Obiter dictum. We acknowledge that seawater is basic and cannot truly acidify (pH<7). But that is a losing semantic quibble, not a winning skeptical argument. The generally accepted linguistic convention—for better or worse–is that lowering seawater pH means ‘acidification’. There is no doubt that adding dissolved CO2 does lower pH. The relevant questions are how much and whether that amount matters. This post answers both questions (a little, not much) without the two specific false alarms that motivated the ebook version.
There are certainly some ocean related AGW consequences beyond any scientific doubt. Henry’s Law requires that the partial pressures of atmospheric and dissolved ocean CO2equilibrate. Rising atmospheric CO2 must increase dissolved seawater CO2. That is long established simple physical chemistry.
This lowers pH by increasing carbonic acid. NOAA PMEL has documented this in the central Pacific at Station Aloha off Mauna Loa where sea surface pH has declined from 8.11 to 8.07 since 1991, as dissolved pCO2 increased from ≈325 to ≈360μatm while atmospheric CO2 increased from about 355 to 395 ppm. That is Δ0.04 pH in 24 years.
Liberal MP and climate sceptic Craig Kelly made headlines in November when he was caught on tape mocking “lefties” for exaggerating the effects of climate change.
Speaking at a local party event, audio of which was leaked to the Guardian, Mr Kelly set out to debunk several justifications for climate change action, including the argument that Tuvalu, the Pacific island nation, was slipping beneath the sea.
“The science tells us that Tuvalu, which I often hear about, is actually growing not sinking,” he told colleagues.
Is Tuvalu growing? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.
The verdict
Mr Kelly’s claim checks out.
In the four decades to 2014, Tuvalu’s total land area grew by 73 hectares, or 2.9 per cent.
By Dr. Dietrich E. Koelle
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Once again – for the 24th time – a mass climate conference with over 20,000 participants (400 of them from Guinea alone) has come to an end and the politicians and climate officials involved praised its success: “Once again the earth was saved”. It’s all actually quite simple: you only need to reduce CO2 emissions and global temperature drops.
“Strongly decelerated warming”
Reductions have been decided at every conference for 24 years – and emissions have always risen the following year, and done so for 24 years now.
Source: IEA-Report für 2017
But nobody is interested in the fact that despite this, there has hardly been a global rise in temperature in 16 years (since 2002) and record emissions of 500 billion tons of CO2 in this period. Instead there has been a strongly decelerated warming, sometimes even called a “hiatus”. But acknowledging this would possibly jeopardize next year’s planned climate conference.
More people are finally beginning to realize that supplying the world with sufficient, stable energy solely from sun and wind power will be impossible.
Germany took on that challenge, to show the world how to build a society based entirely on “green, renewable” energy. It has now hit a brick wall. Despite huge investments in wind, solar and biofuel energy production capacity, Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last ten years. However, during the same period, its electricity prices have risen dramatically, significantly impacting factories, employment and poor families.
Germany has installed solar and wind power to such an extent that it should theoretically be able to satisfy the power requirement on any day that provides sufficient sunshine and wind. However, since sun and wind are often lacking – in Germany even more so than in other countries like Italy or Greece – the country only manages to produce around 27% of its annual electric power needs from these sources.
The truth about climate change is nuanced: it is real, and in the long term it will be a problem, but its impact is less than we might believe. And yet we are too eager to believe the problem is far worse than science shows, and – conversely – that our solutions are far easier than reality dictates.
BRUSSELS – The latest global climate summit in Poland has generated familiar predictions of doom and disaster from environmental activists. Climate change seems to freeze our capacity for critical thinking: we are too eager to believe the problem is far worse than science shows, and – conversely – that our solutions are far easier than reality dictates.
For those still blindly banging the ‘97%’ drum, here is a in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change –namely the IPCC’s catastrophic conclusions.
There are currently 85 names on the list. Though it is embryonic and dynamic.
Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will serve to update the list.
SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES
— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.
Cet article est le résultat d’une recherche multi-disciplinaire entre géologues et biologistes. Une synthèse de cette recherche vient d’être publiée en décembre 2018 sur le site de Geologica Belgica. Un article déjà publié dans SCE peut également être consulté.
Contrairement à ce que l’on peut penser, une question simple nécessite parfois des années de recherches avec des équipes diverses et des moyens sophistiqués. La question simple concerne ici la géologie et plus particulièrement la couleur des roches sédimentaires.
The ‘urban heat island’ arises because air temperatures measured in urban cities can be different to those of the rural city surroundings. Thermometers were and still are more often found in cities than surroundings. City temperatures have a synthetic, man-made component that needs to be subtracted to match the surrounding rural temperatures, which are the items of interest for climate studies.
