Surface PH is measurably changing in stations across the globe abet just a bit. It is about layers of water, not an even mix. A very minor difference in PH has a big effect on the amount of free aragonite used to make shells. Lab tests have shown that a lot of microscopic and larger animals can't tolerate the levels of 2100 on the current curve. Sudden sharp changes don't allow for biological adaptation, not in 100 years. More reading required but this is not one we want to get wrong.
Ah, good. A climate model. Now we know for sure, because all climate models to date have been completely accurate. or... I am I wrong here? Scientific models are infallible, aren't they? I have absolute faith in every thing that anyone who claims to be a scientist says, so ... fuck, I'm all confused now. Just tell me what to think, somebody.
Well you could go by the opinions of politicians and internet experts. Or you could go by the opinion of actual experts..... https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Just to sample the above .....and reiterate that virtually no publishing climate scientist agrees with piezoe's tortured, impressive sounding but ultimately wrong opinion. American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
More evidence that piezoe works for a think tank..... He said......"The consensus seems to be building that there is some warming occurring globally. But even that is undecided. Some portions of the Earth are clearly warming while others may be cooling." Oh really... lol....classic climate misinformation. Like the kind some libertarian think tanks spew. if anyone can still take piezoe's opinion seriously on this matter....after he says something like this.....I have some prime swampland to sell you. Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.
this whole article starts off with these words... Its a model... Every model is off because they don't model water vapor and clouds well. --
Please go to the first link given here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/#comments This is a talk last year given by the brilliant atmospheric physicist Murry Salby who was fired by McQuarie Univ. in Australia, among other things. It is a slowed down presentation he gave at University College, London that can be understood by the educated layman. His position is my position on these matters. However I am more positive than he re the Paris climate accord. In principle he's right, but I believe there is much good to come from encouraging development of alternative energy sources, though like Salby I'm dismayed by the cost projections. But they are projections, and we know about the risks of extrapolation far into the future. Salby's seminar he gave in Hamburg a couple years ago before his research data was seized in Australia was a far more academic and specialized presentation . I thought his phase studies quite brilliant. Notice his snide remark midway into his London talk about the many shark species in Australia, not all of them in the ocean! His initial remarks in the next youtube presentation that immediately follows the London talk comes after he returned to Australia. He shows how resilient he has been considering what he has been subjected to. The other guy that is absolutely brilliant as far as I'm concerned is Ferenc Miskolczi , the Hungarian physicist who was run off by Hansen's GISS when they tried to suppress publication of his paper that concludes feedback is negative; not positive. That of course is something believers in Hansen's Hypothesis can not abide, as the Hypothesis , to be correct, depends on feedback being positive. If you look the scientists that are well qualified to question Hansen's Hypothesis up on Google, you will find that they have all been subjected to relentless attack. It's part of the smear campaign waged against any scientist who questions the validity Hansen's Hypothesis. The more prominent the scientist, and the greater the gravitas of their work, the more vicious the attacks. Quite something to observe. It was exactly the same with the Lysenko affair in Soviet Russia. There were folks trying to get Miskolczi removed from Wiki. They may have succeeded. They can't get Salby removed however, his reputation is too well established for that. He wrote the leading text in atmospheric physics.
A problem in the world Piezoe is one person says black and another will say white. Humanity is in danger of being killed on a zebra crossing. Bias creeps in, some see a picture from quite nebulous data and some need their face shoved in it. We have a system of peer review and such that produces fabulous results in every kind of science but in this one, the one that crass lobbiests are paying a fortune to confound, we have doubt. I remember as a kid massive deforestation in Europe caused by coal i.e. acid rain. I'm also aware of the incredible effort it took to get governments to agree to legislate against coal despite the fact it was obviously, literally, choking people and turning pine forests brown. I think in part we have some issue with the media hyping some aspects of climate change. I think a lot of the passionate deniers are paid scumbags or serious Dunning-Kruger effect examples. Man made climate change is real, too many qualified & honest people agree. Some guy in a trailer might think he knows better or it is a vast conspiracy but .. have you met a flat-Earther? We need to be wary of the great ocean liner effect, by the time we see trouble, absolute proof, it will be too late to turn. We need to predict the trend and get in early. Thankfully smog has led to lower car & factory emissions and Chinese cities are being choked right now. These are not global climate change, they are local but one fix works for both. Again, as you said and I have said we need to get off fossils anyway. GWB pointed to a link before for a guy called Cliff Mass. He puts it fairly well however when do we act? http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Cliff-Mass-Climate-change-is-real-but-12236265.php
Piehole said above "If you look the scientists that are well qualified to question Hansen's Hypothesis up on Google, you will find that they have all been subjected to relentless attack. It's part of the smear campaign waged against any scientist who questions the validity Hansen's Hypothesis." No they are attacked because they are wrong. Period. And, there is no such as "Hansen's Hypothesis". It's called climate science. But by ad-homing the argument he is trying to diminish the validity. Classic climate misinformation paid scumbag tactics. Salby is an industry-paid whore and fool that thinks the CO2 rise is natural and Curry is an attention whore that also, while not quite wrong, doesn't really say much. In addition Curry does not dispute that man is causing the warming. Curious that piehole would choose the 1% of industry whores and fools, instead of the 99% that agree that man is causing the warming. Salby was fired for fraud, not because of his laughable "science".