Category Archives: Ocean Acidification

CO2 And Climate Change Science–Part 2: A Summary Of The Science

The website CO2 Coalition has a post titled “Climate Change: A summary of the Science”.  It one of the best summaries I have come across lately.  It is fairly long, so I could do my usual and summarize it, but there is virtually nothing in it that I would want to skip over.  So, I will not deprive the reader. I will put it in, in its entirety.  I hope that my posting yesterday will fill in any blanks you may have otherwise had.



News 26 Feb, 2017

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science

The climate change science is settled, but not how the climate alarmists want you to think.

Continue reading

Denying the Climate Catastrophe: 1. Introduction (Warren Meyers Essay)

Warren Meyers is posting on his website, an essay on Global Warming (aka global climate change). Meyers is quite good as an explainer of issues because he can do it without making them too complex for most people to understand. The following, is the first of perhaps 6 parts. I plan on rebloging them all.


click to enlarge

I suppose the first question I need to answer is:  why should you bother reading this?  We are told the the science is “settled” and that there is a 97% consensus among scientists on …. something.  Aren’t you the reader just giving excess credence to someone who is “anti-science” just by reading this?

Well, this notion that the “debate is over” is one of those statements that is both true and not true.  There is something approaching scientific consensus for certain parts of anthropogenic global warming theory — for example, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that concentrations of it in the atmosphere have a warming effect on the Earth is pretty much undisputed in all but the furthest reaches of the scientific community.

But it turns out that other propositions that are important to the debate on man-made global warming are far less understood scientifically, and the near certainty on a few issues (like the existence of the greenhouse gas effect) is often used to mask real questions about these other propositions.  So before we go any further , it is critical for us to get very clear what exact proposition we are discussing.

At this point I have to tell a story from over thirty years ago when I saw Any Rand speak at Northeastern University (it’s hard to imagine any university today actually allowing Rand on campus, but that is another story).  In the Q&A period at the end, a woman asked Rand, “Why don’t you believe in housewives?” and Rand answered, in a very snarky fashion, “I did not know housewives were a matter of belief.”   What the woman likely meant to ask was “Why don’t you believe that being a housewife is a valid occupation for a woman?”  But Rand was a bear for precision in language and was not going to agree or disagree with a poorly worded proposition.

I am always reminded of this story when someone calls me a climate denier.  I want to respond, in Rand’s Russian accent, “I did not know that climate was a matter of belief?”

But rather than being snarky here, let’s try to reword the “climate denier” label and see if we can get to a proposition with which I can agree or disagree.

Am I, perhaps, a “climate change denier?”  Well, no.  I don’t know anyone who is.  The world has had warm periods and ice ages.  The climate changes.

OK, am I a “man-made climate change denier?”  No again.  I know very few people, except perhaps for a few skeptics of the talkshow host variety, that totally deny any impact of man’s actions on climate.  Every prominent skeptic I can think of acknowledges multiple vectors of impact by man on climate, from greenhouse gas emissions to land use.

Continue reading

Atmospheric CO2 Is Causing Significant New Greening Of Something Between 25% And 50% Of The Earth’s Vegetated Land

A recent study shows that the Earth is greening as the CO2 in the atmosphere rises. In fact the rise greatly exceeds their “vaunted” climate model projections. The BBC posted “Rise in CO2 has greened Planet Earth” that relates the studies findings and quotes several of the authors as to what the study tells them:

It is called Greening of the Earth and its Drivers, and it is based on data from the Modis and AVHRR instruments which have been carried on American satellites over the past 33 years. The sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth’s vegetated land, which in turn is slowing the pace of climate change as the plants are drawing CO2 from the atmosphere.”

A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.”

The scientists say several factors play a part in the plant boom, including climate change (8%), more nitrogen in the environment (9%), and shifts in land management (4%).

But the main factor, they say, is plants using extra CO2 from human society to fertilise their growth (70%).”

The BBC posting lets the authors take their required bow to the IPCC saying that this is only temporary and besides while CO2 brought about the greening, it will also bring about floods, winds, high temps and ocean acidification.

