A Foolish Letter from AAAS

[cabse5]

I don't. See, Curry is claiming that "reduce carbon emissions" is a "specific socioeconomic policy."

If that were the case, we'd actually be able to describe those specifics. How do we do that? How much will it cost? What benefit will it provide? How much do we expect global temperatures will change if we do this?

But you can't answer those questions because it's not a specific socioeconomic policy. Nor is it "political advocacy."

It's a scientific recommendation based on data.

And the scientific results of carbon reduction are???

 

[Russell797]

And the scientific results of carbon reduction are???

Less CO2 entering the atmosphere and oceans.

 

[cabse5]

Less CO2 entering the atmosphere and oceans.

The results affecting the environment of less CO2 emissions are???

 

[Jack Hays]

So, scientific organizations of experts, which exist as a collective voice concerning the state of their scientific fields, should not be listened to when considering public policy directly related to their area of expertise. Got it.

So now we have come full circle back to the OP. The point is that in this letter the organizations are not acting within their scientific fields, but rather well outside them, in the realm of social, economic and national security policy.

This statement is a blatant misuse of scientific authority to advocate for specific socioeconomic policies. National security and economics (specifically called out in the letter) is well outside the wheelhouse of all of these organizations. Note the American Economics Association is not among the signatories; according to an email from Ross McKitrick, the constitution of the AEA forbids issuing such statements. In fact, climate science is well outside the wheelhouse of most of these organizations (what the heck is with the statisticians and mathematicians in signing this?)
The link between adverse impacts such as more wildfires, ecosystem changes, extreme weather events etc. and their mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions hinges on detecting unusual events for at least the past century and then actually attributing them to human caused warming. This is highly uncertain territory – even within the overconfident world of the IPCC. And the majority of the signatories to this letter have no expertise in the detection and attribution of human caused climate change.
The signatories whose membership has some expertise on the detection and attribution of climate change are only a few: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Geological Society of America. The rest are professional societies who are not involved with the physics of climate but explicitly profit from the alarm. . . .

 

[Russell797]

The results affecting the environment of less CO2 emissions are???

Less enhancement to the atmospheric greenhouse effect and a reduced rate of falling PH for sea water.

 

[Jack Hays]

Opinion
[h=1]Science and Politics: An Abusive Relationship[/h]Science should inform politics, not the reverse. Guest opinion by Edward Ferrara Decades before Luis Pasteur fostered scientific consensus on germ theory, Ignaz Semmelweis was imploring obstetricians to wash their hands after handling corpses. His work did little to inspire his fellow medical practitioners. On the contrary, he was met with indignation and disbelief at…

 

[Lord of Planar]

Less enhancement to the atmospheric greenhouse effect and a reduced rate of falling PH for sea water.

Is the falling of the ocean pH a bad thing?

Do we really know?

If you "know" it is a bad thing, then please prove it.

 

[Russell797]

Is the falling of the ocean pH a bad thing?

Do we really know?

If you "know" it is a bad thing, then please prove it.

The more acidic the water (doesn't mean it's acid) the greater the rate at which calcium carbonate ( the stuff sea shells are made of ) dissolves. Not good for organisms such as mollusks which build shells obviously.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The more acidic the water (doesn't mean it's acid) the greater the rate at which calcium carbonate ( the stuff sea shells are made of ) dissolves. Not good for organisms such as mollusks which build shells obviously.

Can you prove it is outside of natural cycles?

Did you know there is a natural pH cycle, and we are in the natural low part of it now?

You really should research things instead of parroting the pundits.

 

[Threegoofs]

Can you prove it is outside of natural cycles?

Did you know there is a natural pH cycle, and we are in the natural low part of it now?

You really should research things instead of parroting the pundits.

Scientists have comprehensively reviewed this information, of course.

But I'm sure your amateur interpretation with no experience the field, nor qualifications beyond a subscription to an unrelated journal should be held in equal esteem. :roll:

http://www.igbp.net/download/18.30566fc6142425d6c91140a/1385975160621/OA_spm2-FULL-lorez.pdf

 

[Threegoofs]

Can you prove it is outside of natural cycles?

Did you know there is a natural pH cycle, and we are in the natural low part of it now?

You really should research things instead of parroting the pundits.

And the crap about 'pundits'....

