. More sad and pointless. Perhaps you will realise that too at some point.

—-

I still don’t know if my exposure has long term effects.

Nor me. I do sometimes think about the fact that the workers at the UC plant used to drop dead at 62. ;(

You have not addressed the question of what happens if the hypothesis is correct as the majority of highly educated and informed researchers believe.

The_observer said:

>>>I am tempted to laugh, but I have come to realise that these things aren’t funny. More sad and pointless. Perhaps you will realise that too at some point.<<<

arguing with the perm is anything but funny,

I really shouldn’t bother

No, it serves no purpose.

Hofmann et al. write, “these biome-specific pH
signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both
high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that
resident organisms are already experiencing pH
regimes that are not predicted until 2100.” These facts
suggest the current real-world heterogeneity of the
world’s oceans with regard to pH and pCO2 exposure
may already have “result in populations that are
acclimatized to variable pH or extremes in pH,” such
as those that have been predicted to be the new norm
in 2100. Lower ocean pH levels may therefore not
mature in the way projected by IPCC, a conclusion
Loaiciga (2006) shares, having written years earlier,
“on a global scale and over the time scales considered
(hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated
changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the
rising concentration of atmospheric CO2.”

>>>You have not addressed the question of what happens if the hypothesis is correct

>>>>as the majority of highly educated and informed researchers believe.<<< now, you really should just have left out that bit.

because, beside the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to back up that statement,

& ,the majority of opinions, even if that were actually true, is always trumped by the evidence of just one,

but particularly because it is a pathetic argument

Reference
Doney, S.C., Fabry, V.J., Feely, R.A. and Kleypas, J.A. 2008.

Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem.

Annual Review of Marine Science 1: 169-192.

Concerns about the viability of earth’s corals and other calcifying organisms in a CO2-accreting atmosphere were brought to the forefront of
attack on anthropogenic CO2 emissions with the publication of the papers of Kleypas et al. (1999) and Langdon et al. (2000), wherein it was
claimed that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content was slowly but surely lowering oceanic pH, making it ever harder for calcifying organisms
to produce their calcium carbonate skeletons and possibly leading to their extinction. As more and more pertinent studies have been conducted,
however, this extreme view has been greatly tempered, as indicated by the review of the subject by Doney et al. (2008).

The four marine science researchers — of whom Kleypas herself is one — report that many calcifying species do indeed “exhibit reduced
calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions,” but they also report that “some photosynthetic organisms
(both calcifying and non-calcifying) have higher carbon fixation rates under high CO2.” And as Idso et al. (2000) have noted in the case of
corals, the “photosynthetic activity of zooxanthellae is the chief source of energy for the energetically-expensive process of calcification,” and
much evidence suggests, in their words, that “long-term reef calcification rates generally rise in direct proportion to increases in rates of reef
primary production.”

Due to these divergent observations, plus the fact that most of what we know about the topic “stems largely from short-term laboratory and
mesocosm experiments,” as Doney et al. describe them, the latter scientists conclude that the ultimate long-term response of “individual
organisms, populations, and communities to more realistic gradual changes is largely unknown.”

Additionally acknowledging, therefore, that “the broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known,” they state that “the impact of
rising CO2 on marine biota will be more varied than previously thought.” That is to say, *it will not be one grand catastrophe for earth’s calcifying
marine life*. Rather, there may well be both “winners and losers,” as they put it, with the *vast bulk of species likely sandwiched somewhere in
between these two extremes*. In fact, when real-world evidence for rapid adaptation and evolution is considered, *the future actually looks quite
bright for earth’s aquatic (and terrestrial) life* (Idso, 2009; Idso and Idso, 2009).

morrie said:

The_observer said:

>>>I am tempted to laugh, but I have come to realise that these things aren’t funny. More sad and pointless. Perhaps you will realise that too at some point.<<<

arguing with the perm is anything but funny,

I really shouldn’t bother

No, it serves no purpose.

Is there no level you won’t drop below morrie?

The_observer said:

Go read this and learn something perm

6.3 Ocean “Acidification”

http://nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Chapter-6-Aquatic-Life.pdf

Who writes this stuff observer, all I see are a heap of references which probably have little or no connection with the presentation? This is a common form of deception with GW deniers.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>I repeat the following passage from the paper that you choose to ignore:

>>Biologically speaking, the Southern Ocean is a region expected to experience acidification and undersaturated conditions earlier in time than other parts of the ocean ,

and calcifying Antarctic organisms are thought to be quite vulnerable to anthropogenic OA given the already challenging saturation states that are characteristic of cold polar waters –.

Short-term CO2 perturbation experiments have shown that Antarctic calcifying marine invertebrates are sensitive to decreased saturation states

This is just so silly, according to you unless all the research is in and everything proved 100%, you should just ignore it. I’m sorry, but I just do not understand that mentality, especially when the likely consequences are so catastrophic.

Why don’t you answer this? Instead you have just concentrated on the word catastrophic, which climate scientists are saying describes the situation if we do nothing about it.

The_observer said:

>>>We know that increased co2 in the oceans will lower the pH.

We also know that marine organisms that make calcium carbonate shells will be severely affected<<<

severely affected….No We Don’t

Yes we do, it is a fact! Just because you will not acknowledge it, does not make it less of one.

The_observer said:

>>>Can I just get some clarification observer?

Let’s just suppose the overwhelming evidence for AGW<<<

sorry, I need to stop at the part where you suggest there is overwhelming evidence

This is what 97% of climate scientists are saying, and you in your wisdom say they are talking a load of crap.

morrie said:

Do you realise that you are conducting an argument with someone who believes that you are a composite of three posters?

That is not true, I stated that I strongly suspected. And here is me thinking morrie was a scientist.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>Can I just get some clarification observer?

Let’s just suppose the overwhelming evidence for AGW<<<

sorry, I need to stop at the part where you suggest there is overwhelming evidence

This is what 97% of climate scientists are saying, and you in your wisdom say they are talking a load of crap.

Oh, come on, the 97% figure is just a bit of crap.

It was a terrible paper,and sprouting its crap won’t paper over the cracks.

I’m a believer in AGW, but some of the science is just risible.

The_observer said:

Hofmann et al. write, “these biome-specific pH
signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both
high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that
resident organisms are already experiencing pH
regimes that are not predicted until 2100.” These facts
suggest the current real-world heterogeneity of the
world’s oceans with regard to pH and pCO2 exposure
may already have “result in populations that are
acclimatized to variable pH or extremes in pH,” such
as those that have been predicted to be the new norm
in 2100. Lower ocean pH levels may therefore not
mature in the way projected by IPCC, a conclusion
Loaiciga (2006) shares, having written years earlier,
“on a global scale and over the time scales considered
(hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated
changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the
rising concentration of atmospheric CO2.”

How about some references Observer? Sorry but you have given me considerable reason not to trust you.

The_observer said:

Reference
Doney, S.C., Fabry, V.J., Feely, R.A. and Kleypas, J.A. 2008.

Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem.

Annual Review of Marine Science 1: 169-192.

Concerns about the viability of earth’s corals and other calcifying organisms in a CO2-accreting atmosphere were brought to the forefront of
attack on anthropogenic CO2 emissions with the publication of the papers of Kleypas et al. (1999) and Langdon et al. (2000), wherein it was
claimed that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content was slowly but surely lowering oceanic pH, making it ever harder for calcifying organisms
to produce their calcium carbonate skeletons and possibly leading to their extinction. As more and more pertinent studies have been conducted,
however, this extreme view has been greatly tempered, as indicated by the review of the subject by Doney et al. (2008).

The four marine science researchers — of whom Kleypas herself is one — report that many calcifying species do indeed “exhibit reduced
calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions,” but they also report that “some photosynthetic organisms
(both calcifying and non-calcifying) have higher carbon fixation rates under high CO2.” And as Idso et al. (2000) have noted in the case of
corals, the “photosynthetic activity of zooxanthellae is the chief source of energy for the energetically-expensive process of calcification,” and
much evidence suggests, in their words, that “long-term reef calcification rates generally rise in direct proportion to increases in rates of reef
primary production.”

Due to these divergent observations, plus the fact that most of what we know about the topic “stems largely from short-term laboratory and
mesocosm experiments,” as Doney et al. describe them, the latter scientists conclude that the ultimate long-term response of “individual
organisms, populations, and communities to more realistic gradual changes is largely unknown.”

Additionally acknowledging, therefore, that “the broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known,” they state that “the impact of
rising CO2 on marine biota will be more varied than previously thought.” That is to say, *it will not be one grand catastrophe for earth’s calcifying
marine life*. Rather, there may well be both “winners and losers,” as they put it, with the *vast bulk of species likely sandwiched somewhere in
between these two extremes*. In fact, when real-world evidence for rapid adaptation and evolution is considered, *the future actually looks quite
bright for earth’s aquatic (and terrestrial) life* (Idso, 2009; Idso and Idso, 2009).

There is another factor that works in tandem with ocean acidification and that is increased temperatures. There is very good research being carried out on Heron Island that I have already mentioned, where there are several tanks containing a selection of coral, fish and other reef organisms.

>>Every day they are pumping different levels of carbon dioxide into underwater chambers housing coral and other ocean creatures.

UQ’s David Kline says the aim is to get a better picture of how reefs of the future respond to changed climatic conditions.

“What we’ve been working on is trying to understand the impacts of future levels of CO2 on coral reefs, but doing it in a way that’s more natural than any experiment on reefs and climate change than ever has been done before,” he said.<<

https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=Heron+Island&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enAU550AU550&q=heron+island+coral+experiment&gs_l=hp..4.0l4j41.0.0.0.10602………..0.jHyM6nEKIZI&pbx=1

Tank one had conditions of 150 years ago, before GW was being considered, it was 1 degree less in temperature and 100 ppm less in co2. The results were a very healthy and vibrant ecosystem with everything doing exceptionally well.

Tank 2 had present day conditions. The ecosystem was not too bad, but algae was more prevalent and some coral was looking a little sad.

Tank 3 was as if we had greatly reduced co2 emissions and had only an increase of 2 degrees C. There was considerable bleaching of coral and some had died, plus algae growth was beginning to displace the coral.

Tank 4 was as if we did nothing about controlling our emissions with a 4 degree C increase in temperature and co2. The result was almost total destruction with all but one coral species dead and that was bleached, the fish had died along with most of the organisms and all that was left were a few discoloured anemones and algae. In other words the ecosystem was almost completely destroyed.

The above is telling research that is ongoing, so please don’t say we do not know the effects of co2 and temperature on marine organisms. But of course we all know you would prefer to wait until the end of the century in order to be sure.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>Can I just get some clarification observer?

Let’s just suppose the overwhelming evidence for AGW<<<

sorry, I need to stop at the part where you suggest there is overwhelming evidence

This is what 97% of climate scientists are saying, and you in your wisdom say they are talking a load of crap.

Oh, come on, the 97% figure is just a bit of crap.

It was a terrible paper,and sprouting its crap won’t paper over the cracks.

I’m a believer in AGW, but some of the science is just risible.

I suggest you take it up with the IPCC if you think it incorrect.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

This is what 97% of climate scientists are saying, and you in your wisdom say they are talking a load of crap.

Oh, come on, the 97% figure is just a bit of crap.

It was a terrible paper,and sprouting its crap won’t paper over the cracks.

I’m a believer in AGW, but some of the science is just risible.

I suggest you take it up with the IPCC if you think it incorrect.

You might like to also check this out sibeen.

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I should like to clarify something here. Regarding Global Warming, I do not give my opinion on this subject, but the opinions of a considerable number of climate scientists. I personally find it incredible that with so much highly credible information available that more people do not know a great deal more than they indicate.

With a situation in which we find ourselves that will begin to severely impact most life-forms including our good-selves in the following few decades and well within the lifetime of children running around today that we are still talking as if it is no big deal. It really is the most import thing happening on this planet today and will be for many years to come.

Perzactly.

