13 Common Misconceptions About Global Warming

a reply to: CranialSponge

I remember the propaganda, occurs back then I was growing up as a teen in the seventies in PR, so cooling was the last thing in our minds as PR is a tropical Island, I remember my mother laughing that in a few years we were going to have Christmas with snow, Actually during the last decade in PR has been recorded temperatures in the highest points of the Island in the 30s that is a record that never heard before, in the town of Ibonito for the first time ever the lowest recorded temperature was 39 degrees in 2010, we are talking about a tropical Island here.

So is been 30 years since the 70s, perhaps in another 10 we will have that snow for Christmas after all.

a reply to: charles1952

Dear Grimpachi,

I'm sorry you left, I was hoping you'd be able to comment on an article which deals exclusively with the video in you OP. In fact. it seems to tear big holes in it. Here's the page:

wattsupwiththat.com...

And here are some things from it:

I didn't abandon the thread Charles I simply needed to step away from it. I was really glad to see you contribution because you're on target with actually addressing the OP and subject matter within instead of simply throwing walls of text up from various other subjects. Besides I had to be in Miami at 8am this morning and let me tell you Miami is one my least favorite places on earth but that's another conversation altogether.

Now whenever I see something from WUWT which I am sure you have been informed of them being on the payroll of the Heartland institute which itself is funded by polluting industries I know all I have to do is find what they quote mined from or misrepresented to clear up their forced narrative.

So I will attempt to take what you quoted piece by piece.

In the 17 years 11 months from October 1996 to August 2014 there was no global warming at all, according to the RSS satellite dataset, whose output is not significantly different from that of any other global-temperature dataset.

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends Cowtan and Way

In those two links you will see the bolded statement is not true. At the 40 second mark in the video it also addresses this.

“Storms, droughts, floods, ocean acidification, sea-level rise”: The usual litany. As for storminess, the trend in severe hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones has been downward in recent decades; there has been no trend in landfalling Atlantic hurricanes for 150 years; and the U.S. has enjoyed its longest period without a major hurricane landfall since records began. There is no trend in extra-tropical storminess either, according to the IPCC’s special report on extreme weather.

As for floods, the same report, confirmed by the Fifth Assessment Report, says there is no evidence of any global increase in the frequency, intensity, or duration of floods.

As for droughts, Hao et al. (2014) show that the land area under drought has fallen slightly over the past 30 years.

The statement made in the video is that we would see those things intensify and the only one he addresses saying there wasn't a increase in intensity was floods. Why wouldnt he say the same about storms or droughts. Did the drought this and last year in the midwest not happen? Were they not complaining of how intense it has been? Anytime i read his pages its like watching a magician misdirect.

As for ocean “acidification”, the ocean remains pronouncedly alkaline, with a pH around 8 (where 7 is neutral and values below 7, such as the 5.4 for rainwater, are acid). Why is rainwater acid? Because it is the “missing sink” that scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. When the rainfall reaches the ocean, it locally alters the pH at the surface by a minuscule amount. However, where rivers debouch into the ocean (as the Brisbane River does just opposite the Great Barrier Reef), pH can vary locally by large amounts: yet calcifying organisms thrive nevertheless.

The above is the most dishonest sleight of hand crap in his article. It angers me the narrative he tries to pass of. I think in the past we talked and I told you I am a diver. There is a smithsonian research station I like to to down in Panama and I know a biologist that measures this stuff and records the damage being done. I have seen/been shown the damages being caused by acidification. Acidification causes coral bleaching and threatens food chains. Coral is a calcifying organism so how does he come to the conclusion that they thrive?

But let me address his statement about PH as he made it seem like going up or down by 1 or 2 is no big deal. It is a big deal.

A 2010 study from Stony Brook University suggested that while some areas are overharvested and other fishing grounds are being restored, because of ocean acidification it may be impossible to bring back many previous shellfish populations. While the full ecological consequences of these changes in calcification are still uncertain, it appears likely that many calcifying species will be adversely affected.

When exposed in experiments to pH reduced by 0.2 to 0.4, larvae of a temperate brittlestar, a relative of the common sea star, fewer than 0.1 percent survived more than eight days

That was a PH reduction of "0.2 to 0.4" in the 1800s ocean PH was at 8.179 the 1990s at 8.104 and currently estimated at 8.069 and it is projected to be at 7.949 by 2050 and by 2100 to 7.824.

