"Despite [insurmountable] uncertainties, policymakers must begin to act immediately if they hope to reduce CO2 emissions and thus stabilize atmospheric CO2 at a level that will avoid large-scale consequences to ocean ecosystems."
"Future predictions are model derived values based on IPCC [corrupted] mean scenarios."
"Models are just storylines."
"50% of the climate is unpredictable."
80-90% unexplored. The oceans are a complete mystery to modelers yet they can come up with this pdf and call for policymakers to act. How much? Another 50-60 billion of public funds? More?
We live and breathe the climate. The oceans are hidden from us and almost completely unexplored, we know more about the Moon. To believe anyone can claim more than a slight understanding of the mechanisms involved, much less make predictions based on such knowledge and demand politicians act is as logical as believing David Icke is himself a lizard or that Hansen's opinions are trustworthy. We can't yet predict our own climate in the near future with all the sophisticated toys and hard science put together let alone the ocean climate.
The oceans are not getting more acidic. They are becoming very marginally less alkaline. Multi-million year average is around what the alkalinity is now. Models forecast a large shift past neutral and into acidity for 2100. Apparently unheralded but we already know how multi-million year graphs and alarmists smoooth irregularities that don't support the notion and input counter-intuitive leaps of interpretation in deceptive attempts to persuade people to respond (pay). And we know the inadequacies of models, that is people make them out to be more than a sophisticated game and the programmers misrepresent and omit hugely important factors because they are unknown or not understood. 99% of absorbed co2 remains as co2 in the oceans, the other 1% shared between bi-carb, carbonic acid and other exotic chemicals. 30-50% of human co2 is taken by the water.
"A remarkable amount of specious reasoning is often encountered whenever we contemplate reducing water vapor emissions. That increased quantities of water vapor leads to global warming is as solid a scientific prediction as can be found, but other things influence climate too, and some people try to escape confronting the consequences of our pumping more and more soot into the atmosphere by supposing that something will come along miraculously to counteract it. Volcanoes spew sulfates, water vapor and soot as do our own smokestacks, the sulphates reflect some sunlight back into space, particularly over the North Atlantic and Europe. But we can't assume that anything like this will counteract our longer-term flurry of water vapor emissions. Only the most naive gamblers bet against physics, and only the most irresponsible bet with their grandchildren's resources."
We can look forward to yet another greenie inspired disaster, red tides, if this lunacy continues. Alarmist wiki says: "...iron-rich dust influx from large desert areas such as the Saharan desert are thought to play a major role in causing red tides."
The oceans are thought to have Gt 40,000 carbon in suspension and as clathrate. P.a. the surface exchange is estimated at around 91 of which human is thought to be 2. (Illustration)
There appears to be little to no research on the effects on biomass of diminishing co2. How much crazier can it get?
In step with his models Hansen seems incapable of producing the truth. He has admitted publicly to exaggeration, his unit, GISS has been accused with evidence of amending historical data assumedly to better fit modeled assumptions, think second hand car seller winding back the mileage clock. He has been accused of lying in stating the surface stations were quality controlled. The quality of data used and its interpretation has been found wanting. The inadequate model products perhaps assumed in his acuity absence to be correct. To assume other than dogmatic tunnel vision is to assume wrong doing and we know how lies grow. Is he a well meaning crank or a crook? Why do we still pay heed to his proclamations of gloom and doom? In short, the media.
Obligatory for policymakers and media (via NewsBusters) Enjoy: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4. 8 torpedoes fired to sink a floating lie. A Teflon coated polystyrene lie.
Reassuring mantra for upset alarmists. Feathers at the ready.
Co2 is bad it toasts grandchildren. Co2 is bad it destroys planets. Co2 is bad it causes wars. Co2 is bad it drives species to extinction. Co2 is bad it dissolves whales. Co2 is bad it causes ice ages. Co2 is bad it stops the THC. Co2 is bad it causes hurricanes. Co2 is bad it melts ice. Co2 is bad it kills people. Co2 is bad it makes poppies grow better. Co2 is bad it destroys rainforests. Co2 is bad it causes floods. Co2 is bad it destroys economies. Co2 is bad it causes heatwaves. Co2 is bad it causes cold extremes. Co2 is bad it causes bad weather. Co2 is bad it drowns polar bears. Co2 is bad it aids AIDS. Co2 is bad it makes mosquitoes multiply. Co2 is bad because Al (a failed politician, now pseudo-science presenter extraordinaire) says so.
How does co2 figure in the order of temperature height influencers (above the guesstimated mean)? Here is my take, biggest first.
The Sun and stardust
Major anomalous events
Water vapor and clouds
Nitrogen and oxygen
Poor data, manipulation, and assumption
Sub-super Volcanic and tectonic action
Minor anomalous events
Save the world and such concerts
If you were a modeler would you really prefer co2 over brussel sprouts?
I am unhappy reading any theory on the planet size that doesn't include a small ball with all the jigsaw pieces fitted. But tectonics answers too many questions. How about a unified theory?
I keep finding myself looking beneath the crust for the reason for increased activity. Mantle decompression seems to fit. Current thinking says the molten core mantle comprises just 4%.
"Mantle decompression thermal-tsunami, as outlined above, poses a new explanation for a portion of the internal heat being lost from [inside] the Earth. It may prove as well to be a significant energy source for earthquakes and volcanism, as these geodynamic processes appear concentrated along secondary decompression cracks."
Geodynamic energy and heat transport (Current Science 060625)
"Earth-energy has long been, to use Churchill’s words, a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Currently popular models rely upon radiogenic heat for geodynamic processes, geomagnetic field generation, and for the Earth’s heat loss. The problem is that radionuclides cannot even satisfy just the global heat loss requirements to say nothing of the great geodynamic energy requirements. Moreover, temperature increases with depth within the crust, but the three previously known heat transport processes within the Earth, conduction, convection, and radiation, appear unable to account for heat emplacement at the base of the crust. Herndon (page 1605), as a consequence of whole-Earth decompression dynamics (Current Science, 10 December 2005), adds a fourth heat transport process capable of emplacing sufficient heat at the base of the crust to drive crustal dynamics, volcanism and earthquake production and to account for global heat loss and the geothermal gradient.
The conflict between tectonics and expansion is important to resolve because if the planet was growing rapidly within the last 500 million years, all the proxy -based conclusions will need severe revision. It will also make even more of a nonsense of PC climatology to date.
If you are against global warming alarmism please do a blog. It doesn't matter if it's better or worse than my attempts. IPCC policy is governed by Google search statistics.
The chameleon nature of the alarmist fraternity continues to be exhibited. After worming their way out of global warming with climate change now they are trying to weasel out of being hung for lying about co2, carbon is now the collective term for GHGs. That means all the credits will have to be reworded to clarify whether carbon means carbon or a collection of GHGs and carbon or any GHG. Kyoto is a con job.
Tibet is subsiding, that has direct climatic consequences. More interesting is the indirect consequences, is it increasing pressure below the crust or is it responding to decreased pressure beneath the crust? I seem to remember Canada has a similar but much smaller area (theorized to be thermally uplifted). More later.