Statement of

DR. JOHN T. EVERETT

HEARING ON
The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification

BEFORE THE
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate
April 22, 2010

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I am John Everett. I am not here to
represent any particular organization, company, nor special-interest group. I have never received any funding to support my climate change
work other than my NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) salary, from which I retired after a 31 – year career in various
positions.
Thirty years ago I was loaned to this Committee for one year and was responsible for oceans and fisheries issues and NOAA
oversight. I was a Member of the Board of Directors of the NOAA Climate Change Program from its inception until I left NOAA.

I led several impact analyses for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 1988 to 2000, while a NOAA employee.
The reports were reviewed by hundreds of government and academic scientists as part of the IPCC process.
My work included five impact analyses:
Fisheries (Convening Lead Author),
Polar Regions (Co-Chair),
Oceans (Lead Author),
and Oceans and Coastal Zones (Co-Chair/2 reports).

Since leaving NOAA I have kept abreast of the literature, have continued as an IPCC Expert Reviewer, have talked to many individuals and groups
and have maintained these subjects in the UN Atlas of the Oceans, where I am the Chief Editor and Project Manager.
I own a fisheries and oceans consulting business called Ocean Associates, Inc. and a website ClimateChangeFacts.Info that I try to keep
unbiased in its treatment of conflicting science. This site is the number 1 Google-ranked site of many million for certain climate search terms.

My approach to impact analysis is a product of my education and work experiences at NOAA and the work I led for IPCC.
This statement provides my analysis of the effects of ocean acidification on our living resources and our economy.

Full Testimony

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/TestimonyWrittenJohnEverettOceanAcidificationApr2010.html
.
.

Short Summary of Ocean Acidification Testimony of John T. Everett

There is not a problem with increased CO2 in the water, leading to acidification. There are 4 primary factors:

First, laboratory work shows there is no basis to predict the demise of ocean shelled plants and animals. The animals above them in the food
chain will still find food. The science actually indicates plants, crustaceans, and shelled algae plankton will be more successful. Since they are
at or near the bottom of the food chain, this is good news. Some important animals, such as scallops and oysters slowed their growth.

Second, the Earth has been this route before. The oceans have been far warmer and far colder and more acidic (2-20X) than is projected. The
memory of these events is built into the genes of all species. Virtually all ecological niches have been filled at all times. If someone could
demonstrate that there were no corals, clams, oysters, or shelled plankton (e.g., copepods, krill, certain algae) when there was double or triple
the amount of CO2, we would be concerned. The opposite is true.

Third, observational data in studies properly controlled for other variables (e.g., upwelling, rainfall, pollution, temperature, disease) show no
harm. IPCC concluded (prior to the Iglesias-Rodriguez paper (positive impact)) that there is no observational evidence of oceanic changes due
to acidification. There is also nothing conclusive in the recent research to indicate any reason for concern.

Lastly, natural changes are greater and faster than those projected. Major warming, cooling, and pH changes in the oceans are a fact of life.

Whether over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Oscillation, or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling appears or a
storm brings acidic rainwater to an estuary. Despite severe and rapid changes that far exceed those in the scenarios, the biology adapts
rapidly. The 0.1 change in ocean alkalinity since 1750 and the one degree F. rise since 1860 are but noise in this rapidly changing system. In the
face of all these natural changes, whether over days or millennia, some species flourish while others diminish.

Conclusion. The crustaceans responding favorably in research by Ries et al. (crabs, lobsters, shrimp) are probably similar to those at the base
of the ocean food chain such as krill and copepods. Since they eat algae, which also responds favorably to CO2 increases (and warmer
temperatures), it is likely there will be increased food in the sea. With no laboratory or observational evidence of biological disruption, we see no
economic disruption of commercial and recreational fisheries, nor harm to marine mammals, sea turtles or any other protected species. Open-
minded research is needed to sort it out.

>>DR. JOHN T. EVERETT

Kenny’s brother?

>>>>>DR. JOHN T. EVERETT

Kenny’s brother?
<<<

DOUBT IT

BUT

Sigourney Weaver was there, & she testified at the HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

.
Sigourney an actress

A concerned actress mind you,

& that’s what counts

The_observer said:

Statement of

DR. JOHN T. EVERETT

HEARING ON
The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification

BEFORE THE
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate
April 22, 2010

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I am John Everett. I am not here to
represent any particular organization, company, nor special-interest group. I have never received any funding to support my climate change
work other than my NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) salary, from which I retired after a 31 – year career in various
positions.
Thirty years ago I was loaned to this Committee for one year and was responsible for oceans and fisheries issues and NOAA
oversight. I was a Member of the Board of Directors of the NOAA Climate Change Program from its inception until I left NOAA.

I led several impact analyses for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 1988 to 2000, while a NOAA employee.
The reports were reviewed by hundreds of government and academic scientists as part of the IPCC process.
My work included five impact analyses:
Fisheries (Convening Lead Author),
Polar Regions (Co-Chair),
Oceans (Lead Author),
and Oceans and Coastal Zones (Co-Chair/2 reports).

Since leaving NOAA I have kept abreast of the literature, have continued as an IPCC Expert Reviewer, have talked to many individuals and groups
and have maintained these subjects in the UN Atlas of the Oceans, where I am the Chief Editor and Project Manager.
I own a fisheries and oceans consulting business called Ocean Associates, Inc. and a website ClimateChangeFacts.Info that I try to keep
unbiased in its treatment of conflicting science. This site is the number 1 Google-ranked site of many million for certain climate search terms.

My approach to impact analysis is a product of my education and work experiences at NOAA and the work I led for IPCC.
This statement provides my analysis of the effects of ocean acidification on our living resources and our economy.

Full Testimony

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/TestimonyWrittenJohnEverettOceanAcidificationApr2010.html
.
.

Short Summary of Ocean Acidification Testimony of John T. Everett

There is not a problem with increased CO2 in the water, leading to acidification. There are 4 primary factors:

First, laboratory work shows there is no basis to predict the demise of ocean shelled plants and animals. The animals above them in the food
chain will still find food. The science actually indicates plants, crustaceans, and shelled algae plankton will be more successful. Since they are
at or near the bottom of the food chain, this is good news. Some important animals, such as scallops and oysters slowed their growth.

Second, the Earth has been this route before. The oceans have been far warmer and far colder and more acidic (2-20X) than is projected. The
memory of these events is built into the genes of all species. Virtually all ecological niches have been filled at all times. If someone could
demonstrate that there were no corals, clams, oysters, or shelled plankton (e.g., copepods, krill, certain algae) when there was double or triple
the amount of CO2, we would be concerned. The opposite is true.

Third, observational data in studies properly controlled for other variables (e.g., upwelling, rainfall, pollution, temperature, disease) show no
harm. IPCC concluded (prior to the Iglesias-Rodriguez paper (positive impact)) that there is no observational evidence of oceanic changes due
to acidification. There is also nothing conclusive in the recent research to indicate any reason for concern.

Lastly, natural changes are greater and faster than those projected. Major warming, cooling, and pH changes in the oceans are a fact of life.

Whether over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Oscillation, or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling appears or a
storm brings acidic rainwater to an estuary. Despite severe and rapid changes that far exceed those in the scenarios, the biology adapts
rapidly. The 0.1 change in ocean alkalinity since 1750 and the one degree F. rise since 1860 are but noise in this rapidly changing system. In the
face of all these natural changes, whether over days or millennia, some species flourish while others diminish.

Conclusion. The crustaceans responding favorably in research by Ries et al. (crabs, lobsters, shrimp) are probably similar to those at the base
of the ocean food chain such as krill and copepods. Since they eat algae, which also responds favorably to CO2 increases (and warmer
temperatures), it is likely there will be increased food in the sea. With no laboratory or observational evidence of biological disruption, we see no
economic disruption of commercial and recreational fisheries, nor harm to marine mammals, sea turtles or any other protected species. Open-
minded research is needed to sort it out.

———————————————————————————————————————————————
These are opinions Observer! I show you where current research is portraying considerable adverse consequences from high levels of co2 and temperatures, yet still you bury your head in the sand. The ocean is a very big place with many influences and takes a long time for impacts to become apparent, which everyone including those opinions you have produced here, admit much research needs to be done. However, we know co2 reacts with calcium carbonate and will affect organisms in their attempts to construct their shells and/or foundations.

Changes are not happening over tens of thousands of years, they are not even happening in hundreds of years, but in decades and even within a human life span. You have no concept of what is going to happen and catastrophic is the right word to use. A past mass extinction where co2 likely rose abruptly killed off most of the shell producing organisms, it did not kill all life-forms, but came very close.

Unless we drastically reduce our co2 emissions we could well be going into another mass extinction event. Although not all will be the result of our activities, we are certainly the trigger. Vast areas of permafrost are beginning to melt due to increasing global temperatures and will release enormous quantities of co2 and methane that will add to global warming.

Also captured are gigantic quantities of gas hydrates (When gas molecules are trapped in a lattice of water molecules at temperatures above 0°C and pressures above one atmosphere, they can form a sta­ble solid. These solids are gas hydrates). These hydrates are mainly made up of methane, which is around 20 times more effective a greenhouse gas than co2 (Gas hydrate deposits along ocean margins are estimated to exceed known petroleum reserves by about a factor of three. These hydrate beds leak gas­es into the water, forming cold seeps on the ocean floor. This hydrocarbon seepage is common on continental margins around the world).

>>Hydrates influence ocean carbon cycling, global climate change, and coastal sediment stability. Localized melt­downs have caused massive continental slope failure, which can present a geological hazard for shelf oil and gas production. Massive hydrate dissolution events, releasing vast amounts of the greenhouse gas methane, are possible causes of some of the abrupt climate chang­es seen in the geologic record.<<

Although the above is not presently a major problem, some of the patches of released methane that were just a few metres across have now expanded to over a kilometre in diameter, which is alarming and course for concern. The point being, although we have started global warming, the temperature increases will trigger other events way beyond our control. This is why we need to act quickly, because to leave it for a later time will be too late.

Quotes from: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hydrates.html

>>>These are opinions Observer!<<<

you tosser perm

Yes, the opinions of a man who worked for NOAA for over 30 years

received the NOAA Administrator’s Award for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries.”

was assigned the climate change duties when he was the National Marine Fisheries Service Division Chief for Fisheries Development in the 1970s.

led work for the IPCC on five impact analyses from 1988-2000 -:
Fisheries (Convening Lead Author),
Polar Regions (Co-Chair),
Oceans (Lead Author), and
Oceans and Coastal Zones (Co-Chair/2 reports).

He also was a Contributing Expert in developing the IPCC Impact Assessment Methodology protocol.

He was on the Board coordinating the NOAA Climate Change Research Program.