Other biological impacts
Aside from the slowing and/or reversing of calcification, organisms may suffer other adverse effects, either indirectly through negative impacts on food resources, or directly as reproductive or physiological effects. For example, the elevated oceanic levels of CO2 may produce CO2-induced acidification of body fluids, known as hypercapnia. Also, increasing ocean acidity is believed to have a range of direct consequences. For example, increasing acidity has been observed to: reduce metabolic rates in jumbo squid; depress the immune responses of blue mussels; and make it harder for juvenile clownfish to tell apart the smells of non-predators and predators, or hear the sounds of their predators.This is possibly because ocean acidification may alter the acoustic properties of seawater, allowing sound to propagate further, and increasing ocean noise. This impacts all animals that use sound for echolocation or communication.[76] Atlantic longfin squid eggs took longer to hatch in acidified water, and the squid's statolith was smaller and malformed in animals placed in sea water with a lower pH. However, as with calcification, as yet there is not a full understanding of these processes in marine organisms or ecosystems.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nonbiological impacts
Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.

I could go on but this subject alone is worthy of its own thread. IMO how watts downplays the importance of Ocean PH is completely irresponsible.

(Continuing....... )

As for sea-level rise, the GRACE gravitational-recovery satellites showed sea-level falling from 2003-2009 (Cazenave et al., 2009).

The Envisat satellite showed sea-level rising by a dizzying one-eighth of an inch during its eight-year lifetime from 2004-2012.

That is sort of interesting first watts would have you believe sea level is falling then he says oh well its rising but it is so minimal. Can he not make up his mind or is he misrepresenting the data. I suggest it is the latter.

Unfortunately watts doesn't feel the need to provide links to his sources but this one I think I tracked down for GRACE.www.insidescience.org...

A new measurement of the gravity everywhere around the globe with a pair of orbiting satellites provides the first ever map detailing the rises across different parts of the globe.

According to the new results, the annual world average sea level rise is about 1 millimeter, or about 0.04 of an inch. In some areas, such as the Pacific Ocean near the equator and the waters offshore from India and north of the Amazon River, the rise is larger. In some areas, such as the east coast of the United States, the sea level has actually dropped a bit over the past decade.

The surface of the sea is a constantly shifting fabric. To achieve a truer sense of how much the sea is changing in any one place, scientists measure the strength of gravity in that place. Measuring gravity over a patch of ocean or dry land provides an estimate of how much mass lies in that region. The measured mass depends on the presence of such things as mountains, glaciers, mineral deposits, and oceans.

My goodness a satellite that measures gravity so where there is more mass gravity is stronger and works to pull down the water and where there is less mass the opposite occurs. I wonder why watts would leave out all that info. Just kidding I am pretty sure I know why.


Land surface air temperature, Sea surface temperature, Air temperature over the oceans, Lower troposphere temperature, Ocean heat content, Sea level, Specific humidity, Glaciers, Northern Hemisphere snow cover, and Arctic sea ice are the 10 indicators of warming.

The Envisat satellite went dark in 2012 here is a graphed data including T/P, Jason-1, Jason-2, ERS-2, GFO, and Envisat. www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov...

Cherry picked data doesn't even begin to describe what watts did there.

“13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest since records began”:
And, like it or not, there has been no trend in global temperatures for about 13.5 years on the mean of the terrestrial records and on the mean of the satellite records. Yet CO2 concentration has continued to rise at record rates. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation. The rising CO2 concentration cannot be causing the lack of warming evident over the past couple of decades.

Yet it still stands that 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest since records began plus the video shows the correlation with co2 rise and the trend.

“Not only Arctic but also Antarctic sea ice volume is declining”: Not a good moment to run this argument, given that satellites do not do a very good job of estimating ice thickness, but are at present showing a record high sea-ice extent in the Antarctic, a substantial recovery of Arctic ice even in the summer, and no appreciable change in global sea-ice extent throughout the 35-year satellite record.

Sea ice has grown in the antarctic but land ice is another story altogether. Take a look at the arctic.

or and 27 years worth

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: CranialSponge

I remember the propaganda, occurs back then I was growing up as a teen in the seventies in PR, so cooling was the last thing in our minds as PR is a tropical Island, I remember my mother laughing that in a few years we were going to have Christmas with snow, Actually during the last decade in PR has been recorded temperatures in the highest points of the Island in the 30s that is a record that never heard before, in the town of Ibonito for the first time ever the lowest recorded temperature was 39 degrees in 2010, we are talking about a tropical Island here.

