Arctic scientist under investigation

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie’s Links are an Article or an Opinion. I provided Key Links Earlier: Gore’s Graphs Proven Totally by Science Graphs. Etc. Etc. 90% of Scientists Agree Global Waerming and Man Caused: recent National TV Debate on Global: Lehrer/PBS Newshour. Maybe August 29.

Maybe I exagerrerated: maybe 99.7% proven, Bob.

Question: Is it wise to use Mr Gore as a prophet when he received 5 F’s at Divinity School?

washingtontimes.com/news/2000/mar/25/20000325-011032-8259r/

 

[gilliam]

Kimmie’s Links are an Article or an Opinion. I provided Key Links Earlier: Gore’s Graphs Proven Totally by Science Graphs. Etc. Etc.

• 90% of Scientists Agree Global Waerming and Man Caused: recent National TV Debate on Global: Lehrer/PBS Newshour. Maybe August 29.

Maybe I exagerrerated: maybe 99.7% proven, Bob.

That a microbiologist thinks global warming is man caused is irrelevant. Science doesn’t work on consensus. If some scientist thinks global warming is primarily man made he needs to prove it scientifically. So far all we have are discredited computer models.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Then ALL of these Peer-reviewed are non-existent?

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Actual links to each paper - NOT speculative arguments ]

900 ‘peer reviewed’ papers, vs Hundreds of Thousands Supporting Global Warming, as Almost every Nation and the Vatican agree on, except the USA Senate, because of Trillions of Dollars Wealth opposing Global Warming because of their Wealth Interests? Kimmie, suggest you Search: “DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS: populartechnoly.net”. It’s Phony: Spin. Not Scientifically Valid. :hey_bud::yukonjoe:
It's wise to check Sources.......................(I do)

 

[AntalKalnoky]

That a microbiologist thinks global warming is man caused is irrelevant. Science doesn’t work on consensus. If some scientist thinks global warming is primarily man made he needs to prove it scientifically. So far all we have are discredited computer models.

Science works on Data, unbiasedly Studied, explained. I cited The Source of 90% of World Scientists agreeing Global Warming (Early) is Man caused, Highly Documented. It’s not “a Microbiologist”, and not ‘thinking’; Documented Massive Data Results.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Question: Is it wise to use Mr Gore as a prophet when he received 5 F’s at Divinity School?

washingtontimes.com/news/2000/mar/25/20000325-011032-8259r/

Al Gore is no “prophet”. He is Social Concerns Leader. His Series on Global Warming is Totally Science. Why would the Anti-Social Concern’s Washington Times allege VP Gore’s Alleged College Grades in one field. What are Your Science Grades, Kimmie? You said you are a Student.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Kimmie always provides links when she makes a statement. Could you fo the same ,especially the 100% proven part

Have you looked at what Kind, How Valid “Links” Kimmie supllies? I have, virtually none valid, as I documented a few. I like to look at the Source of her Links… (almost none Valid, Bob)

 

[kimmielittle]

900 ‘peer reviewed’ papers, vs Hundreds of Thousands

Soooooo once again you won’t address your misinformation., when called on it.

Did you find the Lehrer/PBS Newshour?

Here is the actual transcript of your reference pbs.org/newshour/bb/envir…ine_08-29.html

HERE ABOVE is MR BILL MCKIBBEN Actual words from that transcript.

I challenge you to show us his words about “90% Scientists Agree Global Waerming and Man Caused”

C’mon you said it was in there…

Supporting Global Warming, as Almost every Nation and the Vatican agree on,

Well at least some progress has been made…You used to claim EVERY Country BUT the US

except the USA Senate, because of Trillions of Dollars Wealth opposing Global Warming because of their Wealth Interests?

Prove this please

Kimmie, suggest you Search: "DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS:

AND I suggest you actually read the science - AND lack of science behind claims.

It’s wise to check Sources…(I do)

You just gave us MR BILL MCKIBBEN, As a source.

 

[kimmielittle]

Science works on Data, unbiasedly Studied, explained. I cited The Source of 90% of World Scientists agreeing Global Warming (Early) is Man caused, Highly Documented. It’s not “a Microbiologist”, and not ‘thinking’; Documented Massive Data Results.