And this man’s “opinions” as you try to dismiss them used these references to come to his conclusions
which he related in his testimony to the US Senate Ocean Acidification Hearing -

References:

http://www.OceanAssoc.com http://www.ClimateChangeFacts.Info Because the pH scale is logarithmic, a one-unit decrease in pH is a 10-fold increase in . A change of 0.3 is half or double. On the pH logarithmic scale (where 1.0D = 10X) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. 10.4.2 Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-4-2. html IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, 3.7.3.2 Concentration projections based on IS92a, for comparison with previous studies available: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/122.htm Knorr, Wolf. “No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L21710, 5 PP., 2009. Available: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ERL). Recent Global CO2. Available: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#global IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers. Geneva. Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. D., Halloran, P. R., Rickaby, R. E. M., Hall, I. R., Colmenero-Hidalgo, E., Gittins, J. R., Green, D. R. H., Tyrrell, T., Gibbs, S. J., von Dassow, P., Rehm, E., Armbrust, E. V. Boessenkool, K. P. 2008. Phytoplankton calcification in a high-CO2 world. Science 320:336-340. Available: Riebesell, U., Richard G. J. Bellerby, Anja Engel, Victoria J. Fabry, David A. Hutchins, Thorsten B. H. Reusch, Kai G. Schulz, and François M. M. Morel Comment on “Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World” December 2008, Science 322 (5907), 1466b. Iglesias-Rodriguez, MD, Erik T. Buitenhuis, John A. Raven, Oscar Schofield, Alex J. Poulton, Samantha Gibbs, Paul R. Halloran, and Hein J. W. de Baar Response to Comment on “Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World” , December 2008, Science 322 (5907), 1466c. Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;322/5907/1466c Fabry, VJ, Brad A. Seibel , Richard A. Feely , and James C. Orr.Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil Advance Access published on April 1, 2008, Available: http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/65/3/414 Atkinson M.J., Cuet, P. (2008) Possible effects of ocean acidification on coral reef biogeochemistry: topics for research. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 373:249–256 Rosenzweig, C., and Others. 2007. Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems, p. 79–131. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden and C. E. Hanson , Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press. Kurihara, H., Asai, T., Kato ,S. and Ishimatsu, A. (2008) Effects of elevated pCO2 on early development in the musselMytilus galloprovincialis. Aquat. Biol. 4:225-233 Marubini, F., C. Ferrier-Pagès, P. Furla, and D. Allemand, “Coral calcification responds to seawater acidification: a working hypothesis towards a physiological mechanism,” Coral Reefs, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 491–499, 2008 WHOI. 2009. In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production. Available: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162 Munday, P.L., J.M. Donelson, D.L. Dixson, and G.G.K. Endo, Effects of ocean acidification on the early life history of a tropical marine fish Proc R Soc B 2009 276 (1671) 3275-3283. Available: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1848.full Richardson, A.J. and M.J. Gibbons, “Are Jellyfish Increasing in Response to Ocean Acidification?,” Limnology and Oceanography, v. 53, no. 5 (2008):2040-2045. Zimmerman, R.C. Seagrass Response to Ocean Acidification: From Individual Leaves to Populations, in Ocean Acidification Workshop, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA. October 9-11, 2007 Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia. Simpson,J.J and A. Zirino, Biological control of pH in the Peruvian coastal upwelling area, Deep Sea Research Part A. Oceanographic Research Papers, Volume 27, Issue 9, September 1980, Pages 733-743, Available: (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B757K-48B0×2J-5Y/2/fdc00f527d7fa45b54e43a9f32a26629)

Now perhaps you’d like to talk about Sigourney’s >opinions’ at the testimony

what a joke.

>>> show you where current research is portraying considerable adverse consequences from high levels of co2
and temperatures, yet still you bury your head in the sand.
<<<

Oh yeh, are you serious?

>>>>>>
“Sophie Dove, from the University of Queensland in St. Lucia, has spent the past couple of years crafting an experiment to see what will happen
to coral reefs as the ocean absorbs ever more of the carbon dioxide and heat we’ve added to our planet’s thin skin. She’s gathered a variety of
coral species from the island’s nearby reef and placed them in tanks that look like a cross between a kettle drum and an oversized plant pot.

Tank 1

Tank 2

Tank 3

Tank 4

The above is telling research that is ongoing, so please don’t say we do not know the effects of co2 and temperature on marine organisms
<<<<

Lets recap these experiments of yours, again, because you obviously have your head up your arse!

You cannot forcibly change the pH in a controlled system with a sensitive organism and claim significant results when the natural environment
has variability that exceeds the control parameters for the experiment.

Secondly in almost all cases studies evaluate organisms over a very short time span, typically 6-8 weeks. This is not the same as evaluating a
stable colony, nor is it akin to studying the adaptability of a species to a change in conditions. For calcifiers the ability to regulate pH at the site of
calcification is important to their ability to calcify. The time to ramp up synthesis of required compounds to maintain a high pH at calcification
sites may exceed the period of study. While calcification rates may decrease this is not the same as shell dissolution

A study evaluating the ability of 18 different organisms to calcify under varying pCO2 conditions found that in 10 cases, when the solution was
under saturated with aragonite calcification rates dropped. For 7 of the species calcification rates actually increased with moderate pCO2 and
for 3 of the 7 they received the highest calcification rate at a pCO2 reflecting 2856ppm.
The study concluded

“whatever the specific mechanisms involved, our results suggest that the impact of pCO2 on marine calcification is
more varied than previously thought”

Simply put you cannot take a system which neglects: temporal, generational, ecological and habitat based variables and apply those results, no
matter how significant, to a system which does experience these effects. There have been no studies performed which demonstrate harm from OA.

do you get it dim wit

The_observer said:

>>>These are opinions Observer!<<<

you tosser perm

Yes, the opinions of a man who worked for NOAA for over 30 years

received the NOAA Administrator’s Award for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries.”

was assigned the climate change duties when he was the National Marine Fisheries Service Division Chief for Fisheries Development in the 1970s.

led work for the IPCC on five impact analyses from 1988-2000 -:
Fisheries (Convening Lead Author),
Polar Regions (Co-Chair),
Oceans (Lead Author), and
Oceans and Coastal Zones (Co-Chair/2 reports).

He also was a Contributing Expert in developing the IPCC Impact Assessment Methodology protocol.

He was on the Board coordinating the NOAA Climate Change Research Program.

And this man’s “opinions” as you try to dismiss them used these references to come to his conclusions
which he related in his testimony to the US Senate Ocean Acidification Hearing -

References:

http://www.OceanAssoc.com http://www.ClimateChangeFacts.Info Because the pH scale is logarithmic, a one-unit decrease in pH is a 10-fold increase in . A change of 0.3 is half or double. On the pH logarithmic scale (where 1.0D = 10X) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. 10.4.2 Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-4-2. html IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, 3.7.3.2 Concentration projections based on IS92a, for comparison with previous studies available: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/122.htm Knorr, Wolf. “No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L21710, 5 PP., 2009. Available: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ERL). Recent Global CO2. Available: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#global IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers. Geneva. Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. D., Halloran, P. R., Rickaby, R. E. M., Hall, I. R., Colmenero-Hidalgo, E., Gittins, J. R., Green, D. R. H., Tyrrell, T., Gibbs, S. J., von Dassow, P., Rehm, E., Armbrust, E. V. Boessenkool, K. P. 2008. Phytoplankton calcification in a high-CO2 world. Science 320:336-340. Available: Riebesell, U., Richard G. J. Bellerby, Anja Engel, Victoria J. Fabry, David A. Hutchins, Thorsten B. H. Reusch, Kai G. Schulz, and François M. M. Morel Comment on “Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World” December 2008, Science 322 (5907), 1466b. Iglesias-Rodriguez, MD, Erik T. Buitenhuis, John A. Raven, Oscar Schofield, Alex J. Poulton, Samantha Gibbs, Paul R. Halloran, and Hein J. W. de Baar Response to Comment on “Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World” , December 2008, Science 322 (5907), 1466c. Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;322/5907/1466c Fabry, VJ, Brad A. Seibel , Richard A. Feely , and James C. Orr.Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil Advance Access published on April 1, 2008, Available: http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/65/3/414 Atkinson M.J., Cuet, P. (2008) Possible effects of ocean acidification on coral reef biogeochemistry: topics for research. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 373:249–256 Rosenzweig, C., and Others. 2007. Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems, p. 79–131. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden and C. E. Hanson , Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press. Kurihara, H., Asai, T., Kato ,S. and Ishimatsu, A. (2008) Effects of elevated pCO2 on early development in the musselMytilus galloprovincialis. Aquat. Biol. 4:225-233 Marubini, F., C. Ferrier-Pagès, P. Furla, and D. Allemand, “Coral calcification responds to seawater acidification: a working hypothesis towards a physiological mechanism,” Coral Reefs, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 491–499, 2008 WHOI. 2009. In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production. Available: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162 Munday, P.L., J.M. Donelson, D.L. Dixson, and G.G.K. Endo, Effects of ocean acidification on the early life history of a tropical marine fish Proc R Soc B 2009 276 (1671) 3275-3283. Available: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1848.full Richardson, A.J. and M.J. Gibbons, “Are Jellyfish Increasing in Response to Ocean Acidification?,” Limnology and Oceanography, v. 53, no. 5 (2008):2040-2045. Zimmerman, R.C. Seagrass Response to Ocean Acidification: From Individual Leaves to Populations, in Ocean Acidification Workshop, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA. October 9-11, 2007 Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia. Simpson,J.J and A. Zirino, Biological control of pH in the Peruvian coastal upwelling area, Deep Sea Research Part A. Oceanographic Research Papers, Volume 27, Issue 9, September 1980, Pages 733-743, Available: (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B757K-48B0×2J-5Y/2/fdc00f527d7fa45b54e43a9f32a26629)

Now perhaps you’d like to talk about Sigourney’s >opinions’ at the testimony

what a joke.

What you quoted was still his opinion. I produced research that refuted his opinion. Grow up!

The_observer said:

>>> show you where current research is portraying considerable adverse consequences from high levels of co2
and temperatures, yet still you bury your head in the sand.
<<<

Oh yeh, are you serious?

>>>>>>
“Sophie Dove, from the University of Queensland in St. Lucia, has spent the past couple of years crafting an experiment to see what will happen
to coral reefs as the ocean absorbs ever more of the carbon dioxide and heat we’ve added to our planet’s thin skin. She’s gathered a variety of
coral species from the island’s nearby reef and placed them in tanks that look like a cross between a kettle drum and an oversized plant pot.

Tank 1

Tank 2

Tank 3

Tank 4

The above is telling research that is ongoing, so please don’t say we do not know the effects of co2 and temperature on marine organisms
<<<<

Lets recap these experiments of yours, again, because you obviously have your head up your arse!

You cannot forcibly change the pH in a controlled system with a sensitive organism and claim significant results when the natural environment
has variability that exceeds the control parameters for the experiment.

Secondly in almost all cases studies evaluate organisms over a very short time span, typically 6-8 weeks. This is not the same as evaluating a
stable colony, nor is it akin to studying the adaptability of a species to a change in conditions. For calcifiers the ability to regulate pH at the site of
calcification is important to their ability to calcify. The time to ramp up synthesis of required compounds to maintain a high pH at calcification
sites may exceed the period of study. While calcification rates may decrease this is not the same as shell dissolution

A study evaluating the ability of 18 different organisms to calcify under varying pCO2 conditions found that in 10 cases, when the solution was
under saturated with aragonite calcification rates dropped. For 7 of the species calcification rates actually increased with moderate pCO2 and
for 3 of the 7 they received the highest calcification rate at a pCO2 reflecting 2856ppm.
The study concluded

“whatever the specific mechanisms involved, our results suggest that the impact of pCO2 on marine calcification is
more varied than previously thought”

Simply put you cannot take a system which neglects: temporal, generational, ecological and habitat based variables and apply those results, no
matter how significant, to a system which does experience these effects. There have been no studies performed which demonstrate harm from OA.

do you get it dim wit

Think you are mixing two pieces of research into one there Observer, but such minor things to you are just a hiccup. The Heron Island research has been going on for a considerable period of time and is still being researched.

>>>What you quoted was still his opinion. I produced research that refuted his opinion. Grow up!<<<

this must be an example of what Morrie was getting at.

your an ignorant imbecile

Do you have any serious comment on my previous post Observer, or is it too difficult for you to answer?

These are opinions Observer! I show you where current research is portraying considerable adverse consequences from high levels of co2 and temperatures, yet still you bury your head in the sand. The ocean is a very big place with many influences and takes a long time for impacts to become apparent, which everyone including those opinions you have produced here, admit much research needs to be done. However, we know co2 reacts with calcium carbonate and will affect organisms in their attempts to construct their shells and/or foundations.

Changes are not happening over tens of thousands of years, they are not even happening in hundreds of years, but in decades and even within a human life span. You have no concept of what is going to happen and catastrophic is the right word to use. A past mass extinction where co2 likely rose abruptly killed off most of the shell producing organisms, it did not kill all life-forms, but came very close.

Unless we drastically reduce our co2 emissions we could well be going into another mass extinction event. Although not all will be the result of our activities, we are certainly the trigger. Vast areas of permafrost are beginning to melt due to increasing global temperatures and will release enormous quantities of co2 and methane that will add to global warming.

