Playing Fair With Climate Science

[IanC]

Kevin Drum | Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum
| Tue Aug. 24, 2010 8:47 AM PDT (I am unable to directly link article, scroll down to the 24th)

But now comes another climate-related piece of research, this time in the equally respected Science, and this time Stuart's skepticism is on much firmer ground. For the last decade scientists have been collecting information on terrestrial vegetation coverage using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board NASA’s Terra satellite. Their conclusion: vegetation coverage is down, which means plants are pulling less carbon out of the air, which means we have yet another positive feedback loop causing an increase in atmospheric carbon levels.

The problem is that there are only ten annual data points so far, and they bounce around like a pogo stick. The trend over the past decade is slightly down, but the variance is so large that it's almost imposssible to tell if this is just normal noise or a real decline. It's still worthwhile information to share, except that the writeup in Science appears to go out of its way to avoid acknowledging the problem:

So Stuart emails the authors, and they concede that their results aren't yet robust ("Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence"). Stuart is unhappy:

Ok. So here we have a statistically non-robust result, that the authors are well aware is not statistically robust, being published because it's of "high policy significance". However, and critically, the authors included no discussion whatsoever of the statistical limitations of the evidence. The "-0.55" in the abstract is not "-0.55 +/- 1.1" or something like that to give the reader a heads up that there is a lot of uncertainty here. There is no calculation of the "p-value" of that trend (how likely it was to occur by chance), even though the rest of the paper is littered with p-values of subsidiary results. They know perfectly well how to calculate this, they know it's not statistically significant, but they chose to put their readers in a position where we have to take the data off the graph and do our own statistical analysis to realize what's really going on.

And the refereeing and editorial process at Science allowed the paper to be published like that.

I think that sucks.

Stuart is no climate skeptic, just someone who thinks data ought to be presented clearly and transparently. I agree. Especially in the current post-Climategate atmosphere, the climate community needs to be purer than Caesar's wife about this kind of thing. There's no reason to withhold this satellite information, but it should be clearly labeled as preliminary, non-significant, and with error bars attached.

This attitude is what makes climate science so creepy. Science is science and politics is politics. When politics is paraded around as science, SCIENCE SUFFERS! How is the layman supposed to separate fact from opinion when even superstar journals like Science and Nature are letting propaganda slide?

 

[westwall]

Kevin Drum | Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum
| Tue Aug. 24, 2010 8:47 AM PDT (I am unable to directly link article, scroll down to the 24th)

But now comes another climate-related piece of research, this time in the equally respected Science, and this time Stuart's skepticism is on much firmer ground. For the last decade scientists have been collecting information on terrestrial vegetation coverage using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board NASA’s Terra satellite. Their conclusion: vegetation coverage is down, which means plants are pulling less carbon out of the air, which means we have yet another positive feedback loop causing an increase in atmospheric carbon levels.

The problem is that there are only ten annual data points so far, and they bounce around like a pogo stick. The trend over the past decade is slightly down, but the variance is so large that it's almost imposssible to tell if this is just normal noise or a real decline. It's still worthwhile information to share, except that the writeup in Science appears to go out of its way to avoid acknowledging the problem:

So Stuart emails the authors, and they concede that their results aren't yet robust ("Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence"). Stuart is unhappy:

Ok. So here we have a statistically non-robust result, that the authors are well aware is not statistically robust, being published because it's of "high policy significance". However, and critically, the authors included no discussion whatsoever of the statistical limitations of the evidence. The "-0.55" in the abstract is not "-0.55 +/- 1.1" or something like that to give the reader a heads up that there is a lot of uncertainty here. There is no calculation of the "p-value" of that trend (how likely it was to occur by chance), even though the rest of the paper is littered with p-values of subsidiary results. They know perfectly well how to calculate this, they know it's not statistically significant, but they chose to put their readers in a position where we have to take the data off the graph and do our own statistical analysis to realize what's really going on.

And the refereeing and editorial process at Science allowed the paper to be published like that.

I think that sucks.

Stuart is no climate skeptic, just someone who thinks data ought to be presented clearly and transparently. I agree. Especially in the current post-Climategate atmosphere, the climate community needs to be purer than Caesar's wife about this kind of thing. There's no reason to withhold this satellite information, but it should be clearly labeled as preliminary, non-significant, and with error bars attached.