Lets see what dr. Pelejero, the lead author of the disembodied study says about the issue:

The Disaster We?ve Wrought on the World?s Oceans May Be Irrevocable

Carles Pelejero, a scientist working less than a mile from La Boqueria at the Institut de Cienciès del Mar (ICM), on Barcelona’s seafront, calls it “climate change’s evil twin.”... “In preindustrial times the ocean’s pH was 8.2. It has already gone down to 8.1,” says Pelejero. “Depending on what we do, it will reach an average of 7.8 or 7.7 by 2100. It hasn’t been that low for 55 million years.”

What worries Pelejero most is the rapidity of today’s changes. The same shifts that happened over the course of a few thousand years during the PETM are now due to happen over just a few centuries, counting from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the widespread use of fossil fuels. “The record tells us that, though pH has been lower in the past, this time the changes are happening about 10 times faster. And that means there is no time for species to evolve and adapt, or the ocean to buffer itself,” Pelejero says. “It’s clear that the ocean is acidifying, much clearer than that the world is warming. And we know that most of the effect is caused by man’s actions. The only argument among scientists is over how much damage is being done.”

Gee, sounds like the guys who research this agree that it is a problem, is going to have a dramatic effect, and the scale will be something not seen in 55 million years,

 

[Lord of Planar]

Scientists have comprehensively reviewed this information, of course.

Believe as you wish.

That write-up is just a compilation of other works I've already seen. None of it refers to the natural cyclical changes.

 

[Threegoofs]

Believe as you wish.

That write-up is just a compilation of other works I've already seen. None of it refers to the natural cyclical changes.

Yes, I'm sure you deeply studied the problem objectively.


:roll:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, I'm sure you deeply studied the problem objectively.


:roll:

Far more than you ever do.

 

[Threegoofs]

Far more than you ever do.

Sure. *I* didnt post a single graph from a ten year old study and claim it was the scientific thought on the issue.

I just posted an actual review, both a scientific one and an article quoting the lead author of your disembodied graph that basically is saying the opposite of what you are saying.

But you subscribe to 'a' journal, so...

 

[Tim the plumber]

So, scientific organizations of experts, which exist as a collective voice concerning the state of their scientific fields, should not be listened to when considering public policy directly related to their area of expertise. Got it.

Obviously not.

But obviously they have then the responsibility to answer fact checking questions from investigating and skeptical journalists openly.

 

[Quaestio]

Can you prove it is outside of natural cycles?

Did you know there is a natural pH cycle, and we are in the natural low part of it now?

You really should research things instead of parroting the pundits.

Yet when I read the 2005 paper your partial graphic refers to, (the full Fig 2 image from the paper shows several panels and explanatory text), the data in that panel is only to 1988 -almost 30 years ago. Even so, the authors themselves state:

"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere from ~280 to more than 370 parts per million per volume (ppmv), a level unprecedented in the last 420,000 years (1). To date, a large part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been absorbed by the oceans (2), which have become more acidic, thus reducing their capacity to continue to absorb CO2. Estimates of global oceanic pH trends to the year 2000 indicate that the oceans have already acidified by 0.1 pH units relative to preindustrial times (3, 4)."

"Geochemical models forecast an exponential decrease of nearly 0.8 pH units by 2300 (4), a scenario for which there is no obvious precedent over the last hundreds of millions of years (5), with the possible exception of abrupt changes such as those associated with the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum 55.5 million years ago (6). Experimental evidence indicates that such reductions in surface-ocean pH and carbonate saturation state could have major effects on calcifying marine biota (7), especially calcareous plankton (8) and coral reef communities, where the degree of carbonate supersaturation has been shown to have a major effect on calcification rates (9-11). "


Of more interest to me is this statement: "The secular decrease in coral δ^sup 13^C can be ascribed to the Suess effect, which is due to uptake by the oceans of atmospheric CO2 that has been progressively depleted in ^sup 13^C by combustion of fossil fuels." . Attribution evidence that it's from human combustion of fossil fuels and is not 'natural'.


I'm not sure why you would choose that older 2005 paper and ignore the hundreds of more recent studies with more up-to-date data? Where did you get that graphic? It's not directly from the paper itself and looks like something found on a blog.