Also captured are gigantic quantities of gas hydrates (When gas molecules are trapped in a lattice of water molecules at temperatures above 0°C and pressures above one atmosphere, they can form a sta­ble solid. These solids are gas hydrates). These hydrates are mainly made up of methane, which is around 20 times more effective a greenhouse gas than co2 (Gas hydrate deposits along ocean margins are estimated to exceed known petroleum reserves by about a factor of three. These hydrate beds leak gas­es into the water, forming cold seeps on the ocean floor. This hydrocarbon seepage is common on continental margins around the world).

>>Hydrates influence ocean carbon cycling, global climate change, and coastal sediment stability. Localized melt­downs have caused massive continental slope failure, which can present a geological hazard for shelf oil and gas production. Massive hydrate dissolution events, releasing vast amounts of the greenhouse gas methane, are possible causes of some of the abrupt climate chang­es seen in the geologic record.<<

Although the above is not presently a major problem, some of the patches of released methane that were just a few metres across have now expanded to over a kilometre in diameter, which is alarming and course for concern. The point being, although we have started global warming, the temperature increases will trigger other events way beyond our control. This is why we need to act quickly, because to leave it for a later time will be too late.

The_observer said:

>>>What you quoted was still his opinion. I produced research that refuted his opinion. Grow up!<<<

this must be an example of what Morrie was getting at.

your an ignorant imbecile

:))) Ad hominem remarks, thought you were above that Observer. Very frustrating when you can’t answer with any credibility.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>What you quoted was still his opinion. I produced research that refuted his opinion. Grow up!<<<

this must be an example of what Morrie was getting at.

your an ignorant imbecile

:))) Ad hominem remarks, thought you were above that Observer.

I didn’t think he was above that at all.

Judging by his next remarks.

:)

>>>Ad hominem remarks, thought you were above that Observer. Very frustrating when you can’t answer with any credibility.<<<

you’re a hypocrite as well perm!

who was it that started the ad hom

that’s right, when you called me a fuckwit

>>>I didn’t think he was above that at all.

Judging by his next remarks.

:)
<<<

Rumpole, what happens at Q&A should stay at Q&A, get it

The_observer said:

>>>What you quoted was still his opinion. I produced research that refuted his opinion. Grow up!<<<

this must be an example of what Morrie was getting at.

your an ignorant imbecile

Here you go Observer, all the liars, cheats, scoundrels, deniers and general scum of the earth: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.

And here is The_observer getting on with his day: http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y462/staffpicks/Animated_GIFs/boat.gif

>>> I show you where current research is portraying considerable adverse consequences from high levels of co2 and temperatures, yet still you bury your head in the sand.<<<

Perhaps the most thorough review of the literature on acidificaton impacts is by Fabry et al. They found that little research was done on CO2
concentrations that were relevant to answer today’s questions. They express much concern that acidification will retard development of shells.

They, as do several other authors, note that studies have not been long-term enough to discover adaptations over multiple generations. I believe
this is key because these genera have genetic information about past events and this may well take several generations for stabilization. In any
scenario, there will be ample time for this to happen. In a laboratory it happens with the throw of a switch.

With respect to corals, Atkinson reviewed recent literature on ….“how ocean acidification may influence coral reef organisms and coral reef
communities. We argue that it is unclear as to how, and to what extent, ocean acidification will influence calcium carbonate calcification and
dissolution, and affect changes in community structure of present-day coral reefs”. Also, the latest IPCC report (summary above) found no
empirical evidence supporting effects of acidification on marine biological systems.

Kurihara et al investigated the “effects of seawater equilibrated with CO2-enriched air (2000 ppm, pH 7.4) on the early development of the
mussel” and found that the mussels, as clams studied by them earlier, were significantly impaired when exposed to CO2 over *5X! that of
today.*

Marubini et al. found that seawater acidification may lead to a decrease of tropical coral growth calcification. This effect is either mediated by a
decrease in carbonate, in pH, or by an alteration of the internal buffering system leading to a disruption of carbon supply to calcification rather
than by a direct effect of CO2 or a change of HCO3 – concentration. Results showed that the negative effect of acidification may be
counteracted by increasing the bicarbonate concentration of seawater, resulting in an increase in the carbonate concentration.

Research in laboratories shows that shell growth is slowed in some animals and enhanced in others. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(WHOI) researchers found that 7 of 18 species of animals “such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed
to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)”S. They tested as high as 7 times present levels.

They found that hard clams and corals slowed formation of shells but only above 1,000 ppm, while soft clams and oyster slowed formation at
lower levels. Note that the shells did not dissolve, but only grew somewhat slower at 7X! present CO2 concentrations.

There is no basis to predict the demise of shelled animals living in the sea or the animals above them in the food chain at any likely level of CO2
that might be put in the air by humans.

So it seems that unless we get somewhere over 5 x present atmospheric co2 levels things are A ok.

any suggestions that we will get anywhere near those levels is alarmist

The_observer said:

>>>Ad hominem remarks, thought you were above that Observer. Very frustrating when you can’t answer with any credibility.<<<

you’re a hypocrite as well perm!

who was it that started the ad hom

that’s right, when you called me a fuckwit

:)))))) Grow up Observer.

The_observer said:

>>> I show you where current research is portraying considerable adverse consequences from high levels of co2 and temperatures, yet still you bury your head in the sand.<<<

Perhaps the most thorough review of the literature on acidificaton impacts is by Fabry et al. They found that little research was done on CO2
concentrations that were relevant to answer today’s questions. They express much concern that acidification will retard development of shells.

They, as do several other authors, note that studies have not been long-term enough to discover adaptations over multiple generations. I believe
this is key because these genera have genetic information about past events and this may well take several generations for stabilization. In any
scenario, there will be ample time for this to happen. In a laboratory it happens with the throw of a switch.

With respect to corals, Atkinson reviewed recent literature on ….“how ocean acidification may influence coral reef organisms and coral reef
communities. We argue that it is unclear as to how, and to what extent, ocean acidification will influence calcium carbonate calcification and
dissolution, and affect changes in community structure of present-day coral reefs”. Also, the latest IPCC report (summary above) found no
empirical evidence supporting effects of acidification on marine biological systems.

Kurihara et al investigated the “effects of seawater equilibrated with CO2-enriched air (2000 ppm, pH 7.4) on the early development of the
mussel” and found that the mussels, as clams studied by them earlier, were significantly impaired when exposed to CO2 over *5X! that of
today.*

Marubini et al. found that seawater acidification may lead to a decrease of tropical coral growth calcification. This effect is either mediated by a
decrease in carbonate, in pH, or by an alteration of the internal buffering system leading to a disruption of carbon supply to calcification rather
than by a direct effect of CO2 or a change of HCO3 – concentration. Results showed that the negative effect of acidification may be
counteracted by increasing the bicarbonate concentration of seawater, resulting in an increase in the carbonate concentration.

Research in laboratories shows that shell growth is slowed in some animals and enhanced in others. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(WHOI) researchers found that 7 of 18 species of animals “such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed
to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)”S. They tested as high as 7 times present levels.

They found that hard clams and corals slowed formation of shells but only above 1,000 ppm, while soft clams and oyster slowed formation at
lower levels. Note that the shells did not dissolve, but only grew somewhat slower at 7X! present CO2 concentrations.

There is no basis to predict the demise of shelled animals living in the sea or the animals above them in the food chain at any likely level of CO2
that might be put in the air by humans.

So it seems that unless we get somewhere over 5 x present atmospheric co2 levels things are A ok.

any suggestions that we will get anywhere near those levels is alarmist

References please? Not that I don’t trust you.

>>>Grow up Observer.<<<

that must be your standard comment when you can’t prove you extremist point,

when there is an argument that counters yours.

It’s not had to counter your views perm, because they are extreme

>>>References please? Not that I don’t trust you.<

I trust your stupid.
how many times must I post them??

honestly, your comments here really are pathetic & do not deserve any responses.

But you are typical

To repeat yet again my request, do you have any comment on my previous post, apart from my first sentence?

The_observer said:

>>>Grow up Observer.<<<

that must be your standard comment when you can’t prove you extremist point,

when there is an argument that counters yours.

It’s not had to counter your views perm, because they are extreme

No they are the views of 97% of climate scientists, your views are ideology. Do you get paid for saying all that rubbish?

The_observer said:

>>>References please? Not that I don’t trust you.<

I trust your stupid.
how many times must I post them??

Every time you quote from them! So what is the problem?

The_observer said:

honestly, your comments here really are pathetic & do not deserve any responses.

But you are typical

Yes typical of the views of 97% of climate scientists. Are you beginning to feel a little lonely Observer?

Likely consequences for ocean organisms in relation to future predictions of elevated atmospheric CO2 content and ocean water temperature.

A composite analysis

From 50-600 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were usually 2-20 times higher than at present.
All the animals of concern evolved during this period.
We must not lose sight of the fact that plants have consumed once-abundant CO2 to the point that it is
0.000388 of the atmosphere.
Plants in the ocean also rely on CO2. There is a high ability to move the excess out of circulation, turning
it into oxygen (by plants) or calcium carbonate (by plants and animals).

We know that the Earth has seen these conditions before, and that all the same types of animals and plants
of the oceans successfully made it through far more extreme conditions. Virtually all the ecological niches were filled at all times.

If someone could demonstrate that there were no corals, clams, oysters, or shelled plankton when the Earth had double or triple the amount of
CO2 in the air, we would have reason for concern. Just as IPCC has concluded, there is no observational evidence that things would be better
or worse, or even different. Similarly, there is nothing conclusive in the very recent scientific literature to indicate any reason for concern.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

How old are today’s reefs?

The geological record indicates that ancestors of modern coral reef ecosystems were formed at least 240 million years ago.

The coral reefs existing today began growing as early as 50 million years ago.

Most established coral reefs are between 5,000 and 10,000 years old.
Coral Reef NOAA

The graph below shows both atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and atmospheric global average temperature higher than at present
values for the entirety of the evolutionary period in which present ocean life, including coral reef inhabitants, evolved.
Under those elevated conditions ocean water temperature would be higher, & ocean water pH value lower than at present.

.
12 OLDEST ANIMAL SPECIES ON EARTH

What are the oldest animals on Earth that still exist today? We’ll tell you about the 12 oldest,
as long as you’re willing to travel under the sea to meet them.

01. SPONGE – 760 million years old

It’s unclear exactly how long sea sponges have been around, but they are at least old enough to be the longest-existing creatures on Earth,
outside the realm of microorganisms (like bacteria). The oldest evidence of a sea sponge found was a fossil discovered just last year in a 760-
million-year-old rock. This beat the previous record for oldest sea-sponge fossil, a 635-million-year-old sponge discovered in 2009. There may
be still older fossils yet to find. But finding an older species is unlikely, as these simple organisms appear to be the progenitors of much more
complicated life, including the first multicelluar animals. (National Geographic)

2. JELLYFISH – 505 million years old

As we get to the very oldest animals on Earth, they become more and more primitive. That’s because now we’re talking about a time long
enough ago that land-dwelling creatures didn’t exist at all. But jellyfish existed, even 505 million years ago. That makes them almost twice as old
as we thought they were until recently. In 2007, researchers from the University of Kansas found new fossil evidence of jellyfish going back over
half a billion years, 200 million more than the oldest know jellyfish fossils up until that point. So it’s more accurate to say that jellyfish are 505
million years old at least. Who knows what evidence we may find to show they’re even older than that? (Science Daily)

03. NAUTILUS – 500 million years old

Half a billion years. That’s how long the nautilus has called our planet home, surviving all the major mass extinctions that hit the reset button on
life throughout the globe. But now the nautilus is in danger of becoming extinct. Why? Because humans like cool shells. People harvest the
nautilus because they prize their unique spiral shells and use them for decoration. But we’ve overfished them nearly to extinction. In places
where a person used to be able to catch hundreds per day, now only one or two may be caught. (Phys.org)

04. HORSESHOE CRAB – 445 million years old

Horseshoe crabs are among the most well-known of “living fossils,” having remained virtually unchanged for an astonishing 445 million years on
Earth. Canadian scientists found a new horseshoe-crab fossil that dated that far back in 2008. Although the creatures were already considered
one of the oldest living animals on the planet, the new fossil proved that they were a full 100 million years older than we previously knew, and yet
still the same today as they were all the way back then. (Science Daily)