This attitude is what makes climate science so creepy. Science is science and politics is politics. When politics is paraded around as science, SCIENCE SUFFERS! How is the layman supposed to separate fact from opinion when even superstar journals like Science and Nature are letting propaganda slide?

Some very valid points made here Ianc.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Confirming our suspicion Warmer science is more like phrenology, palmistry or homeopathy, but not as effective

 

[Old Rocks]

Kevin Drum | Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum
| Tue Aug. 24, 2010 8:47 AM PDT (I am unable to directly link article, scroll down to the 24th)

But now comes another climate-related piece of research, this time in the equally respected Science, and this time Stuart's skepticism is on much firmer ground. For the last decade scientists have been collecting information on terrestrial vegetation coverage using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board NASA’s Terra satellite. Their conclusion: vegetation coverage is down, which means plants are pulling less carbon out of the air, which means we have yet another positive feedback loop causing an increase in atmospheric carbon levels.

The problem is that there are only ten annual data points so far, and they bounce around like a pogo stick. The trend over the past decade is slightly down, but the variance is so large that it's almost imposssible to tell if this is just normal noise or a real decline. It's still worthwhile information to share, except that the writeup in Science appears to go out of its way to avoid acknowledging the problem:

So Stuart emails the authors, and they concede that their results aren't yet robust ("Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence"). Stuart is unhappy:

Ok. So here we have a statistically non-robust result, that the authors are well aware is not statistically robust, being published because it's of "high policy significance". However, and critically, the authors included no discussion whatsoever of the statistical limitations of the evidence. The "-0.55" in the abstract is not "-0.55 +/- 1.1" or something like that to give the reader a heads up that there is a lot of uncertainty here. There is no calculation of the "p-value" of that trend (how likely it was to occur by chance), even though the rest of the paper is littered with p-values of subsidiary results. They know perfectly well how to calculate this, they know it's not statistically significant, but they chose to put their readers in a position where we have to take the data off the graph and do our own statistical analysis to realize what's really going on.

And the refereeing and editorial process at Science allowed the paper to be published like that.

I think that sucks.

Stuart is no climate skeptic, just someone who thinks data ought to be presented clearly and transparently. I agree. Especially in the current post-Climategate atmosphere, the climate community needs to be purer than Caesar's wife about this kind of thing. There's no reason to withhold this satellite information, but it should be clearly labeled as preliminary, non-significant, and with error bars attached.

This attitude is what makes climate science so creepy. Science is science and politics is politics. When politics is paraded around as science, SCIENCE SUFFERS! How is the layman supposed to separate fact from opinion when even superstar journals like Science and Nature are letting propaganda slide?

Haven't seen this before, but your point is taken. Too little depth of research to make a conclusion. So, let's do the research. Like the research done here;

Plankton, base of ocean food web, in big decline - U.S. news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

By SETH BORENSTEIN

updated 7/28/2010 1:53:14 PM ET
Share Print Font: +-WASHINGTON — Despite their tiny size, plant plankton found in the world's oceans are crucial to much of life on Earth. They are the foundation of the bountiful marine food web, produce half the world's oxygen and suck up harmful carbon dioxide.

They also are declining sharply.

Worldwide phytoplankton levels are down 40 percent since the 1950s, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The probable cause is global warming, which makes it hard for the plant plankton to get vital nutrients, researchers say.

The numbers are both staggering and disturbing, say the Canadian scientists who did the study and a top U.S. government scientist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes

 

[PoliticalChic]

Kevin Drum | Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum
| Tue Aug. 24, 2010 8:47 AM PDT (I am unable to directly link article, scroll down to the 24th)

But now comes another climate-related piece of research, this time in the equally respected Science, and this time Stuart's skepticism is on much firmer ground. For the last decade scientists have been collecting information on terrestrial vegetation coverage using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board NASA’s Terra satellite. Their conclusion: vegetation coverage is down, which means plants are pulling less carbon out of the air, which means we have yet another positive feedback loop causing an increase in atmospheric carbon levels.

