Ecocentric

Ocean Acidification Will Make Climate Change Worse

As we emit more carbon dioxide, the oceans will become more acidic. That will be bad for sealife—but it may also speed the rate of global warming

  • Share
  • Read Later
Reinhard Dirscherl via Getty Images

Bleaches corals off the coast of Indonesia. Ocean acidification could have disastrous impacts on sealife—and the climate

Given that they cover 70% of the Earth’s surface—and provide about 90% of the planet’s habitable space by volume—the oceans tend to get short shrift when it comes to climate change. The leaked draft of the forthcoming coming new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlighted the atmospheric warming we’re likely to see, the rate of ice loss in the Arctic and the unprecedented (at least within the last 22,000 years) rate of increase of concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. But when it came to the oceans, press reports only focused on how warming would cause sea levels to rise, severely inconveniencing those of us who live on land.

Some of that ignorance is due to the out of sight, out of mind nature of the underwater world—a place human beings have only seen about 5% of. But it has more to do with the relative paucity of data on how climate change might impact the ocean. It’s not that scientists don’t think it matters—the reaction of the oceans to increased levels of CO2 will have an enormous effect on how global warming impacts the rest of us—it’s that there’s still a fair amount of uncertainty around the subject.

(MORE: Shifting Baselines: Why the Environment Is Even Worse Off Than You Think)

But here’s one thing they do know: oceans are absorbing a large portion of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere—in fact, oceans are the largest single carbon sink in the world, dwarfing the absorbing abilities of the Amazon rainforest. But the more CO2 the oceans absorb, the more acidic they become on a relative scale, because some of the carbon reacts within the water to form carbonic acid. This is a slow-moving process—it’s not as if the oceans are suddenly going to become made of hydrochloric acid. But as two new studies published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change shows, acidification will make the oceans much less hospitable to many forms of marine life—and acidification may actually to serve to amplify overall warming.

The first study, by the German researchers Astrid Wittmann and Hans-O. Portner, is a meta-analysis looking at the specific effects rising acid levels are likely to have on specific categories of ocean life: corals, echinoderms, molluscs, crustaceans and fishes. Every category is projected to respond poorly to acidification, which isn’t that surprising—pH, which describes the relative acidity of a material, is about as basic a function of the underlying chemistry of life as you can get. (Lower pH indicates more acidity.) Rapid changes—and the ocean is acidifying rapidly, at least on a geological time scale—will be difficult for many species to adapt to.

Corals are likely to have the toughest time. The invertebrate species secretes calcium carbonate to make the rocky coastal reefs that form the basis of the most productive—and beautiful—ecosystems in the oceans. More acidic oceans will interfere with the ability of corals to form those reefs. Some coral have already shown the ability to adapt to lower pH levels, but combined with direct ocean warming—which can lead to coral bleaching, killing off whole reefs—many scientists believe that corals could become virtually extinct by the end of the century if we don’t reduce carbon emissions.

(MORE: The Changing Sea: Squid Will Be Vulnerable to Ocean Acidification)

The Nature Climate Change study found that mollusks like oysters and squids will also struggle to adapt to acidification, though crustaceans like lobsters and crabs—which build lighter exoskeletons—seem likely to fare better. With fish it’s harder to know, though those species that live among coral reefs could be in trouble should the coral disappear. But ultimately, as the authors point out, “all considered groups are impacted negatively, albeit differently, even by moderate ocean acidification.” No one gets out untouched.

The other Nature Climate Change study—by American, German and British researchers—looked at the effects that ocean acidification could have on atmospheric warming. It turns out there may be some feedback—the researchers found that as the pH of the oceans dropped, it would result in lower concentrations of the biogenic sulfur compound dimethylsulphide (DMS). Why does that matter? Marine emissions of DMS are the largest natural source of atmospheric sulfur. (Manmade sources of sulfur include the burning of coal.)

Sulfur, in the form of sulfur dioxide, isn’t a greenhouse gas. But higher levels of sulfur in the atmosphere can reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface, causing a cooling effect. (In the aftermath of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, which threw millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, average global temperatures the two years fell by about 0.5 C.) If acidification decreases marine emissions of sulfur, it could cause an increase in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface, speeding up warming—which is exactly what the Nature Climate Change study predicts. It’s one more surprise that the oceans have in store for us.