Once again,we are being asked to believe in the undocumented climate models that can’t forecast global temperatures accurately, nor the sea levels accurately and now we know they did not forecast the greening accurately.

To their credit, the BBC did allow some skeptic voices to enter the discussion as follows:

“Nic Lewis, an independent scientist often critical of the IPCC, told BBC News: “The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies.

“This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply.”

And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: “It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).

“These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed.”

Curry’s comments are really relevant since there is a serious effort underway by our Government to ban skeptics from speaking about this issue.

Furthermore,  the EPA  uses what they call the  “social cost of carbon” to justify their regulations. Everything they use for this calculation echoes the catastrophic outcome predicted by the climate models.   They refuse to consider any benefit from global warming.  Skeptics have demonstrated that the benefits exceed  the EPA negatives and much of that is accomplished by greening–bigger and better crop growth, for example.  This study is the anathema of the social cost of carbon BS.


Warmer Proof For Ocean Acidification Is Invalid

In 2004, a paper by Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine was published that purports to show that as the atmospheric CO2 increases, the oceans become acidified (1).   In 2010, Dr Feely made a presentation to the US Congress where he used this graph to illustrate the reduction of seawater pH.   It is reported to be widely used as a reference.

The graph is shown below:


The question that one researcher asked, when he saw the chart was-Why the pH readings, in Feely’s chart, began in 1988?; which was surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter.

Marrita Noon’s posting “What if Obama’s climate change is based on pHraud?” relates the story of this researcher’s observations:

Continue reading

Bang Bang, FOI shot the NY Times Down

Using the Sonny Bono’s song title seems right because the Freedom Of Information Act (FOI) revealed the New York Times’ the manipulation efforts to get a really scary story about “Acidification of the Oceans”. And the FOI has shot it down.

Late last year, the Times posted an Op-Ed “Our Deadened, Carbon-Soaked Seas” timed to appear prior to the Second Ocean Conference where “ocean acidification (OA)” would be discussed. The authors of the piece were Richard W. Spinrad, a chief scientist of the U.S. NOAA and Ian Boyd, a chief scientific adviser to the British government.

The cartoon image accompanying the NY Times posting, shown below, is not too subtle.


(Art work by Alex Doherty)

After it was posted, Steve Milloy, proprietor of, wanted to know more. This is what he did in his words:

Curious, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NOAA for the e-mail related to the development and publication of the op-ed. I received 443 pages of e-mail in return.

First, the op-ed was actually written by NOAA staff Madelyn Applebaum, not Spinrad or Boyd. The purpose was to tout NOAA not inform the public about ocean acidification.”

Continue reading

The “Kinda” New Warmer Narrative–Ocean Acidification

Because global temperatures were not responding to increasing atmospheric CO2, the warmers began looking for new narratives to use to frighten the public into giving them more money. The oceans were thought to be a good target. To explain why global temperatures were only inching up, they jumped on the sea shellsimagestheory that the heat was being trapped in the ocean. Just like that, the “heat” decided to go into the ocean and not warm the atmosphere. The logic of that proposition was viewed as somewhat problematic, to say the least.

Another narrative was to say that the ocean was being made acidic and that would have a devastating effect on sea life. This narrative, acidification of the ocean, had been around for a number of years. But it needed some spicing up. Former head of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco, referred to ocean “acidification” as global warming’s “equally evil twin.”


Continue reading

12 Reasons To Be A Skeptic

James Delingpole is a Brit that writes for He has a sharp mind that he uses to take the obvious and throw it back at the pretenders often with good humor. Somewhat like Mark Steyn. They are a formidable pair and I am glad they are on our side.

The Delingpole posting that I want to discuss was written before the COP21 Paris meeting of the massive group of hanger-ons that go to these conferences on stopping global warming. But, the points he makes in this posting “Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste” are essentially timeless within the current discussion of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory.

I may summarize the discussion in some of the twelve reasons. So I do recommend that you link to his original posting to read the reasons in their entirety. Don’t ignore the links that are included in this listing.

1   There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997.

So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming

Continue reading