You cited MR BILL MCKIBBEN

Now as to the Raw Data you say these scientists agree on…This would be the Jones - Wigley Data…the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007?

Can you produce it?
Can Mr Jones produce it?
Can Mr Wigley produce it?

OR should I even bother to ask - Seeing how you’ve never produced anything remotely scientific for your claims?

You can not produce it, according to Mr Phil Jones own testimony

“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

 

[kimmielittle]

Al Gore is no “prophet”.

Finally, you have one statement that’s absolute truth

He is Social Concerns Leader.

No he isn’t

A social concerns leader wouldn’t have ONE house…that uses more energy than I do in 40 plus years.

It says the figures show the Gore residence uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations.

By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2153179/Al-Gores-electricity-bill-goes-through-the-insulated-roof.html

A social concerns leader wouldn’t be involved with one of the greatest economic scams known… the carbon trading industry.

While Mr. Gore is raising concerns and creating a market for “green” technologies, Silver Spring Networks is matching these concerns with a steady stream of profitable products, thanks to government subsidies.** There is no greater form of rent-seeking than creating a market and obtaining government funding to maintain market share.And it appears that this is precisely what Mr. Gore is doing when he declares our imminent doom in the face of supposed catastrophic climate change.**

cfact.org/a/1601/Do-Al-Gores-investments-grow-with-the-global-warming-myth

A social concerns leader wouldn’t charge $100,000 to present his “Science”
The Five page contract here thesmokinggun.com/file/al-gore-100000-man?page=1

Yet, Not debate the flaws within his presentation.

Mr Gore is a political activist , a “capitalist” investment player. Nothing more.

His Series on Global Warming is Totally Science.

Yet, you nor he, can explain why his graphs show temperature RISES BEFORE CO2 and his claim is CO2 drives climate temperatures?

I have presented his Claims for you before…You refuse to answer if those Claims, made by him are true…Hey! no biggie - He refuses, too.

What are Your Science Grades, Kimmie? You said you are a Student.

IF I told you my grades are all F’s in science, does that help your argument?

1: I have never claimed “AUTHORITARIAN” status. Mr Gore and AGW and IPCC has.

2:: IF my grades were F’s - are you saying I’m “out of my league”?

IF you think that… then AGW , Mr Gore, IPCC has even more problems

You see, IF I can stump you and them from providing these answers, You’ve been “schooled” by a kid with all F’s in science.

HERE AGAIN

When Mr Gore does these 5 things then you might have a case

This is what you need to prove the claims of AGW IPCC

TACKLE THESE FIRST

To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed:

1:Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

2:Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

3:Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth’s global atmospheric temperature;
WITH,

4:Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global
atmospheric CO2 levels; WITH,

5:Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic.

ALL FIVE HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO PROVE THE CLAIMS OF AGW AND CO2 IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATE.

NO ONE…NOT IPCC…NOT ANYONE has made even one of these evidences - let alone connecting Two to each other.

This would result in empirical observational evidence.

NEXT

Can you give us evidence of being able to LOWER temperatures even 1C ?

IS this the impression you want - A kid with all F’s in science Stumps you, Mr Gore, AGW, IPCC?

For the record - I excel in ALL the Sciences ] BUT that too…doesn’t diminish the facts…AGW lives in a MODEL only. IT has NO supporting observational evidence.

As to my references…Instead of ad hominem - PROVE their claims wrong.

 

[Tigg]

900 ‘peer reviewed’ papers, vs Hundreds of Thousands Supporting Global Warming, as Almost every Nation and the Vatican agree on, except the USA Senate, because of Trillions of Dollars Wealth opposing Global Warming because of their Wealth Interests? Kimmie, suggest you Search: “DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS: populartechnoly.net”. It’s Phony: Spin. Not Scientifically Valid. :hey_bud::yukonjoe:

                                                                                                                     It's    wise to check  Sources.......................(I   do)

I’m sorry but I fear your sources and explanations do nothing to support your case when held up in the light of Kimmie’s succinct and flawless research. She has responded to all your assertions with logic.

Have you read what she’s posted?

