Death knell for AGW

[taxslave]

Don't forget the pass for Brazil & Russia (BRIC).

Well really the pass is for all second and third world countries.

 

[darkbeaver]

And let's not forget that the passes were given to those who wouldn't play the stupid game anyway.

 

[taxslave]

And let's not forget that the passes were given to those who wouldn't play the stupid game anyway.

In life as in poker sometimes it is prudent to sit out a sucker hand.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Well really the pass is for all second and third world countries.

I don't think there are second world countries...just 1st & 3rd.

The BRIC nations (just four countries) account for over 40% of
the global population.

 

[waldo]

The proven lies from IPCC for a start. The UN idea of global wealth redistribution, The so called agreements on emissions that have us cutting way back on production while giving a pass to China and India. How much more proof do you want?

what lies from the IPCC? There were much hyped report corrections (~4 legitimate changes) associated with the AR4 WG2 'social sciences' sub-report... none of these reflected upon the actual physical sciences. These report corrections did not reflect on any official IPCC statements/positions... nor did they mirror themselves within the summary reports that act to encapsulate the findings of sub-reports. Essentially the timeline was one in which a concentrated effort was put forward by 'denialists' to go through the complete series of AR4 reports, coincidentally timed to maximize press coverage before the Copenhagen COP. The minimal number of report corrections reflected upon a lack of complete due-diligence in ensuring complete continuity between all reports... and in that regard, to attempt to help prevent a like occurrence, the IPCC instituted practice changes and increased resources as a part of the recent AR5 iteration cycle of reports. I trust you also realize just how many thousands of pages encompass the full gamut of all IPCC reports...

the meme of 'global wealth distribution' is just that... a meme! There is a formal 'Climate Green Fund' intended to assist affected countries in dealing with climate change... this hardly constitutes and rises to the level of 'global wealth distribution'.

your reference to giving a pass to China and India reflect back to the Kyoto Protocol and the effective decisions that categorized respective countries into their 'Annex' designations were made in 1992... coming up 25 years ago. I trust you can recognize the distinction in China/India industrialization levels from today and ~25 years ago...


and these are your examples of "found wanting"???

 

[Locutus]

Vostok and the 8000 year time lag | Watts Up With That?

 

[petros]

Vostok and the 8000 year time lag | Watts Up With That?

You're making the mutts fetch? There's 6 juicy coloured graphs to exploit by posting as the whole of the argument.

 

[Locutus]

You're making the mutts fetch? There's 6 juicy coloured graphs to exploit by posting as the whole of the argument.

more fun making them click to Watt's site.

 

[DaSleeper]

I can imagine Loc playing the producer on this one...:lol:

 

[Locutus]

JJRossi ‏@JJRossi_

None of your fake climate change propaganda can refute this @HopeForpeace1 @stopthebiscuit @ezralevant @FrackNation

JJRossi ‏@JJRossi_ 31m31 minutes ago Whats wrong with GHG emissions? @HopeForpeace1 @stopthebiscuit @ezralevant @FrackNation

Hope Forpeace ‏@HopeForpeace1
@JJRossi_ @stopthebiscuit @ezralevant @FrackNation You know - but you play dumb as trained http://www.ipcc.ch/

JJRossi ‏@JJRossi_

IPCC, that's funny @HopeForpeace1 @stopthebiscuit @ezralevant @FrackNation

 

[waldo]

that's right Locutus... your referenced agenda driven blogging hydrologist has struck a killer shot at the science behind the finding of increasing ocean acidification. Apparently, all these following world-wide national academies of science will have to retract their endorsement of the 'global network of science academies (IAP)' statement on ocean acidification:

Conclusions and recommendations

Ocean acidification is a direct consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. To avoid substantial damage to ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and much more thereafter are needed.

We, the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to:

- Acknowledge that ocean acidification is a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is already having an effect at current concentrations, and is likely to cause grave harm to important marine ecosystems as CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm and above;

- Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification;

- Within the context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009, recognise the direct threats posed by increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat;

- Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them thereafter;

- Reinvigorate action to reduce stressors, such as overfishing and pollution, on marine ecosystems to increase resilience to ocean acidification.​

the following academies have endorsed the IAP statement on ocean acidification:

TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world
Albanian Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
Australian Academy of Science
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academia Chilena de Ciencias
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Académie des Sciences, France
Georgian Academy of Sciences
Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
The Academy of Athens
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic
Republic of Iran
Royal Irish Academy
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
Science Council of Japan
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Islamic World Academy of SciencesTWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world
Albanian Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
Australian Academy of Science
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academia Chilena de Ciencias
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Académie des Sciences, France
Georgian Academy of Sciences
Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
The Academy of Athens
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Royal Irish Academy
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
Science Council of Japan
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
African Academy of Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
The Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
Akademi Sains Malaysia
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society, UK
US National Academy of Sciences
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

---

the related article/paper as published within the journal 'Oceanography'... inclusive of detailed chemistry and a related (data sourced) table of "average concentrations of carbon system parameters and temperature-and-salinity values for surface waters of the major ocean basins based on the global ocean data analysis project data set."

this 'event' has certainly reached the upper echelon of denier hype! What's lost in any denier articles is the, in my understanding, the reason the targeted data begins around 1990 is that it coincides with the availability of more reliable data based on alkalinity and DIC (Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) process methods to arrive at pH... that the 'ocean community' began to rely less upon the older dated 'pH bulb meters' and moved to rely upon other more reliable methods to determine ocean pH.

your suggestion of 'Wallace being a dick' is spot on if you factor he's knowingly manufactured the whole event... in my view, his own blog writing speaks to exactly that. In that regard, Wallace closes a Jan 2014 blog entry with the following passage:

It’s possible that much or all of this post-1988 data was not recorded using glass electrode pH meters. As my earlier posts document, the ocean science community has moved away from glass electrodes starting about 1989, although other parts of the water scientific community and other industries continue to use glass electrode pH meters for all ranges of ionic strengths. ​

of course, none of the articles I perused across the typical denier blogs have Wallace including this little ditty in his article - go figure!

I expect once the holiday break settles out, a formal response will be forthcoming... perhaps even from NOAA directly. In any case, just as stands, it's quite telling to realize the dual standard at play here. On one level we have the denier community purposely cherry-picking ~15-18 years as the reference period to determine surface temperature... apparently, a somewhat relative time-frame for more reliable ocean pH data is verboten!​

 

[gerryh]

more "might", "perhaps", "possible".


You know why they won't stick their neck out and give definitive anymore? It's because in the past when the climate alarmists gave definitive dates and results they ended up with egg on their face and eating crow as their "predictions" didn't come anywhere near to reality.

 

[petros]

It also gives them an out from being truthful.

 

[taxslave]

what lies from the IPCC? There were much hyped report corrections (~4 legitimate changes) associated with the AR4 WG2 'social sciences' sub-report... none of these reflected upon the actual physical sciences. These report corrections did not reflect on any official IPCC statements/positions... nor did they mirror themselves within the summary reports that act to encapsulate the findings of sub-reports. Essentially the timeline was one in which a concentrated effort was put forward by 'denialists' to go through the complete series of AR4 reports, coincidentally timed to maximize press coverage before the Copenhagen COP. The minimal number of report corrections reflected upon a lack of complete due-diligence in ensuring complete continuity between all reports... and in that regard, to attempt to help prevent a like occurrence, the IPCC instituted practice changes and increased resources as a part of the recent AR5 iteration cycle of reports. I trust you also realize just how many thousands of pages encompass the full gamut of all IPCC reports...

the meme of 'global wealth distribution' is just that... a meme! There is a formal 'Climate Green Fund' intended to assist affected countries in dealing with climate change... this hardly constitutes and rises to the level of 'global wealth distribution'.

your reference to giving a pass to China and India reflect back to the Kyoto Protocol and the effective decisions that categorized respective countries into their 'Annex' designations were made in 1992... coming up 25 years ago. I trust you can recognize the distinction in China/India industrialization levels from today and ~25 years ago...


and these are your examples of "found wanting"???

Lot of words to say they got caught in a lie and then compounded it with another one.

 

[waldo]

More of the same Bullshyte

it's your choice to continue derailing threads... I will certainly oblige you in your continuing quest to show just how far you're prepared to go to attempt to marginalize someone. Your choice.

more "might", "perhaps", "possible".


You know why they won't stick their neck out and give definitive anymore? It's because in the past when the climate alarmists gave definitive dates and results they ended up with egg on their face and eating crow as their "predictions" didn't come anywhere near to reality.

who is your "they"... do you have an example of your "they" previously providing a, as you say, "definitive"... one your "they" no longer provides?

Lot of words to say they got caught in a lie and then compounded it with another one.

everything you say is a generalized statement... I don't recall you ever offering a specific case example. In that same regard you now speak of "a lie"... one compounded with "another lie". Perhaps you could be specific, for a change... yes?

 

[taxslave]

it's your choice to continue derailing threads... I will certainly oblige you in your continuing quest to show just how far you're prepared to go to attempt to marginalize someone. Your choice.



who is your "they"... do you have an example of your "they" previously providing a, as you say, "definitive"... one your "they" no longer provides?

You and your sources.

 

[waldo]

You and your sources.

again, you are "non-specific"... why?

 

[gerryh]

who is your "they"... do you have an example of your "they" previously providing a, as you say, "definitive"... one your "they" no longer provides?

From your link


Ocean acidification impacts on marine life will depend on the rate and magnitude of changes in ocean chemistry and biological responses. While the ocean chemistry changes are predictable with high certainty, our understanding of the impacts is still developing. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence emerging for a range of biological effects and changes in the marine biogeochemical processes that affect the carbon cycle. The long-term consequences of this are difficult to predict.

 

[taxslave]

and here you purposely choose to take a request for specificity of an example, one for you to provide... and turn that into your preferred specificity of negative labeling... just how much of an 'artful dodger' are you?

I was specific. Go read your own posts and you will see enough manure to make a farm on a mountain top.

 

[waldo]

I was specific. Go read your own posts and you will see enough manure to make a farm on a mountain top.

no - you've been specifically non-specific! This exchange started out somewhat 'cordial'... when you've been asked for specificity, you suddenly reverted to the comfort of your "religion/truther" labeling. Is there a problem?