Playing Fair With Climate Science

[code1211]

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

With all of the poisens we dump into the ocean, the death of any sea life being attributed to global warming is a little like attributing the death of Los Angeles gang member gun shot victims to global warming.

 

[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

With all of the poisens we dump into the ocean, the death of any sea life being attributed to global warming is a little like attributing the death of Los Angeles gang member gun shot victims to global warming.

So true........

 

[Old Rocks]

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

With all of the poisens we dump into the ocean, the death of any sea life being attributed to global warming is a little like attributing the death of Los Angeles gang member gun shot victims to global warming.

Wonderfully twisted logic. We are poisoning the oceans, so why not just acidify it, and warm it up as well. After all, dead is dead.

 

[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.

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'. Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Just because Science is well known and often cited, doesn't mean the article was written with the general public in mind. The fact that you're making the complaints you are, tells me that they didn't have you in mind either. Your complaints are specious and only serve to underscore the deniers' attempt to polticiize a scientific question and the failure of many to see their agenda.

 

[westwall]

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'. Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Just because Science is well known and often cited, doesn't mean the article was written with the general public in mind. The fact that you're making the complaints you are, tells me that they didn't have you in mind either. Your complaints are specious and only serve to underscore the deniers' attempt to polticiize a scientific question and the failure of many to see their agenda.

So tell us konrad. Who did they have in mind? According to you the article wasn't directed at normal people. So that leaves scientists and policy makers. If you don't bother to tell the scientists about the issues with the paper they may ask you for clarification. But wait lets take a closer look here....the authors themselves tell us who their target was...that's right the policy makers.

So they have presented misleading information to policy makers who we KNOW don't even bother to read the bills THEY write. So here you have the perfect situation, policy makers who don't review ANYTHING being presented with information of a not even questionable but provably worthless nature all to elicit a response from the policy makers.

To what end would you generate such a useless piece of paper? Why to generate yet more funds for "research" of course. That type of paper could just have easily been written at the local saloon as at a university.

 

[Meister]

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'. Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Just because Science is well known and often cited, doesn't mean the article was written with the general public in mind. The fact that you're making the complaints you are, tells me that they didn't have you in mind either. Your complaints are specious and only serve to underscore the deniers' attempt to polticiize a scientific question and the failure of many to see their agenda.

IPCC wasn't political?

 

[konradv]

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'. Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Just because Science is well known and often cited, doesn't mean the article was written with the general public in mind. The fact that you're making the complaints you are, tells me that they didn't have you in mind either. Your complaints are specious and only serve to underscore the deniers' attempt to polticiize a scientific question and the failure of many to see their agenda.

IPCC wasn't political?

Depends who you talk to. If you're constantly being attacked on a poltical basis, does that make your defense political? What you see as political speeches by scientists, I see as honest assessments of the future, whether right or wrong. Adding a political component to the controversy was almost entirely a denier ploy, because they failed on the basic science.

 

[asterism]

Just because Science is well known and often cited, doesn't mean the article was written with the general public in mind. The fact that you're making the complaints you are, tells me that they didn't have you in mind either. Your complaints are specious and only serve to underscore the deniers' attempt to polticiize a scientific question and the failure of many to see their agenda.

IPCC wasn't political?

Depends who you talk to. If you're constantly being attacked on a poltical basis, does that make your defense political? What you see as political speeches by scientists, I see as honest assessments of the future, whether right or wrong. Adding a political component to the controversy was almost entirely a denier ploy, because they failed on the basic science.

What? You're saying there was no political agenda to the original IPCC?

 

[westwall]

IPCC wasn't political?

Depends who you talk to. If you're constantly being attacked on a poltical basis, does that make your defense political? What you see as political speeches by scientists, I see as honest assessments of the future, whether right or wrong. Adding a political component to the controversy was almost entirely a denier ploy, because they failed on the basic science.

What? You're saying there was no political agenda to the original IPCC?

Don't bother konrad has run off the rails. He has sadly entered loondom and is unsavable.

 

[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'. Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Just because Science is well known and often cited, doesn't mean the article was written with the general public in mind. The fact that you're making the complaints you are, tells me that they didn't have you in mind either. Your complaints are specious and only serve to underscore the deniers' attempt to polticiize a scientific question and the failure of many to see their agenda.

While I understand I am wasting my time asking you a question that doesn't call for an insult for an answer I will try once more any ways. The Science article has been shown to be founded on weak evidence and is missing documentation specifying that weakness, specifically laid out by a science blogger (NOT a AGW denier BTW) in the link Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Do you support pro AGW studies even if they involve weak science but infer drastic consequences? Yes or no

 

[code1211]

Just because Science is well known and often cited, doesn't mean the article was written with the general public in mind. The fact that you're making the complaints you are, tells me that they didn't have you in mind either. Your complaints are specious and only serve to underscore the deniers' attempt to polticiize a scientific question and the failure of many to see their agenda.

IPCC wasn't political?

Depends who you talk to. If you're constantly being attacked on a poltical basis, does that make your defense political? What you see as political speeches by scientists, I see as honest assessments of the future, whether right or wrong. Adding a political component to the controversy was almost entirely a denier ploy, because they failed on the basic science.

What was the percent of the IPCC was comprised of Climatologists?