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m sorry but I fear your sources and explanations do nothing to support your case when held up in the light of Kimmie’s succinct and flawless research. She has responded to all your assertions with logic.

Have you read what she’s posted?

Thank You

Just don’t get me talking on what I think of Nancy Pelosi …

 

[kimmielittle]

A while back I introduced CERN’S Cloud experiment.

Here is some of the history:

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

The hidden Graph probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CERN-graph.doc

opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/

 

[AntalKalnoky]

You cited MR BILL MCKIBBEN

Now as to the Raw Data you say these scientists agree on…This would be the Jones - Wigley Data…the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007?

Can you produce it?
Can Mr Jones produce it?
Can Mr Wigley produce it?

OR should I even bother to ask - Seeing how you’ve never produced anything remotely scientific for your claims?

You can not produce it, according to Mr Phil Jones own testimony

Again, Kimmie, it is Not One or one Principal Source; Almost all Scientific detailed data Supports Global Warming, CO2 Obvious Growth at begining of Industrial age 18th Century, logarithmic increase since. Why limit yourself to only the “Jones Wigley Data”? Scientists study All Related Data, not One, one type supportimng limited \data, with allegations of refuting GW, unless they’re principal Pay is From Industry… Just like the IOne Scientist highlighted in the ABC-TV Evening News about Sept 1, Documented Heavily paid By Industry in Refutiing Bulk of Scientific Data and findings. Why Always focus on the stupid CERN Cloud exoperiment and IPCC Alleged problem, Disproven by Fuller Data? Why ignoring the Vast Bulk, Mainstream Scientific Base Proving GW, Kimmie? It may have been Another of Many Programs refuting the Refutters of GW. I avoid the FOXy, for the Highly Informing Honest Investigations/Documentaries like NPR News, Frontline, Etc., Etc.

Your last Link, The Lawrence Solomon Financial times link is Typixcally Misleading: It’s universally known that Solar and Earth Atmosphere Are The Influence, The Source of Global Weather and Variations; But Solomon avoids trying to Refute the CO2 Logarithmic now Increaee, begining with Industrialization. He Avoids The Problem, by focusing Incorrectly, to “Suggest” that it’s Solar, etc., radiation. Have you Read the Entire “Debunking the Debunkers”, Kimmie? "Debunkers are a small minority earning their Living Trying to Debunk Mainline Science.

 

[kimmielittle]

Again, Kimmie, it is Not One or one Principal Source;

Ahhhhh but it IS the PRINCIPLE Source for IPCC - AGW claims.

BY your OWN Logic - we should throw out / dismiss anything relying on this missing Raw Data.

Almost all Scientific detailed data Supports Global Warming,

You seem to have a problem differentiating between Earths Natural Changes in warmth and AGW claims.

WHAT THE ABOVE SCIENCE DOESN’T DO IS CONNECT The Earths warmth Or lack of ] To CO2

CO2 Obvious Growth at begining of Industrial age 18th Century, logarithmic increase since.

Again, you miss the MISSING SCIENCE…Temperatures RISE BEFORE CO2 -

Why limit yourself to only the “Jones Wigley Data”?

Because THAT is exactly what needs to be attacked - IT is the PRINCIPLE DATA used by IPCC - AGW’ers claims - AND IT CAN’T BE FOUND.

Scientists study All Related Data, not One,

The ONLY Data not tied to the Jones - Wigley Data - IS the data from Satellites. And that Data doesn’t support AGW IPCC claims.

Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.

drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

THE PROBLEM WITH MODELS

.Discussion
Once again we see evidence that the IPCC models are too sensitive, which means they are predicting too much warming for our future, which means Mr. Gore needs to chill out a bit.

Also, the list of modelers’ potential excuses for their models warming more than observed is rapidly dwindling. For example,

1. If the above results are any indication, it is unlikely the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.

1. Blaming Chinese coal-fired power plants for a lack of warming is just taking the modelers anthropocentrism to an even higher plane. There seems to be no good evidence to support such a claim anyway.

