Is NOAA About to Crack? ‘Pausebuster’ study under intense scrutiny.

a reply to: ParasuvO
I've debated both pro and anti AGW sides of the fence.

A plethora of evidence supports AGW, and nil evidence supporting the notion that human activity is not significantly changing the atmosphere's chemistry and thus the climate on this fragile planet.

The change of CO2 levels is one of many direct observations that cannot be ignored. The rise of CO2 we are observing is a direct result of burning petroleum and coal.

None one knows the full story, to suggest otherwise is foolish. It is also foolish to ignore the changes we are observing on our one and only home planet.

originally posted by: ketsuko
One thing I want to know, and you can go look this up, why are all the solutions to Global Warming the exact same as the solutions for Global Cooling as proposed in the late '70s?

If they truly believed that both were real, imminent threats, wouldn't the proposed solutions be somewhat different than massive carbon taxing schemes, destruction of the industrial bases of developed nations and massive redistribution of wealth under the auspices of the UN?

Exactly.

And I will add Climate change is real. Climates do change over the coarse of time. What was once Lush River Valleys are now Deserts in the middle east. The Planet changes.Things change over time.

My problem is why do they want ME to pay for it, or my children. WHO is getting this money. What's going on is a sham and a scam and form of control. I'm all for conservation and regulations on polluters. It's just some of the crazy stuff they are spewing makes no sense "Terrorism is a direct result of Global Warming"

originally posted by: WhereAreTheGoodguys

originally posted by: ketsuko
One thing I want to know, and you can go look this up, why are all the solutions to Global Warming the exact same as the solutions for Global Cooling as proposed in the late '70s?

If they truly believed that both were real, imminent threats, wouldn't the proposed solutions be somewhat different than massive carbon taxing schemes, destruction of the industrial bases of developed nations and massive redistribution of wealth under the auspices of the UN?

Exactly.

And I will add Climate change is real. Climates do change over the coarse of time. What was once Lush River Valleys are now Deserts in the middle east. The Planet changes.Things change over time.

My problem is why do they want ME to pay for it, or my children. WHO is getting this money. What's going on is a sham and a scam and form of control. I'm all for conservation and regulations on polluters. It's just some of the crazy stuff they are spewing makes no sense "Terrorism is a direct result of Global Warming"

True, the claims of the Syrian and other uprisings being a result of climate change induced droughts are not based on scientific facts. They are based on the politicisation of the potential impacts of climate change.

The official stance of NOAA is that no single weather effect (storm or drought) can be linked to climate change. Further the entire region was suffering from new business interests pumping water at unprecedented levels which drained the reserves.

You go check for the studies on rates of droughts in the area and they were in line with historical records.

The rhetoric of all sides is the real dangerous part of all this.

-FBB

Top lawmaker rebutted on climate study accusation

But a spokeswoman for Science, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal that in June published the paper by climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an interview that their research was subject to a longer, more intensive review than is customary.

"This paper went through as rigorous a review as it could have received,” said Ginger Pinholster, chief of communications for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science. “Any suggestion that the review was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit.”
She said the paper, submitted to the journal in December, went through two rounds of peer review by other scientists in the field before it was accepted in May. The number of outside reviewers was larger than usual, and the time from submission to online publication was about 50 percent longer than the journal’s average of 109 days, Pinholster said.

During the review, the research was sent back to NOAA for revision and clarification, she said. And because it was based on such an “intensive” examination of global temperature data, the reviewed was handled by one of the journal’s senior editors, she said, “so it could be more carefully assessed.
Smith and his committee have yet to offer details of the allegations that the research was rushed.

To sum up this thread, the OP had no basis to make such a claim in the headline, and Lamar Smith has no basis to claim the study was rushed to fulfill some fantasy land climate agenda.

A witch hunt indeed spearheaded by a Congressman who gets the bulk of his campaign contributions for Texas petroleum companies.

originally posted by: jrod

To sum up this thread, the OP had no basis to make such a claim in the headline, and Lamar Smith has no basis to claim the study was rushed to fulfill some fantasy land climate agenda.

