Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[digitaldog]

Where did he state they either will or might completely melt in 2014?

On 10 December 2007, in his Nobel prize acceptance speech, Gore said:


Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Maybe your beef should be with the authors of the studies (either, both, all)?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Where did he state they either will or might completely melt in 2014?...

... He actually said:
Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski[that there is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap, during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next 5 - 7 years....

And from another video I posted (reply 623): "The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years."

[digitaldog]

And from another video I posted (reply 623): "The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years."

EXPERTS in their fields who make predictions should be held to account for said predictions, not those who repeat them.
I predict that all new display systems will be wide gamut (larger than sRGB) by 2024. You are free to quote me. I could be wrong, it is a prediction. If I am wrong, I'm to blame for the wrong prediction.
If you want to dump on Gore for providing predictions from experts because you don't like his politics, then do so by being honest that you're not a fan of his politics. Not because he's quoting multiple experts in a field he's not an expert (he's not and I don't believe he's ever stated he's a climate scientist).
Your need to slam Gore, instead of Dr. Maslowski is noted. And unnecessarily.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

EXPERTS in their fields who make predictions should be held to account for said predictions, not those who repeat them.
I predict that all new display systems will be wide gamut (larger than sRGB) by 2024. You are free to quote me. I could be wrong, it is a prediction. If I am wrong, I'm to blame for the wrong prediction.
If you want to dump on Gore for providing predictions from experts because you don't like his politics, then do so by being honest that you're not a fan of his politics. Not because he's quoting multiple experts in a field he's not an expert (he's not and I don't believe he's ever stated he's a climate scientist).
Your need to slam Gore, instead of Dr. Maslowski is noted. And unnecessarily.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Except a couple of points:

- nobody knows who Dr. Maslowski is. Most people know who Al Gore is
- it is not Dr. M. who got a Nobel Prize, or Oscar, or $millions, for peddling those predictions
- Dr. M. denied he made such a prediction, at least not with a 75% certainty and in such a short time span
- that prediction Gore repeated multiple times, every time with less and less qualifiers, i.e., it was not a single misspoken incident
- therefore, Al Gore bears responsibility for that climate doom and gloom mongering

Which brings us to the most important part: the current doom and gloom predictions about polar caps melting. The researches are now smarter, after Gore's spectacular blunder, and push the melting point into the future long enough that, when/if it happens, or not, the authors will be long forgotten, and not exposed to criticism and ridicule like Gore was.

The reason I posted that Internet meme (not mine, btw) is make a point about such catastrophic predictions: if the last one failed to materialize so spectacularly, why should be trust the next one, to the point of taking immediate and drastic countermeasures?

Let me be clear: I am not against research and researchers. They should do their job. And occasionally create a doom and gloom scenarios. All that has its place in science. And they should not be held responsible for it unless they did it deliberately dishonestly (as some did), or with gross negligence or incompetence. What I am against is taking such research, especially the most drastic ones, as gospel, and weaponizing it through politics and media, demanding "immediate measures." That's why I hold Gore more responsible than the researchers.

[digitaldog]

Now we are getting somewhere.

Except a couple of points:
- nobody knows who Dr. Maslowski is. Most people know who Al Gore is

You're speaking for everyone now? That's kind of a sign of desperation.

- therefore, Al Gore bears responsibility for that climate doom and gloom mongering

Therefore, Al Gore bears credit for that climate change reality to be introduced to a larger audience!

Which brings us to the most important part: the current doom and gloom predictions about polar caps melting. The researches are now smarter, after Gore's spectacular blunder, and push the melting point into the future long enough that, when/if it happens, or not, the authors will be long forgotten, and not exposed to criticism and ridicule like Gore was.

The specific predictions were indeed wrong. But do tell us what's happened since the wrong predictions:

The ice under discussion hasn't changed at all
The ice under discussion has melted/reduced albeit, not to the large degree predicted by some.
The ice under discussion has increased.

Let me be clear: I am not against research and researchers. They should do their job.

Based on the vast majority of researchers, which of the three possibilities above have happened?
Pick door #1, #2, or #3.

And occasionally create a doom and gloom scenarios.

I'm not interested in such scenarios. I'm interested in what's happening today, based on predictions of the past by experts. Which of the three do the vast majority of scientists state is happening?
If it continues, at the same rate, a slower rate, a faster rate, it will continue and what's the possible results? Are you quite sure that this will have no effect on just sea level and it will have zero negative affects? Forget gloom and doom, just tell us what my mother in law, who's home is on the beach could expect if sea levels rise? Gloom for you or me? Probably not. Gloom for her and most residents on the the coast, next to the ocean where she lives? I suspect based on my understating of what rising sea levels means (not a complicated concept), she's in for trouble. Or whoever decides to live in the same location. Yes or no?