The problem is that there are only ten annual data points so far, and they bounce around like a pogo stick. The trend over the past decade is slightly down, but the variance is so large that it's almost imposssible to tell if this is just normal noise or a real decline. It's still worthwhile information to share, except that the writeup in Science appears to go out of its way to avoid acknowledging the problem:

So Stuart emails the authors, and they concede that their results aren't yet robust ("Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence"). Stuart is unhappy:

Ok. So here we have a statistically non-robust result, that the authors are well aware is not statistically robust, being published because it's of "high policy significance". However, and critically, the authors included no discussion whatsoever of the statistical limitations of the evidence. The "-0.55" in the abstract is not "-0.55 +/- 1.1" or something like that to give the reader a heads up that there is a lot of uncertainty here. There is no calculation of the "p-value" of that trend (how likely it was to occur by chance), even though the rest of the paper is littered with p-values of subsidiary results. They know perfectly well how to calculate this, they know it's not statistically significant, but they chose to put their readers in a position where we have to take the data off the graph and do our own statistical analysis to realize what's really going on.

And the refereeing and editorial process at Science allowed the paper to be published like that.

I think that sucks.

Stuart is no climate skeptic, just someone who thinks data ought to be presented clearly and transparently. I agree. Especially in the current post-Climategate atmosphere, the climate community needs to be purer than Caesar's wife about this kind of thing. There's no reason to withhold this satellite information, but it should be clearly labeled as preliminary, non-significant, and with error bars attached.

This attitude is what makes climate science so creepy. Science is science and politics is politics. When politics is paraded around as science, SCIENCE SUFFERS! How is the layman supposed to separate fact from opinion when even superstar journals like Science and Nature are letting propaganda slide?

"Science is science and politics is politics. When politics is paraded around as science, SCIENCE SUFFERS!"

You have identified the crux of the problem...but need to contue on:

1. Postmodernism is the idea that there is no truth, everything is realative...a reacton to the emphasis on reason of the Age of Enlightenment.

2. Those who believe in this concept feel that no actual scientific basis is necessary fot global warming cants.

3. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

4. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’ http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf

 

[westwall]

Confirming our suspicion Warmer science is more like phrenology, palmistry or homeopathy, but not as effective

Havn't laguhed that hard in a long time! Thanks!

 

[westwall]

Kevin Drum | Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum
| Tue Aug. 24, 2010 8:47 AM PDT (I am unable to directly link article, scroll down to the 24th)

But now comes another climate-related piece of research, this time in the equally respected Science, and this time Stuart's skepticism is on much firmer ground. For the last decade scientists have been collecting information on terrestrial vegetation coverage using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board NASA’s Terra satellite. Their conclusion: vegetation coverage is down, which means plants are pulling less carbon out of the air, which means we have yet another positive feedback loop causing an increase in atmospheric carbon levels.

The problem is that there are only ten annual data points so far, and they bounce around like a pogo stick. The trend over the past decade is slightly down, but the variance is so large that it's almost imposssible to tell if this is just normal noise or a real decline. It's still worthwhile information to share, except that the writeup in Science appears to go out of its way to avoid acknowledging the problem:

So Stuart emails the authors, and they concede that their results aren't yet robust ("Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence"). Stuart is unhappy:

Ok. So here we have a statistically non-robust result, that the authors are well aware is not statistically robust, being published because it's of "high policy significance". However, and critically, the authors included no discussion whatsoever of the statistical limitations of the evidence. The "-0.55" in the abstract is not "-0.55 +/- 1.1" or something like that to give the reader a heads up that there is a lot of uncertainty here. There is no calculation of the "p-value" of that trend (how likely it was to occur by chance), even though the rest of the paper is littered with p-values of subsidiary results. They know perfectly well how to calculate this, they know it's not statistically significant, but they chose to put their readers in a position where we have to take the data off the graph and do our own statistical analysis to realize what's really going on.

And the refereeing and editorial process at Science allowed the paper to be published like that.

I think that sucks.

Stuart is no climate skeptic, just someone who thinks data ought to be presented clearly and transparently. I agree. Especially in the current post-Climategate atmosphere, the climate community needs to be purer than Caesar's wife about this kind of thing. There's no reason to withhold this satellite information, but it should be clearly labeled as preliminary, non-significant, and with error bars attached.

This attitude is what makes climate science so creepy. Science is science and politics is politics. When politics is paraded around as science, SCIENCE SUFFERS! How is the layman supposed to separate fact from opinion when even superstar journals like Science and Nature are letting propaganda slide?

Haven't seen this before, but your point is taken. Too little depth of research to make a conclusion. So, let's do the research. Like the research done here;

Plankton, base of ocean food web, in big decline - U.S. news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

By SETH BORENSTEIN

updated 7/28/2010 1:53:14 PM ET
Share Print Font: +-WASHINGTON — Despite their tiny size, plant plankton found in the world's oceans are crucial to much of life on Earth. They are the foundation of the bountiful marine food web, produce half the world's oxygen and suck up harmful carbon dioxide.