Failure to subtract the UHI effect will lead to false results for temperature trends such as those used to claim global warming. The question arises whether rural and urban temperatures have adequate accuracy to provide reasonable results after the subtraction. This essay argues that historic Australian rural temperature records are unfit for this purpose; that global temperature records are likely to be similarly inadequate; and that as a consequence, all past estimates of UHI derived from land surface temperatures by thermometry are invalid or questionable.
In short, all past estimates of UHI magnitude before the satellite era are incorrect for reasons given. The actual rates of global temperature changes over the past century are likely to be wrong by a significant amount, of similar magnitude to the global warming claimed at about 1°C per century.
More recent estimates are being made with temperatures from instruments on satellites, which help the future path to better understanding.
La COP24 est enfin terminée et, comme à chaque fois, sans aucun résultat concret pour la diminution des émissions de CO2 malgré les cris d’alarmes des ONG environnementales, du Secrétaire général des Nations Unies et des foules de citoyens. Et pourtant dans un an, on va de nouveau nous bassiner les oreilles avec la 25ème COP tandis qu’on observera encore une fois l’augmentation des émissions. Comme à chaque fois, par l’entremise des media, on nous rappelle que notre planète va devenir un enfer comme Vénus, que le niveau de la mer va nous engloutir et que la biodiversité va disparaître.
Rappelons tout d’abord ce fait : aujourd’hui l’Union Européenne ne représente que 11 % des émissions mondiales de CO2, la Chine 28 %, les États-Unis 15 %, l’Inde 7 %, la France 1 % et la Belgique 0,4 %.
The significance of this new GWPF report by Prof Ray Bates of the Meteorology and Climate Centre at University College Dublin cannot really be overstated:
London, 20 December: One of Europe’s most eminent climate scientists has documented the main scientific reasons why the recent UN climate summit failed to welcome the IPCC’s report on global warming of 1.5°C.
In a paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin explains the main reasons for the significant controversy about the latest IPCC report within the international community.
The IPCC’s Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) was released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in advance of the recent COP24 meeting in Katowice, Poland, but was not adopted by the meeting due to objections by a number of governments.
by P. Homewood, December 18, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
The Department for Transport publishes a long-awaited aviation strategy today that pledges to deliver “greater capacity at UK airports”.
It raises the prospect of airports other than Heathrow growing and accepting more flights if tough environmental and noise restrictions are met.
The strategy also outlines plans for the biggest overhaul of Britain’s airspace in more than 50 years to create new flight paths into the biggest airports. GPS-style technology will allow aircraft to fly along more accurate paths below 30,000ft instead of being led by ground beacons, which space planes out over a wide arc several miles across.
It will mean a considerable increase to the 600 or so dedicated flight paths that are in operation today
Jochem Marotzke, director of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPIM), wondered whether CO2 savings could really have a direct influence on the temperature in the near future. In a new paper (Marotzke 2018), the Hamburg-based climate researcher simulates the temperature profile of the 2030s predicted by climate models and uses once again a conventional emission profile (Scenario RCP 4.5), and once a politically reduced emission scenario.
Conclusion: Most likely, there would probably be no difference as natural climate variability prevails over these time scales. The paper was published in WIRE’s Climate Change and can be downloaded free of charge as a pdf:
Scientists have described a fossil plant species that suggests flowers bloomed in the Early Jurassic, more than 174 million years ago, according to new research in the open-access journal eLife.
Before now, angiosperms (flowering plants) were thought to have a history of no more than 130 million years. The discovery of the novel flower species, which the study authors named Nanjinganthus dendrostyla, throws widely accepted theories of plant evolution into question, by suggesting that they existed around 50 million years earlier. Nanjinganthus also has a variety of ‘unexpected’ characteristics according to almost all of these theories.
Over the last 40 years global-mean surface air temperature – ‘global temperature’ for short – has gained an extraordinary role in the science, politics and public discourse of climate change. What was once a number crudely calculated through averaging together a few dozen reasonably well-spaced meteorological time series, has become reified as an objective entitythat simultaneously measures Earth System behaviour, reveals the future, regulates geopolitical negotiations and disciplines the human imagination. Apart perhaps from GDP rarely can so constructed an abstract entity have gained such power over the human world.
You may recall the BBC’s news story a couple of months ago, claiming that African penguin populations were declining because of climate change.
The report from South Africa, which then followed, made no mention of climate change at all but instead laid the blame fairly and squarely on overfishing.
Wavelet analyses of modern global temperature anomalies provides an excellent visualization tool of temperature signal characteristics and patterns over the past 150 years. Scafetta recognized key temperature oscillations of about 9, 20 and 60-years using power spectra of global surface temperature anomalies. There has been much discussion about the 60-year quasi-oscillation both in WUWT and publications.
Detrending the temperature time series and removing the 60-year underlying trend enables insights into the interplay of interannual and decadal scales. Wavelet analyses reveals these periodic signals have distinguished patterns and characteristics that repeat over time suggesting natural external and internal influences. Interannual wavelet patterns that consist of 9-year and 3 to 5-year quasi-oscillations are repeated and dominate over 70% of the instrumental record. The 3 to 5-year discontinuous breakouts are coincident to El Niño and La Niña events of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). A period of quiescence from 1925 to 1960 is devoid of most wavelet signals suggesting different or transitional climate processes.
The L. A. Times published an article addressing a panel discussion at the latest U.N. climate alarmist confab in Poland touting protests by attendees regarding the need for continued use of fossil fuels.
Almost immediately after it was introduced to the public, the lead author of Marcott et al. (2013) squelched the narrative that said the hockey-stick-shaped reconstruction he and his colleagues produced is a robust representation of modern global-scale temperature changes.
In an interview with Marcott published by RealClimate.org, it was acknowledged that the “uptick” does not represent a global-scale reconstruction, as it is based on only a few proxy records and lacks statistical significance.
…
Despite this admitted lack of supporting evidence for the 20th century’s “uptick”, the Marcott et al. (2013) “hockey stick”-shaped graph has nonetheless been unskeptically cited by other authors nearly 700 times.
On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the prediction to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference:
In this post, we’re going to present graphs that show the annual lowest TMIN and highest TMAX Near-Land Surface Air Temperatures (not in anomaly form) for ten (10) Countries in an effort to add some perspective to global warming. The list of countries, which follows, includes the countries with the highest populations.
And, as always with my posts, as part of the text, there are hyperlinks to the data that were used to prepare the graphs. Just click on the links if you’re looking for the data.
INITIAL NOTES
First of all, TMIN is described by Berkeley Earth as the “Mean of Daily Low Temperatures”, while TMAX is described as the “Mean of Daily High Temperatures”. Berkeley Earth provides monthly TMIN and TMAX data until partway through 2013. The start month for these individual-country datasets at Berkeley Earth depends on data availability from the individual country. Sometimes they start in the early 1800s, maybe even the mid-to-late 1700s for countries to be included in future posts (like the United Kingdom), and other times they start in the mid-to-late 1800s, so I’ve chosen 1900 as the start year for this post. The year 1900 is the end year of the IPCC’s new definition of “pre-industrial” times, so starting the graphs in 1900 is also appropriate in that respect.
Three minutes is not a lot of time, so let me be brief. I’ll start with something that might shock you. There is no evidence that CO2 has a large effect on climate. The two arguments used by the IPCC to so called “prove” that humans are the main cause of global warming, and which implies that climate sensitivity is high, are that: a) 20th century warming is unprecedented, and b) there is nothing else to explain the warming.
These arguments are faulty. Why you ask?
We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real. And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular.
In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored.
La COP est une conférence internationale qui depuis 24 ans tient chaque année la réunion de la dernière chance pour sauver la planète. Vous croyez peut-être que la planète avait été sauvée lors de la COP21 à Paris. Erreur. Tout reste à faire. C’est ce qui justifie la COP24, qui se tient cette année en Pologne. Le secrétariat de la COP24 publie en ligne la liste de ses participants, sur près de 1100 pages.
Plus de 21 000 participants. Sans compter les 1500 journalistes accrédités, qui sont rémunérés par leurs médias, pas par les contribuables. Ces 21 000 participants sont pour 14000 des délégués des gouvernements, et pour 6000 des représentants d’ONGs prétendument intéressées et compétentes. (Le solde est composé de membres d’organisations du système des Nations-Unies).
Le coût de la fête est élevé. Les seuls frais de déplacement et de séjour pour cette COP de 15 jours s’élèvent sans doute (sur la base de 10000 € par participant) à plus de 200 millions d’euros. On pourrait y ajouter le coût du temps passé par les participants. S’ils y passent en moyenne une semaine, cela fait 21000 semaines, soit environ 500 personnes-années. A 50000 euros/an, 25 millions d’euros, qui s’ajoutent aux frais de déplacement. C’est de quoi doubler le niveau de vie annuel de 2 ou 3 millions d’enfants au Malawi.
…
La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse
