Seriously, these people believe the science journals are in the plot, ScientificAmerican is a liberal rag, and the National Academy of Sciences are co-conspirators. An economics magazine can easily join in.
"At the back of everyone’s mind are events 56m years ago."
That's the problem, nobody was here to record it, any measures that imply temp or CO2 levels of 56M years ago are highly suspect. Determining a causal relationship is certainly not possible from 56M years. On the other hand we have clear eveidence and documentation of the world 1000 years ago - and it was warmer than today without the CO2 from industrialization.
The problem with the article is one of misrepresentation. Scientists may use the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) to better understand what theoretical AGW might do to the planet. Scientists DO NOT use the PETM as proof that AGW exists since that would be absurd.
Also, nothing in the article refutes any of the science that points to natural solar fluctuations as the primary cause of climate change. Though this of course has no policy implications so it gets little press.
Finally, the term "denier" is misleading since the only thing climate change realists have ever denied is that the govt should make drastic changes to our economy for the sake of an untried theory with little compelling evidence.
"... some students of the transition think ..." Well, that is settled then.
From the link:
"... many creatures which live in the ocean have shells or skeletons made of stuff that dissolves in acid."
No **** Sherlock! Talking about acidification and acid is a common trick to make you think the oceans are acidic. They are not, of course, they are quite alkaline and are likely to remain so in spite of any scaremongering.
Let's me try some scaremongering to restore some balance. "Some students think that the alkalinity of the oceans could be dangerous as alkali burns are often worse that acid burns. Reducing the sea's alkalinity could be a benefit of climate change. See the following link for scary pictures of alkali burns (NOTE Not for the squeamish.)"
Sorry, not sure how the politics are relevant.
All non solids, like gases, co2, smoke exhausts that rise into the upper atmosphere is separated by nature's chemicals into nothingness as usual and most knew about this long before Global Warming started. ( you can thank Ex-President Bush, you know the one that purposely lied to everyone after getting the real truth from the 43,000 scientists that he hired.) ( Global Warming was actually an ALIEN Organism that My Triple Output turned off/ not destroyed, just turned off between July to November 28/ 2012. Mike
For a start I am not and never have been a conservative, I am a forward thinking person.
You have no way of saying Earths oceans are becoming acid, there is no PH meter invented so far which is continuously accurate, they need constant calibration, and can only do rough measurements.
Our oceans vary in PH enormously not only in place to place but from time to time, even effected by planktonic growth, plus our oceans have a huge buffer of calcium, more than enough to swallow all the CO2 in the atmosphere and all the CO2 we can produce for thousands of years together, without becoming acid, if you were talking about our rivers and lakes becoming acidic, that might be possible but our oceans no.
The event 56m yrs ago was extreme temperature rise, the CO2 followed later.
Plus hard shell plankton and all crustaceans require carbon (CO2 ) with calcium to produce calcium carbonate, research is showing that coccolithophores have more dense carbonate deposits, and crustaceans like shrimp lobster crabs are developing thicker stronger shells, it is benefiting them.
You only have to look at the white cliffs of Dover (thousand feet deep of chalk) to realise that our oceans not only have the ability to soak up all that CO2, they also have the ability to make our atmosphere starved of CO2, which is a problem as CO2 is essential to plants and creatures.
The Economist isn't really 'conservative'. It's liberal in the classic sense of the word.
Generally liberal as in, they're in favour of free markets and free people. Many modern conservative movements are more in favour of free markets, but restrictions on people.
And the Economist is generally a very evidence-based magazine, it's not particularly into conspiracy theories so it has been on the side of the scientific community about climate change for years now. Yet conservative ideology is still correlated with climate science denial in the US and some other countries.
the Economist last week also had as its cover story, "How Science Gets It Wrong"........data falsification, peer group pressure to conform to the party line, denial of tenure and grants to those who say the emperor has no clothes........all the tricks and tirades and dirty pool used against "Deniers".....it was wonderful reading........
Can you identify all of the "GLOBAL COOLING PERIODS" in this illustration of temperatures?
Here's the accounting on how temperatures have "NATURALLY" fluctuated over time:
Jan 1880 to Feb ‘82 +0.39C (Jan 1880 - 13.67C is the starting Global average temperature)
Feb ‘82 to Jan ‘85 -0.61C (3 years)
Jan ‘85 to Dec ‘85 +0.58C (11 months)
Dec ‘85 to Jan ‘87 -0.60C
Jan ‘87 to Feb ‘89 +0.74C
Feb ‘89 to Jan ‘93 -1.01C (4 years) (-2.525C per decade - Global Cooling?)
Jan ‘93 to July ‘93 +0.68C (6 months) (Oops! - +6.8C per decade?)