They also are declining sharply.

Worldwide phytoplankton levels are down 40 percent since the 1950s, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The probable cause is global warming, which makes it hard for the plant plankton to get vital nutrients, researchers say.

The numbers are both staggering and disturbing, say the Canadian scientists who did the study and a top U.S. government scientist.

Interesting that the claim is due to global warming and yet the plankton seem to be able to survive quite well up to a temp of around 45C. After that there are a couple of species that do well up to 58C. And the last time I looked 45C is around 113 degrees F. Can't seem to recall the ocean getting that hot anywhere, well save at a volcanic vent of course.

This from a study on plankton survival from a nuc plant outflow.


Plankton composition, abundance and dynamics in a severely stressed cooling reservoir

 

[Meister]

Kevin Drum | Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum
| Tue Aug. 24, 2010 8:47 AM PDT (I am unable to directly link article, scroll down to the 24th)




This attitude is what makes climate science so creepy. Science is science and politics is politics. When politics is paraded around as science, SCIENCE SUFFERS! How is the layman supposed to separate fact from opinion when even superstar journals like Science and Nature are letting propaganda slide?

Haven't seen this before, but your point is taken. Too little depth of research to make a conclusion. So, let's do the research. Like the research done here;

Plankton, base of ocean food web, in big decline - U.S. news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

By SETH BORENSTEIN

updated 7/28/2010 1:53:14 PM ET
Share Print Font: +-WASHINGTON — Despite their tiny size, plant plankton found in the world's oceans are crucial to much of life on Earth. They are the foundation of the bountiful marine food web, produce half the world's oxygen and suck up harmful carbon dioxide.

They also are declining sharply.

Worldwide phytoplankton levels are down 40 percent since the 1950s, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The probable cause is global warming, which makes it hard for the plant plankton to get vital nutrients, researchers say.

The numbers are both staggering and disturbing, say the Canadian scientists who did the study and a top U.S. government scientist.

Interesting that the claim is due to global warming and yet the plankton seem to be able to survive quite well up to a temp of around 45C. After that there are a couple of species that do well up to 58C. And the last time I looked 45C is around 113 degrees F. Can't seem to recall the ocean getting that hot anywhere, well save at a volcanic vent of course.

This from a study on plankton survival from a nuc plant outflow.


Plankton composition, abundance and dynamics in a severely stressed cooling reservoir

I like the part about an unnamed "top government scientist". He better agree with Obama's idealogy, or he would be in the unemployment line. This proves nothing but partisan politics.

 

[Old Rocks]

Kevin Drum | Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum
| Tue Aug. 24, 2010 8:47 AM PDT (I am unable to directly link article, scroll down to the 24th)




This attitude is what makes climate science so creepy. Science is science and politics is politics. When politics is paraded around as science, SCIENCE SUFFERS! How is the layman supposed to separate fact from opinion when even superstar journals like Science and Nature are letting propaganda slide?

Haven't seen this before, but your point is taken. Too little depth of research to make a conclusion. So, let's do the research. Like the research done here;

Plankton, base of ocean food web, in big decline - U.S. news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

By SETH BORENSTEIN

updated 7/28/2010 1:53:14 PM ET
Share Print Font: +-WASHINGTON — Despite their tiny size, plant plankton found in the world's oceans are crucial to much of life on Earth. They are the foundation of the bountiful marine food web, produce half the world's oxygen and suck up harmful carbon dioxide.

They also are declining sharply.

Worldwide phytoplankton levels are down 40 percent since the 1950s, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The probable cause is global warming, which makes it hard for the plant plankton to get vital nutrients, researchers say.

The numbers are both staggering and disturbing, say the Canadian scientists who did the study and a top U.S. government scientist.

Interesting that the claim is due to global warming and yet the plankton seem to be able to survive quite well up to a temp of around 45C. After that there are a couple of species that do well up to 58C. And the last time I looked 45C is around 113 degrees F. Can't seem to recall the ocean getting that hot anywhere, well save at a volcanic vent of course.

This from a study on plankton survival from a nuc plant outflow.


Plankton composition, abundance and dynamics in a severely stressed cooling reservoir

Phyto-plankton, dumbass.