So is been 30 years since the 70s, perhaps in another 10 we will have that snow for Christmas after all.

Ha. But as was mentioned in the video and valid sources and data are available all over the internet. There were many, many, many more scientists in the 70's predicting global warming than global cooling. That was only a small handful. So in truth you or I could say " I remember growing up in the 70s and all the propaganda about global warming and my mother laughing, saying that we'll be wearing shorts at christmas in a few years..."

a reply to: Grimpachi

We Are warming up, we are, but the reason is not what the profiteers are selling, is because we are at the end of the last ice age. Warming is good, cooling is not.

Do you understand the that? is just common sense and historical facts of earth cycles.

a reply to: amazing

And Puerto Rico first record braking lowest temperature in history is a hoax, right? well it did happen and is happening a lot in the last 10 years.

I will leave it to you to do the research, you can never missed, as is a breaking new in weather related stories.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: amazing

And Puerto Rico first record braking lowest temperature in history is a hoax, right? well it did happen and is happening a lot in the last 10 years.

I will leave it to you to do the research, you can never missed, as is a breaking new in weather related stories.

My point was only that the global cooling theory from the 70s was not really a big thing. Most scientists didn't buy it.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Grimpachi

We Are warming up, we are, but the reason is not what the profiteers are selling, is because we are at the end of the last ice age. Warming is good, cooling is not.

Do you understand the that? is just common sense and historical facts of earth cycles.

Yes I know we are warming up and no one is saying we wouldn't be warming if we were not here but what is being said and shown is that we have influenced it unnaturally. Slow warming is a good thing fast warming is a bad thing. When it is slow at earths natural pace then organisms have time to adapt through many generations of natural selection but when it is fast it shocks the eco system.

Have you ever kept a fish tank that the temp needed to be regulated and PH monitored? Slight changes have big repercussions and fast changes are catastrophic. Ecosystems are not much different.

My biggest concern is that through ocean acidification from our added co2 we effect something like phytoplankton propagation. We have already destroyed 10% of the worlds coral reefs either directly or indirectly. 1998 was one of the hottest years in the last six centuries and 1998 was the worst year for coral.

If all coral reefs die then we would experience fish shortages, as many species spawn in the reefs to give their offspring a few seasons shelter before heading into the oceans also CO2 is locked into rocks formed by carbonate reef builders. If the reefs died, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase, as it would no longer be taken out of the ocean to create the reefs.

We do not know how our environment really works if we kill off ecosystems, not knowing the forward effect....well that doesn't seem to smart. We are only one of many Bio Cycles and we have a rough understanding of which ones we need. Both forests and oceans have carbon sinks that are able to absorb more co2 than they release however they are not able to absorb all the co2 we emit and it is showing.

a reply to: Grimpachi

First of all, the "wall of text' that you call is evidence against some of the claims made in the video. They are actual research and not "opinion". But of course you would have to claim otherwise. As for watts, he is talking about the conclusions from two different research. He didn't make it up.

Second, ocean PH. in case you didn't know it has been "estimated" that before the industrial revolution ocean PH level was from around 8.0 -8.3. Right now the average is about 8.1 PH. The lower numbers are always areas around estuaries where there is runoff from rivers and due to other human activity having nothing to do with CO2.

If pre-industrial revolution the PH of the oceans were from 8.0 -8.3 and now it is at 8.1, it is still close to what average ocean PH levels have been pre-industrial revolution.

What people continue to forget is that the Earth has been going through other changes as well. Remember the fact that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since the 1840-1860? A weaker magnetic field tell us changes in the Earth core which would cause changes in volcanic and seismic activity, including underwater, which would also affect the ocean PH.

Then again there is the fact that Earth's atmosphere has had more CO2 than at present and the oceans didn't "turn acidic". The oceans are alkaline, and not acidic. At PH 7 the oceans would be neutral.

As for the "projected numbers", they are the same thing as the "projected numbers of warming claimed by the GCMs" which most of them are much different to what the actual observation tells us.

If the oceans did not turn acidic with "higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now" why would they now "turn acidic" with less atmospheric CO2?

No one knows for sure what will happen with the ocean PH. However, yes there are emissions of chemicals into the oceans that we do have to stop, but they have nothing to do with CO2.

