If there is just one scientific article based on bad, non science the article can then lead to a long list of studies based on one wrong fact or study. Generations of scientists can cite that same article for many years to come. This network of infection eerily reminds me of the daunting task of recounting an inflicted AIDS patient with the list of partners they had sexual contact with, only to find each of them had two friends, and they had two friends…and so on.
With that being said, why do so many infer the cause of each revelation to be associated with global warming? Furthermore, how can the same cause and effect so conveniently be said to be true in the case of lower temperatures?
The danger of micromanaging as our scientists usually do is that YOU MISS THE BIG PICTURE!
Who made these naturally occurring patterns, substances, matter, elements, chemicals or gases bad names? This example shows a definite corruption of the words original meaning, now means negative;
- climate – the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
- acidification – the process of lowering ph, to become more acid.
- C02 – the most elemental life-giving substance on earth.
We do have climate and it does change.
Note for better science communication:
In case you find traces of arsenic (arsenopyrite, definition: mineral) in x,y or z why not find out the beneficial characteristics instead of playing on words by association with the general public. Arsenic has a negative connotation because we use it as a poison. Arsenic is found naturally occurring, everywhere and even if our acclaimed scientists haven’t bothered to look into the value and purpose does not mean it doesn’t have one within the dynamics of earth’s cycles. Yet you feel free to alarm us with finding its presence somewhere and compel us to take action against it. Yes let’s have government set up an agency, pour billions of money into it for administrative costs, salaries and scientific study to study this mineral called arsenic. Heck, we can even pay that agency to monitor arsenic forever and alert us if it changes.
Here is an article from Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) as found through this link. Lets follow this article with some layman analysis:
Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders
- K. R. N. Anthony1,
- D. I. Kline,
- G. Diaz-Pulido,
- S. Dove, and
- O. Hoegh-Guldberg
+ Author Affiliations
Centre for Marine Studies and ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072 Queensland, Australia
Edited by David M. Karl, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, and approved September 26, 2008 (received for review May 8, 2008)
Abstract
Ocean acidification represents a key threat to coral reefs by reducing the calcification rate of framework builders. In addition, acidification is likely to affect the relationship between corals and their symbiotic dinoflagellates and the productivity of this association. However, little is known about how acidification impacts on the physiology of reef builders and how acidification interacts with warming. Here, we report on an 8-week study that compared bleaching, productivity, and calcification responses of crustose coralline algae (CCA) and branching (Acropora) and massive (Porites) coral species in response to acidification and warming. Using a 30-tank experimental system, we manipulated CO2 levels to simulate doubling and three- to fourfold increases [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projection categories IV and VI] relative to present-day levels under cool and warm scenarios. Results indicated that high CO2 is a bleaching agent for corals and CCA under high irradiance, acting synergistically with warming to lower thermal bleaching thresholds. We propose that CO2 induces bleaching via its impact on photoprotective mechanisms of the photosystems. Overall, acidification impacted more strongly on bleaching and productivity than on calcification. Interestingly, the intermediate, warm CO2 scenario led to a 30% increase in productivity in Acropora, whereas high CO2 lead to zero productivity in both corals. CCA were most sensitive to acidification, with high CO2 leading to negative productivity and high rates of net dissolution. Our findings suggest that sensitive reef-building species such as CCA may be pushed beyond their thresholds for growth and survival within the next few decades whereas corals will show delayed and mixed responses. Supporting Information
Here is an example of the articles that link to it:
Articles citing this article
- S. D. Connell
and B. D. Russell The direct effects of increasing CO2 and temperature on non-calcifying organisms: increasing the potential for phase shifts in kelp forestsProc R Soc B 2010 0:rspb.2009.2069v1-rspb20092069
- W. Kiessling,
and U. StruckAn early Hettangian coral reef in southern France: Implications for the end-Triassic reef crisisPALAIOS 2009 24:657-671Abstract
- C. Brownlee
pH regulation in symbiotic anemones and corals: A delicate balancing actProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009 106:16541-16542Full Text Full Text (PDF)
- A. A. Venn,
and S. TambutteFrom the Cover: Imaging intracellular pH in a reef coral and symbiotic anemoneProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009 106:16574-16579Abstract
- P. L. Munday,
and G. G. K. EndoEffects of ocean acidification on the early life history of a tropical marine fishProc R Soc B 2009 276:3275-3283Abstract
- M. Byrne,
and A. R. DavisTemperature, but not pH, compromises sea urchin fertilization and early development under near-future climate change scenariosProc R Soc B 2009 276:1883-1888Abstract
This is my conclusion after performing an in-depth study and analysis of this science:
So! We were told yesterday that the oceans were heating up, now we have new studies of massive coral bleaching and dying due to a record cold ocean? One would usually assume an opposite reaction to opposite conditions. The warmer ocean causes coral bleaching and so does a cooler ocean. Perhaps it’s just a normal event after all. Who knows if the ocean acidification would happen whether or not humans were here?