What are Phytoplankton? : Feature Articles

Long-term changes in phytoplankton
Productivity
Because phytoplankton are so crucial to ocean biology and climate, any change in their productivity could have a significant influence on biodiversity, fisheries and the human food supply, and the pace of global warming.
Many models of ocean chemistry and biology predict that as the ocean surface warms in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases, phytoplankton productivity will decline. Productivity is expected to drop because as the surface waters warm, the water column becomes increasingly stratified; there is less vertical mixing to recycle nutrients from deep waters back to the surface.

 

[westwall]

Haven't seen this before, but your point is taken. Too little depth of research to make a conclusion. So, let's do the research. Like the research done here;

Plankton, base of ocean food web, in big decline - U.S. news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

By SETH BORENSTEIN

updated 7/28/2010 1:53:14 PM ET
Share Print Font: +-WASHINGTON — Despite their tiny size, plant plankton found in the world's oceans are crucial to much of life on Earth. They are the foundation of the bountiful marine food web, produce half the world's oxygen and suck up harmful carbon dioxide.

They also are declining sharply.

Worldwide phytoplankton levels are down 40 percent since the 1950s, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The probable cause is global warming, which makes it hard for the plant plankton to get vital nutrients, researchers say.

The numbers are both staggering and disturbing, say the Canadian scientists who did the study and a top U.S. government scientist.

Interesting that the claim is due to global warming and yet the plankton seem to be able to survive quite well up to a temp of around 45C. After that there are a couple of species that do well up to 58C. And the last time I looked 45C is around 113 degrees F. Can't seem to recall the ocean getting that hot anywhere, well save at a volcanic vent of course.

This from a study on plankton survival from a nuc plant outflow.


Plankton composition, abundance and dynamics in a severely stressed cooling reservoir

Phyto-plankton, dumbass.


What are Phytoplankton? : Feature Articles

Long-term changes in phytoplankton
Productivity
Because phytoplankton are so crucial to ocean biology and climate, any change in their productivity could have a significant influence on biodiversity, fisheries and the human food supply, and the pace of global warming.
Many models of ocean chemistry and biology predict that as the ocean surface warms in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases, phytoplankton productivity will decline. Productivity is expected to drop because as the surface waters warm, the water column becomes increasingly stratified; there is less vertical mixing to recycle nutrients from deep waters back to the surface.

And yet the only empirical data presented shows that those concerns are unfounded. So far not a single prediction of the stratification of the water columne has been borne out.
In fact the prime mover of the GW ocean movement model has been proven incorrect.

Once again a tremendous amount of alarmism with not one iota of fact to support the fear.
Typical and simply par for the course for the vast majority of climatologists. That's why the general public no longer believe them.

Oh and dip stick, Plankton is also used as is zooplankton. So you can put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[konradv]

And the refereeing and editorial process at Science allowed the paper to be published like that.

I think that sucks.

Maybe because that paper wasn't meant for the general public. It's standard practice in the scientific literature to mention the p-value of anything less than .05, the minimum level considered to be significant. Anything not so marked is considered not statistically significant and the p value assumed to be over .05. Generally, if something is close to that level, there may be some discussion of a "trend" and an acknowledgement that more data needs to be gathered. Knowing Science, that's the most likely scenario and calling that "propaganda" is just a result lack of knowledge, similar to the the way the stolen emails were misinterpreted. Every field has its own jargon and someone unfamiliar with it interpreting what's said in standard ways is where the confusion comes in. Don't take some bloggers word for what's said. Take it too a real scientist with solid publishing credentials and some of those "creepy" parts will seem less so.

 

[Old Rocks]

Empiracal data presented is that we have a loss of 40% of the phytoplankton in our oceans. And there are a number of things that could cause this, all of them related to the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. I also note you presented not one thing to back your statement. As per usual.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Empiracal data presented is that we have a loss of 40% of the phytoplankton in our oceans. And there are a number of things that could cause this, all of them related to the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. I also note you presented not one thing to back your statement. As per usual.

Can you set up an experiment with two tanks with equal amounts of phytoplankton and show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 in one tank will decrease phytoplankton by 40%?

Thanks in advance for ignoring and/or avoiding the request

 

[konradv]

Empiracal data presented is that we have a loss of 40% of the phytoplankton in our oceans. And there are a number of things that could cause this, all of them related to the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. I also note you presented not one thing to back your statement. As per usual.

Can you set up an experiment with two tanks with equal amounts of phytoplankton and show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 in one tank will decrease phytoplankton by 40%?

