How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Walter]

The sky is falling on Gore again
By Henry Lamb (07/21/0)
Al Gore has certainly secured his place in history. His Academy-Award-Pulitzer-Prize-winning prediction that climate change will raise sea levels by 20 feet will be studied by future history students, along with the predictions of Malthus and Paul Ehrlich.
With Gore-like zeal, in the 19th century, Malthus predicted that the world’s population would soon outstrip the world’s food supply. In the 20th century, Paul Ehrlich predicted that "By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people."
He also predicted that by 1980, life expectancy in the United States would drop to 42, and that the U.S. population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999.
The grand prize for idiotic predictions in the 21st century has already been claimed by Al Gore. His insistence that the earth will fry, that the seas will rise, and that life as we know it must undergo a “wrenching transformation” will be studied by his grandchildren with the same appreciation that his, and Ehrlich’s ridiculous predictions deserve.
Is it possible that Ehrlich and Gore really think their predictions are valid? Or, are they just following the instructions of Dr. Steven Schneider, who tells fellow scientists:
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ([FONT=verdana,georgia,sans-serif][FONT=verdana,georgia,sans-serif]Discover[/FONT][/FONT], Oct. 1989)
Students of Malthus generally agree that he was sincere in his predictions, actively engaging his detractors in debate, and revising his conclusions accordingly. Malthus was sincerely wrong.
The same cannot be said about Ehrlich, or Gore. Ehrlich jumped on the environmental band wagon early. His book “Population Bomb” was published in 1968, and was an instant best-seller. He rode the wave of book sales and popularity for a decade, making speeches and writing articles offering excuses for failed predictions and promising even worse consequences for what he called environmental abuse.
Al Gore saw an opportunity to re-claim the political spotlight when he chaired the June 28, 1988 Senate hearing that called Jim Hansen to testify that the current heat wave was caused by global warming. Gore, having been defeated in the 1988 presidential primary by Jesse Jackson in the South, and by Michael Dukakis in the North, turned his attention to the environment, and to global warming in particular.
It was Hansen’s testimony at Al Gore’s hearings that propelled the United Nations’ efforts to get into the global warming business. Before the end of 1988, the U.N. Environment Program, and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to take charge of global research and action.
Gore’s selection as Vice President in 1992 provided the perfect stage for what was until then, his most influential performance. He publicly ridiculed then-President George H.W. Bush into attending the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in [FONT=verdana,georgia,sans-serif][FONT=verdana,georgia,sans-serif]Rio, [/FONT][/FONT]where the U.N. Convention on Climate Change was adopted.
Throughout the Clinton administration, Gore was “Mr. Environment.” He directed negotiations at virtually every U.N. Climate Change meeting during the 1990s working toward the Kyoto Protocol. When the negotiations stalled in Kyoto in 1997 because the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution directing the President to not accept the Protocol unless it applied to China and India and other developing nations, Gore flew in to save the day. Despite the Senate’s resolution, Al stood before thousands of U.N. delegates in Kyoto and announced that he had instructed the U.S. delegation to be “more flexible” in their negotiations. At the last moment, the Protocol was adopted, without participation by developing nations.
Al’s crushing defeat in 2000 left him rudderless for a few years, but he re-emerged with his “An Inconvenient Truth.” This spectacular movie won an Academy Award. Gore received the Pulitzer Prize. Once again, Prince Albert ascended to the global warming throne, despite the fact that the film’s assertions were not supported by [FONT=verdana,georgia,sans-serif][FONT=verdana,georgia,sans-serif]science[/FONT][/FONT], according to more than 31,000 scientists.
Ignoring his critics, and refusing to confront and debate the scientists who clearly refute his hyperbolic hallucinations, Al is now seeking to reclaim the global spotlight. He denigrates those who reject his unfounded predictions, and calls instead for massive national commitment to abandon fossil fuel, and launch a “go-to-the-moon” type campaign to convert all electricity generation to wind, solar, other “alternative” sources in the next ten years.
Gore has been spouting his predictions of climate disaster for more than a decade, while in reality, the global climate has actually been cooling.
The media, and uninformed politicians, gobble up Gore’s gloomy forecasts, just as they embraced Paul Ehrlich’s forecasts of people dying in the streets. History has proven Malthus to be sincerely wrong. History has proven Paul Ehrlich to be ridiculously wrong. History is proving Al Gore to be wrong as well.
But Gore must continue to peddle his predictions. His financial future is tied to his salesmanship. The more he cries “the sky is falling,” when the science says it is not, the more Al looks like a midway barker making whatever claims he thinks will separate the public from its money.
Henry Lamb

 

[Extrafire]

Right.... Spotty evidence of warming, without any synchronism, and any warm anomalies happening during the time ranging from 800-1300 AD. That's solid stuff Extra. The evidence for warm times is not global, and nor do they coincide on the same time scales.

Since you seem to know this so well, how about you list me those geologic samples, and what period they reference.

[...]

Hi there Ton,

I went for a holiday just before Easter and when I came back my computer wasn't able to access this website. I tried once a week or so and then once a month. Finally it let me back on! But now I'm out of the habit of visiting here and very busy with summer stuff so I don't know that I'll fully renew my activities here. And I had found lots of material to respond to you! Including another report on the Pacific heat vent. I don't know if I can find that now, but I'll try.

I don't have much time right now, but I will give you one report on the MCO that I have handy.