Does your study prove that you have successfully reconstructed an accurate model with all the pertinent components of a fully functioning and interactive ecosystem we call the ocean? Have you pinpointed all supporting information involved with the life cycle of CAA, Acropora and Porites? Maybe your study model needed arsenic to gain accurate results in that 30 gallon tank.
That C02, is there anything it can’t do…or anything it can’t be blamed for?
Here’s a science paper from Cornell University claiming 40% of fan corals have died due to a fungal infection probably brought on by anthropogenic factors and warmer oceans; “Originally, we were interested in the natural disease-resistance properties of corals, such as the anti-bacterial and anti-fungal chemicals they produce, because some of those compounds may be useful in human medicine. That disease resistance normally keeps a coral alive for hundreds of years, despite living in an ocean full of potential pathogens.”
National Center for Environmental Research says “Global climate change may contribute to coral bleaching because thermal stratification causes both increased temperature and increased penetration of UV light associated with photobleaching. Both of these stressors are believed to contribute significantly to coral bleaching.”
The Nature Conservancy claims; “Sustained cold water temperatures in South Florida and the Florida Keys triggered severe coral bleaching and even coral death…”
This is Motes Marine Biology’s take on coral bleaching as an natural event; “Coral bleaching, which is the corals’ loss of their symbiotic algae called zooxanthellae, is a natural event that occurs to some extent every year in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary(FKNMS). While records show that coral bleaching events have been occurring for many years in the Florida Keys, indications are that the frequency and severity has steadily increased since the 1980’s. Large-scale mass coral bleaching events are driven by unusually warm sea temperatures.”
Who do we believe, none of them? How much inference is injected into each study, 20%, 50%? Given the religious fervor of the environmental movement, is there a conflict of interest to align your study for the purpose of funding? These scientists received more than $21 million in public funding, yet used deception to ensure that real world data did not interfere with the selling of global warming. Are humans really responsible for every event that happens in Nature? The very foundation of the climate change movement with all the conservation efforts are crumbling. The IPCC is being flooded with criticism, this is what happens when the science is based on a “Climbing Magazine” article. If science was the be all end all why does new science degrade old science philosophies? An example of this proves that even the theory of evolution is at risk with this study “Something rotten in the state of palaeontology“.
Yesterday we were at risk because global warming was heating up the earth causing us to lose our wetlands and subject us to an even more terrible event of desertification. Today methane gas is becoming more of a problem and actually, the wetlands are a major cause. This article directly retrieved from the UN (United Nations) with a nice little picture of a rice paddy in Taiwan…I mean of course, a villanous picture of a rice paddy in Taiwan.

4 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 4, 2010 at 7:59 pm
greg2213
Hey, thanks for stopping by my blog.
As for the “science:” Real science is taking your ruler and measuring something. Then you come up with a hypothesis, then you get some more data with different rulers, and if it all agrees with your hypothesis then you might have a theory.
Engineers and experimental scientists have to apply theory. We know that theories of orbital mechanics are good because NASA engineers use them to precisely hit a target billions of miles away. Their theories have to work, period.
On the other end, we have the IPCC with its climate reports. Those only need to persuade someone, NOT produce an exact result. Entirely different standard. This is why the IPCC is fine with quoting the WWF in its reports, and why NASA looks to a far higher standard.
