[Coral-List] DONT BE TOO MUCH OF A SCIENTIST
helder.perez at gmail.com
Wed Feb 8 11:02:10 EST 2012
I'll bring the topic home: right now we have *393.09 PPM of CO2*.
According to NOAA's observatory at Mauna Loa, that measure correspond to
the mean of carbon dioxide for the month of *January 2012*. It's likely
that by mid decade we'll have reached 400 ppm of CO2 (please follow this
link to look at the monthly data since 1958
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt) and draw your own
Climate change may not erase all corals from the oceans, but ocean
acidification might. How can we tackle that?
Helder I. Pérez
*Bay Islands Foundation
Skype ID: helder.perez
On 8 February 2012 08:52, Steve Mussman <sealab at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I don't believe that I've ever seen a post on Coral-List
> that was more transparently political. Why does support
> for the international scientific consensus relating to
> climate change have to be equated with anti-Americanism?
> Countless studies have concluded that solar irradiance plays
> a minor role when compared to forcings that are human-made
> and everyone knows the effects of the ENSO. Claiming that
> temperatures peaked in 1998 is not accurate in that it reflects
> only short-term variability within the long term climate trend.
> Previous posts relating to climate change have been chastised
> for not being relevant to corals, a perspective I never understood.
> The one I question here doesn't relate to reality and challenges
> both the credibility of established scientific opinion and more
> improperly, one's patriotic fervor.
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Bill Raymond <billraymond10 at yahoo.com>
> >Sent: Feb 7, 2012 2:34 PM
> >To: Coral List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> >Subject: [Coral-List] DONT BE TOO MUCH OF A SCIENTIST
> >Gene Shinn made a good point. Global temperature peaked in 1998, yet CO2
> levels continued to rise over the past 11 years. Solar cycles correlate
> better to global temperaturer than CO2 levels. Yet, the IPCC claims solar
> forcing contributed +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 compared to +1.6 W/m2 from
> anthropogenic warming. They apparently chose to use a parameter of solar
> irradiance that has not changed significantly. Do they really expect us to
> believe the sun's influence is only 7 1/2 % of the human contribution? Will
> they also deny the recent increase in solar flare activity?
> >First convince the world of AGW, then demand $10 trillion to fix it. Is
> the UN pro-America?
> >Coral-List mailing list
> >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
More information about the Coral-List