ScienceDaily (May 19, 2005) — Aside from views of cattails and blackbirds, the marshes in the lower Hudson Valley near New York City offer an amazingly detailed history of the area's climate. Sediment layers from a tidal marsh in the Hudson River Estuary have preserved pollen from plants, seeds, and other materials. These past remnants allowed researchers from Columbia University, New York, N.Y. and NASA to see evidence of a 500 year drought from 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D., the passing of the Little Ice Age and the impacts of European settlers.
See also: Plants & Animals

• Drought
• Endangered Plants
• Nature

Earth & Climate

• Drought Research
• Ice Ages
• Climate

Reference

• Forest
• Wetland
• Tundra
• Taiga

Plants provide an indicator of climate because the well-being of a species is controlled by the temperature and moisture of a region, and whether those conditions suit a type of plant. That's why if you draw latitudinal or horizontal lines around the world you'll find very similar species growing along those lines, like tropical plants around the equator, or tundra and northern or boreal forest species in a circumference south of the North Pole.
From the pollen record found in sediments in Piermont Marsh of the lower Hudson Valley, a Medieval Warm period was evident from 800 to 1300 A.D. Researchers know this from the striking increases in both charcoal, a sign of dry vegetation and fires, and pollen from pine and hickory trees. Prior to this warming spell, there were more oaks, which prefer a wetter climate.
The study which appeared in a recent issue of the journal Quaternary Research is important for showing how climate in this region has changed due to natural causes prior to human interventions in the area. Dee Pederson, a researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO), Palisades, N.Y., and Dorothy Peteet, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, New York, N. Y., and LDEO, wrote the study.
During this drought period, a core drilled into the marsh bed showed large influxes of inorganic soil particles, a sign of erosion. Plant roots hold soil in place, but with drought and plant deaths, more erosion occurs.
Droughts like this also make the bay saltier, and evidence of this was found by an increase in salty marsh plants, like saltmarsh cordgrass. The changing salinity of the marshes and estuaries could present future water quality issues in the event of a drought. For example, heading north up the Hudson River, the city of Poughkeepsie draws its municipal water directly from the river. Because the salinity of the river changes with drought, causing saltier water to move further north, salinity changes have the potential to affect the water supply of the city.
During the Little Ice Age from the early 1400s to late 1800s, the vegetation changed again to plants that favored cooler and wetter climates. The core records revealed increases in spruce and hemlock that prefer cooler and wetter climates.
Similarly, when Europeans settled the area they cleared the forests for agriculture. The pollen record reflects this with a vast decline in tree pollen and an increase in pollen from weedy plants like ragweed, plantain, sorrel and dock. Inorganic soil particles also went up following European settlement.
Peteet points out that researchers could use these methods to similarly learn about climate in other parts of the world.
The study was funded by the Hudson River Foundation, the LDEO Investment Fund and NASA.

Adapted from materials provided by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA

MLA
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center (2005, May 19). Marshes Tell Story Of Medieval Drought, Little Ice Age, And European Settlers Near NYC. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2005/05/050519065310.htm

http://http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050519065310.htm

 

[typingrandomstuff]

Oh. That's the whole event.

 

[Walter]

Lorne Gunter: There are two sides to the climate story. You're getting one.
Posted: August 06, 2008, 11:00 AM by Kelly McParland Lorne Gunter


Record high temperatures on Baffin Island last month — it hit 27C on July 21 — have made the news around the world, as has the evacuation of 21 visitors from the island’s Auyuittuq National Park. Fear that melt water from the park’s glaciers might lead to flash flooding and landslides has been reported by everyone from AFP to the BBC as proof of the adverse side-effects of man-made climate change.

Meanwhile, it is barely reported outside Alaska that America’s northernmost state is having a record cool summer.
If it reaches 19C in Anchorage today, it will be just the eighth time that’s happened this summer. Indeed, this could be the first summer ever that Anchorage never hits 24C.

Auyuittuq is at 66 degrees north; Anchorage is at 61.

The Baffin story may be more significant than the Alaska one. But why are we hearing all about one and nothing about the other? You can bet that if Anchorage were suffering a record hot summer, it would be all over the news and presented — as the Baffin temperatures are — as yet further proof of the dangerous impacts of global warming in the north.

And what of the study, released in July by Switzerland’s Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, that shows European temperatures, at least, have risen in large part because of efforts over the past 30 years to clean the continent’s skies?

Christian Ruckstuhl and 12 co-authors found that of the 1C rise in temperature in Europe over the last three decades, “at least half of the warming” is attributable to a reduction of aerosols, such as sulphur dioxide and black soot particles. As Europeans have cleaned up their smokestacks and tailpipes, and as dirty old Soviet-era East European plants have been modernized to Western standards, more sunlight has penetrated the continent’s atmosphere and warmed things up a bit.
In other words, environmentalism is causing global warming. As eco-advocates have won tighter clean-air regulations, their efforts have been rewarded with brighter days (a good thing), but also warmer temperatures.

But you may not have heard about this little piece of climate-change news.

Nor may you have heard about conclusions by University of Guelph environmental biologist Jonathan Newman and his graduate student Anna Mika. Last week, Prof. Newman and Ms. Mika warned other researchers to use results from the UN’s 31 climate computers with great caution.

Apparently, if you are using these computer models (the data sources on which all of the UN’s climate doom and gloom rests) to determine what will happen to human or animal populations for the next century, or to forecast the spread of disease or pests and so on, the answer you get will vary according to which computer you use.

“These models are the basis on which all research in climate change is done,” Prof. Newman said in a press release. Yet despite using two computers — one Canadian, one British — that both predicted the same future climate, “we basically got opposite answers” about the potential impact on insect spread “when we should have gotten the same answer.”

No predictions of future climate-related catastrophes are reliable enough for use in making public policy “unless they are run through many models,” according to Prof. Newton, and then only if most of the models are in rough agreement.

Or how about the discovery last month by NASA that at least 70% of global warming to date is due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the pattern of ocean currents and cloud formation connected with the El Nino and La Nina phenomena?

Or the paper by Gilbert Compo and Prashant Sardeshmukh of the Climate Diagnostics Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that concludes, “the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases.” Where were the mainstream news stories about that?

Could the oceans have warmed due to human activity and then warmed the land? Perhaps a little, say Messrs. Compo and Sardeshmukh. But natural changes in ocean temperatures could account for all the warming, even without any effect from greenhouse gases.