MORE: Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish

92 comments
JackEnright
JackEnright

Not too original maybe start doing some real research instead of media articles. Carbon dioxide will not acidify the Ocean environment maybe your bathtub. The marine ecosystem has endured much greater catastrophes i.e.

Permian-Triassic extinction event after which Coccolithophores evolved. Now the question is: how did such a delicate creature evolve in an ecosystem with a much higher concentration of Carbon dioxide and dissolved carbon in the sea? Dissolved carbon, turbidity and agricultural waste are the culprits that will turn the sea back to the Cambrian Age with its sulfurous seas. Only wetlands and deep sea vents are its remnants, and people who are too lazy to investigate the truth. Coccolithophores will be here in Oceanus when Mankind as we know it no longer burns coal and rainforests.

bobgnote
bobgnote

As rain falls, its pH can change, significantly, due to increasing CO2 concentration.  The CO2 problem is not so sudden that your web searches won't turn something up.  In fact, since the industrial revolution began, CO2 has jumped up, faster, than at any other time, in geologic history.  During this, humans polluted and defoliated and invented GHGs, to go with CO2 and out-gassing CH4, which are dooming us, to MASS EXTINCTION EVENT 6, now underway.  Atmospheric CO2 is rising faster than at any onset, of the five historic mass extinctions.  Wikipedia may have caught up, since you posted.

glubber
glubber

"only SO2 and NOx play a significant role in acid rain"  (Wikipedia) CO2 is not mentioned at all. How come that they suddenly blames CO2 for Ocean acidification? Is this IPCC's effort to prove that climate changes are manmade? Bryan Walsh if you are a truejournalist you should not swallow everything that comes from IPCC without asking for evidence / proof / facts..

JKBullis
JKBullis

Slightly warmer water cause great increase in rate of growth of barnacles, which of course are powerful CO2 capturing machines.  Plankton seem to be even more powerful, given the wide area over which these calcite shelled creatures are spread.  

More discussion about these facts could lead to solutions that work without bashing the energy systems of the developed world

anti-government
anti-government

So if global warning isn't real, why are Antarctic and Greenland glaciers melting at an unprecedented rate? Why are global droughts (and desertification) increasing? Why are all the hottest years on record from recent years? How can you deny that these things are happening as a result of global warming? 

Global temperatures are rising, Sea levels are rising because of melting ice.

If even part of the problem is caused by human activity, it makes sense to curtail the activities that cause the greenhouse effect and the other components of global warming.

Fear of change should not keep us from saving our species from extinction. Earth will soon become unlivable for human beings if global temperatures keep rising at the rate of recent years. This might be the most important issue facing the world at this time.

WE MUST CHANGE OR OUR SPECIES WILL DIE


 

glubber
glubber

Now I understand why mackerel can be found in the waters of nothern Norway. Welcomed by the fisherman. Escapeing from the acidifications of oceans elsewhere on the earth. Thank you for the explanation mr. Walsh

Yue
Yue

We shuold do more to control the getting-worse environment. But at first, we need to stand together, not to argue or doubt with the facticities in this passage. As a matter of fact, our global environment IS getting worse.

mtobis
mtobis

"The other Nature Climate Change study—by American, German and British researchers—looked at the effects that ocean acidification could have on atmospheric warming."

Would you be so kind as to provide a better clue than this?

This refusal to provide proper references is an absurd, unnecessary, and persistent flaw of science journalism. 


Anonymous12
Anonymous12

Almost the entire AGW sceptic community agrees that CO2 causes warming - a maximum of 1.2C per doubling of total (not just man's) atmospheric CO2 to be more precise. At the current rate of annual CO2 growth rates (2.93 parts per million a year) it will take 271 years to double from 397.23 to 794.46 ppm, thereby raising the temp. a max. of 1.2C - bear in mind that's a maximum figure too. For it to rise another 1.2C it will need to double again from 794.46 to 1588.92.

http://co2now.org/

The rest of the predicted warming from CO2 is expected to be amplified 3 times from positive feedbacks, almost all of which is supposed to come from water vapour. The evidence of positive feedback from water vapour was supposed to be seen in a tropospheric hotspot as can be seen in the IPCC AR4 report 2007 (box f in the first diagram):

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html

The empirical evidence showed that the hot spot was missing in the US Climate Change Science Program's 2006 report (page 115, Box E):

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

The observed evidence shows no tropospheric hotspot, which means there is no positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour. As there is no positive feedback from water vapour, the most the temp. can rise is 1.2C per doubling of CO2.

The issue of positive feedback from water vapour is the real issue in AGW, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that it exists. In order to believe in AGW you need to prove the existence of the hot spot but it doesn't exist.


PhillipNoe
PhillipNoe

Contact your reps in Congress.  Insist they work harder to reduce emissions.  Our future generations are at risk.  Business as usual is dangerous, irrational, self-destructive, and immoral.

Karl
Karl

Isn't everyone sick of American political euphemisms? Pro-life, instead of anti-abortion, Pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, Myanmar instead of Burma, Shri Lanka instead of Ceylon. And climate change instead of global warming, which is a much more accurate term reflecting rising temperatures and taking out the neutral sounding, i.e. non-human caused, Climate Change. It's a kind of 1984 talk. Can't we live with English and if the truth hurts just suck it up and deal with it. The globe is warming.

JimBalter
JimBalter

@JKBullis is talking nonsense. The oceans are absorbing the great majority of the heat being trapped by greenhouse gases, but any effect of this on the growth rate of barnacles is obviously not slowing the acidification of the oceans. There is plenty of discussion of facts among scientists, but not so among the deniers and faux "skeptics", who are mostly libertarian and right wing ideologues who are first and foremost focused on their myths of free markets and invisible hands and their love of corporations, especially the fossil fuel industry, so euphemistically referred to here as "the energy systems of the developed world".  For the sake of human civilization, those energy systems need to be moved to non-carbon renewable sources, pronto.

JimBalter
JimBalter

@donbeeman @sierraclub Your comment is uninformed, unintelligent, and makes no sense. Your twitter stream reveals someone totally lacking in a scientific perspective or scientific knowledge. If you say that something or someone is wrong, odds are they are right.

anti-government
anti-government

@donbeeman 

Anyone who can say "Enjoy watching Yosemite burn" is an insensitive idiot.

JimBalter
JimBalter

@mtobis You need to read better: "two new studies published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change "


JimBalter
JimBalter

@Anonymous12 "Almost the entire AGW sceptic community agrees that CO2 causes warming" -- This is, frankly, a lie, as simply perusing the comments section of any article about AGW reveals. There's actually a rather small group of committed cranks who fancy themselves "sceptics" (many of not most are from Australia where they spell it like that) who strategically admit that CO2 causes warming but deny everything else. These people are no scientists; they are, virtually every one, libertarian and right wing ideologues and they deny the science because it goes against their cherished ideological beliefs, not because it's wrong. The claims here have been repeatedly debunked by real scientists. See, e.g., http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm


fmoolten
fmoolten

@Anonymous12  I'm not sure why you've chosen an article on ocean acidification to repeat one of the common themes of many skeptic blogs regarding CO2-mediated warming.  However, the notion that the "hotspot" (it's actually a phenomenon in the coldest part of the troposphere) is a manifestation of positive feedback is incorrect.   The positive feedback from evaporated water resides in the vapor phase, because water vapor exerts strong "greenhouse" warming effects.  However, the hotspot reflects primarily vapor condensation to liquid with a consequent release of the latent heat of vaporization.  This in essence is a mechanism by which surface heat, via vaporization, is transferred into heat released at high altitudes.  The result is a reduction in lapse rate (extent of temperature decline with altitude), which is a negative rather than a positive feedback because it facilitates the loss of heat to space.  Thus, an absent "hotspot" implies the absence of a negative rather than a positive feedback.  There are other potential mechanisms involved, and whether the hotspot is or isn't detectable also depends on the methods used to look for it and the timescales for the observations.  This remains an ongoing area of research.

The misconception you cite is common in many blog circles, but I don't think the IPCC and other sources you cited share that misunderstanding.

PhillipNoe
PhillipNoe

@Anonymous12  So you like to use IPCC data as a source but choose to ignore their conclusions? Really? And you ignore what all the other respected scientific institutions have been saying?  Thanks for the "armchair" analysis.  I'll stick with NASA, NAS, AAAS, AGU, NCAR, and the others.

Lee_Tennant
Lee_Tennant

@foster_ro I don't know. They're still being fed rubbish like global temps aren't rising and ocean acidification isn't happening.

JKBullis
JKBullis

@JimBalter @JKBullis  

Do you realize that the oceans are not acidic?  They are slightly less alkaline according to some reports, which I tend to believe.  So yes, something needs to be done, but if you think there is any chance of economic prosperity without our major energy systems, you are talking nonsense.

Associating those who acknowledge economic difficulties that would come from the obvious solution of moving, pronto, away from present energy systems with the bad folks you perceive to be opposing you is a debater's trick.    

Anonymous12
Anonymous12

@fmoolten @Anonymous12 Well you'll have to take that one up with the IPCC:

'In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4). This further enhances moisture changes in this region, but also introduces a partially offsetting radiative response from the temperature increase, and the net effect of the combined water vapour/lapse rate feedback is to amplify the warming in response to forcing by around 50% (Section 8.6.2.3). The close link between these processes means that water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks are commonly considered together. The strength of the combined feedback is found to be robust across GCMs, despite significant inter-model differences, for example, in the mean climatology of water vapour (see Section 8.6.2.3).'

Source (box 1):

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html

The following article has explanations from atmospheric scientists, some of whom contributed to the IPCC reports:

http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/

'Based on theoretical considerations and simulations with General Circulation Models (GCMs), it is expected that any warming at the surface will be amplified in the upper troposphere. The reason for this is quite simple. More warming at the surface means more evaporation and more convection. Higher in the troposphere the (extra) water vapour condenses and heat is released. Calculations with GCMs show that the lower troposphere warms about 1.2 times faster than the surface. For the tropics, where most of the moist is, the amplification is larger, about 1.4.'

The failure of it to appear is confirmed by 2 satellites and over 30,000,000 weather balloons over a 40 yr period.

That's the science from the IPCC and from the atmospheric science community. The hot spot is a result of increased feedback from water vapour as the upper troposphere warms at a faster rate than the surface as the heat from evaporation is released. If you think the point I make is a misconception then I suggest you take it up with the scientists at the IPCC.

The alarmists always try to avoid this issue because it invalidates the main part of the AGW theory, but there it is in the IPCC report for all to see.

Anonymous12
Anonymous12

@PhillipNoe @Anonymous12 The scientific parts of the IPCC reports are written by scientists and many don't agree with the conclusions that they don't contribute to. Likewise, the statements of the various scientific institutions don't reflect their membership who aren't consulted on their views on the matter.

Read my reply below to fmoolten to see what the IPCC says about it.

Ask your scientific institutions how it can warm beyond 1.2C per doubling of CO2 without positive feedback from water vapour and see what they say. Also ask them for empirical evidence of positive feedback at the same time. It's all in the IPCC report if you took the time to actually read it.

There's no positive feedback from water vapour which is why the climate models fail so badly vs. the empirical observations:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

Anonymous12
Anonymous12

@JackWolf @Anonymous12 No, scientists also agree that it's missing and they also agree that it's the main part of the AGW theory. Check the IPCC AR4 report if you don't believe me:

'In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4). This further enhances moisture changes in this region, but also introduces a partially offsetting radiative response from the temperature increase, and the net effect of the combined water vapour/lapse rate feedback is to amplify the warming in response to forcing by around 50% (Section 8.6.2.3). The close link between these processes means that water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks are commonly considered together. The strength of the combined feedback is found to be robust across GCMs, despite significant inter-model differences, for example, in the mean climatology of water vapour (see Section 8.6.2.3).'

Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html

The links in my previous post showing what was predicted by the IPCC (AR4 report, 2007) and what was observed in the US CCSP 2006 report is also from the scientists. It is for this reason and many others that many scientists don't agree with the conclusions of the IPCC - there is absolutely no scientific basis for it. If you looked at the scientific literature you'd realise that there any many, many peer reviewed papers that destroy the AGW theory - thousands in fact.

foster_ro
foster_ro

@Lee_Tennant heads in the sand at its worst. Methane gas Antarctic release is a true nightmare.

JimBalter
JimBalter

@JKBullis I realize that you are an ideologue who can't be bothered to understand the issues or terms of discussion. Of course the oceans are not acidic, but that has nothing to do with *acidification*, which is *relative*, not absolute ... a decrease in pH. If you cannot understand such a basic notion, then your views are worthless.

JimBalter
JimBalter

@Anonymous12


"Ah no again. The paragraph says the following, so let me educate you without twisting what was said into something you'd like it to be"

Here we have a libertarian ideologue who is projecting his own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty onto someone who actually understands climate science ... and he is doing so with an argument that amounts to claiming that the IPCC is debunking AGW ... which is obviously absurd.