This is a Google Scholar search just for papers published since 2013:

ocean acidification - Google Scholar

 

[Quaestio]

This is a Google Scholar search just for papers published since 2013:

ocean acidification - Google Scholar

Or read then 185 papers that have since cited that particular 2005 paper:

- Google Scholar

 

[Quaestio]

Scientists have comprehensively reviewed this information, of course.

But I'm sure your amateur interpretation with no experience the field, nor qualifications beyond a subscription to an unrelated journal should be held in equal esteem. :roll:

http://www.igbp.net/download/18.30566fc6142425d6c91140a/1385975160621/OA_spm2-FULL-lorez.pdf

The 2005 paper the poster referred to discussed natural cycles but clearly stated it's not just due to natural cycles. Perhaps a pundit was parroted rather than the poster researching the Journal literature?

 

[Quaestio]

Believe as you wish.

That write-up is just a compilation of other works I've already seen. None of it refers to the natural cyclical changes.

I think it's obvious it's you who is believing what you wish to believe and ignoring what even the authors of the single paper you referred to wrote in the paper themselves.

 

[longview]

Yet when I read the 2005 paper your partial graphic refers to, (the full Fig 2 image from the paper shows several panels and explanatory text), the data in that panel is only to 1988 -almost 30 years ago. Even so, the authors themselves state:

"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere from ~280 to more than 370 parts per million per volume (ppmv), a level unprecedented in the last 420,000 years (1). To date, a large part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been absorbed by the oceans (2), which have become more acidic, thus reducing their capacity to continue to absorb CO2. Estimates of global oceanic pH trends to the year 2000 indicate that the oceans have already acidified by 0.1 pH units relative to preindustrial times (3, 4)."

"Geochemical models forecast an exponential decrease of nearly 0.8 pH units by 2300 (4), a scenario for which there is no obvious precedent over the last hundreds of millions of years (5), with the possible exception of abrupt changes such as those associated with the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum 55.5 million years ago (6). Experimental evidence indicates that such reductions in surface-ocean pH and carbonate saturation state could have major effects on calcifying marine biota (7), especially calcareous plankton (8) and coral reef communities, where the degree of carbonate supersaturation has been shown to have a major effect on calcification rates (9-11). "


Of more interest to me is this statement: "The secular decrease in coral δ^sup 13^C can be ascribed to the Suess effect, which is due to uptake by the oceans of atmospheric CO2 that has been progressively depleted in ^sup 13^C by combustion of fossil fuels." . Attribution evidence that it's from human combustion of fossil fuels and is not 'natural'.


I'm not sure why you would choose that older 2005 paper and ignore the hundreds of more recent studies with more up-to-date data? Where did you get that graphic? It's not directly from the paper itself and looks like something found on a blog.

This is a Google Scholar search just for papers published since 2013:

ocean acidification - Google Scholar

If we added the current data point to that graph, what would it look like?
Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units

So where would 8.1 be on that graph?

 

[Quaestio]

Sure. *I* didnt post a single graph from a ten year old study and claim it was the scientific thought on the issue.

I just posted an actual review, both a scientific one and an article quoting the lead author of your disembodied graph that basically is saying the opposite of what you are saying.

But you subscribe to 'a' journal, so...

The graphic he posted wasn't the one in the paper. It was only one panel of three and left out the text explanation in the graphic. That's the type of thing usually found on blogs that want to make dishonest claims about a paper knowing that most people reading the blog will never read the paper themselves to check, so a new false denier myth is born and gets spread on forums like this.

 

[Threegoofs]

The 2005 paper the poster referred to discussed natural cycles but clearly stated it's not just due to natural cycles. Perhaps a pundit was parroted rather than the poster researching the Journal literature?

Definitely pundit parroting by proxy.

 

[Quaestio]

If we added the current data point to that graph, what would it look like?
Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

So where would 8.1 be on that graph?
View attachment 67204776

From your link: "Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1.

So where was the location for the data in that posted graphic? Here's a clue- it wasn't a global average.
I guess you didn't bother to read the paper.

 

[longview]

From your link: "Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1.

So where was the location for the data in that posted graphic? Here's a clue- it wasn't a global average.
I guess you didn't bother to read the paper.

No, I read the article, but was looking for the data, so as to compare to the earlier chart, which ended in the mid 90's
If the other graph was not an average, it would be interesting to see what that data source is today.