05. COELACANTH – 360 million years old

Coelacanths used to be extinct … but then they weren’t! Well, not really. But we thought they’d been extinct for millions of years until we found
one in 1938. Since then, scientists have studied the very rare, endangered fish with great interest because they are so similar to the ancient fish
that eventually evolved to crawl out of the water and become the first land vertebrate. In fact, just last week, a team of scientists reported the
genome sequence of the coelacanth for the first time. Understanding the coelacanth’s genetic blueprint can help us understand how they
evolved into, well, just about everything. (Los Angeles Times)

06. LAMPREY – 360 million years old

Lampreys are creepy, eel-like parasites with circular mouth holes filled with dozens and dozens of small, sharp teeth that they use to latch onto
fish hosts and suck their blood. Disturbing, right? Well, if you’re hoping to get in a time machine and escape to a time when lampreys didn’t
exist, you’d have to go all the way back to the Palaeozoic era. In 2006, scientists studied a 360-million-year-old lamprey fossil, only to discover
that it was essentially the same as the lampreys we have today. “They’re very ancient, very primitive animals,” said Dr. Michael Coates of the
University of Chicago. (University of Chicago)

07. HORSESHOE SHRIMP – 200 million years old

The oldest shrimp on Earth, these ancient creatures took the messages in their yearbooks seriously: They haven’t changed. In some 200
million years on the planet, evolution hasn’t altered the horseshoe shrimp a bit. We know this because we have horseshoe-shrimp fossils from
that long ago, and they show an animal that is exactly the same as the ones that are still swimming around today. (Triops Guys)

08. STURGEON – 200 million years old

“Sturgeon” is actually an umbrella term for several species that have existed for around 200 million years. But despite being so ancient, almost
every species of sturgeon is now critically endangered due to that most deadly of predators: us. Sturgeon are harvested for their roe, which are
prized for their use in making caviar. But sturgeon grow and mature slowly (they can live for 100 years), so over-harvesting, pollution and habitat
destruction all combine to threaten their continued existence. The good news is that sturgeon are able to produce millions of eggs. The bad
news is that we keep eating those eggs. (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

09. TADPOLE SHRIMP – 220 million years old

Although tadpole shrimp have been on Earth for more than 200 million years, they are classified as an endangered species. Will they end their
long run of existence before today’s generations of humans? Maybe not. In 2010, scientists discovered a unique trait that gives these animals a
shot at continued survival. It seems their eggs can lie dry and dormant for extremely long periods and still create new life when rehydrated. Said
Dr. Larry Griffin from the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, “Now that we know how this curious creature survives, we have realised that there’s a
good chance there are more populations out there.” Here’s to 220 million more years. (The Telegraph more

10. FRILLED SHARK- 150 million years old

Frilled sharks are the oldest species of shark still in existence. Given their age, they are less evolved than more “modern” sharks, and therefore
their simple bodies appear like some combination of a shark and an eel. Like goblin sharks, frilled sharks live at the bottom of the ocean and so,
despite being caught occasionally by accident, they’re rarely encountered by humans. On the other hand, now that you see what a frilled shark
looks like, we can’t promise you won’t be seeing them in your nightmares. (Sharkfacts)

12. GOBLIN SHARK – 118 million years old

Goblin sharks are among the most terrifying creatures to behold, and for that reason, we’re
glad they dwell at the bottom of the ocean and rarely stray from there. That’s why humans have so infrequently laid eyes on these beasts, even
though they’ve been on Earth for as long as we have and much longer. A live goblin shark was caught in Japan in January 2007, but it died
within days. Still, scientists were able to examine the specimen and learn much about this rarely encountered living fossil. (National Geographic)

The_observer said:

Likely consequences for ocean organisms in relation to future predictions of elevated atmospheric CO2 content and ocean water temperature.

A composite analysis

From 50-600 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were usually 2-20 times higher than at present.
All the animals of concern evolved during this period.
We must not lose sight of the fact that plants have consumed once-abundant CO2 to the point that it is
0.000388 of the atmosphere.
Plants in the ocean also rely on CO2. There is a high ability to move the excess out of circulation, turning
it into oxygen (by plants) or calcium carbonate (by plants and animals).

We know that the Earth has seen these conditions before, and that all the same types of animals and plants
of the oceans successfully made it through far more extreme conditions. Virtually all the ecological niches were filled at all times.

If someone could demonstrate that there were no corals, clams, oysters, or shelled plankton when the Earth had double or triple the amount of
CO2 in the air, we would have reason for concern. Just as IPCC has concluded, there is no observational evidence that things would be better
or worse, or even different. Similarly, there is nothing conclusive in the very recent scientific literature to indicate any reason for concern.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Around 600 million years ago there was a snowball earth event, but although life existed in the sea, they were mainly microscopic and/or soft bodied.

A mass extinction of higher life forms occurred at the end of the Ediacaran period, 542 million years ago due to anoxia, which sent extinct the majority of the Ediacaran marine fauna.

(Anoxic events may have caused mass extinctions. These mass extinctions include some that geobiologists use as time markers in biostratigraphic dating. It is believed oceanic anoxic events are strongly linked to lapses in key oceanic current circulations, to climate warming and greenhouse gases. Enhanced volcanism (through the release of CO2) is the proposed central external trigger for euxinia.)

The Cambrian–Ordovician extinction event occurred approximately 488 million years ago. This early Phanerozoic Eon extinction event eliminated 27% of all families, 57% of all genera and 60% to 70% of all species. This extinction event was due to Glaciation and anoxia.

Another extinction event was about 440 million years ago. This was due to an initial period of warm greenhouse conditions, along with warm shallow seas covering much of the equatorial land masses, but this was interrupted by a pattern of erratic climatic fluctuations dominated by violent storms generated by warm sea surfaces. This resulted in the extinction of many pelagic (free-swimming) organisms, plus brachiopods, corals and trilobites.

The next great extinction event was the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse that occurred around 305 million years ago. Then abrupt Climate change devastated tropical rainforests, fragmenting the forests into isolated ‘islands’ and causing the extinction of about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera and 70% of all species.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event around 250 million years ago was the Earth’s largest extinction event and is known as the “Great Dying”, which killed 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species, including insects). This is the time of the Wrangellia flood basalts that would have released vast quantities of co2 into the environment causing Global Warming.

The Triassic–Jurassic extinction event around 200 million years ago caused the extinction of about 23% of all families, 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) and 70% to 75% of all species went extinct. Evidence points to anoxic bottom waters as the probable cause of the marine extinctions, with massive volcanism of the Karoo-Ferrar eruptions.

In conclusion, it was massive climate change events, some like we are heading for right now, with high co2 levels, which caused the extinctions. Where some survived, they were obviously in some refuge where conditions were not as severe and permitted them to survive. They then adapted and no doubt evolved into different species better adapted to the new climate regime.

You a quite wrong in saying because co2 levels have been higher in earlier times, therefore our increasing co2 will have little or no impact on the current species that have evolved to current conditions. This I think proves the highly dangerous direction we are taking by permitting co2 levels to rise, as already said, it will lead to runaway global warming and yet another mass extinction event of which we are the cause. You really should try and understand this Observer as it is vitally important for the survival of much of the world’s biota.

Much of the detail above was gleamed from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Breaking for dinner now, but shall address the other part of The_observer’s post later.

The_observer said:

How old are today’s reefs?

The geological record indicates that ancestors of modern coral reef ecosystems were formed at least 240 million years ago.

The coral reefs existing today began growing as early as 50 million years ago.

Most established coral reefs are between 5,000 and 10,000 years old.
Coral Reef NOAA

The graph below shows both atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and atmospheric global average temperature higher than at present
values for the entirety of the evolutionary period in which present ocean life, including coral reef inhabitants, evolved.
Under those elevated conditions ocean water temperature would be higher, & ocean water pH value lower than at present.

.

Just because some species in some refuge survive a mass extinction event, it does not mean all species do, or even those that do, do so in large numbers, it just means somehow they survived. They then went on to adapt and probably evolve into new species to suit the new environment. However, when a coral reef dies, it is like a forest dying as many animals from tube-worms to fish also die and/or are displaced, in other words the reef is an entire ecosystem, which if you destroy it, much more will be destroyed.

Mass extinctions happen when things like the environment change quickly and animals do not have time to adjust of migrate somewhere else. The speed of change of current climate is extremely rapid and will increase as other factors come into play.

Give up PF.

Evidence doesn’t count against belief (it’s no different to religion).

Have a beer on me and when we’re dead and gone our kids and grand kids will be the ones dealing with our short-sightedness

:(

The_observer said:

.
12 OLDEST ANIMAL SPECIES ON EARTH

What are the oldest animals on Earth that still exist today? We’ll tell you about the 12 oldest,
as long as you’re willing to travel under the sea to meet them.

01. SPONGE – 760 million years old

It’s unclear exactly how long sea sponges have been around, but they are at least old enough to be the longest-existing creatures on Earth,
outside the realm of microorganisms (like bacteria). The oldest evidence of a sea sponge found was a fossil discovered just last year in a 760-
million-year-old rock. This beat the previous record for oldest sea-sponge fossil, a 635-million-year-old sponge discovered in 2009. There may
be still older fossils yet to find. But finding an older species is unlikely, as these simple organisms appear to be the progenitors of much more
complicated life, including the first multicelluar animals. (National Geographic)

2. JELLYFISH – 505 million years old

As we get to the very oldest animals on Earth, they become more and more primitive. That’s because now we’re talking about a time long
enough ago that land-dwelling creatures didn’t exist at all. But jellyfish existed, even 505 million years ago. That makes them almost twice as old
as we thought they were until recently. In 2007, researchers from the University of Kansas found new fossil evidence of jellyfish going back over
half a billion years, 200 million more than the oldest know jellyfish fossils up until that point. So it’s more accurate to say that jellyfish are 505
million years old at least. Who knows what evidence we may find to show they’re even older than that? (Science Daily)

03. NAUTILUS – 500 million years old

Half a billion years. That’s how long the nautilus has called our planet home, surviving all the major mass extinctions that hit the reset button on
life throughout the globe. But now the nautilus is in danger of becoming extinct. Why? Because humans like cool shells. People harvest the
nautilus because they prize their unique spiral shells and use them for decoration. But we’ve overfished them nearly to extinction. In places
where a person used to be able to catch hundreds per day, now only one or two may be caught. (Phys.org)

04. HORSESHOE CRAB – 445 million years old

Horseshoe crabs are among the most well-known of “living fossils,” having remained virtually unchanged for an astonishing 445 million years on
Earth. Canadian scientists found a new horseshoe-crab fossil that dated that far back in 2008. Although the creatures were already considered
one of the oldest living animals on the planet, the new fossil proved that they were a full 100 million years older than we previously knew, and yet
still the same today as they were all the way back then. (Science Daily)

05. COELACANTH – 360 million years old

Coelacanths used to be extinct … but then they weren’t! Well, not really. But we thought they’d been extinct for millions of years until we found
one in 1938. Since then, scientists have studied the very rare, endangered fish with great interest because they are so similar to the ancient fish
that eventually evolved to crawl out of the water and become the first land vertebrate. In fact, just last week, a team of scientists reported the
genome sequence of the coelacanth for the first time. Understanding the coelacanth’s genetic blueprint can help us understand how they
evolved into, well, just about everything. (Los Angeles Times)

06. LAMPREY – 360 million years old

Lampreys are creepy, eel-like parasites with circular mouth holes filled with dozens and dozens of small, sharp teeth that they use to latch onto
fish hosts and suck their blood. Disturbing, right? Well, if you’re hoping to get in a time machine and escape to a time when lampreys didn’t
exist, you’d have to go all the way back to the Palaeozoic era. In 2006, scientists studied a 360-million-year-old lamprey fossil, only to discover
that it was essentially the same as the lampreys we have today. “They’re very ancient, very primitive animals,” said Dr. Michael Coates of the
University of Chicago. (University of Chicago)