JimBalter
JimBalter

@fmoolten @Anonymous12

"your statement "nice try" is a bit rude, because this should be a discussion, not a form of combat. " 

You may have missed "The alarmists always try to avoid this issue because it invalidates the main part of the AGW theory". These faux skeptic denialists are not scientists and do not engage in the sort of inquiry that scientists engage in; they are rather libertarian ideologues who practice apologetics for their ideological commitments.


JimBalter
JimBalter

@Anonymous12 @fmoolten Anonymous12 is not a scientist or scientifically literate person, he's a libertarian ideologue cherry picking material that he doesn't understand.

fmoolten
fmoolten

@Anonymous12   I know at what point repeating the same material becomes futile.   I think that readers who are interested and have some basic understanding of geophysical principles can read these exchanges and make their own judgments.  They can also read the IPCC reports and references therein.  I expect they'll arrive at valid conclusions.

If you're truly interested in comprehending the two separate components of the water vapor/lapse rate feedbacks and their partially offsetting (positive minus negative) net effects, you can email me at fmoolten at gmail dot com and I'll be glad to discuss it further.  I don't think the remaining readers here want to have this comment section consumed by more of this back and forth.



Anonymous12
Anonymous12

 https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf @Anonymous12 Ah no again. The paragraph says the following, so let me educate you without twisting what was said into something you'd like it to be:

'and the net effect of the combined water vapour/lapse rate feedback is to amplify the warming in response to forcing by around 50%'

What that means is that feedback from the combined water vapour/lapse rate feedback 'AMPLIFIES THE WARMING IN RESPONSE TO FORCING by around 50%'. It's not cryptic at all, in fact it's very clear and straightforward - you just refuse to acknowledge what the IPCC have said straight out because it's an inconvenient truth.

'while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs).' (Santer 2008)

Source: https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf

All the papers saying that they've finally found the hot spot from the alarmists say the same thing - the tropospheric hotspot is vitally important because it is evidence of positive feedback from water vapour - NOT, negative feedback. This is EXACTLY what the IPCC says in the quote above, no interpretation needed.

Have a think about it for a minute - if the models predicted a tropospheric hot spot, and this hot spot is supposed to be evidence of negative feedback (as you state) from water vapour, then the models are predicting a cooling climate. The reason the stratosphere is supposed to cool is because the hot spot in the upper troposphere is supposed to stop the heat escaping from the atmosphere - if more heat is passing through the stratosphere it would be warmer, not colder.

I think you're a bit confused and need to do some more research - try starting with what the IPCC says - 'the net effect of the combined water vapour/lapse rate feedback is to amplify the warming in response to forcing by around 50%'. It's really quite simple.

fmoolten
fmoolten

@Anonymous12 @fmoolten To clarify - The net amplification is reduced to 50% rather than 100%, which is the same as saying the CO2 forcing response is multiplied by 150% rather than 200%.

fmoolten
fmoolten

@Anonymous12@fmoolten   Anonymous r- your statement "nice try" is a bit rude, because this should be a discussion, not a form of combat.  

I'm not sure whether this is worth pursuing more here, because the topic is ocean acidification, and most readers probably won't care about the hotspot issue.  Nevertheless, I'll at least try to explain perhaps better than I did previously why the hotspot is a manifestation of a negative (lapse rate) feedback and not evidence for a positive feedback.  To do that, I'll quote here the excerpt you quoted above from the IPCC on the hotspot warming:  

"changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4). This further enhances moisture changes in this region, but also introduces a partially offsetting radiative response from the temperature increase, and the net effect of the combined water vapour/lapse rate feedback is to amplify the warming in response to forcing by around 50% "

Although this may not have been clear to you (and I admit the wording is a bit cryptic), what the IPCC is saying is that the hotspot warming radiates heat to space from a high altitude that partially offset the positive amplification from water vapor, so that the net amplification of the CO2 effect is reduced to 150% rather than the approximately 200% that would occur if only the positive (water vapor) feedback were operating.  

This isn't controversial in climate circles.  You're right, of course, that the GCMs overpredict the extent of upper tropospheric warming, but that's a separate issue, and we're already off the main topic so I won't dwell on it.  The satellite and radiosonde data have been interpreted as showing no hotspot, but this is controversial , and in fact a hotspot is evident in short term data.  Why there's a disparity between short term and long term data is one of the many phenomena that are not fully understood, but that doesn't contradict the principles I've cited above, which are well understood.

Anonymous12
Anonymous12

@fmoolten @Anonymous12 Ah no, you said that the hot spot shows a negative feedback.

The IPCC says: 'the net effect of the combined water vapour/lapse rate feedback is to amplify the warming in response to forcing by around 50%'

Try reading the report please. Nice try, but there it is in the IPCC AR4.

fmoolten
fmoolten

@Anonymous12 @fmoolten   The response you wrote essentially repeats what I had already written.  If you read your own comment carefully, you'll probably see that it explains why the "hotspot" is not a positive feedback, and is instead a manifestation of a negative feedback - the lapse rate feedback.

I agree with everything in the comment, and I'll leave it to you to fathom what it means.  As to the existence or non-existence of the hotspot, there's an enormous literature on the subject, but it doesn't change the interpretation that a holspot-related lapse rate feedback component of the feedbacks related to water is the negative part.




JimBalter
JimBalter

@Anonymous12 @PhillipNoe It's hard to be more blatantly dishonest. That these people don't have an honest bone in their bodies is made clear by this "endorsement": "I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..." - John Cook, Skeptical Science

Anyone who knows about John Cook and Skeptical Science will understand why.


Anonymous12
Anonymous12

@PhillipNoe @Anonymous12 The graph isn't Spencer's 'opinion', it's called empirical evidence from observations. The climate models are 'opinion' though, and they are 'opinion' that is proven incorrect, all 73 of them, by the temperature readings of 2 satellites with the data processed by two respected scientific institutions of several leading climate scientist that have contributed to the IPCC reports. Empirical data trumps models every time.

Roy Spencer has published numerous peer reviewed papers:

Rot Spencer is also not in a tiny minority, as the following list of more than 1000 peer reviewed papers that challenge the AGW theory shows.


CO2 does warm the atmosphere, but if you or the institutions you mention can't supply evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, then please explain how it can warm more than 1.2C per doubling of CO2. If you can't, then please ask yourself what evidence you, or your institutions, have to prove AGW. It's quite simple - no hot spot + no positive feedback from water vapour + no AGW.

A I know you don't like it (to use your words), but scientific fact proven by empirical evidence beats assumption and failed models everytime - show us the proof, where is the hot spot and the evidence for positive feedback from water vapour.

PhillipNoe
PhillipNoe

@Anonymous12 @PhillipNoe  Ask them yourself.  Again, you use the IPCC but conveniently reject their conclusions.  Sorry, I don't care to chase your comment thread.  

I'll continue to rely on NAS, AAAS, NASA, AGU, NCAR and others.

Is spencer, the contrarian, all you have for support.  Good grief.  Deniers do like to cling to him despite the fact that I've never seen more than an opinion form him, no credible study to back it up.  Oh, that's right, you have your own "analysis" too.  Yea.

Now why can't you find ONE respected scientific institution to back up your denials?  Is it a global conspiracy that's lasted for over 30 years?  Hardly.

Would you like to see one of the first studies from Johns Hopkins University?  It dates back to 1955.  The next comprehensive study I know of was the Charney Report in 1979.  Human-caused climate change is well established science no matter how much you don't like it.  Now, some of the questions are how bad will the effects be and what can we do to curb them.

anti-government
anti-government

@Anonymous12 

So if global warning isn't real, why are Antarctic and Greenland glaciers melting at an unprecedented rate? Why are global droughts (and desertification) increasing? Why are all the hottest years on record from recent years? How can you deny that these things are happening as a result of global warming? 

Global temperatures are rising, Sea levels are rising because of melting ice.

If even part of the problem is caused by human activity, it makes sense to curtail the activities that cause the greenhouse effect and the other components of global warming.

Fear of change should not keep us from saving our species from extinction. Earth will soon become unlivable for human beings if global temperatures keep rising at the rate of recent years. This might be the most important issue facing the world at this time.

WE MUST CHANGE OR OUR SPECIES WILL DIE

Lee_Tennant
Lee_Tennant

@foster_ro I try to avoid melodrama but if we don't avoid the Arctic methane release we are completely screwed. It's already leaking methane