Thanks in advance for ignoring and/or avoiding the request

Why don't you do it? Anyone who knows the science realizes that a 67% increase in CO2 would significantly lower the pH, thereby impacting phytoplankton. Whether or not it's 40%, well we'll have to wait for the results of Frank's experiment.

 

[IanC]

And the refereeing and editorial process at Science allowed the paper to be published like that.

I think that sucks.

Maybe because that paper wasn't meant for the general public. It's standard practice in the scientific literature to mention the p-value of anything less than .05, the minimum level considered to be significant. Anything not so marked is considered not statistically significant and the p value assumed to be over .05. Generally, if something is close to that level, there may be some discussion of a "trend" and an acknowledgement that more data needs to be gathered. Knowing Science, that's the most likely scenario and calling that "propaganda" is just a result lack of knowledge, similar to the the way the stolen emails were misinterpreted. Every field has its own jargon and someone unfamiliar with it interpreting what's said in standard ways is where the confusion comes in. Don't take some bloggers word for what's said. Take it too a real scientist with solid publishing credentials and some of those "creepy" parts will seem less so.

The paper wasn't meant for the general public? Hahaha. Old Rocks has already started a thread with numerous articles based on that very same Science piece. One even declares that we have come to a 'tipping point'. The journal knows that its papers are picked up around the world and therefore should have relevent information, such as the statistical significance, easily accessable. The public assumes that the editing board of Science is the equivilent of taking it to a real scientist with solid publishing credentials.

BTW- the authors of the article know that it is statistically weak but decided to not include that information because of 'high policy significance'. http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/08/climate-alarmism-at-science-magazine.html

 

[Old Rocks]

That is correct. A high policy signficance because of time constraints, and what we are seeing in the rest of nature.

Come on, people. Look at the weather events of this year. And the impact on agriculture. Then consider what we are seeing in the oceans, from the drastic decrease in phytoplankton, to the accelerating death of the worlds coral ecosystems.

Tipping points are very real, and, since we do not know where they are at, we will only recognize them after we have passed them. Kind of like finding where the edge of the cliff is at by that falling sensation. And, yes, I have said that before.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is correct. A high policy signficance because of time constraints, and what we are seeing in the rest of nature.

Come on, people. Look at the weather events of this year. And the impact on agriculture. Then consider what we are seeing in the oceans, from the drastic decrease in phytoplankton, to the accelerating death of the worlds coral ecosystems.

Tipping points are very real, and, since we do not know where they are at, we will only recognize them after we have passed them. Kind of like finding where the edge of the cliff is at by that falling sensation. And, yes, I have said that before.

Fine.

Show us in a lab how a 200PPM increase in CO2 is responsible for any of that.

 

[westwall]

That is correct. A high policy signficance because of time constraints, and what we are seeing in the rest of nature.

Come on, people. Look at the weather events of this year. And the impact on agriculture. Then consider what we are seeing in the oceans, from the drastic decrease in phytoplankton, to the accelerating death of the worlds coral ecosystems.

Tipping points are very real, and, since we do not know where they are at, we will only recognize them after we have passed them. Kind of like finding where the edge of the cliff is at by that falling sensation. And, yes, I have said that before.

Why don't you look at the "weather events" of 50 years ago, 25 years ago, or even 15 years ago. They all look remarkably alike.

Big Weather Events of the 20th Century at Sioux Falls, SD

Great Storm of 1975 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great Blizzard of 1899 at AllExperts

I understand your ability to understand the basics is limited but look at almost ANY year and you will see "weather events" as defined by the alarmists.

 

[westwall]

Empiracal data presented is that we have a loss of 40% of the phytoplankton in our oceans. And there are a number of things that could cause this, all of them related to the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. I also note you presented not one thing to back your statement. As per usual.

How do you figure that olfraud? During the PETM the only creatures that suffered a major population loss were benthic forams. All the rest of the biosphere did exceptionally well, in complete contradiction of "predicted effect". According to the alarmists idiotic assertions when the temps rise to those levels there is mass extinction....but it didn't happen that way.

From the wiki entry to keep it as simple as possible for you. Please, once again, note the highlighted passages. You will notice that NONE of the predicted catastrophes occured.
Sounds like the theory needs a major overhaul eh?


Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic); this means that we cannot appeal to general hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters. The only factor which was global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[26] – which may (perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[26]



Paleocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia