soundwash says:

Does *anyone* know how to do their
own research anymore? -or is it normal to just take what you are spoon-fed in school/academia and the media and never question anything ever again because “the experts”
have spoken?

In google you get 124,000 hits on “scientists baffled” and 74,600 hits “baffled scientists” -that’s a total
of 198,600 times the people we rely upon to define our reality have been
dare i say, confused if not outright wrong.

A combined total of 23,120 times they have been baffled (read: bloody f’n clueless) –*in the last year alone!

They were baffled no less than 63 times A DAY! -63x times.

Funny, I thought the science was settled on everything from climate change to how the planets and the universe worked.

Would you still entrust your life to the mechanic you take your car to if he responded to every question or problem you had with your car with,

“-my god, I’m completely baffled as to why its doing that” -even after the 63rd question of the
day??

-and this after knowing he spent half his life in best schools of his trade..?

Have you even asked your mechanic 63 questions in the past 5 years??

No? -then WHY do you blindly trust what *any* gov-funded science study says..esp when it was founded on the “science findings” and desires of
a politician?

The simple reason why the CO2 levels don’t match government and IPCC fantasy models is because the oceans have been absorbing all the co2.

–and now, the oceans are warming because the region of space we are passing through is highly energetic and causing all the planets to heat up from within.

-In our case, this is causing the oceans to heat up and thus they are `giving up all the CO2′ they have been sequestering for the past 11,000 years or so, -including industrial humanity’s *very minor* contribution the past 100 years or so.

(warm water cannot hold as many dissolved gasses as cold water can,
Capeche?)

-you know the bubbles you see
when you boil water? -how’s that
for a major clue?)

This is in part, why the idiots in government funded academia and science cannot get their CO2 models
to work.

(the main part of course, is because they are paid not to..)

They they also still assume the planet is an isolated body and nothing external to it effects
the weather, -or anything else.

They would not even allow “solar forcing” (ie The Sun) into the equations of their coveted math
models!

Imagine that! This essentially
saying:

“Ahhh yeah, The Sun has nothing to
do with the Earth’s Weather system”

Funny, it seems to me “common sense” would lead one to believe that without Our Sun, there not only would be no life, but this planet would be frozen solid and most likely not even exist in it’s current form! (-or iteration)

–So yes, the sun has nothing to do with anything in our solar system, -please ignore it.
-mmkay.

The current mainstream man-made global warming and/or climate change hoax is based on models that only measure surface temperatures alone, and do not account for contributions from oceans, the estimated 3 million+ volcanoes IN the oceans, or the some 39,00+ having been found to be over a kilometer high (and active), with many lying on the tectonic plate
fault lines)

Climate change obviously exists,
but not for the reasons we have
been sold.

Of course, space weather has
nothing to do with is either.

http://newscientist.com/article/dn12218

The Co2 (and acidity) levels of the oceans are approaching what they were by some estimates, 100 million years ago. -If I recall, this “discovery was made back in 2006-2007.

(Politics keeps you from the truth.)

This is largely due in part, to the huge increase in underwater volcanoes (and above) in the past several years.

—

Science has been compromised for profit, religious and political
dogma.

Our weather and the universe is 99%
electromagnetic in nature.

Consciousness, makes up the other 1% if not actually 50% or more of “Reality” –and is “the glue” that holds it together.

In order for “true” science to understand anything, -and for you to finally get a clue, –as scary as
it may sound, it has to combine electromagnetic science, and spirituality as one body of
work, -one body of science.

“They” are currently trying to
explain it (and our future) to you
in the last five year’s+ worth of “entertainment” -pay attention.

You can start by understanding
the Electric Nature of the
weather here:

http://holoscience.com/news.php?article=9eq6g3aj

Will you take the next step and
search out how consciousness plays
a role? -and how Time, -is not
linear, -but a thing in part, that can be molded by your will, that you can step outside of, -if you allow
it?