1. Another trick the IPCC uses is to put error bars on both the observations and the on the model results until they overlap. It is then claimed that models and observations “agree” to within the margin of error. But what they don’t realize with this last bit of statistical obfuscation is they are also admitting that there is a HUGE disagreement between models and observations when one goes to the other end of those error bars.

“Overlapping error bars” is the last resort for getting two numbers to appear to agree better than they really do.

It’s time for climate modelers to face up to the explanation they have been avoiding at all cost: the climate system is simply not nearly as sensitive as they claim it is.

If they ever have to admit the climate system is insensitive, it is the end of the IPCC and the policy changes that institution was originally formed to advance.

drroyspencer.com/

one type supportimng limited \data, with allegations of refuting GW, unless they’re principal Pay is From Industry… Just like the IOne Scientist highlighted in the ABC-TV Evening News about Sept 1, Documented Heavily paid By Industry in Refutiing

Ohhh How I LOVE when AGW’ers attempt this logical fallacy.

Then BY YOUR OWN LOGIC…CRU. MR Hansen, MR Jones, Mr Mann, Mr Gore, should recuse themselves? ALL ARE FUNDED BY INDUSTRY. [As I gave you evidence of in prior posts here ]

Why Always focus on the stupid CERN Cloud exoperiment and IPCC Alleged problem,

“Stupid” ???

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

IT is the Largest Concentration of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS.

What they found in the CLOUD was what IPCC AW’ers have NEVER DONE…Provided observational evidence.

I avoid the FOXy, for the Highly Informing Honest Investigations/Documentaries like NPR News, Frontline, Etc., Etc.

AGAIN, I suggest you examine the Actual Science - AND LACK OF Science…in IPCC - AGW claims. Couch potato / arm chair claims that AGW - IPCC put out in PR release…aren’t backed with observational evidence.

 

[kimmielittle]

Your last Link, The Lawrence Solomon Financial times link is Typixcally Misleading:

How so…???

But Solomon avoids trying to Refute the CO2 Logarithmic now Increaee, begining with Industrialization.

CO2 in the past has been MUCH higher - Life existed - flourished…UNLESS you care to prove otherwise HINT: I wouldn’t attempt it ]

What hasn’t been proved IS the rise ISN’T NATURALLY INDUCED… How did it happen in the past? ]

What hasn’t been proven IS that CO2 is a pollutant ONLY IN MODELS DOES IT EXIST AS A POLLUTANT ]

What Hasn’t been proven IS That CO2 is the Main Driver of Climate Temperature Claims…This will be hard to do - seeing that Climate Temperatures throughout history Show TEMPERATURES RISE BEFORE CO2 Levels by 800 plus years.

 He    Avoids The Problem,  by  focusing  Incorrectly,  to    "Suggest"  that  it's Solar, etc.,  radiation.

Avoids the problem? How so?

He addresses the problem head on - IPCC Models keep Solar variance as a constant That premise, is a lie ] - IPCC Models Are too high with “sensitivities” assigned …They IPCC ] Claim from 3.4 to 5.7 “sensitivities” of forcings and feedbacks. AND we don’t have observational evidence even, whether these are Positive OR Negative

Have you Read the Entire “Debunking the Debunkers”, Kimmie? "Debunkers are a small minority earning their Living Trying to Debunk Mainline Science.

I focus on the Actual Science as presented… I think for myself…I choose my Mentors very carefully,

 

[kimmielittle]

What they found in the CLOUD was what IPCC AW’ers have NEVER DONE…Provided observational evidence.** [EDIT]** AND it took about an hour of actual applied Science…IPCC - AGW has had 30 years or more, And 100’s of millions of dollars… to bring their unproven hypothesis of AGW out of a MODEL…WE still wait

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Ahhhhh but it IS the PRINCIPLE Source for IPCC - AGW claims.

BY your OWN Logic - we should throw out / dismiss anything relying on this missing Raw Data.

You seem to have a problem differentiating between Earths Natural Changes in warmth and AGW claims.

WHAT THE ABOVE SCIENCE DOESN’T DO IS CONNECT The Earths warmth Or lack of ] To CO2

[SIGN]Again, Kimmie, I don’t have time to refute Each of your innumerable Totally Contrary to Scientific Data, but here are a couple: newswithnumbers.com/2009/06/01/gores-graph-done-right/

climate.nasa.gov
[/SIGN]

Again, you miss the MISSING SCIENCE…Temperatures RISE BEFORE CO2 -

Because THAT is exactly what needs to be attacked - IT is the PRINCIPLE DATA used by IPCC - AGW’ers claims - AND IT CAN’T BE FOUND.

The ONLY Data not tied to the Jones - Wigley Data - IS the data from Satellites. And that Data doesn’t support AGW IPCC claims.

drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

THE PROBLEM WITH MODELS

drroyspencer.com/

Ohhh How I LOVE when AGW’ers attempt this logical fallacy.

Then BY YOUR OWN LOGIC…CRU. MR Hansen, MR Jones, Mr Mann, Mr Gore, should recuse themselves? ALL ARE FUNDED BY INDUSTRY. [As I gave you evidence of in prior posts here ]

“Stupid” ???

IT is the Largest Concentration of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS.

What they found in the CLOUD was what IPCC AW’ers have NEVER DONE…Provided observational evidence.

AGAIN, I suggest you examine the Actual Science - AND LACK OF Science…in IPCC - AGW claims. Couch potato / arm chair claims that AGW - IPCC put out in PR release…aren’t backed with observational evidence.

 

[kimmielittle]

Again, Kimmie, I don’t have time to refute Each of your innumerable Totally Contrary to Scientific Data, but here are a couple:
newswithnumbers.com/2009/06/01/gores-graph-done-right/
climate.nasa.gov

Why not stop playing with ( list ) and ( Sign ) it makes it extremely hard to directly quote you - Adds nothing to your claims

So your SCIENCE once again, comes from?

Some guy named “numbersguy”? Who, if you read it, Agrees Temperatures RISE before CO2 - WITH no explanation ]

"NPR News, Frontline, Etc., Etc.

“Mr Bill Mckibbon”

“Mr Al Gore”
CLOSEUP OF MR Gore’s Graphs

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1124&pictureid=10142

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1124&pictureid=10143

And a “NASA Page” Dependant on IPCC’s AR4 ] BUT Furnished a NICE page of ALL that I’ve been discussing… climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

It would Seem NASA doesn’t even agree with Mr Gore’s conclusions.

Below is an explanation of just a few other important uncertainties about climate change, organized according to the categories forcing and feedback. This list isn’t exhaustive. It is intended to illustrate the kinds of questions that scientists still ask about climate.

Let’s just take ONE of the “EVIDENCES” used by NASA

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

“Ocean acidification”

Now I don’t know about you, BUT I have a hard time putting much stock in a Scientific Community NASA ] Who can’t even get a Science TERM correct.???

To be “Acidification” The numbers would have to support it.

The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0…

The terminology “acidification” draws upon the negative public connotations of something being “acidic” and is primarily used in ecological sciences.

The Claim is… “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.”

DO you agree?

How did they measure pH in 1751 ?

The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909[7][8] and revised to the modern pH in 1924 after it became apparent that electromotive force in cells depends on activity rather than concentration of hydrogen ions.[4] In the first papers, the notation had the H as a subscript to the lowercase p, like so: pH.[9]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH I will trust wiki on this claim

In 1751 we were just discovering electricity.

There are ONLY TWO papers Claiming “Ocean Acidification”
In 2003 a paper appeared by Caldeira & Wickett which is based on computer simulations.

In 2005 a paper by Jacobson appeared, who calculated pH from dissociation constants, assuming that the ocean is in equilibrium with the air.

Reader please note that around 1750 electricity was about to be invented by Benjamin Franklin (see our timetable of human inventions), and pH could be determined only by the method of titration (litmus test?), and it is not possible to get more accurate than 0.2pH unit with this, regardless of the amount of sampling and averaging. Even today it is difficult to guarantee this kind of absolute exactness, considering the state of pH sensors and calibration buffers. In addition, the pH of the sea changes night to day, from day to day and winter to summer and from place to place. In fact, after our discoveries (DDA), natural alkalinity of the water can be established only after first disabling all life in the sample, and this has never before been considered. For Jacobson to claim an average ocean pH of 8.25 in 1751 is rather naive, if not fraudulent. His paper builds further on this by extrapolating:
Year 1751 2000 2100?
CO2 ppmv 275 375 (1.36x) 750 (2.73x)
pH of ocean 8.24691 8.13647 (1.29x H+) 7.87615 (2.35x H+)

Did he verify this with tests? No. The interacting chemistry of seawater is just too complicated to fully understand and even the carbonate part of it is not fully understood.
Although time series are still too short, other stations report increases of 0.4 to 2.2 µmol/y, equating to a decrease in pH of around 0.0012 per year. Note that because pH is a logarithmic scale, this annual decrease cannot be extended far into the future by multiplying it with the number of years.

seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#more_acidic

IF NASA ISN"T BEING FAIR IN THIS ONE “EVIDENCE” why would one rely on it as accurate?

If you check EVERY ONE of their “EVIDENCES” not ONE is substantiated with observational evidence. Let alone are correlation and causation attributed with empirical observational evidence of AGW or IPCC Claims.

AGW lives in Models

IF this is important to you, don’t you think it’s a wise move to go to the sources and do some investigation of Claims made by IPCC - AGW??

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Why not stop playing with ( list ) and ( Sign ) it makes it extremely hard to directly quote you - Adds nothing to your claims

So your SCIENCE once again, comes from?

Some guy named “numbersguy”? Who, if you read it, Agrees Temperatures RISE before CO2 - WITH no explanation ]

"NPR News, Frontline, Etc., Etc.

“Mr Bill Mckibbon”

“Mr Al Gore”
CLOSEUP OF MR Gore’s Graphs

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1124&pictureid=10142

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1124&pictureid=10143
[SIGN]

• Scientific Community, NASA, everyone looks at 650,000 Year and Longer Data, not One Hundred Years segment Your Chosen detail graph shows.[/SIGN]

And a “NASA Page” Dependant on IPCC’s AR4 ] BUT Furnished a NICE page of ALL that I’ve been discussing… climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

It would Seem NASA doesn’t even agree with Mr Gore’s conclusions.

[SIGN][SIGN] Nowhere does Nasa refute or Disagree with the Science Graphs or Book Or Film Al Gore Presented; Nasa Agrees: See item 7 of Nasa Climate Uncertainties: Sea Level Rise!. [/SIGN] You’ve offered No Refutations, and your quibling isolated opinion references, usually by someone paid By the CO2 emitting “Interests”, Kimmie.

Have you learned the Scientific Method, and unbiased Objectivity? Good to, Kimmie. It’s the Moral, Catholic honesty way. [/SIGN]

Let’s just take ONE of the “EVIDENCES” used by NASA

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

“Ocean acidification”

Now I don’t know about you, BUT I have a hard time putting much stock in a Scientific Community NASA ] Who can’t even get a Science TERM correct.???

To be “Acidification” The numbers would have to support it.

The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0…
[SIGN] Oceans are Rather Large: 2/3 of the Earth’s Surface; Scientists measure the Tiny Begining Trends of acidification. One has to Think Big, and Fully. Global Matters are not for amateurs.

[/SIGN]
The terminology “acidification” draws upon the negative public connotations of something being “acidic” and is primarily used in ecological sciences.

The Claim is… “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.”

DO you agree?

How did they measure pH in 1751 ?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH I will trust wiki on this claim

In 1751 we were just discovering electricity.

There are ONLY TWO papers Claiming “Ocean Acidification”
In 2003 a paper appeared by Caldeira & Wickett which is based on computer simulations.

In 2005 a paper by Jacobson appeared, who calculated pH from dissociation constants, assuming that the ocean is in equilibrium with the air.

seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#more_acidic

IF NASA ISN"T BEING FAIR IN THIS ONE “EVIDENCE” why would one rely on it as accurate?

If you check EVERY ONE of their “EVIDENCES” not ONE is substantiated with observational evidence. Let alone are correlation and causation attributed with empirical observational evidence of AGW or IPCC Claims.

AGW lives in Models

IF this is important to you, don’t you think it’s a wise move to go to the sources and do some investigation of Claims made by IPCC - AGW??