A witch hunt indeed spearheaded by a Congressman who gets the bulk of his campaign contributions for Texas petroleum companies.

Oh! It's blame the OP for making claims again.
You do know that ATS requires one to use the headline that is on the story this thread is linked to.

What is this? Yes, I see....the last word needs to be just more rhetoric? never mind reposting what is a rebuttal and not evidence.

a reply to: smurfy
The requirement you.mentioned applies to the News forums not this forum, also neither link the OP provided was that headline.

In other words, you are just making stuff up.

I did provide a follow-up article from the Washington Post that the AGW crowd(including you) has ignored.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: smurfy

I did provide a follow-up article from the Washington Post that the AGW crowd(including you) has ignored.

You're telling porkies you naughty boy, I already posted back to Greven on that story.

a reply to: jrod

REally? what science are you talking about?.. The made up science like you and Mbekel claiming that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands or years?... Or you claiming that "CO2 bounces off the ocean"?... That is the science you are talking about?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Cute, considering you scoffed when I first mentioned the resident time of CO2 time. Like I've written before, I threw you a bone with that one and it took you months before you figured out you could use that as an argument that casts doubt on the CO2 cycle.

Care to offer and evidence and sciencey stuff that backs up your claim?( that CO2 does not bounce between the atmosphere and ocean)

Also why are the CO2 levels in the oceans increasing? (and more acidic as a result of Carbonic acid)

www.waterencyclopedia.com...

Watched this vid by James Corbett and thought it worth sharing .

originally posted by: jrod

Cute, considering you scoffed when I first mentioned the resident time of CO2 time. Like I've written before, I threw you a bone with that one and it took you months before you figured out you could use that as an argument that casts doubt on the CO2 cycle.

What in the world are you on about Willis? In the past, before i ever saw you trying to discuss this topic, I have discussed the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere... But guess I must ask forgiveness if in one of your posts I didn't answer about whatever you said about CO2 residence time... My life doesn't revolve around yours, or your comments...

originally posted by: jrod
Care to offer and evidence and sciencey stuff that backs up your claim?( that CO2 does not bounce between the atmosphere and ocean)

Also why are the CO2 levels in the oceans increasing? (and more acidic as a result of Carbonic acid)

www.waterencyclopedia.com...

You are not going to find any scientist say Co2 does not bounces off the ocean, unless you ask that question in specific. No one is going to be that stupid to confuse the CO2 cycle with "bouncing".... Oh wait... never mind...

The only thing that bounces from CO2 are photons... But CO2 does not bounce off the oceans... It goes through a cycle just like water also has a similar cycle.

As for "ocean acidification". It has been shown in the past that this phrase was coined simply to horrify people "of the evilness of CO2", but in fact the oceans are not turning acidic. In order for the oceans to turn acidic their PH levels would have to get below neutral which is 7. As it is in the last 100 years the ocean PH levels lowered from 8.2 to 8.1.

There are many factors that can, and do change the PH levels of the oceans. From water temperatures, agricultural runoff, industrial runoff, wastewater, volcanic activity, etc, they all can change the PH levels of water. In the case of runoff, and volcanic activity PH levels change around the areas of discharge.

Of note, and as I mentioned above, ocean PH levels also change because of temperature changes. The higher the temperature in the oceans the lower the PH levels.

...
You can see that the pH of pure water decreases as the temperature increases. Interestingly, the pOH also decreases.
A word of warning!

If the pH falls as temperature increases, this does not mean that water becomes more acidic at higher temperatures. A solution is acidic if there is an excess of hydrogen ions over hydroxide ions (i.e., pH < pOH). In the case of pure water, there are always the same concentration of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions and hence, the water is still neutral (pH = pOH) - even if its pH changes.

The problem is that we are all familiar with 7 being the pH of pure water, that anything else feels really strange. Remember that to calculate the neutral value of pH from Kw. If that changes, then the neutral value for pH changes as well.

At 100°C, the pH of pure water is 6.14, which is "neutral" on the pH scale at this higher temperature. A solution with a pH of 7 at this temperature is slightly alkaline because its pH is a bit higher than the neutral value of 6.14.
Similarly, you can argue that a solution with a pH of 7 at 0°C is slightly acidic, because its pH is a bit lower than the neutral value of 7.47 at this temperature.

chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...

Guess what?... Yes the oceans have been warming hence it is normal that their PH levels would lower. As it is in other threads i have also showed evidence that underwater volcanic activity has also been increasing.

What we should really concern ourselves is about toxic chemicals being spilled in rivers, lakes, and oceans, or the nuclear fallout from the Fukushima disaster, or the plastic island in the Pacific ocean. Those are some of the real concerns we should have for our oceans, rivers, and lakes. Not the "CO2 levels"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Wow..so clueless you are, yet you insist I'm the dense one. Overly wordy posts does not mean you know your stuff. I forgot that you will cease every chance to make a strawman argument against someone who does not share your ideology.

The PH of the oceans is getting lower not at 7 and hopefully it will.not get there. However if our species cannot control our CO2 emissions who knows. I am correct using the term ocean acidification.
Ocean Acidification, the other CO2 problem

The underwater volcanic hypothesis is wrong, as humans contribute about 100 times more CO2 than volcanic activity as a direct result from burning petroleum and coal.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Watched this vid by James Corbett and thought it worth sharing .

I know, we are told we are looking at monsters, yet we really are looking at something like the variations in the size of a human hair strand along it's length..in itself something we wouldn't know about without a microscope.
I actually expect the next data bank resolution will be that the real, 'tipping point' is already gone unless...blah blah.

Just to add from one other of your posts, 'Realcimate.org' is still current. It's not clear what the issues were/are,


realclimate

a reply to: jrod

lol, clueless? Look in a mirror to find clueless. As mentioned above the term "ocean acidification" was first coined in 2003 by Ken Caldeira, but this term was made up simply to instill urgency and fear in people.

The information I posted above comes from a "chemistry website", and it shows when in reality water turns acidic, which at a ph level of 8.1 it is not acidic at all, and it is not turning acidic.

As for your claim that humans contribute 100 times more CO2 than volcanic activity?... I have already demonstrated on several occasions that this is not true in the least.

What we know about the emission of CO2 from volcanos comes from just 33 volcanos out of the 155 land volcanos. We are only measuring the emissions from 33 of them...

Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)

Robin Wylie, University College London | October 15, 2013 07:11pm ET

Until the end of the 20th century, the academic consensus was that this volcanic output was tiny — a fiery speck against the colossal anthropogenic footprint. Recently, though, volcanologists have begun to reveal a hidden side to our leaking planet.
...
In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.
...
We think. Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We've only actually measured 33.
...
Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still 'erupt' gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.

If these additional 'carbon-active' volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we've measured a grand total of nine percent. You can probably fill it in by now — we need to climb more mountains.
...

www.livescience.com...

As I said previously, the amount of CO2 that we know about is being released by 33 out of 155 land volcanos... and that's not counting the degassing from inactive volcanos on land which would logically increase the total emissions of CO2 released by volcanic/seismic activity on land.

Before you go on to claim "it is but an op-ed"... That man is a volcanologist, and he is including facts. It is an op-ed because we simply do not know the extend of CO2 being release by the overall activity of land volcanos and degassing on land due to seismic activity, or magma movement.

Then there are the underwater volcanos...

And then we would also have to add to all of the above the 201,055 underwater volcanos... And those are the ones we have found, there are an estimated over 3 million underwater volcanos...

Daily news

9 July 2007

Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves

The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.
...

www.newscientist.com...

And then you would have to add to that the degassing from other underwater areas...

Do you get it now Jrod, or even after the 10th time of this being shown to you, you still don't understand?...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Either the data was manipulated or it wasn't. It should be pretty easy to prove one way or the other. Actual hard data should prove it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

oops, i noticed a mistake where I wrote 155 land volcanos, when it should be 150 land volcanos.

Anyway, throughout Earth's existence there have been about 1,500 land volcanos, and who knows what areas where those volcanos were located could be degassing CO2. As far as I know we are not monitoring these areas as many of them are/were in the middle of nowhere and they are not being monitored unless someone notices and reports it.