Oh and btw, to prove what I am saying here is research showing that the PH level reduction caused by the submarine eruption of El Hierro in the Canary islands.

The natural ocean acidification and fertilization event caused by the submarine eruption of El Hierro
J. M. Santana-Casiano,
M. González-Dávila,
E. Fraile-Nuez,
D. de Armas,
A. G. González,
J. F. Domínguez-Yanes
& J. Escánez
Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author
Scientific Reports 3, Article number: 1140 doi:10.1038/srep01140 Received 02 October 2012 Accepted 11 January 2013 Published 25 January 2013


The shallow submarine eruption which took place in October 10th 2011, 1.8 km south of the island of El Hierro (Canary Islands) allowed the study of the abrupt changes in the physical-chemical properties of seawater caused by volcanic discharges. In order to monitor the evolution of these changes, seven oceanographic surveys were carried out over six months (November 2011-April 2012) from the beginning of the eruptive stage to the post-eruptive phase. Here, we present dramatic changes in the water column chemistry including large decreases in pH, striking effects on the carbonate system, decreases in the oxygen concentrations and enrichment of Fe(II) and nutrients. Our findings highlight that the same volcano which was responsible for the creation of a highly corrosive environment, affecting marine biota, has also provided the nutrients required for the rapid recuperation of the marine ecosystem.

www.nature.com...

We know that for example areas of the Antarctic is being melted by underwater volcanos, and the same thing is happening in other ocean areas.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I think Above Top Secret must be the last refuge of the climate-change deniers.

The rest of the world really has moved on from this. Only the dinosaurs think climate change is fake.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Grimpachi

I think Above Top Secret must be the last refuge of the climate-change deniers.

The rest of the world really has moved on from this. Only the dinosaurs think climate change is fake.

lol, what did I say?... "Climate change deniers"... No one is denying "climate Change"... The majority of the people who agree with you do not even bother to actually study and read this subject. People like you rather allow "your emotions" tell you what to do instead of reaching your conclusions based on empirical data. Emotions are good for other areas, such as love, but when it comes to "science" emotions are "always bad". AGW = the religion of emotion of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century.

I respect all of these ideas and think pollution
and putting unnecessary strain on the ecostructure
should be monitored closely for all living things.

Next is all my opinion,
but that said...

The Sun is the boss.
The boss hit the snooze button.
It has and will continue to dim.
Maybe less than 1.8% but that's enough.

Data may be hinting at that for the next
70 years to even 90,000 years,
Imminent global cooling is not only here,
but may also be the biggest story almost no one knows or understands.
No matter the past debates, just for grins
maybe we should to look into the correlations and anomalies that point
towards a low sunspot number and solar irradiance affecting climate.

Not for political gain or drilling rights but because
it may be a big deal, & soon.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Was there a point you were trying to make, or were you just getting a load off your chest?

You people are history, thank God. It's over.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

First of all, the "wall of text' that you call is evidence against some of the claims made in the video. They are actual research and not "opinion".

Oh I read it at least the ones where the links worked. One said we should have been experiencing a cooling effect the opposite of what you implied.

Second, ocean PH. in case you didn't know it has been "estimated" that before the industrial revolution ocean PH level was from around 8.0 -8.3. Right now the average is about 8.1 PH. The lower numbers are always areas around estuaries where there is runoff from rivers

www.nrdc.org...

In case you didn't read I already posted the Ph levels.

What people continue to forget is that the Earth has been going through other changes as well.

Actually no it hasn't been forgotten, and again in case you didn't read my post to Charles or the link. When the PH becomes more acidic less alkaline as it has in the past (long ago) well here I will post that bit again.

Nonbiological impacts
Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.

See understanding the past has helped us understand what can happen in the future.

Then again there is the fact that Earth's atmosphere has had more CO2 than at present and the oceans didn't "turn acidic".

I believe that has been covered along with the why.

If the oceans did not turn acidic with "higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now" why would they now "turn acidic" with less atmospheric CO2?

Again that has been explained. See above.

No one knows for sure what will happen with the ocean PH. However, yes there are emissions of chemicals into the oceans that we do have to stop, but they have nothing to do with CO2.

So lets get this straight. You claim co2 has nothing to do with Ocean PH.Just amazing.

Anyway, let me address this.

As for watts, he is talking about the conclusions from two different research. He didn't make it up.

Not once did I say he made anything up. What I have said is he cherry picks data and misrepresents it omitting data that goes against his narrative and to top it of at least in the article in question left out the sources of his data being as ambiguous as possible about them.