What I am against is taking such research, especially the most drastic ones, as gospel, and weaponizing it through politics and media, demanding "immediate measures." That's why I hold Gore more responsible than the researchers.

Gore picked one of the doors above. Which door will you pick?

[Alan Klein]

Here's an example when government "conspires" with industry and science for bribes, ah, I mean funding.  Government workers for the US National Institutes of Health are accused of soliciting funding from companies who sell alcohol to continue studies that moderate consumption of alcohol is good for you.  The NIH is shutting down the study and program. 

While the NIH isn't the Environmental Protection Agency who studies climate change, the closeness in every government agency with outside sources of money from industry is another reason to doubt the government.  Agency officials are often in revolving doors between government and then get jobs in industry. 
https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/15/nih-report-controversial-alcohol-study/

[Alan Goldhammer]

Here's an example when government "conspires" with industry and science for bribes, ah, I mean funding.  Government workers for the US National Institutes of Health are accused of soliciting funding from companies who sell alcohol to continue studies that moderate consumption of alcohol is good for you.  The NIH is shutting down the study and program. 

While the NIH isn't the Environmental Protection Agency who studies climate change, the closeness in every government agency with outside sources of money from industry is another reason to doubt the government.  Agency officials are often in revolving doors between government and then get jobs in industry. 
https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/15/nih-report-controversial-alcohol-study/

I will weigh in on this because it is not related to climate change (I only post links as you know).  I worked at NIH years ago and am now on the board of directors of an NIH affiliated organization.  The people who did this were way off the reservation.  NIH does work with groups that raise outside money to do important research and this is routinely done through the Foundation for the NIH, a non-profit organization that allows industry, academia and the NIH to collaborate on important research projects.  Sometimes these projects involve both industry and NIH funding (best example here is the Alzheimer's Disease Neural Imaging initiative that is trying to come up with reliable testing methodologies to improve clinical trials for this disease) and sometimes it is just industry funding.  Collaborators on these projects include representatives from industry, academia, NIH and the FDA.  All projects are managed with open transparency and results are published.  While I was still VP for Science and Technology at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, we developed to collaborative projects that were transferred to FNIH and our member companies participated in several others that were developed by NIH or FDA.  There are other organizations that also house public/private partnerships and there is nothing wrong with this as long as everything is above board.

This alcohol study funding was clearly egregious and NIH was correct to shut down the study.  I'm sure the individuals who sought this money without notifying their superiors will be punished.

[Alan Klein]

Alan I'm sure you do everything above board and thanks for your involvement in your important work.  But not everyone is like you.  Many people in government use their position to help outside companies to better themselves when they leave government and enter private industry often with those very same companies.

The problem is today with so many people seeing the shenanigans that go on in government and the close relationships and revolving doors between government and industry, it makes people doubt the efficacy of government support of projects including climate change.   There's this sense of being lied too; that everyone's got their hands in your pocket looking to get rich off your hard work. 

[LesPalenik]

Not only in Italy, possibly also in other countries.

[Alan Klein]

Nature at work using adaptation as coral adjusts to more acidic oceans caused by CO2.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a21270802/coral-might-be-adjusting-its-dna-to-survive-warming-oceans/

[Ray]

Nature at work using adaptation as coral adjusts to more acidic oceans caused by CO2.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a21270802/coral-might-be-adjusting-its-dna-to-survive-warming-oceans/

Alan,
Adaption is the most fundamental principle at work in the development of all forms of life, including us humans. Creatures that adapt to changing circumstances survive. Those that fail to adapt become extinct.

Many past civilizations collapsed because they were unable to adapt to natural changes in climate.
The false message that the 'climate change alarmists' seem to be promoting is that we can stop the climate changing by reducing minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere. What arrogance! 

The issue of ocean acidification is another example of the distortion of the science in favor of alarmism.
The average pH of the ocean surfaces is estimated to have changed from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 150 years or so. A pH of 7 is neutral and below 7 is acidic.

The alarmists try to exaggerate that change by describing the 0.1 change in the logarithmic pH scale as a 30% increase in acidity. A 30% change on a linear scale can be quite significant. If one's salary increases by 30%, or the value of one's home increases by 30%, one would likely be very pleased, or very displeased if the value were reduced by that percentage.

However, in order for the oceans to get even close to being acidic, reaching a pH of 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, the acidity would have to increase by 900%. The attached chart from NOAA illustrates the percentage change for each change of 0.1 in pH values.

There is also the fact to consider that the pH of the oceans is constantly changing according to the season of the year, the depth of the ocean and the location, and this regular change is greater than the long-term predicted average change during the next 100 years or so, due to mankind's CO2 emissions.

There are lots of studies which demonstrate the ability of sea creatures to adapt to changing levels of CO2. I've listed a few below.

"Echinometra sea urchins acclimatized to elevated pCO2 at volcanic vents outperform those under present‐day pCO2 conditions."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.13223

"An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility, and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century.
There is no evidence to support the claim that most calcifying marine species will become extinct owing to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and lower pH in the oceans."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000136

"No ocean acidification effects on shell growth and repair in the New Zealand brachiopod Calloria inconspicua."

"Foraging behaviour of the epaulette shark Hemiscyllium ocellatum is not affected by elevated CO2."
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/633/2458696

"Abstract
Most studies on the impact of near-future levels of carbon dioxide on fish behaviour report behavioural alterations, wherefore abnormal behaviour has been suggested to be a potential consequence of future ocean acidification and therefore a threat to ocean ecosystems. However, an increasing number of studies show tolerance of fish to increased levels of carbon dioxide. "
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/620/2458707

"This study suggests that elevated CO2 may impair photosynthetic activity, but not growth, of a hard coral under competition and confirms the hypothesis that soft corals are generally resistant to elevated CO2. Overall, our results indicate that shifts in the species composition in coral communities as a result of elevated CO2 could be more strongly related to the individual tolerance of different species rather than a result of competitive interactions between species."
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/659/2458741

"The hypothesis that “marine microbes possess the flexibility to accommodate pH change” is primarily based on the observation that microbial populations confront large variations in pH, both short-term and seasonally, in marine environments (Joint et al., 2011). This hypothesis is supported by recent studies at the microbial community level (Allgaieret al., 2008; Newbold et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2013; Sperling et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2013)."
https://phys.org/news/2016-05-well-travelled-plankton-global.html

"Corals Are A Net Source Of CO2, For They Release CO2 As They Grow And Thrive; ‘Acidification’ A Sign Of Healthy Corals."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2016GL068772

"More Than 90% Of Ocean PH Changes (‘Acidification’) Is Caused By Natural Variability, Not Anthropogenic CO2.
Finally, the assumption that changes in the oceans’ pH levels are primarily caused by humans is just that: a non-confirmed assumption.  As Duarte et al. (2015) conclude, there is “no robust evidence for realized severe disruptions of marine socioecological links from ocean acidification to anthropogenic CO2”.  Possibly the only people who still “believe” in the paradigm are those who are inclined to accept doomsday scenarios and those who are being financially compensated to keep them going."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2015GL064431

"Policy science concerning the Great Barrier Reef is almost never checked. Over the next few years, Australian governments will spend more than a billion dollars on the Great Barrier Reef; the costs to industry could far exceed this. Yet the keystone research papers have not been subject to proper scrutiny. Instead, there is a total reliance on the demonstrably inadequate peer-review process."
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2018/05/university-professor-sacked-telling-truth/

Should I go on? 

[Alan Klein]

Alan,
Adaption is the most fundamental principle at work in the development of all forms of life, including us humans. Creatures that adapt to changing circumstances survive. Those that fail to adapt become extinct.

Many past civilizations collapsed because they were unable to adapt to natural changes in climate....

Ray, the issue isn't only coral adapting to acid.  They also can get up and move. If the water becomes too hot in one area, coral will spread to "colder" locations where the conditions are better and re-establish themselves.  Here's an example.  They have found corals expanding northward at 14km per year, which is astounding.
https://www.livescience.com/13461-coral-reefs-warming-oceans-moving-poleward.html

Many people accuse me of being anti science and anti-nature. That isn't true.  I have always been amazed by science and love getting out to take landscapes and see the natural world in all its beauty and awesomeness.  I like breathing clean air and drinking fresh water.   I'm also a firm believer in Darwin, someone many proponents of climate change forget about.  It's as if their interest in natural events stop at CO2.  They should know better.  Even the polar bear isn;t going to die out.  The bears move around finding better areas to prey in where ice is the same.  If worse comes to worse, they'll move back to land where they once lived and find prey there.  Their color will revert from white to brown again.  Life goes on.  Even the groups of humans whose civilization ended because of climate change didn't really die out.  Like coral moving north, they moved on to other more productive areas to become the civilizations of the modern world. 

So successful were they that they caused the very issues we're arguing about today due to their population explosion.  That frankly is the only thing that could change that would make any meaningful dent on the environment by man, small or large as it may be.  And even trying to control population doesn't work.  China's horrendous great experiment of one-child families hasn't made much of a decrease in their 1.3 billion population.  Most of them are still relatively poor.  They're clamoring to move into middle class with all the attendant pollution and effects on the environment as the demand for carbon powered appliances, air conditioners, heating, autos, etc. escalate. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The false message that the 'climate change alarmists' seem to be promoting is that we can stop the climate changing by reducing minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere. What arrogance! 

What nonsense!

Nobody is promoting that we can stop the accelerating rate of climate change. The only way to achieve a stop is by immediately stopping all burning of fossil fuel by man, which is clearly unrealistic. If we're lucky, we might be able and slow it down a bit. At the current rate, it's unlikely that we can limit the resulting increase of global temperature to less than 3 degrees Celsius (above pre-industrial levels) by the end of the century. It'is questionable if the goal set by the Paris Climate Agreement can be achieved without all players contributing in line with their nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

The issue of ocean acidification is another example of the distortion of the science in favor of alarmism.

Again, what nonsense!

Distortion of science? What on earth are you talking about.
The full scale of Hydrogen ion and hydroxide ion activities has a range of 14 magnitudes, requiring 14 decimal digits to express the extremes. That's the only reason that the pH scale is expressed in logarithmic numbers, to keep notation manageable.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

What nonsense!

Nobody is promoting that we can stop the accelerating rate of climate change. The only way to achieve a stop is by immediately stopping all burning of fossil fuel by man, which is clearly unrealistic.

That's what I meant.  If mankind were able to completely stop all emissions from the burning of fossil fuel, realistic or not, the reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would be minuscule, yet the alarmists seem to think that such minuscule reductions in CO2 could actually stop the climate changing, since they believe the current change in climate is mainly due to increased CO2 levels.

As I've mentioned before, if it were possible to funnel CO2 into outer space so that CO2 levels could be brought down to the estimated pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million in a very short period of time, there could be agricultural catastrophe and mass starvation as a result of a lower CO2-fertilzation effect.

Again, what nonsense!
Distortion of science? What on earth are you talking about.

You'll have to read the links I've provided in order to understand what I'm talking about. Did you not read the article about the sacking of Professor Peter Ridd who dared to criticize the soundness of the research on the Great Barrier Reef?

The alarmism about ocean acidification, like the alarmism about the warming effect of minuscule percentage increases in atmospheric CO2, is not based upon sound science, because the very complex and chaotic nature of the subject does not lend itself to the application of the most rigorous and basic principles of the scientific methodology, which are required before certainty on any issue can be achieved.

Didn't you know that, Bart? I am surprised. 

[Ray]

Ray, the issue isn't only coral adapting to acid.  They also can get up and move. If the water becomes too hot in one area, coral will spread to "colder" locations where the conditions are better and re-establish themselves. 

Absolutely! I agree with your entire post, Alan; although I might have been a bit doubtful about your position on Darwinism because of your previously expressed views on religion. 

[Alan Klein]

Absolutely! I agree with your entire post, Alan; although I might have been a bit doubtful about your position on Darwinism because of your previously expressed views on religion. 

I don't find any conflict with a belief in God and a belief in natural selection.  Isn't God so clever?

[LesPalenik]

I don't find any conflict with a belief in God and a belief in natural selection.  Isn't God so clever?

Based on the expansion of the ticks to Canada, saucy or nervy would be better adjectives.

[Alan Klein]

Based on the expansion of the ticks to Canada, saucy or nervy would be better adjectives.

Yeah.  There's no figuring what He's going to do next. 

[Ray]

I don't find any conflict with a belief in God and a belief in natural selection.  Isn't God so clever?

Sure! If He exists, He must be tremendously clever; completely beyond the comprehension of mere human mortals who, after many centuries of scientific endeavour, are beginning to realize that the most sophisticated scientific instruments we have developed might potentially be capable of detecting only 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. The other 95% is an unknown substance we have labelled Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It may or may not exist, but we can be certain that God exists, eh! 

I can appreciate the emotional need to have some degree of communication with the most powerful entity that the human mind can imagine. Such beliefs can have very significant placebo effects, help to cure illnesses, and have other social benefits such as bringing people together, but there are also negative consequences to such unfounded beliefs, such as continual warfare which has inflicted tremendous misery on millions of victims throughout the history of mankind, and continues to this day in the form of ISIS and the continuous conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The analogy using religious belief to describe climate change alarmism, is very relevant. There is a similarity in the sense that both the existence of a Creator God and the existence of the 'devastatingly harmful effects (the devil)' of rising CO2 levels, are scientifically unfounded, that is, beyond the scope of the most rigorous methodology of science which provides a rational degree of certainty.

[Alan Klein]

Which reminds me of the entomologist who was said to have said that God must favor beetles because there's at least 600,000 different species of them, more than any other by a long shot.