 

[code1211]

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

With all of the poisens we dump into the ocean, the death of any sea life being attributed to global warming is a little like attributing the death of Los Angeles gang member gun shot victims to global warming.

Wonderfully twisted logic. We are poisoning the oceans, so why not just acidify it, and warm it up as well. After all, dead is dead.

The importance of correctly identifying the cause is the first step in correctly addressing the solution.

You posted an article about acidification of the waters off of Portland and that was the result fo Fertilizer run off, not CO2 poisining. We could have reduced our CO2 emission to 0 and the problem would still be there because it has nothing at all to do with CO2.

As a doubter, I am open to hearing the actual proofs, but find often that the proofs are agenda driven.

 

[Meister]

Just because Science is well known and often cited, doesn't mean the article was written with the general public in mind. The fact that you're making the complaints you are, tells me that they didn't have you in mind either. Your complaints are specious and only serve to underscore the deniers' attempt to polticiize a scientific question and the failure of many to see their agenda.

IPCC wasn't political?

Depends who you talk to. If you're constantly being attacked on a poltical basis, does that make your defense political? What you see as political speeches by scientists, I see as honest assessments of the future, whether right or wrong. Adding a political component to the controversy was almost entirely a denier ploy, because they failed on the basic science.

wake up, dude. Not only was it a political scam, but also, an economical scam. Who would be flippin' the lions share of the money? Just need to follow the money...always follow the money.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
H. L. Mencken

 

[Old Rocks]

With all of the poisens we dump into the ocean, the death of any sea life being attributed to global warming is a little like attributing the death of Los Angeles gang member gun shot victims to global warming.

Wonderfully twisted logic. We are poisoning the oceans, so why not just acidify it, and warm it up as well. After all, dead is dead.

The importance of correctly identifying the cause is the first step in correctly addressing the solution.

You posted an article about acidification of the waters off of Portland and that was the result fo Fertilizer run off, not CO2 poisining. We could have reduced our CO2 emission to 0 and the problem would still be there because it has nothing at all to do with CO2.

As a doubter, I am open to hearing the actual proofs, but find often that the proofs are agenda driven.

You are full of shit, Code.

Theory for dead zone off Oregon Coast | kgw.com | KGW Local News | Portland, Oregon

EUGENE, Ore. -- After 7 years of research, a team of OSU scientists believe they know, in part, what’s causing the dead zone off the Oregon coast.

The Oregon State University scientists said they now have evidence that the dead zones were directly related to a warming climate.

The dead zone started appearing off the Oregon coast in 2002. It’s an area of low oxygen water.

The worst-ever dead zone was recorded in 2006. That’s when the oxygen level dropped to zero. Dead crabs and fish littered the seafloor.

The researchers studied seafloor samples dating back to the Ice Age taken off the Chilean coast. Using a CT scan to study each layer of the core they found that sea life flourished during the ice age, but started dying off when the temperature started to rise.

"As that climate warming occurred during the end of last Ice Age that’s when the systems lost their oxygen. The currents less active they brought less oxygen then those dead zones expanded," said OSU oceanography professor Alan Mix.

The researchers explained that a deadzone off the coast of Chile was very similar to the one off the Oregon coast.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Seattle Times: Local News: Up-close view of dead zone shows "it's just a wasteland"

The dead zone is caused by coastal upwellings as patterns that normally sustain life in the rich coastal waters become more erratic and destroy some life. The normal patterns are a mix of northerly winds that allow upwellings of cold, nutrient-rich deep water to occur and southerly winds that move about the oxygen-poor water.

The Pacific Northwest dead zone results from strong northerly winds that allow the cold water to surface without any mixer winds from the south. This produces a series of upwellings that pile too much oxygen-poor water into the coastal zone.

Researchers at OSU said the erratic wind patterns of recent years are consistent with changes predicted in computer models that attempt to simulate the effects of global warming. But they caution that at this point it is unclear what — if any — link the dead zone has to climate change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So if you fill 2 tanks half way with microbe rich water and the first tank is just air but the second tank is air plus 200PPM CO2 you can kill all the microbes in the second tank?

 

[Old Rocks]

Hypoxia | PISCO

Monitoring and Research
The repeated hypoxic events of recent years suggest a fundamental shift in ocean conditions off the Pacific Northwest coast. These changes are complex and may include either oceanic or atmospheric changes or both. New results from other researchers show a slight, decrease in ocean oxygen levels world-wide, likely due to climate change. This small decrease in overall oxygen levels has probably primed the pump for hypoxia in the Pacific Northwest. The other major factors contributing to Pacific Northwest hypoxia are changes in winds and ocean circulation. We have evidence for both. These changes underscore the need for long-term scientific monitoring and research in coastal and open waters. These observations can enable scientists to better forecast where and when future low oxygen zones are likely to occur.

 

[Old Rocks]

So if you fill 2 tanks half way with microbe rich water and the first tank is just air but the second tank is air plus 200PPM CO2 you can kill all the microbes in the second tank?

If you fill Frank with some whiskey, you get a drunk fool, where before, all you had was a fool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't drink whiskey, I thrive on driving you to distraction because you won't ever subject your stupid theory to laboratory testing, proving your theory sucks

 

[Old Rocks]

We have are making the experiment on a rather bigger scale than a lab. And we are seeing exactly what the laws of physics state will happen.