Learn how to overcome it, -and your spirit will survive intact, no matter what adversity lies ahead.

-s

Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

#65, MikeN,

I’m not too worried about ocean absorption. It isn’t acid being added to an ocean, it is CO2

CO2 in water becomes acidic. This acid dissolves limestone and is a major reason so much marble and limestone facades on buildings are being eaten away.

which is what is needed to build the shells that are supposedly thinning

Nope. Calcium carbonate is the chief component of marine shells. The most readily available form is known as limestone. In the presence of acids, calcium carbonate will dissolve.

Calcium carbonate will react with water that is saturated with carbon dioxide to form the soluble calcium bicarbonate.

CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O → Ca(HCO3)2

This reaction is important in the erosion of carbonate rocks, forming caverns, and leads to hard water in many regions.

So the sinks have been been absorbing larger additional amounts each year, showing no signs of saturation.

When you change the conditions in any environment you also change the environment. Even your example of thinning marine shells, using the oceans as a CO2 sink does have consequences.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#65 – MikeN,

I’m not too worried about ocean absorption. It isn’t acid being added to an ocean, it is CO2, which is what is needed to build the shells that are supposedly thinning. Those shells are always being shed, and they get replenished by additional CO2.

Actually, when the CO2 mixes with the water it makes carbonic acid. It is acid being added to the ocean. We’ve already dumped 575 billion metric tons of CO2, the equivalent of 287 billion full sized cars, into the ocean. It is having a measurable effect on PH. It is adding acid to the ocean.

And, like climate change, it is not equal around the globe. Cooler waters dissolve more gas than warmer waters. So, the same high latitudes that have more oxygen and hence more life and are the main ocean fisheries are also absorbing more carbon dioxide, forming more carbonic acid, and becoming disproportionately more acidic.

The point is that the increase is not from 280 to 385 ppm, it is from 280 to 700 ppm, with 315 of that 700 gets absorbed. Another 6ppm the next year, and 3 more get absorbed. So the sinks have been been absorbing larger additional amounts each year, showing no signs of saturation.

Wow. What a complete and utter piece of bullshit! Yes, a lot of carbon is being absorbed by the ocean, thus causing a potential crisis there, but there is also still a lot more carbon in the atmosphere causing a potential crisis in the air. So, instead of one crisis, we have two. And, because of that, you are willing to ignore both?

The fact that WattsUpWithThat links to a paper, makes the paper worthless? Then I guess he should just link to all the papers RealClimate links to, and you will become a skeptic!

Actually, you didn’t link to anything. So, I didn’t go to that lay person’s amazingly stupid blog yet again. If you want me to read a paper, link to the paper.

Here’s an example of why I don’t read that particular lay person’s blog. It’s because the author is an idiot who does not even know how to read a simple graph.

http://tinyurl.com/y8c7sxk

Misanthropic Scott says:

#67 – soundwash,

When you do “your own research” if a google hit count can be called research, you might at least try Google Scholar.

http://scholar.google.com/

Using ordinary google will get people’s opinions that, just like your own, are worthless.

The rest of your post further shows your own ignorance. The ocean is not boiling. The sun is accounted for in climate models (high solar activity has been responsible for about 5-15% of the warming we’ve observed, the other 85-95 is us).

The Co2 (and acidity) levels of the oceans are approaching what they were by some estimates, 100 million years ago. -If I recall, this “discovery was made back in 2006-2007.

Um … I think you mean either 55 MYA or 250 MYA. 55 MYA was after the KT extinction. Once the temps began to cool from then, we got an explosion of life. 250 MYA was the P/T extinction, the worst this planet has seen.

Warm periods are strongly associated with and recently being proven to be the cause of mass extinctions with the exception of the most recent which was due to cometary impact. Though, even in the last, note that the number of species did not bounce back ’til the earth cooled.

So, how much warming does it take for mass extinction? The worst of all was the P/T extinction with a temperature just 6C warmer than today, well in line with our worst case estimates for anthropogenic climate change.