Why is it we hear only the Baffin stories and not the clean air/faulty climate computers/ocean warming ones? Surely it’s not because environmentalists and the journalists who cover them refuse to see any news except the news that confirms their biases.

 

[Avro]

Lorne Gunter: Incompetent or Lying? Either Way, Worth Firing

25 Jul 08
An earlier post of the errors/misrepresentations in a recent Lorne Gunter column in the National Post has attracted a host of comments and a few that further debunk Gunter's passionately inaccurate talking points.
DeSmog reader Dave Clark, for example, offers this:

Yet another whopper from Gunter:
"Snow coverage in North America this winter was greater than at any time in recorded history."
In fact, (according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) the 2008 January coverage at 17.0 million square kilometers was identical to the average for that month from 1973-2008. Years having equal or greater January snow coverage include every year from 1974-1985, except the marginally lower years of 1976 and 1980.
​

So, Gunter says that Al Gore is "calling on his country to abandon all fossil fuels within 10 years."
That's not true. Gore challenged the U.S. "to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years."
Gunter says that "worldwide, there are nearly half as many glaciers advancing as retreating."
That's not true. Gunter's own reference source says, "Climate change is causing roughly 90% of the world's mountain glaciers to shrink."
Gunter says, "Greenland isn't melting."
That's not true. This NASA report - the most recent available - shows "that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average."
Gunter says, "Snow coverage in North America this winter was greater than at any time in recorded history."
Per the comment and impeccable scientific source above: THAT'S NOT TRUE.
More than 50 per cent of Canadians believe that there is still a legitimate scientific debate about whether human activities are causing climate change. That's not true and hasn't been for a long time, but you can hardly blame Canadians for being confused; when journalists (and journals) of record have this much contempt for science, truth and their unsuspecting readers, it's completely to be expected.
Somebody should sack this character and should start insisting that his paper (and all the papers in the CanWest Global conglomerate) carry stories that are, well, true from now on.

 

[Tonington]

Lorne Gunter: There are two sides to the climate story. You're getting one.

Very true. Walter is a textbook example.

 

[Scott Free]

Therefore, generally in our location, we see it has become hotter and warmer than before; but this is not according to data, but it is only a general impression.
The Recent Global Heat Wave​

"I think that this is ascribed to that the Earth has approached the Sun by few miles, according to what we explained under the title of ( The Earth Approaches the Sun) in this book [See the preceding pages above], in which we said that the heat of the Earth core should have decreased to less than its previous severity because of the emergence of fire and lava from the volcanoes, and because of the utilization of the petroleum and the natural gas in huge amounts. And due to the fact that the gravitational force affects the cold object more; therefore, the gravitational force of the Sun should have influenced the Earth more than previously, so that the Earth has approached the Sun in this year 1978AD, so that the heat increased on the surface of the Earth."


My god man! You need to get this to Gore right away!!

I can't believe we came within three miles of the sun and non of our "scientists" noticed. No wonder the world is in such bad shape!

 

[L Gilbert]

lol
well it has been unusually warm around here.

 

[Walter]

Key degrees of difference

Cameron Stewart, Associate editor | August 09, 2008

HAS global warming stopped? The question alone is enough to provoke scorn from the mainstream scientific community and from the Government, which says the earth has never been hotter. But tell that to a new army of sceptics who have mushroomed on internet blog sites and elsewhere in recent months to challenge some of the most basic assumptions and claims of climate change science.
Their claims are provocative and contentious but they are also attracting attention, so much sothat mainstream scientists are being forced torespond.
The bloggers and others make several key claims. They say the way of measuring the world's temperature is frighteningly imprecise and open to manipulation. They argue that far from becoming hotter, the world's temperatures have cooled in the past decade, contrary to the overwhelming impression conveyed by scientists and politicians.
As such, they say there should be far greater scepticism towards the apocalyptic predictions about climate change. Even widely accepted claims, such as that made by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong that "the 12 hottest years in history have all been in the last 13 years", are being openly challenged.
"She is just plain wrong," says Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs. "It's not a question of debate. What about the medieval warming period? The historical record shows they were growing wine in England, for goodness sake; come on. It is not disputed by anyone that the Vikings arrived in Greenland in AD900 and it was warmer than Greenland is now. What Penny Wong is doing is being selective and saying that is a long time ago."
But selective use of facts and data is fast becoming an art form on both sides of the climate change debate now that real money is at stake as the West ponders concrete schemes to reduce carbon emissions. So what is the validity of some of the key claims being made by these new blogger sceptics?
Their first claim is that the most basic aspect of climate change science - the measurement of global warming - is flawed, imprecise and open to manipulation.
The earth's temperature is measured using land-based weather stations - in effect, a network of thermometers scattered unevenly across the globe - as well as via satellites and ocean-based weather sensors. There are four agencies that measure the world's temperatures and each has different methodology and produces varying, although not dramatically different, results.
Sceptics accuse climate change believers of always quoting the agency that shows the highest level of warming, the US National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space Studies run by prominent climate change scientist and activist James Hansen.
An independent study by Yale University in the US shows GISS says the earth has warmed by 0.025C a year during the past eight years while the other best-known measurement agency, London's Hadley Centre, says it warmed by only 0.014C a year during the same period. Not surprisingly, the Hadley figures are the most quoted by climate change sceptics while the GISS figures are most popular with climate change believers.
David Evans, former consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, says Hansen's GISS is unreliable because it is the only measurement agency that relies almost wholly on land-based data instead of satellites.
"Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the urban heat island effect," he says. "Urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars and houses."
As such, he alleges that the GISS figures - which are enormously influential in the climate change debate - are "hopelessly corrupted" and may even be manipulated to suit Hansen's views on global warming.
A group of weather buffs in the US also has attacked GISS's methodology, putting together an online photo gallery of US weather stations at website www.surfacestations.org that shows some thermometers situated next to asphalt runways and parking lots where they would pick up excess warming.
But GISS says the distorting impact of this urban warming is negated because data from these stations is modified to remove these effects and give a true reading. Hansen acknowledges there may be flaws in the weather station data because temperature measurement is not always a precise science. But he says this does not mean big-picture trends can't be drawn from the data.
He says: "That doesn't mean you give up on the science and that you can't draw valid conclusions about the nature of earth's temperature change."
Hansen has been infuriated by the attacks on GISS by climate change critics. Last year Canadian blogger and retired businessman Stephen McIntyre exposed a minor mistake in Hansen's figures that had caused GISS to overstate US temperatures by a statistically small 0.15C since 2000.
Sceptics were energised. "We have proof of man-made global warming," roared conservative American radio host Rush Limbaugh. "The man-made global warming is inside NASA."
Hansen struck back, saying he would "not joust with court jesters" who sought to "create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story".
What the bloggers have succeeded in doing is to highlight that measuring climate change is an evolving science. But their success has been at the margins only. So far they have failed to prove that these discrepancies negate the broader core arguments about the trends of global warming.
However, the second argument being put forward by blogger sceptics is more accessible to the public and therefore is having a greater impact. They argue that, contrary to the impressions given about global warming, the earth's temperatures have plateaued during the past decade and may have cooled in recent years. This, they argue, should not be happening when carbon emissions are growing rapidly. This was not what the climate change modellers predicted. Their conclusion therefore is that carbon emissions are not the driver of warming and climate change and that the earth is not heading for a climate change apocalypse caused by greenhouse gases.
"All official measures of global temperature show that it peaked in 1998 and has been declining since at least 2002," says climate change sceptic Bob Carter, a science adviser to the Australian Climate Science Coalition. "And this is in the face of an almost 5 per cent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1998. Spot the problem?"
A careful analysis of global temperature graphs from each of the measurement agencies confirm that - despite variations between them - there has not been any notable warming since 2000. Depending on which graphs you use, global temperatures since 2000 have been more or less flat. Some, such as the GISS data, show a modest rise, while others show negligible movement and even a small fall in recent years.
Sceptics like to use graphs that date from 1998 because that was the hottest year on record due to El Nino influences and therefore the temperature trends for the decade look flattest when 1998 is the starting point.
But ultimately this is a phony war because most mainstream scientists do not dispute that global temperatures have remained relatively flat during the past decade. Where they differ with the sceptics is on how this outcome should be interpreted.
"The changes in temperature over the past 10 years have basically plateaued," says Andy Pitman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW. "But scientists did not anticipate a gradual year-by-year warming in temperature. What matters is the long-term trend. This outcome does not change any of the science but it does change the spin climate deniers can put on it."
The sceptics are having a field day with this trend. The IPA's Marohasy says: "In the last 10 years we have seen an increase in carbon dioxide levels yet temperatures are coming down. That, if anyone looks at the actual data, is not disputable. Carbon dioxide is not driving temperatures because there are other important climatic factors at play."
Most scientists are adamant that any assessment of climate change based on only 10 years of data is not only meaningless but reckless.
"From a climate standpoint it is far too short a period to have any significance," says Amanda Lynch, a climate change scientist at Melbourne's Monash University. "What we are seeing now is consistent with our understanding of variability between decades. If we hung about for another 30 years and it kept going down, then you might start to think there is something we don't understand. But the evidence at this point suggests this is not something we should hang around and wait for."
Climate change scientists say we must go back much further than the past decade and pay attention to the longer-term trend lines that run through the temperature data and clearly trend upwards. Lynch says other factors beyond temperature are also relevant. "In the last 10 years there has been a catastrophic and massive Arctic sea ice retreat. We've seen glacial retreat, permafrost thaw and ocean thermal expansion, so temperature is not the whole story."
But the sceptics are undeterred. "It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is settled," says the US-based Science and Public Policy Institute. "This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial. The allegation is profoundly untrue ... even the most widely held opinions should never be regarded as an ultimate truth."
Matthew England, from the Climate Change Research Centre, describes the latest blog war by climate change sceptics as an amazing phenomenon. "Climate change is a robust area of science and there is plenty that is still being debated and new discoveries are still being made," he says. "It is a topic (that) will keep attracting different opinions from enthusiasts and from bloggers. They are a minority but they are proving to be a very vocal group."

 

[Extrafire]

[...]

In 2001 NASA discovered a massive heat vent over the Pacific (the warmest spot on the planet, apparently) that had vented the equivalent heat into space during the '80s and '90s as would be produced by a doubling of CO2. They passed that info on to some of the scientists and asked them to include it in their models. They were unable to so so. Any GCM that omits that data is not viable. Similarly, there is so much unknown about the effect of clouds that any model can not be viable.

Do you have a link to that story? I'd like to see that. I can understand heat transport to the atmosphere, but all the way to space doesn't compute.

[...]

Here's a reference to it.

NATURAL “HEAT VENT” IN PACIFIC CLOUD COVER COULD DIMINISH GREENHOUSE WARMING
The tropical Pacific Ocean may be able to open a “vent” in its heat-trapping cirrus cloud cover and release enough energy into space to significantly diminish the projected climate warming caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
If confirmed by further research, this newly discovered effect ? which is not seen in current climate prediction models ? could significantly reduce estimates of future climate warming. Scientists from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology present their findings in the March 2001 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
“High clouds over the western tropical Pacific Ocean seem to systematically decrease when sea surface temperatures are higher,” says Arthur Y. Hou of Goddard’s Data Assimilation Office. Hou and co-authors Ming-Dah Chou of Goddard’s Climate and Radiation Branch and Richard S. Lindzen of MIT analyzed satellite observations over the vast ocean region, which stretches from Australia and Japan nearly to the Hawaiian Islands.
The researchers compare this inverse relationship to the eye’s iris, which opens and closes to counter changes in light intensity. The “adaptive infrared iris” of cirrus clouds opens and closes to permit the release of infrared energy, thus resisting warmer tropical sea surface temperatures, which occur naturally and are predicted to increase as the result of climate warming.
The study compares detailed daily observations of cloud cover from Japan’s GMS-5 Geostationary Meteorological Satellite with sea surface temperature data from the U. S. National Weather Service’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction over a 20-month period (January 1998 to August 1999). The researchers found that cumulus cloud towers produced less cirrus clouds when they moved over warmer ocean regions. For each degree Celsius rise in ocean surface temperature, the ratio of cirrus cloud area to cumulus cloud area over the ocean dropped 17-27 percent. The observed range of surface temperatures beneath the clouds varied by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit (3.5 degees C).
The authors propose that higher ocean surface temperatures directly cause the decline in cirrus clouds by changing the dynamics of cloud formation and rainfall. Cirrus clouds — high-altitude clouds of ice crystals — typically form as a byproduct of the life cycle of cumulus towers created by rising updrafts of heated, moist air. As these cumulus convective clouds grow taller, cloud water droplets collide and combine into raindrops and fall out of the cloud or continue to rise until they freeze into ice crystals and form cirrus clouds.
“With warmer sea surface temperatures beneath the cloud, the coalescence process that produces precipitation becomes more efficient,” explains Lindzen. “More of the cloud droplets form raindrops and fewer are left in the cloud to form ice crystals. As a result, the area of cirrus cloud is reduced.”
Clouds play a critical and complicated role in regulating the temperature of the Earth. Thick, bright, watery clouds like cumulus shield the atmosphere from incoming solar radiation by reflecting much of it back into space. Thin, icy cirrus clouds are poor sunshields but very efficient insulators that trap energy rising from the Earth’s warmed surface. A decrease in cirrus cloud area would have a cooling effect by allowing more heat energy, or infrared radiation, to leave the planet.
If this “iris effect” is found to be a general process active in tropical oceans around the world, the Earth may be much less sensitive to the warming effects of such influences as rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The researchers estimate that this effect could cut by two-thirds the projected increase in global temperatures initiated by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The American Meteorological Society is the nation’s leading professional society for scientists in the atmospheric, oceanic, and related sciences.
Release No: 01-18
Contacts:
Lynn Chandler
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
E-mail: lychand@pop900.gsfc.nasa.gov
(Phone: 301/614-5562)
Stephanie Kenitzer
American Meteorological Society
E-mail: kenitzer@dc.ametsoc.org
(Phone: 425/432-2192)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200102284547.html

 

[Extrafire]

Right.... Spotty evidence of warming, without any synchronism, and any warm anomalies happening during the time ranging from 800-1300 AD. That's solid stuff Extra. The evidence for warm times is not global, and nor do they coincide on the same time scales.

Since you seem to know this so well, how about you list me those geologic samples, and what period they reference.

Here's a few:

Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand
Cook, E R | Palmer, J G | D'Arrigo, R
Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002

The occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere is uncertain because of the paucity of well-dated, high-resolution paleo-temperature records covering the past 1000 years. We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP. Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP. (Author)

http://http://md1.csa.com/partners/...cid=A0312770AH&q=&uid=791398326&setcookie=yes

A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability


Authors: Mayewski, Paul A.; Maasch, Kirk A.; White, James W.C.; Steig, Eric J.; Meyerson, Eric; Goodwin, Ian; Morgan, Vin I.; van Ommen, Tas; Curran, Mark A.J.; Souney, Joseph; Kreutz, Karl
Source: Annals of Glaciology, Volume 39, Number 1, June 2004 , pp. 127-132(6)
Publisher: International Glaciological Society


Abstract:
Annually dated ice cores from West and East Antarctica provide proxies for past changes in atmospheric circulation over Antarctica and portions of the Southern Ocean, temperature in coastal West and East Antarctica, and the frequency of South Polar penetration of El Niño events. During the period AD 1700-1850, atmospheric circulation over the Antarctic and at least portions of the Southern Hemisphere underwent a mode switch departing from the out-of-phase alternation of multi-decadal long phases of EOF1 and EOF2 modes of the 850 hPa field over the Southern Hemisphere (as defined in the recent record by Thompson and Wallace, 2000; Thompson and Solomon, 2002) that characterizes the remainder of the 700 year long record. From AD 1700 to 1850, lower-tropospheric circulation was replaced by in-phase behavior of the Amundsen Sea Low component of EOF2 and the East Antarctic High component of EOF1. During the first phase of the mode switch, both West and East Antarctic temperatures declined, potentially in response to the increased extent of sea ice surrounding both regions. At the end of the mode switch, West Antarctic coastal temperatures rose and East Antarctic coastal temperatures fell, respectively, to their second highest and lowest of the record. Polar penetration of El Niño events increased during the mode switch. The onset of the AD 1700-1850 mode switch coincides with the extreme state of the Maunder Minimum in solar variability. Late 20th-century West Antarctic coastal temperatures are the highest in the record period, and East Antarctic coastal temperatures close to the lowest. Since AD 1700, extratropical regions of the Southern Hemisphere have experienced significant climate variability coincident with changes in both solar variability and greenhouse gases.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2004/00000039/00000001/art00020

De'Er Zhang1
(1) Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Baishiqiaolu No. 46, 100081 Beijing, China

Abstract The collected documentary records of the cultivation of citrus trees andBoehmeria nivea (a perennial herb) have been used to produce distribution maps of these plants for the eighth, twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. The northern boundary of citrus andBoehmeria nivea cultivation in the thirteenth century lay to the north of the modern distribution. During the last 1000 years, the thirteenth-century boundary was the northernmost. This indicates that this was the warmest time in that period. On the basis of knowledge of the climatic conditions required for planting these species, it can be estimated that the annual mean temperature in south Henan Province in the thirteenth century was 0.9–1.0°C higher than at present. A new set of data for the latest snowfall date in Hangzhou from A.D. 1131 to 1264 indicates that this cannot be considered a cold period, as previously believed.

http://http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea

Lloyd D. Keigwin Sea surface temperature (SST), salinity, and flux of terrigenous material oscillated on millennial time scales in the Pleistocene North Atlantic, but there are few records of Holocene variability. Because of high rates of sediment accumulation, Holocene oscillations are well documented in the northern Sargasso Sea. Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was

1°C cooler than today

400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and

1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). Thus, at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA.

http://http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa

• P. D. Tyson1, W. Karlén2, K. Holmgren2 and G. A. Heiss3.
  
  1Climatology Research Group, University of the Witwatersrand
  2Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University
  3Geomar, Wischhofstr. 1-3, 24148 Kiel, Germany; present address: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), P.O. Box 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany, E-mail: g.heiss@gmx.de
  Abstract
  The Little Ice Age, from around 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300 in South Africa, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley.
  The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1oC cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period. It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are shown to be coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have been coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~gheiss/Personal/Abstracts/SAJS2000_Abstr.html

Want more?

 

[Extrafire]

You have no way of knowing where these species were thousands of years ago. What we know from laboratory experiments is that these species have critical temperature ranges. Species move around all the time, time permitting. That doesn't mean they can't die when a warm spell comes along. You obviously don't know what a threshold value is. I said an unusually warm period caused massive bleaching and death. I'd hazard a guess that it has happened in the past as well. Pollution is playing a part as well. I've told you of acidifying oceans many times now. Do you know what chronic stress means?

The evidence would seem to indicate that they're doing fine and not suffering from chronic stress at all:

New Coral Reefs Teeming With Marine Life Discovered In Brazil

ScienceDaily (July 9, 2008) — Scientists have announced the discovery of reef structures they believe doubles the size of the Southern Atlantic Ocean's largest and richest reef system, the Abrolhos Bank, off the southern coast of Brazil's Bahia state. The newly discovered area is also far more abundant in marine life than the previously known Abrolhos reef system, one of the world's most unique and important reefs.

Researchers from Conservation International (CI), Federal University of Espírito Santo and Federal University of Bahia announced their discovery in a paper presented today at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Fort Lauderdale. "We had some clues from local fishermen that other reefs existed, but not at the scale of what we discovered," says Rodrigo de Moura, Conservation International Brazil marine specialist and co-author of the paper. "It is very exciting and highly unusual to discover a reef structure this large and harboring such an abundance of fish," he adds.
The Abrolhos Bank is considered one of the world's most important reefs because it harbors a high number of marine species found only in Brazil including species of soft corals, mollusks and fish found only in the Abrolhos shelf. The Mussismilia coral genus, a relic group remnant of an ancient coral fauna dating back to the Tertiary period that went extinct long ago elsewhere in the Atlantic, is the dominant coral of the Abrolhos reef, which is structured in unique mushroom-like shapes.
Researchers mapped the new reef structures in areas ranging from nine to 124 miles (15 to 200 km) off the coast and in depths ranging from 60 to 220 feet (20 to 73 meters) using a side scan sonar which produces a three-dimensional map of the marine seabed.

[...]

http://http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080708171539.htm

Global warming good news for coral reefs: research

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA: Coral reefs around the world could expand in size by up to a third in response to increased ocean warming and the greenhouse effect, according to Australian scientists.

"Our analysis suggests that ocean warming will foster considerably faster future rates of coral reef growth that will eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by as much as 35 per cent by 2100," says Dr Ben McNeil, an oceanographer from the University of News South Wales.
"Our finding stands in stark contrast to previous predictions that coral reef growth will suffer large, potentially catastrophic, decreases in the future," says McNeil, who led and published the research in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, with colleagues Dr Richard Matear of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) and Dr David Barnes from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.
Previous research has predicted a decline of between 20 and 60 percent in the size of coral reefs by 2100 relative to pre-industrial levels due to increasing CO2 levels in ocean surface waters. The new research suggests that present coral reef calcification rates are not in decline and are equivalent to late 19th century levels.
Coral reefs are built from calcium carbonate when red algae cement together a framework of coral skeletons and sediments. Seawater surface temperatures and the quantity of carbonate in seawater dictate their growth rate.
The Australian scientists have observed the calcification-temperature relationship at significant reef-building colonies around the world in the Indo-Pacific and at massive Porites reef colonies in Australia, Hawaii, Thailand, the Persian Gulf and New Ireland.
The predicted increase in the rate of coral reef calcification is most likely due to an enhancement in coral metabolism and/or increases in photosynthetic rates of red algae, according to the scientists. They used projections of ocean warming and CO2 concentration from a CSIRO climate model that accounts for atmosphere-ice and ocean carbon cycles.
"Our results show that increases in coral reef calcification associated with ocean warming outweigh decreases associated with increased atmospheric CO2", says CSIRO's Dr Richard Matear. "While initially showing a decrease in calcification up to 1964, ocean warming outweighs the CO2 effect and stimulates recovery of coral reef calcification. Our results represent an average over the entire coral reef community and it will be important to undertake more specific regional analysis of models to better understand future changes in regions such as Australia's Great Barrier Reef." Dr David Barnes from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville says: "Coral reef calcification and the changes suggested in our research are separate to the adverse future effects of coral bleaching which is associated with the corals symbiotic micro-algae, and the significant impacts of human activities such as poor water quality, and unsustainable fishing on many of the worlds coral reefs."

 

[L Gilbert]

Funny, I was given to understand that some species are highly sensitive to temperature change of even fractions of degrees.

 

[Tonington]

Is there a reason Extra, that you didn't quote the entire article from ScienceDaily? I think there is, perhaps this information doesn't fit your premise:

"Due to their relative inaccessibility and depth, the newly discovered reefs are teeming with life, in some places harboring 30 times the density of marine life than the known, shallower reefs," says Guilherme Dutra, Conservation International's director of marine programs in Brazil. "That's the good news. The bad news is that only a small percentage of marine habitats in the Abrolhos are protected, despite mounting localized and global threats."
Localized threats include over-fishing, coastal development and large scale land conversion to agriculture, shrimp farms, pollution, oil drilling and sedimentation. Global threats include climate change and ocean acidification.

As for your second piece, the scientists are predicting an increase in calcification rates based on global models. It's hard to comment without knowing how their model(s) are constructed. Though, the observations are in stark contrast to the predictions this model allowed for.

Les, you are 100% right. Corals and other calcifying organisms indeed are highly sensitive to temperature changes. The massive bleaching of 1998 caused a die-off of over 16% of ocean corals. As the temperature increases, the gains from metabolically controlled calcification rates reach an optimum, where there is a fine balance. Beyond that, the improved rates are offset by thermal stress. That's because biologically induced calcification takes place at increased rates through mineral nucleation, at the expense of growth. Organisms don't have the option of optimizing all aspects of their metabolism...and not all species even have the luxury of increased calcifying rates.

And a footnote. While increasing temperatures lead to coral bleaching and mortality, and acidification reduces the saturation of the carbonate, there is a new problem that I posted on here not too long ago. Acidification of ocean sea water also has notable effects on the cement which allows sessile organisms to remain attached in favourable environmental conditions. The cement is calcium based! That's a huge problem for reefs in areas of the tropics prone to intense storms, and to the inter-tidal bivalves like mussels and oysters.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/science-environment/75962-coral-reef-glue-questioned-acidified.html

p.s. The problem with accessing Extra's links is the URL address. If you look in his links, you'll often see the URL look something like http://http:www.whateverhelinkedto.com

 

[givpeaceachance]

The only thing about this whole GW thing that gets me, is the fact that the onus is on us, 'the consumers' to 'fix' it when we and the gov know that it's Global Industry that is causing the problem. They want us now, to buy new vehicles, buy new heating systems, buy water filtration systems, and you name it, all kinds of stuff that are 'state of the art' and that are expensive that anyone under a certain tax bracket can't afford. Talk about creating an even bigger divide between the rich and the poor.

However, you DO NOT hear about any industry regulations or changes that may be being considered or any idea's that can help with the growing concern of what i think is more accurately described as Indusrial Global Warming. We entrusted our industry to be regulated by the govn't and now that it's apparently going to pot, the govn't turns around and implies (with sooooooooo many words) that it's the publics fault for needing, or becoming dependant on these industries (like we ever had a choice) and it is now our responsibility to cut back and dig into our wallets (as per usual), while they, industry and govn't, are standing there trying to look all sweet and innocent. BULLOCKS!

If they were REALLY interested in ameliorating this whole GW situation the first thing they would have done was to begin holding industry accountable for their practices. So far, nobody has seen a court room, no major industries have been given the crunch, there haven't been any media attention given to expose the worst of the worst, no laws have been passed to try and regulate some of the evils that are being carried out by these industries. Nothing!

I don't what to think of GW. Could it be that it's true? Could it be that it's a hoax? Could it be both? Could it be that GW is happening and that our discusting capitalistic society, industry and govn't are exploiting possibly one of the biggest natural catastrophies that man has ever seen? Could it be all of the above?

 

[Extrafire]

Funny, I was given to understand that some species are highly sensitive to temperature change of even fractions of degrees.

Some people like you to believe that. Any species that is wouldn't have survived previous temperature fluctuations which were much greater than we're experiencing now.

 

[Extrafire]

Is there a reason Extra, that you didn't quote the entire article from ScienceDaily?

Indeed there is. The article was about the discovery of a tropical reef, teeming with life, thriving! You had said (months ago) that tropical corals were in trouble. This discovery indicates that maybe they aren't.

I think there is, perhaps this information doesn't fit your premise:

Actually, that wasn't the focus of the article. But the author felt he had to add that because, like you, a tropical reef thriving is not what he expected (or wanted) to find. According to predictions, it should have been suffering, in decline. So if they aren't in decline, well just you wait, they will be, due to over-fishing, coastal development and large scale land conversion to agriculture, shrimp farms, pollution, oil drilling, sedimentation, climate change and ocean acidification! My point has always been that climate change won't harm them, since they've been through that many times before. Climate change without the other threats is no threat at all. Over-fishing, coastal development and land conversion to agriculture, shrimp farms, pollution, oil drilling, sedimentation and ocean acidification are valid concerns, but the addition global warming will not exacerbate the effect of those concerns in any way.

As for your second piece, the scientists are predicting an increase in calcification rates based on global models. It's hard to comment without knowing how their model(s) are constructed. Though, the observations are in stark contrast to the predictions this model allowed for.

Les, you are 100% right. Corals and other calcifying organisms indeed are highly sensitive to temperature changes. The massive bleaching of 1998 caused a die-off of over 16% of ocean corals. As the temperature increases, the gains from metabolically controlled calcification rates reach an optimum, where there is a fine balance. Beyond that, the improved rates are offset by thermal stress. That's because biologically induced calcification takes place at increased rates through mineral nucleation, at the expense of growth. Organisms don't have the option of optimizing all aspects of their metabolism...and not all species even have the luxury of increased calcifying rates.

And a footnote. While increasing temperatures lead to coral bleaching and mortality, and acidification reduces the saturation of the carbonate, there is a new problem that I posted on here not too long ago. Acidification of ocean sea water also has notable effects on the cement which allows sessile organisms to remain attached in favourable environmental conditions. The cement is calcium based! That's a huge problem for reefs in areas of the tropics prone to intense storms, and to the inter-tidal bivalves like mussels and oysters.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/science-environment/75962-coral-reef-glue-questioned-acidified.html

The problem is alarmists have been prediction catastrophe from global warming and it never happens. Instead they find corals thriving, or discover that bleaching is a natural response to changing temps where they're merely in the process of exchanging their symbiotic organisms. Are there valid threats from humans? Absolutely, but temperature change isn't one of them, and that was the supposed concern when we started posting on corals so many months ago.

p.s. The problem with accessing Extra's links is the URL address. If you look in his links, you'll often see the URL look something like http://http:www.whateverhelinkedto.com

My links are copied and pasted from the title bar of the page as I copy and paste the quotes. If you have any trouble accessing the site where I aquired the quote, then by all means let me know and I'll attempt to correct it. I'm not aware of any problems in the past, so I have no idea what you're whining about.

 

[Extrafire]

The only thing about this whole GW thing that gets me, is the fact that the onus is on us, 'the consumers' to 'fix' it when we and the gov know that it's Global Industry that is causing the problem. They want us now, to buy new vehicles, buy new heating systems, buy water filtration systems, and you name it, all kinds of stuff that are 'state of the art' and that are expensive that anyone under a certain tax bracket can't afford. Talk about creating an even bigger divide between the rich and the poor.

However, you DO NOT hear about any industry regulations or changes that may be being considered or any idea's that can help with the growing concern of what i think is more accurately described as Indusrial Global Warming. We entrusted our industry to be regulated by the govn't and now that it's apparently going to pot, the govn't turns around and implies (with sooooooooo many words) that it's the publics fault for needing, or becoming dependant on these industries (like we ever had a choice) and it is now our responsibility to cut back and dig into our wallets (as per usual), while they, industry and govn't, are standing there trying to look all sweet and innocent. BULLOCKS!

If they were REALLY interested in ameliorating this whole GW situation the first thing they would have done was to begin holding industry accountable for their practices. So far, nobody has seen a court room, no major industries have been given the crunch, there haven't been any media attention given to expose the worst of the worst, no laws have been passed to try and regulate some of the evils that are being carried out by these industries. Nothing!

I don't what to think of GW. Could it be that it's true? Could it be that it's a hoax? Could it be both? Could it be that GW is happening and that our discusting capitalistic society, industry and govn't are exploiting possibly one of the biggest natural catastrophies that man has ever seen? Could it be all of the above?

GW is true. It's a natural progression. AGW is true also, but only in such miniscule amounts that it isn't measurable except in localized areas like heat islands. AGW caused by carbon emissions is a hoax designed to transfer wealth from the successful capitalistic economies to the dictatorial and socialistic failures. Go after industry? They'll either go out of business or move their factories to countries that have no emission limits, thereby throwing millions of people out of work and wrecking economies permanently. The ruling elite and rich activists won't be affected though. Now that's really increasing the gap between rich and poor!

 

[Extrafire]

It's bad enough that they scam the capitalist west in order to bring about a massive wealth transfer. It ticks me off. But I get really angry at what they do to billions of the worlds poorest people in order to "save the planet".

March of the eco-imperialists

A leaflet from the charity Practical Action recently solicited donations for some "real cutting-edge technology" to give to African farmers: namely, a plough.

Ploughs might cut the earth, but they haven't been "cutting-edge technology" for more than 400 years. Nor have water pumps, operated by pulling on a rope or laboriously treading on a wooden platform, which are being pushed onto communities from Ghana to India by carbon-offsetting charities like Climate Care, as replacements for diesel-powered machinery. Some of the treadle pumps are even disguised as roundabouts to exploit child labour.

[...]

Eco-activists managed to slash €4bn worth of EU aid to Third World industries in 2007 alone. They have sabotaged World Bank funding for infrastructure projects, like a hydro-electric dam in Gujarat province, India, which would have provided power for 5,000 villages, industries and sewage-treatment works, irrigation for crops and clean water for 35m people - all because, as one activist said, it would "change the path of the river, kill little creatures along its banks and uproot tribal people"

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/44753,opinion,march-of-the-eco-imperialists

 

[L Gilbert]

Is there a reason Extra, that you didn't quote the entire article from ScienceDaily? I think there is, perhaps this information doesn't fit your premise:

As for your second piece, the scientists are predicting an increase in calcification rates based on global models. It's hard to comment without knowing how their model(s) are constructed. Though, the observations are in stark contrast to the predictions this model allowed for.

Yeah, that's another funny thing. Some people tend to cherrypick an article for the info they want to see and leave out important related info they don't like. That's called editorializing and we get enough of it from the newsmedia.

Les, you are 100% right. Corals and other calcifying organisms indeed are highly sensitive to temperature changes. The massive bleaching of 1998 caused a die-off of over 16% of ocean corals. As the temperature increases, the gains from metabolically controlled calcification rates reach an optimum, where there is a fine balance. Beyond that, the improved rates are offset by thermal stress. That's because biologically induced calcification takes place at increased rates through mineral nucleation, at the expense of growth. Organisms don't have the option of optimizing all aspects of their metabolism...and not all species even have the luxury of increased calcifying rates.

And a footnote. While increasing temperatures lead to coral bleaching and mortality, and acidification reduces the saturation of the carbonate, there is a new problem that I posted on here not too long ago. Acidification of ocean sea water also has notable effects on the cement which allows sessile organisms to remain attached in favourable environmental conditions. The cement is calcium based! That's a huge problem for reefs in areas of the tropics prone to intense storms, and to the inter-tidal bivalves like mussels and oysters.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/s...962-coral-reef-glue-questioned-acidified.html

I know I am right. I just thought I would be diplomatic and not call anyone a l***, for a change. lol

p.s. The problem with accessing Extra's links is the URL address. If you look in his links, you'll often see the URL look something like http://http:www.whateverhelinkedto.com

http://http:www.whateverhelinkedto.com[/quote]I Ahhh. A few too many http's