I have asked this before and never got a good answer.

How are these minority of "experts" (I use that term loosely) such as watts selected for their information on this subject over the equally qualified (usually more qualified) colleagues?

Are they chosen based on agreeable conclusions rather than scientific rigour? I am certain most have been made aware of watts qualifications in the past.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Thats an interesting study did you read past what you posted. I don't think you did or either you didn't grasp what they were saying.

First off that was a localized event with an open system (the ocean) that can reintroduce organisms after they were killed off to undetectable levels(in other words they died off). Try doing that to a lake and see what will happen without the constant influx of life from the surrounding area. Basically after killing pretty much everything off the added nutrients such as iron and phosphates was a prime environment for sea life to come back in an thrive after many months.

While that is great news for localized events, though not surprising can you guess why recreating such conditions on a worldwide scale would be a very bad idea? Here is a hint when a species goes extinct it doesn't come back. Which if those conditions were repeated world wide many species would go extinct.

That was a bad example for world ph.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Grimpachi

I think Above Top Secret must be the last refuge of the climate-change deniers.

The rest of the world really has moved on from this. Only the dinosaurs think climate change is fake.

It isn't ATS it is the US. As I said before there are groups such as the Heartland inst that fund groups and blogs like WUWT. The heartland institute is the same group that was funding and propagating propaganda that said smoking was harmless.

They don't have to win the debate they just have to keep it going so their financiers (polluting industries) can keep going about their business. And they have their methods down to a science of course it helps that they contribute to campaigns of those in congress and senate that sit on boards like the science committee. Our founding fathers would be so ashamed of what the nation/goverment has become.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Your posts and attitude are certainly condescending enough, and don't appear to be doing anything to further the conversation either. I don't quite get your intent, we are all supposed to blindly disregard all other information and opinions and believe your youtube video because you insist it is the only correct information?

As well, are you asserting that none of those theories on your list have any validity to them at all? Every single one of them is 100% completely without any merit what so ever? I believe we should be open to any and all information and theories regarding the issue personally, not trying to pigeon hole people into arguments over particulars.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It's ok op. You can tell people the exact amount of co2 we produce each year, show that it dwarfs volcanic output, and that the increase in atmospheric co2 is directly 1:1 proportional with the amount we release ourselves, and they'll still just say humans can't have any impact.

Because as we all know, conviction and belief is a more accurate guage of reality than numbers and math.

/facepalm

a reply to: sputniksteve

Apologies if I seem condescending but there is a reason it is because I am genuinely disappointed/agitated at how little many here have even looked at the video or content before posting. The very first post in the thread starts of with it "natural cycles" that person didn't even look at the video and kept arguing through the thread still having not looked at it. The reason I know that is because he replied 4 minutes after I posted the thread. It takes longer than that to even watch the video let alone read the thread type his reply and post. Another poster admitted they barely watched a minute then misrepresented what it said as well as its points and arguments. I am sure they were not alone.

Let me ask are those posters even trying to have an honest debate. I would say no.

As far as your question of if you're supposed to blindly believe a youtube video I say absolutely not. I have said this before in the thread a couple times. The video on youtube has provided links to all the information discussed in the video. I will take some responsibility there as I had thought it was a given or that most people already knew how to navigate a youtube page.

As well, are you asserting that none of those theories on your list have any validity to them at all? Every single one of them is 100% completely without any merit what so ever? I believe we should be open to any and all information and theories regarding the issue personally, not trying to pigeon hole people into arguments over particulars.

I am asserting that based on the information and links provided that verify it. Here is the thing though. If you want to argue that the misconceptions listed are valid people should give a counter argument that addresses the information that dismisses it and explain how that information is invalid. So-far the only post that has done that was from Charles. I respect Charles for that and I guarantee I spent more time looking up the sources of WUWT claims to dismiss to figure out why it didn't match up with the info in the video than 90 percent of the posters on here spent looking into the info provided in the video combined.

As far as not "pigeon hole people into arguments over particulars" this thread is about 13 particular misconceptions that have been used repeatedly in the debate against AGW/climate change. There is overwhelming evidence against those things that they can be called settled unless someone can provide "evidence" that can argue that. I am not saying the debate is over because those 13 things don't hold water. I never said that but I am saying it is tiring and lame when people keep using those 13. Same as if someone tried to argue smoking isn't bad for your health.