IN climate science the models seem to trump data which is exactly backward, especially since the data kills the catastrophic warming idea.
This is why Engineers > experimental scientists > theoretical scientists > climate scientists.
To be fair, climate (like weather) is probably completely impossible to predict exactly. We know that it’s not warming strongly and it’s not cooling strongly (yet,) but that’s about it.
So to sell warming we need alarmism.
I’ve read that some of the alarmism stems from the ice core records (which DO show rapid warming. BEFORE CO2 increase. ) It can be read like this (if you don’t look too closely, right Mr. Gore?) – a bit of warming occurs, CO2 increases, warming rapidly increases. (Want catastrophe? Look at what happened right as the last ice age ended.)
Except that with those temp rises a) we were at the bottom of an ice age and b) temps topped out a little warmer than today. BTW – long term geologic record suggest a temp range of roughly +- 10C, or “dinosaur infested world wide forests” to “ice age.”
Most of the alarmist claims can be debunked simply by asking this, “Why didn’t your alarmist idea actually occur way back when the CO2 levels were many times higher than today?” at 4-5,000 ppm (today being roughly 380ish) one would think we would be like Venus.
There was no runaway greenhouse, no acidification, no die-off of corals, no earth crushing storms, no ice caps (ice caps are relatively recent,) etc.
Then there’s the fact that CO2 is a good thing. Just ask your local commercial greenhouse.
Personally, I think the greens are doing themselves a huge disservice by pushing warming so hard. No one will eve take them seriously again.
So, given that, what’s the benefit of alarmism? Heh. Lots of benefits. Power and money. LOTS of power and money.
- More money for “science” grants. Pro warming money is thousands of times higher than anti-warming money. And this science just needs to persuade, or agree with a viewpoint. EG: Hockey sticks.
- Fame. Add in some “supports warming” statement into your paper on (subject) and you’re a LOT more likely to get your grant and to get the paper published.
- More money for Goldman Sachs (GS) and others via carbon trading (CT.)
- More money for Politicians as GS lobbies for CT bills.
- Tax money to Govs based on CT taxes.
- More tax money from carbon (fuel) taxes for Govs to spend on favors to special interests.
- Giveaways to 3rd world dictators as reparations for warming damage, so that they can buy new castles, exotic cars, etc.
- More power in the hands of Government through new taxes and laws
- Stifling of opposition to Gov as people become more dependent on Gov.
- More sympathy for terrorists (Osama bin Ladin is a Believer, or claims to be.)
- More power for the ani-west and anti-human groups. What? You think that’s conspiracy think? Here: http://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/
- Built in constituencies for Pols. Announce your belief and get positive strokes from all the green/left groups. Very tempting.
- Etc.
Note, there’s nothing in that list about honest science and there’s no conspiracy (not in the way most people use that term, anyway.) Just a lot of group-think and, “THERE’s the money!!”
February 4, 2010 at 11:50 pm
comdenom
The honest scientists should be mad as h-e-double hockey sticks. Very good comment, I am convinced you should run for office…have you thought about it? Man, we need people like you, I am honored you stopped by to lend some sense here. BTW I still chuckle about the content of your quote section.
February 10, 2010 at 10:20 pm
greg2213
Hey,
Maybe they should be mad and maybe they’re willing to sacrifice some integrity for a steady paycheck. It’s that “have to pay some bills, man” attitude. I think science is neutral only as long as the funding is neutral and the guy(s) in charge is/are agenda free.
Run for office? Ok, give me back my leg.
Got a new quote for you, from a WUWT comment: If AGW mitigation required dismantling of authority, implementation of libertarian concepts, and less governmental controls, there would be no interest in AGW among the intelligentsia. Not even Greenpeace would support it. It would be considered a capitalistic, conservative plot.
I think that sums everything up quite nicely and explains the bad science, as well.
February 11, 2010 at 1:31 am
comdenom
That’s it…great quote! You’re absolutely right about the neutral funding, integrity is in short supply from the top as well for dangling the carrot.