July ‘93 to Jan ‘95 -0.33C
Jan ‘95 to Oct ‘96 +0.53C
Oct ‘96 to Mar ‘98 -0.59C
Mar ‘98 to Nov ‘99 +0.62C
Nov ‘99 to Jan 1904 -0.72C (5 years)
Jan ‘04 to Apr ’06 +0.59C
Apr ’06 to Jan ’09 -0.59C
Jan ’09 to Jan ’14 +0.59C (5 years)
Jan ’14 to Dec ’16 -0.71C
Dec ’16 to Jul ’17 +0.49C (7 months)
July ’17 to Dec ’17 -0.47C (5 months)
Dec ’17 to Oct ’18 +0.62C (10 months)
Oct ’18 to Dec ’20 -0.39C
Dec ’20 to Jan ’21 +0.43C (1 month)
Jan ’21 to Feb ’22 -0.37C
Feb ’22 to Jan ’26 +0.59C (4 years)
Jan ’26 to Mar’27 -0.50C
Mar ’27 to Oct ’27 +0.37C
Oct ’27 to Feb ’29 -0.55C
Feb ’29 to Nov ’30 +0.68C
Nov ’30 to Dec ’33 -0.56C
Dec ’33 to Feb ’35 +0.58C
Feb ’35 to Feb ’36 -0.50C (1 year)
Feb ’36 to Dec ’39 +0.73C
Dec ’39 to Jan ’40 -0.52C (1 month)
Jan ’40 to Jan ’44 +0.42C (4 years)
Jan ’44 to Dec ’46 -0.63C
Dec ’46 to Jan ’48 +0.44C
Jan ’48 to Feb ’51 -0.55C
Feb ’51 to Feb ’53 +0.63C
Feb ’53 to Mar ’55 -0.52C
Mar ’55 to Jan ’58 +0.69C
Jan ’58 to Mar ’60 -0.73C
Mar ’60 to Feb ’61 +0.54C
Feb ’61 to Apr ’64 -0.49C
Apr ’64 to Mar ’68 +0.57C
Mar ’68 to Jan ’72 -0.51C
Jan ’72 to Feb ’73 +0.57C
Feb ’73 to Feb ’74 -0.58C
Feb ’74 to May ’77 +0.53C
May ’77 to July ’78 -0.44C
July ’78 to Dec ’79 +0.60C
Dec ’79 to Mar ’82 -0.49C
Mar ’82 to Jan ’83 +0.55C
Jan ’83 to Dec ’84 -0.56C
Dec ’84 to Jan ’88 +0.60C
Jan ’88 to Nov ’88 -0.46C
Nov ’88 to Mar ’90 +0.65C
Mar ’90 to Sep ’92 -0.75C
Sep ’92 to Feb ’95 +0.79C
Feb ’95 to Jan ’96 -0.51C
Jan ’96 to Feb ’98 +0.62C
Feb ’98 to May ’99 -0.56C
May ’99 to Mar 2002 +0.59C
Mar ’02 to Jul ’04 -0.50C
Jul ’04 to Oct ’05 +0.53C
Oct ’05 to Jan ’08 -0.53C
Jan ’08 to Mar’10 +0.64C
Mar ’10 to Jan ’12 -0.49C
Jan ’12 to present +0.12C (Current Global average temperature is 14.61C)
***************************************...
**All of the positive (+) numbers denote a Global Warming trend**
**All of the negative (-) numbers denote a Global Cooling trend**
***************************************...
It doesn't take a climate scientist to understand "NATURAL" fluctuations of temperature. People are easily fooled to think that the 4 seasons of the year 'should be' the same year after year. This is the fault of climate science and their own political and ignorant agenda. Fluctuations are NATURAL and have nothing to do with CO2 levels!
They'll just call them "RINOs" and stick their heads back in the sand.
Will that matter to AGW deniers? Generally, they'd like to call themselves conservatives, however, now that even conservatives are questioning our release of CO2, what will they call themselves next? Neanderthals? ;)
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21590349-worlds-seas-are-becoming-more-acidic-how-much-matters-not-yet-clear
"The world’s seas are becoming more acidic. How much that matters is not yet clear. But it might matter a lot"
"At the back of everyone’s mind (as in wider discussions of climate change) are events 56m years ago. At that time, the boundary between the Palaeocene and Eocene geological epochs, carbon-dioxide levels rose sharply, the climate suddenly warmed (by about 6°C) and the seas became a lot more acidic. Many marine species, notably coccolithophores (a group of shelled single-celled algae) and deep-dwelling foraminifera (a group of shelled protozoa), became extinct in mere centuries, and some students of the transition think the increased acidity was more to blame for this than the rise in temperature. Surface-dwelling foraminifera, however, thrived, and new coccolithophore species rapidly evolved to replace those that had died out.
On land, too, some groups of animals did well. Though the rise of the mammals is often dated from 66m years ago, when a mass extinction of the dinosaurs left the planet open for colonisation by other groups, it is actually the beginning of the Eocene, 10m years later, which marks the ascendancy of modern mammal groups.
Oceanic acidity levels appear now to be rising ten times as fast as they did at the end of the Palaeocene. Some Earth scientists think the planet is entering, as it did 56m years ago, a new epoch―the Anthropocene. Though the end of the Palaeocene was an extreme example, it is characteristic of such transitions for the pattern of life to change quickly. Which species will suffer and which will benefit in this particular transition remains to be seen."