07. HORSESHOE SHRIMP – 200 million years old

The oldest shrimp on Earth, these ancient creatures took the messages in their yearbooks seriously: They haven’t changed. In some 200
million years on the planet, evolution hasn’t altered the horseshoe shrimp a bit. We know this because we have horseshoe-shrimp fossils from
that long ago, and they show an animal that is exactly the same as the ones that are still swimming around today. (Triops Guys)

08. STURGEON – 200 million years old

“Sturgeon” is actually an umbrella term for several species that have existed for around 200 million years. But despite being so ancient, almost
every species of sturgeon is now critically endangered due to that most deadly of predators: us. Sturgeon are harvested for their roe, which are
prized for their use in making caviar. But sturgeon grow and mature slowly (they can live for 100 years), so over-harvesting, pollution and habitat
destruction all combine to threaten their continued existence. The good news is that sturgeon are able to produce millions of eggs. The bad
news is that we keep eating those eggs. (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

09. TADPOLE SHRIMP – 220 million years old

Although tadpole shrimp have been on Earth for more than 200 million years, they are classified as an endangered species. Will they end their
long run of existence before today’s generations of humans? Maybe not. In 2010, scientists discovered a unique trait that gives these animals a
shot at continued survival. It seems their eggs can lie dry and dormant for extremely long periods and still create new life when rehydrated. Said
Dr. Larry Griffin from the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, “Now that we know how this curious creature survives, we have realised that there’s a
good chance there are more populations out there.” Here’s to 220 million more years. (The Telegraph more

10. FRILLED SHARK- 150 million years old

Frilled sharks are the oldest species of shark still in existence. Given their age, they are less evolved than more “modern” sharks, and therefore
their simple bodies appear like some combination of a shark and an eel. Like goblin sharks, frilled sharks live at the bottom of the ocean and so,
despite being caught occasionally by accident, they’re rarely encountered by humans. On the other hand, now that you see what a frilled shark
looks like, we can’t promise you won’t be seeing them in your nightmares. (Sharkfacts)

12. GOBLIN SHARK – 118 million years old

Goblin sharks are among the most terrifying creatures to behold, and for that reason, we’re
glad they dwell at the bottom of the ocean and rarely stray from there. That’s why humans have so infrequently laid eyes on these beasts, even
though they’ve been on Earth for as long as we have and much longer. A live goblin shark was caught in Japan in January 2007, but it died
within days. Still, scientists were able to examine the specimen and learn much about this rarely encountered living fossil. (National Geographic)

For a start, although families survive, the species are not the same species to what they were originally, in other words they have evolved and species are more likely to evolve when their environment changes, it is just fortunate that the creatures you mentioned found refuge or had physical attributes that permitted them to survive whilst others perished.

The jelly fish is a very good example of survival, it has no bone, it breaths oxygen directly from the water, it can swim or be carried along by currents and the tide, catches a large variety of food of varying sizes with little effort, plus can go for long periods without food. It has another advantage too, in that it can reproduce prolifically and if plankton eating fish have been reduced or sent extinct more of its offspring will survive, until there is little else in the ocean.

Survival in mass extinction events is not something you can plan or manipulate, because it usually changes for a very long time and in the meantime you need to find food and other necessities, which will most likely be in short supply, or the refuge is of limited area. So it is luck or pure chance that you find yourself in an environment that is tolerable and therefore survivable, or you have some physical advantage that will allow you to do so. These things are not predictable as nature is such a complex web of inter-reliability inasmuch something(s) you rely upon do not survive, so neither will you. Survivable is very much a gamble with unforeseen consequences.

Teleost said:

Give up PF.

Evidence doesn’t count against belief (it’s no different to religion).

Have a beer on me and when we’re dead and gone our kids and grand kids will be the ones dealing with our short-sightedness

:(

I know I wont convince him, but to let these people be so destructive is something I find so hard to do. If a person climbed onto a big dozer and started clearing the forest, there would be a great stink and the person would be stopped and punished. Yet people like The_observer who are so very much more destructive and a threat to all life, can not only get away with it, but still be accepted into decent society.

Causes for mass extinctions

IMPACT FROM SPACE

MAGNETIC FIELD REVERSAL

GAMMA-RAY BURST

BOUNCING SOLAR SYSTEM

TOXIC GAS
The end-Permian extinction was caused by humble bacteria, multiplying out of control and pumping out toxic gasses. The Zechstein Sea, a
prehistoric hyper-saline body the size of France, may have been home to bacteria that produced plant-killing halogenated hydrocarbons (HHCs).

SUDDEN SEA LEVEL CHANGE
The mass extinction that decimated marine life during the late Devonian coincided with rapid fluctuations in sea levels. Each change on its
own damaged the marine ecosystem, although not catastrophically. Rather, scientists suspect that it was the repeated changes that finally
caused marine ecosystems to collapse. (a time of 40,000 year glacial cycles)

SUPER VOLCANO
are giant eruptions of lava that can last a million years and cover a million km2 of the surface. Supervolcanoes give off trillions of tonnes of
carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, fluorine and chlorine. Super volcanoes have been cited as possible causes for mass extinction events at the
end of the Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous periods.

PLANETARY BELCH
Huge quantities of the greenhouse gas methane are trapped in solids called clathrates in the oceans and permafrost.
Experts predict that a sudden release, perhaps caused by an undersea landslide or an asteroid strike, could cause catastrophic global
warming.
———————————————————————————————

so, for co2 to be a problem we would need a SUPER VOLCANO,
& for methane – some massive undersea landslide (all natural) or an asteroid strike.

Still, all ocean life today was initiated, evolved & existed when co2 was 2 to 20 times higher – & pH lower,
& global temperatures were higher- & oceans warmer.

All ocean life has existed & survived through these conditions as well as fluctuations of higher ph levels & colder oceans.

Fact.

>>> Yet people like The_observer who are so very much more destructive and a threat to all life, can not only get away with it, but still be accepted into decent society.<<

You truly are a self-righteous fuckwit.

It is your kind who keep the poor starving in the world living a squalid existence.

It is your kind who cause people, including children, to die from trees falling on then & their houses & schools because of your delusional worshiping of the environment where not a tree can be felled no matter how unsuitable it is to its surroundings.

It’s your kind who have people living in caves

You are delusional & despised by rational people.

Now, back to the thread’s topic

GERMANY’S ‘GODFATHER OF GREEN’ TURNS SKEPTIC

Date: 10/02/12
This month’s shock new bestseller in Germany is a climate skeptical book called Die Kalte Sonne (“The Cold Sun.”). It’s shocking not just
because Germany has, up till now, been one of Europe’s most ecologically correct economies, but also because its co-author Professor Fritz
Vahrenholt is one of the country’s best known environmentalists.

If Al Gore or David Suzuki or NASA’s Jim Hansen were suddenly to renounce man-made global warming, it could hardly be more surprising. Up
until two years ago, Vahrenholt was Germany’s Godfather of Green: a green activist and former environment minister for the State of Hamburg.
In his new book, however, published by one of Germany’s most respected, mainstream publishers Hoffman und Campe, Vahrenholt pours cold
water on the notion of catastrophic man-made global warming. He accepts that the planet has warmed by 0.8 degrees C in the last century –
but not the idea that this is anything to worry about.

Vahrenholt first began to smell a rat two years ago when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. According to blogger P
Gosselin he was not impressed:

“He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way
they approached the climate assessment reports? Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Sebastian Lüning also gave him a
copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion.

He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die
kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science. Conclusion: climate
catastrophe is called off.

Vahrenholt’s dramatic change of heart has caused predictable rage in German green circles. The University of Osnabruck recently disinvited
him from a speaking engagement on February 8 claiming his views were “provocative”. Traditionally skeptical views like his are dismissed as
“being in the pay of Big Oil.” But with Vahrenholt the charge just does not stick. As German magazine Focus reports, Vahrenholt has for years
been an advocate of renewables, not fossil fuels:

“Since 2001 he has worked for companies that earn their money with renewable energy, first for Repower Systems, a leading manufacturer of
wind turbines. Since 2008 for Innogy, the largest German investor in renewable energy. The RWE subsidiary invested over one billion Euros
annually in CO2-free electricity. Accordingly, it would be in his interest to celebrate the transformation of energy by the Federal Government.

However, he does the opposite.”The promotion of photovoltaics is madness,” he said in Munich. “It is the most uneconomic form of climate
protection.” He still considers wind power to be reasonable. But his earlier euphoria was dampened, as he experienced in 2008 and 2009 that
the wind sometimes pauses for weeks in Central Europe. He began to learn about cyclical fluctuations in air pressure, which exert a strong
influence on the wind patterns and the climate.

Die Kalte Sonne’s popularity reflects a growing skepticism among the German public about the likelihood of climate catastrophe. Today only 31
per cent of Germans are afraid of global warming. In 2006, the figure was twice as many.

But this newfound climate realism may yet come too late to save Germany from a looming energy crisis. This has been caused partly by the
Angela Merkel government’s electorally popular but economically short-sighted decision to phase out nuclear power (in the wake of last year’s
Japanese earthquake disaster). As Germans are beginning to discover to their cost, the “great transition” to renewable energy is not running
smoothly.

As Financial Times Deutschland reported in November, 2011:

“Fritz Vahrenholt, CEO of RWE’s renewable division, warned against the “danger of blackouts” given the rapid shutdown of many German
nuclear power plants and pointed to rising energy prices and the growing import of nuclear power. At the same time, the nuclear energy phase-
out also removes a source of revenue for investments in green power for energy suppliers. Lack of electricity grids are further slowing down the
development of renewables; delays are caused by bureaucratic procedures and citizen protests.

The situation is critical for wind energy, which plays a central role in the energy concept of the government. On Wednesday, the electricity
network operator Tennet, which has to wire all offshore installations in the North Sea, warned that to wire dozens of wind farms at a same time,
as planned, would fail due to “lack of financial, human and material resources of all involved”; as it is written in an urgent letter to the
Chancellor’s Office, the Economic and Environment Ministries: “The conditions have to be substantially revised and the burden has to spread
over more shoulders.”

Germany’s solar revolution has proved just as ineffectual. According to Spiegel Online the drive for solar – in a country not generally renowned
for its abundance of sunshine – has cost the German taxpayer more than 100 billion Euros in subsidies.

Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope, to an impediment to a reliable energy supply. Solar farm operators and homeowners
with solar panels on their roofs collected more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but the electricity they generated made up only
about 3 percent of the total power supply, and that at unpredictable times.

The distribution networks are not designed to allow tens of thousands of solar panel owners to switch at will between drawing electricity from
the grid and feeding power into it. Because there are almost no storage options, the excess energy has to be destroyed at substantial cost.
German consumers already complain about having to pay the second-highest electricity prices in Europe. Until now, Chancellor Angela Merkel
had consistently touted the environmental sector’s “opportunities for exports, development, technology and jobs.” But now even members of her
own staff are calling it a massive money pit.

Then again, in Europe as in the US, the drive for renewables was never really about practical economic considerations. It always had much
more to do with the quasi-religious, anti-capitalist zeal of campaigners like Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research and chairman of theScientific Advisory Council on Global Environmental Change (WBGU), an influential
advisory committee for the German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

In April 2011, the WBGU presented a report entitled “World in Transition – Social Contract for a Great Transformation”. The main theses of the
WBGU are as follows: The current economic model (“fossil industrial metabolism”) is normatively untenable. “The transformation to a climate
friendly economy… is morally as necessary as the abolition of slavery and the outlawing of child labor.” The reorganization of the world
economy has to happen quickly; nuclear energy and coal have to be given up at the same time and very soon.

As Vahrenholt noted in Die Welt, this is akin to the sweeping totalitarian measures undertaken in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s or in
China under Mao’s Great Leap Forward. Germany, warned Vahrenholt, is in danger of “Sliding head over heels into eco dictatorship.”

Are you Tony Abbott’s environment adviser?