And, keep in mind, humans have never survived a warmer period than today. We don’t know that we can. It is warmer now than for all 200,000 years of human history.

Let’s just see how warm we can take it. It’s not as if our lives depend on the outcome … oh wait … it is.

Oh, and when the popular press says scientists are baffled, that’s code for “we need more readership”. They do the same thing with other sciences as well. Some minor detail is questioned like whether our common ancestor with chimps was more chimp like or whether chimps also evolved a lot since 6-7 million years ago, and they report that evolution is in question.

MikeN says:

Scott back to the CO2 carbon sinks. Let’s look at it with some numbers.

In 1959 there was .95 ppm CO2 added to the atmosphere. Actual carbon emissions were higher than this, about 2 ppm.
CO2 emissions have been increasing, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing as well, roughly in step with each other.

So we can say that in 1959, the oceans, forests, etc absorbed the equivalent of 1.05 ppm CO2.
Then in 2007, the carbon emissions were much higher, the equivalent of 4.5 ppm CO2.
So if nature absorbed 1.05 ppm CO2, then that would cause an annual increase of 3.45 ppm CO2, but instead the increase was just 2.2 ppm, the same ratio as before.

Only the ppm CO2 numbers were accurate in the above example, as I have to find the paper. I suspect their methods were a bit more complicated, as the Mauna Loa numbers change wildly year to year.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#75 – MikeN,

Scott, no it isn’t acid being added to the ocean it is CO2. As you say, the CO2 then forms acid, but that is quite different from acid being added to an ocean.

How so?

In either case, we add something to the water that makes it acidic. In either case, the pteropods can’t form their shells and die. In either case, the ocean PH falls. In either case, most of the ocean food chain is destroyed.

What difference does it make whether we dump CO2 into the ocean that then forms carbonic acid and causes this to happen or whether we actually dump in a whole bunch of already formed carbonic acid?

Mr. Fusion says:

#75, Lyin’ Mike,

Here is a very good explanation for what happens when CO2 is absorbed in water.

Sea chemistry

This may have slowed global warming, but it also led to a change in seawater chemistry.

According to Richard Feely, of NOAA, and his colleagues, that might make life pretty hard for some shell-forming marine animals.

Corals, pteropod molluscs and some plankton (single celled organisms) pull carbonate ions from the seawater to produce their calcium carbonate shells.

But, as the CO2 concentrations in the water increase, the carbonate ion concentrations decrease.

This means the animals lack the materials with which to build their shells.

And in areas where CO2 concentrations are particularly high, Professor Feely’s team claim, the animal’s shells can actually begin to dissolve.

“Based on our present knowledge, it appears that as seawater CO2 levels rise, the skeletal growth rates of calcareous plankton will be reduced – as a result of the effects of CO2 on calcification,” said co-author Victoria Fabry, of California State University, US.

Atmospheric acid does not occur until the base, such as sulfer, comes in contact and absorbs moisture. This then falls as Acid Rain. CO2 reacts the same way.

#76, The point you miss is the oceans are absorbing only half the CO2 produced. The remainder is still in our atmosphere where it is acting to retain the planet’s heat. While ocean absortion may reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, it doesn’t eliminate it.

MikeN says:

As an add on look at the first point. Why did CO2 go up earlier, if the total increase was less than what is absorbed by sinks in recent years? It suggests that the amount of carbon sink is also a feedback of higher carbon. The biosphere responds to higher levels of carbon by producing more trees or bigger ones, etc.

deowll says:

I think it is safe to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How good a green house gas is another question and it is by no means clear that the slow and very irregular warming trend of the past 300 years is being caused by CO2. In fact it is impossible to even tell if CO2 is having a measurable impact.

I still have a book stashed somewhere predicting we were entering a new Ice Age. Some of the leaders of that scare are leaders in this scare. To many of them are making money off their claims.

Weather changes, climate changes. The modals all have holes in them you could drive a super tanker through.