California Drought Linked To Global Warming In New Study

WASHINGTON (AP) — While researchers have sometimes connected weather extremes to man-made global warming, usually it’s not done in real time. Now a study is asserting a link between climate change and both the intensifying California drought and the polar vortex blamed for a harsh winter that mercifully has just ended in many places.

more….

Warming boosts UK flooding risk

A citizen science project suggests climate change really has increased the risk of flooding in the UK.

The issue has been highlighted by the recent floods, amid a January that saw double the normal monthly rainfall in parts of England.

Prof Myles Allen presented evidence of a link between floods and climate change at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) meeting in Vienna.

It indicates climate change is increasing the risk of extreme weather.

more….

Great Barrier Reef: If the fossil fuel industry made ice cream
Great Barrier Reef under pressure from dredging and climate change despite the TV claims from the fossil fuel industry

If the fossil fuel industry made fancy ice cream, what flavour would it be?

Maybe a dollop of Triple Fossil Ripple with luscious layers of coal, gas and shale oil? How about a bowl of Lignite Wonderland? Anyone for Coal Briquette Cookie Dough?

Would you be tempted by the slick marketing of that tub of Clean Coal Fantasy Truffle, only to find the tub is entirely empty?

Can we entice you with our Cool Blue Ocean Acidifier with a topping of crumbled reef coral?

more…

TECHNOLOGY INTRODUCTIONS
IN THE CONTEXT OF DECARBONISATION
Lessons from recent history
Professor Michael J Kelly

Introduction

The climate science community has convinced many policymakers and politicians of the need to decarbonise the world economy in short
order. Their case, and whether it is credible or not, is not the issue in this paper, but rather some of the lessons of the recent history of
technology evolution that should not be lost in the rush.

There are rules concerning the introduction of new technologies, and there are penalties for flouting them. If we are setting out to decarbonise
the world economy, we should set out as if we mean to succeed, and not, as now, take actions that will certainly not succeed. Indeed, if we look
at the introduction of Watt’s coal-fired steam engine, and the rise of electricity as an energy source, we can see why they succeeded and then
divine what is needed in the decarbonisation project. From recent history I introduce nine lessons that are germane to any programmes we
undertake, plus a tenth if the scientific consensus on climate change should shift over the next decade. I also make three concrete suggestions
relating to the way forward.

Lessons

Lesson1: Successful new energy technologies improve the lot of mankind

Energy from steam engines and electricity from turbines have enabled many features of the present lifestyles of the developed world. One only
has to go to a remote mountainside community that is off-grid in a developing country to see that life choices, health risks, food security and
variety, transport and indeed life expectancy itself are all inferior to those enjoyed in the UK. No-one or no community turns down the option of
access to electricity or fossil-fuel powered amenities on the basis of being better off without them.

Cont

Lesson2: Since 90% of the global improvement in mankind’s estate since 1800 has been enabled by burning fossil fuels, the scale of the
decarbonisation project is without historical precedent.

Cont

Lesson 3: Since over 50% of the global population in 2050 will live in megacities, that is the problem to be tackled first; 35% of all world energy
today is used in buildings, mainly for heating and cooling; current generation renewables cannot energise megacities.

Cont

Lesson 4: Successful new infrastructure and energy technologies are to be widely deployed only when they are both mature and economic, and
there are penalties for flouting these conditions; any lessons from software, such as getting the customers to perfect the product, simply do not
work with infrastructure projects

Cont

Lesson 5: There are salutary lessons from the first round of renewables technologies, which date back to the reaction to the 1970s oil crises

In the USA in the 1970s, there was a rushed programme of research and development, examining alternative energy sources that might help
insulate the economy from oil shocks. This was an entirely appropriate response. The premature roll out of some of these technologies in
California in particular in the late 1980s provides a stark lesson. By googling the terms ‘abandoned solar farm’ or ‘abandoned wind farm’ one
can see square kilometres of derelict solar panels and over 14,000 abandoned wind turbines in the Mojave desert alone.

Cont

Lesson 6: Government subsidies for premature roll-out are a recipe for disaster, whereas they are appropriate for R&D and trials at scale

There is no global counter-example to the statement that government subsidies for new energy technology deployment into liberalised energy
markets have produced and will continue to produce a litany of failure. By contrast, every developed nation is supporting energy technology
research and trials at a sufficiently large scale to learn lessons for commercial roll-out. For governments to learn such lessons is particularly
important when the whole world energy system needs changing, and taxpayers and consumers must between them pay the bills.

Cont

Lesson 7: Technology developments are not usually pre-programmable

Why do new technologies emerge when they do? Why was steam power not available a century before it was? In general, new technologies
emerge from new scientific understanding, but the timescale for them to mature sufficiently to be deployed is measured in decades.

Cont

Lesson 8: Nothing will happen if the population is not trusting

There have been many reports of the low take-up of offers of even public funded energy efficiency measures.21 Cambridge City Council
encountered this problem a few years ago when it tried to give away insulation to the public, an offer that did not even achieve a 5% uptake. The
hassle factor, the mistrust of ‘men in white vans’ and the absence of a 25-year guarantee against unintended consequences were more
powerful deterrents that the attraction of lower energy bills and ‘saving the planet’. The UK’s ‘Green Deal’ has had not only these problems but
also encountered an unwillingness to incur extra debts in a time of credit squeeze.

Lesson 9: Finance is limited, so actions at scale must be prioritised

A figure of £200 billion is used in the public domain to give a sense of the scale of the investment needed in this coming decade to renew the
energy infrastructure in the UK.
It is clear that much of what has been done with renewables is unlikely to repay the investors. To see this, one only has to consider the plight of
farmers in Spain who converted to solar and wind energy from agriculture and who are now nursing very large debts in the wake of the Spanish
Government’s decision to renege on the generous terms that attracted the farmers in the first place. The remaining indebtedness of Spain
because of commitments in the energy sector is larger than the sums involved in the recent bail-out of their banking system. It is likely to be
several decades before the memory of this present state of affairs is forgotten and before the sums of money required to decarbonise the
economy in Spain might be forthcoming.

Cont

Lesson10: If the scientific basis of the present climate imperative changes in the next decade, all the present constraints concerning urgent decarbonisation are greatly weakened

The Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that in the period 1950–2012 the temperature rose at
0.12◦C/decade,24 which is a 40% reduction on the 0.2◦C/decade shown the previous assessment.25 In fact there has been no surface
temperature rise since 1997. If the current temperature hiatus continues all the earlier sting of claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global
warming will have been removed. There is currently a divide within the climate science community between those who rely on computer
models and those who continue to study the empirical data when making future projections of global temperature. The latter predict another
century like the last, with a 1◦C warming, while the former produce estimated temperature rises of 3–6◦C via an acceleration in warming of a
kind that that has not been seen since a brief period in the late 1970s. The empiricists’ predictions of a cessation of warming followed by a
plateau or fall starting about the year 2000 and lasting anywhere up to 30 years have been fully borne out by the data so far. If their predictions
continue to prove correct, then within a decade there will be a widespread agreement that, whatever the merits of the models themselves, they
will have proven fundamentally incapable of predicting future climates on the scale of decades as a guide to devising the wise human response.

Cont

Suggestions

Suggestion 1

Stay with business as usual and work to make the economy less needful of carbon. The error of the Malthusians is to overestimate the problem
and underestimate the human capacity for ingenuity to solve the problem.

Cont

Suggestion 2

The success of any programmes for the deployment of infrastructure assets ought to be virtually guaranteed, in order to justify the use of
scarce resources.

Cont

Suggestion 3

Human attitudes and personal behaviour are all important. Only once the majority of the world population is convinced that the future dangers
are real – and down the last two centuries too many Malthusians have cried wolf only to be proven comprehensively wrong – will action at the
scale required to produce a low-carbon economy be undertaken.

Cont

Conclusion

The current trajectory of low-carbon technologies around the world is profoundly mistaken. Earlier generations ignored the warnings of experts
of impending doom, and so far they have proved correct to do so.1 It is highly likely that history is repeating itself. Without major social
disruption, the Dutch have adapted to rising sea levels over previous centuries, and they should be a model for the world going forward.
Adaptation as necessary should be pursued, while, in my opinion, the necessity for mitigation through decarbonisation of the economy remains
unproven in the absence of any reliable alternative technologies that would solve the problem at a global scale.

About the author
Michael J Kelly FRS FREng is Prince Philip Professor of Technology, Department of Engineering,
University of Cambridge. He has no commercial interests outside mainstream electronics.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/03/Kelly-lessons.pdf

Germany’s Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders

By Howard Rich

There’s nothing wrong with expanding renewable energy sources. The more choices available in this (or any) marketplace the better
consumers will be served – both from a price and a quality standpoint. However serious problems are caused when government starts using
taxpayer resources to subsidize or incentivize these expansions. Things get even worse when centralized planners start manipulating market
choices or trying to manage the marketplace itself by controlling the generation of power.

This is precisely what is happening in Germany – where command economists have failed spectacularly in their bid to force a national transition
to renewable energy.

In 2000 Germany passed a major green initiative which forced providers to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant fixed prices and feed that
power through their grids for a period of twenty years. Promulgated by a Socialist-Green coalition government – this initiative has since been
embraced by Germany’s Conservative-Liberal majority, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

(sounds remarkably like what’s happened in Australia, except our Conservative-Liberal majority has seen what BS this all is.
Affirmative action – canning the carbon tax & decommissioning government carbon loving bureaucracies, saving millions -
great for our countries energy security & economy.)

The problem? Despite heavy government subsidization, renewable energies simply aren’t filling the void.

Merkel’s energy plan called for the addition of 25,000 megawatts of sea-based wind turbine power by 2030. However through the first six
months of 2012 only 45 megawatts had been added to Germany’s existing 200-megawatt supply, according to an industry analyst quoted by
Reuters. And despite massive subsidies funded by a household energy surcharge (which currently comprises 14 percent of German power
bills), major wind projects in the North Sea are being delayed or canceled due to skittish investors.

The basic problem? Wind farms are notoriously unreliable as a power source. Not only that, they take up vast amounts of space and kill tens of
thousands of birds annually.

“Generating energy with wind involves extreme fluctuations because it depends on the weather and includes periods without any recognizable
capacity for days, or suddenly occurring supply peaks that push the grid to its limits,” a 2012 report from Germany energy expert Dr. Guenter
Keil notes. “There is a threat of power outages over large areas, mainly in wintertime when the demand is high and less (power) gets delivered
from abroad.”

A typical 20-turbine wind farm occupies an area of 250 acres. So in order for Merkel to achieve her objective, she would have to cover an area
six times the size of New York City with turbines. Not surprisingly the erection of all those turbines – along with the infrastructure needed to
route their inconsistent power supply back to the German heartland – would be astronomical.

“The costs of our energy reform and restructuring of energy provision could amount to around one trillion euros by the end of the 2030s,”
Germany’s environmental minister announced last month.

That sum could rise even higher, as last month a Harvard University study revealed the extent to which the power generating potential of wind
farms has been “overestimated.”

“The generating capacity of very large wind power installations may peak at between 0.5 and 1 watts per square meter,” the study concluded.
“Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines’ slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter.”

Such are the shifting sands upon which Merkel has staked her country’s energy future.

Because renewable power sources have been so unreliable, Germany has been forced to construct numerous new coal plants in an effort to
replace the nuclear energy it has taken offline. In fact the country will build more coal-fired facilities this year than at any time in the past two
decades – bringing an estimated 5,300 megawatts of new capacity online. Most of these facilities will burn lignite, too, which is strip-mined and
emits nearly 30 percent more carbon dioxide than hard coal.

In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy – and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can
subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.

This is the cautionary tale of command energy economics – one other nations would be wise to heed.

Is global warming just a giant natural fluctuation?

Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99% certainty
Published: 11 Apr 2014

An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.

“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”

more…

IPCC to deliver ‘darkest’ draft yet

UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed.

A draft of their report, seen by the news organisation AFP, is part of a massive overview by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come.

Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from tomorrow to hammer out a 29-page summary. It will be unveiled with the full report on March 31.

“We have a lot clearer picture of impacts and their consequences … including the implications for security,” said Chris Field of the US’s Carnegie Institution, who headed the probe.

The work comes six months after the first volume in the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report declared scientists were more certain than ever that humans caused global warming.

more…

Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming

Abstract

Although current global warming may have a large anthropogenic component, its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes; it is desirable to complement this with empirically based methodologies. Previous attempts to use the recent climate record have concentrated on “fingerprinting” or otherwise comparing the record with GCM outputs.

more…

>>>>>
Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99% certainty

In this paper we have argued that since >>> 1880 <<< anthropogenic warming has dominated
the natural variability to such an extent that straightforward empirical estimates of the total
warming can be made.
<<<<<<<

“One thing anyone who studies any kind of physics knows is that claiming results to three standard deviations, or 99% confidence, requires – at
minimum – that the data underlying the claim are exceptionally precise and trustworthy and, in particular, that the measurement error is
minuscule.

“Just how likely is it that we can measure global mean surface temperature over time either as an absolute value or as an anomaly to a
precision of less than 1/30 Cº? It cannot be done. Yet it was essential to Lovejoy’s fiction that he should pretend it could be done, for otherwise
his laughable attempt to claim 99% certainty for yet another me-too, can-I-have-another-grant-please result using speculative modeling would
have visibly failed at the first fence.”
.
.

<<<<<<
Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99% certainty

Lovejoy
<<<<

No Love Of Joy: Yet Another Author Claims Statistically Significant Temperature Change
Posted on 12 April 2014

by Matt Briggs

To show you how low climatological discourse has sunk, in the new paper in Climate Dynamics Shaun Lovejoy (a name which we are now
entitled to doubt) wrote out a trivially simple model of global temperature change and after which inserted the parenthetical words “skeptics may
be assured that this hypothesis will be tested and indeed quantified in the following analysis”. In published comments he also fixated on the
word “deniers.” If there is anybody left who says climate science is no different than politics, raise his hand. Anybody? Anybody?

His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic
contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature.
(Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair)

His conclusion is to “reject”, at the gosh-oh-gee level of 99.9%, that the change of “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature is 0.

Can you see it? The gross error, I mean. His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature and then he had to
supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change; I weep). Was there thus
any chance of rejecting the data he added as “non-significant”?

Is there any proof that his model is a useful representation of the actual atmosphere? None at all. But, hey, I may be wrong. I therefore challenge
Lovejoy to use his model to predict future temperatures. If it’s any good, it will be able to skillfully do so. I’m willing to bet good money it can’t.

——————————————————————

About the Author

Matt Briggs

EXPERIENCE

2004-present Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
I teach one course a year to people who (rightfully) hate statistics. See my web page for that which interests me.
1998-present. Statistical consultant, Various companies
The rest of my time is spent coaxing people out of their money for telling them they are too sure of themselves. All manner of analyses
cheerfully undertaken. Example: I created the Wall Street Journal’s College Rankings.
Freelance writer, Various places
Crisis, Pajamas Media, Quirks, and others.
2003-2010. Research Scientist, New York Methodist Hospital, New York.
Besides the usual, I sit/sat on the Institutional Review Committee to review the statistics of proposed research. I was an Associate Editor for Monthly Weather Review (through 2011). Also a member of the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee (through 2011). At a hospital? Yes, sir; at a hospital.
2007, 2010 Visiting Professor of Statistics, Department of Mathematics, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI
Ask me about the difference between “a degree” and “an education.”
2003-2007, Assistant Professor Statistics, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York
Working here gave me a sincere appreciation for the awfulness of grants.
2002-2003. Gotham Risk Management, New York
A start up then, after Enron’s shenanigans, a start down. We set future weather derivative and weather insurance contract prices that incorporated information from medium- and long-range weather and climate forecasts
1998-2002. DoubleClick, New York
Yes, I was part of the evil empire. I have since repented.
1993-1998. Graduate student, Cornell University
Meteorology, applied climatology, and finally statistics. Was Vice Chair of the graduate student government; elected thanks to the miracle of ethanol.
1992-1993. National Weather Service, Sault Ste. Marie, MI
Forecast storms o’ the day and launched enormous balloons in the name of science. My proudest moment came when I was able to convince an ancient IBM-AT machine to talk to an analog, 110 baud, phone-coupled modem, all using BASIC!
1989-1992. Undergraduate student, Central Michigan University
Meteorology and mathematics. Started the local student meteorology group to chase tornadoes. Who knew Michigan had so few? Spent a summer at U. Michigan playing with a science-fiction-sounding lidar.
1983-1989. United States Air Force
Cryptography and other secret stuff. Shot things; learned pinochle. I adopted and became proficient with a fascinating and versatile vocabulary. Irritate me for examples. TS/SCI+ security clearance (now inactive).
Education

Ph.D., 2004, Cornell University. Statistics.
M.S., 1995, Cornell University. Atmospheric Science.
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1992, Central Michigan University. Meteorology and Math.

The tactics of The-observer is to flood the forum with stuff, which is impossible to check. Just remember, it is people like The-observer who are stealing the future of your children and grandchildren; and all so a few greedy people can keep on mining fossil fuels.

You are talking very big money here and every additional year they can mine means gross sums of money in their pockets and for them it is nothing to pay people like the observer a lot of money to lobby the politicians, government agencies, the media and anyone who they think might be able to muddy the water and delay action on climate change and hence their profits.

You are dealing with highly unscrupulous people who are denying the science and climate scientists and you should be aware of it. No matter what you say or what you do, they will always have an answer because they are not interested in the logic, but creating as much confusion as possible. These are very dangerous people.

PermeateFree said:

The tactics of The-observer is to flood the forum with stuff, which is impossible to check. Just remember, it is people like The-observer who are stealing the future of your children and grandchildren; and all so a few greedy people can keep on mining fossil fuels.

You are talking very big money here and every additional year they can mine means gross sums of money in their pockets and for them it is nothing to pay people like the observer a lot of money to lobby the politicians, government agencies, the media and anyone who they think might be able to muddy the water and delay action on climate change and hence their profits.

You are dealing with highly unscrupulous people who are denying the science and climate scientists and you should be aware of it. No matter what you say or what you do, they will always have an answer because they are not interested in the logic, but creating as much confusion as possible. These are very dangerous people.

if anyone is reading this I am available for comment for some small sum of reward

your humbly

wookiemeister

From: PermeateFree
ID: 525994
Subject: re: Guest essay by Fred F. Mueller
The tactics of The-observer is to flood the forum with stuff, which is impossible to check. Just remember, it is people like The-observer who are stealing the future of your children and grandchildren; and all so a few greedy people can keep on mining fossil fuels.

You are talking very big money here and every additional year they can mine means gross sums of money in their pockets and for them it is nothing to pay people like the observer a lot of money to lobby the politicians, government agencies, the media and anyone who they think might be able to muddy the water and delay action on climate change and hence their profits.

You are dealing with highly unscrupulous people who are denying the science and climate scientists and you should be aware of it. No matter what you say or what you do, they will always have an answer because they are not interested in the logic, but creating as much confusion as possible. These are very dangerous people.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

who on earth do you think reads that shit?

& moreover, who on earth do think is gullible enough to believe a word of it?

you’ve got fucking big problems pal

The_observer said:

From: PermeateFree
ID: 525994
Subject: re: Guest essay by Fred F. Mueller
The tactics of The-observer is to flood the forum with stuff, which is impossible to check. Just remember, it is people like The-observer who are stealing the future of your children and grandchildren; and all so a few greedy people can keep on mining fossil fuels.

You are talking very big money here and every additional year they can mine means gross sums of money in their pockets and for them it is nothing to pay people like the observer a lot of money to lobby the politicians, government agencies, the media and anyone who they think might be able to muddy the water and delay action on climate change and hence their profits.

You are dealing with highly unscrupulous people who are denying the science and climate scientists and you should be aware of it. No matter what you say or what you do, they will always have an answer because they are not interested in the logic, but creating as much confusion as possible. These are very dangerous people.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

who on earth do you think reads that shit?

& moreover, who on earth do think is gullible enough to believe a word of it?

you’ve got fucking big problems pal

Think yours are much bigger and do you really think people read the reams of junk you post?. You are a charlatan Observer and one the public should know about.

>>>do you really think people read the reams of junk you post?.
<<<

No! Just you

>>>>You are a charlatan Observer and one the public should know about.
<<<<

Now I get it. You’re in a delusion that you are head honcho
in Juliar’s Citizens Assembly. And you believe it’s your calling
to try & convince everyone that we’re all dooooomed.

Good luck with that

whistles

Gunna rain

The_observer said:

>>>do you really think people read the reams of junk you post?.
<<<

No! Just you

>>>>You are a charlatan Observer and one the public should know about.
<<<<

Now I get it. You’re in a delusion that you are head honcho
in Juliar’s Citizens Assembly. And you believe it’s your calling
to try & convince everyone that we’re all dooooomed.

Good luck with that

We are very likely doomed if people like you get their way. You really do not know, or more likely care about what you are doing.

Did you guys sort this out yet?

Dropbear said:

whistles

Gunna rain

Looks like it:

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR503.loop.shtml

Michael V said:

Dropbear said:

whistles

Gunna rain

Looks like it:

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR503.loop.shtml

Mostly passed. Not much in it for us.

Michael V said:

Michael V said:

Dropbear said:

whistles

Gunna rain

Looks like it:

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR503.loop.shtml

Mostly passed. Not much in it for us.

Just like tax cuts

>>>Did you guys sort this out yet?
<<<

Yes;

Perm is an intolerant extremist who takes the worst case scenario & demands everyone believe things will actually be even worse. He ignores
every piece of evidence to the contrary, no matter who provides it.
Any & everyone with a different opinion he portrays as ethically & morally repugnant, ignorant & unintellectual, & as having undesirable motives.

He uses foul language to denigrate these people, even for subtle comments not directed towards him. His intolerance goes so far he perceives
it is his right to bully & harass others in an attempt to silence them, to the point they cease to partake here at this forum (this is what his stated
intention was for me).

-

I, won’t be bullied by this prick.

I find it remarkably easy to counter every one of his views, which is why he turns to the ‘character assignation response`.

The_observer said:

>>>Did you guys sort this out yet?
<<<

Yes;

Perm is an intolerant extremist who takes the worst case scenario & demands everyone believe things will actually be even worse. He ignores
every piece of evidence to the contrary, no matter who provides it.
Any & everyone with a different opinion he portrays as ethically & morally repugnant, ignorant & unintellectual, & as having undesirable motives.

He uses foul language to denigrate these people, even for subtle comments not directed towards him. His intolerance goes so far he perceives
it is his right to bully & harass others in an attempt to silence them, to the point they cease to partake here at this forum (this is what his stated
intention was for me).

-

I, won’t be bullied by this prick.

I find it remarkably easy to counter every one of his views, which is why he turns to the ‘character assignation response`.

For a start Observer, it was you who was using foul language, but not to worry as I am no angel either. I am certainly not an extremist of any kind, I only reflect to views of 97% of climate scientist, so if I am an extremist so are they. However it is true that people who are so active in trying to bring down the science of global warming and research scientists, I do definitely regard them as morally repugnant, ignorant & unintellectual.

People like you Observer are extremely dangerous by selling the lives of so many for your our greed and stupidity. To be kind to you, you really do not know what you are doing and the extent you are endangering so much including any dependence you might have, but if you do have even the smallest inkling, then you are the biggest fool ever.

As for countering my views you, you are completely delusional. You do not debate but throw paper after paper, direct from your Global Warming Denier Handbook, in hope people will be overwhelmed, but upon closer examination, they prove to be completely worthless or misinterpreted. As an example the paper you quoted by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and where I had to explain to you that this paper was an indication of scientific concern and was not agreeing with you. As a matter of interest they had the new Director of that esteemed institute on the Science Show today and she again verbally expressed concern.

If you are not getting paid for doing your undermining of Global Warming science, but purely as a personal mission of your own accord, then you are seriously sick and should seek medical assistance.