Global Coal Boom Accelerating Despite Obama’s Green Posturing

climate consensusAs the oceans’ chemistry is altered by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the response of sea-dwellers such as fish, shellfish and corals is a huge unknown that has implications for fisheries and conservationists alike. But the researchers attempting to find an answer are often failing to properly design and report their experiments, according to an analysis of two decades of literature. The past decade has seen accelerated attempts to predict what these changes in pH will mean for the oceans’ denizens — in particular, through experiments that place organisms in water tanks that mimic future ocean-chemistry scenarios. Yet according to a survey published last month by marine scientist Christopher Cornwall, who studies ocean acidification at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and ecologist Catriona Hurd of the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia, most reports of such laboratory experiments either used inappropriate methods or did not report their methods properly. –Daniel Cressey, Nature, 5 August 2015

At the very moment President Obama has decided to shutter America’s coal industry in favor of much more expensive and less efficient “renewable energy,” coal use is surging across the globe. A new study by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences detects an unmistakable “coal renaissance” under way that shows this mineral of fossilized carbon has again become “the most important source of energy-related emissions on the global scale.” Coal is expanding rapidly “not only in China and India but also across a broad range of developing countries — especially poor, fast-growing countries mainly in Asia,” the study finds. Why is coal such a popular energy source now? The NAS study explains that many nations are attracted to “(relatively) low coal prices . .. to satisfy their energy needs.” It also finds “the share of coal in the energy mix indeed has grown faster for countries with higher economic growth.” –Stephan Moore, Investor’s Business Daily, 7 August 2015

I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a new study by Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true. The “97% consensus” is now 43%. Jo Nova, 30 July 2015

Labour would start buying up shares in the “big six” energy companies under a Jeremy Corbyn government until it owned a controlling stake, the party’s leftwing leadership contender has said. Mr Corbyn, whose support has surged during the campaign and is now narrowly the second favourite to win, wants to nationalise British Gas, SSE, Eon, RWE Npower, Scottish Power and EDF, as well as the National Grid. –Kiran Stacey, Financial Times, 7 August 2015

BBC journalists are meant to be impartial, but climate change hack Roger Harrabin is whipping up criticism online among Greens of a programme made by his own employer. Radio 4’s What’s The Point Of… ?, looked at alleged politicisation of the Met Office. The show was made by the Mail’s Quentin Letts. ‘From what I can gather, Comrade Harrabin has blown his top,’ Letts says. ‘All the hot gas he is producing may rupture the ozone layer.’ –Sebastian Shakespeare, Daily Mail 7 August 2015

Climate change is the subject of a complex debate in which, increasingly, experts disagree with each other. So you’d expect the BBC’s ‘Environment and Energy Analyst’, Roger Harrabin, to proceed with caution. Not so. Harrabin is paid by the licence payers. Yet, judging by his Twitter feed, his views are even more partisan than those of Richard Black. When he’s not plugging a Guardian conspiracy theory involving US Republican sceptics and BP, he’s wringing his hands at the cut to wind subsidies or lamenting the lack of civil servants to enforce ‘smarter’ environmental laws. –Damian Thompson, The Spectator, 6 August 2015

Very surprisingly and somewhat boldly, on Wednesday morning Radio 4 put out a programme by the Mail’s Quentin Letts which ran flatly counter to the BBC’s normal party line on one of its very favourite subjects, global warming. Under the title What’s The Point Of The Met Office?, Mr Letts focused on the way our national weather service has long been known to share with the BBC an obsession with climate change. Indeed, the way this has in recent years tended to skew so much of its forecasting has made it something of a national joke. After the programme was broadcast, the heresy of it having included such a dissenting voice as this, speaking in a manner the BBC would never normally dream of allowing on its airwaves, provoked the BBC’s own climate activists to rage in print and on Twitter.  –Christopher Booker, Daily Mail, 7 August 2015

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (52)

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Just like CO2 doesn’t behave in their lab experiments as it dose in the real world neither does it behave in the oceans as their tank experiments. The green house effect works in a greenhouse and just like a swimming pool or a tank, the same thing happens with pH.

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      It’s a closed system, so we have control of that closed system, It’s that simple.

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        These so called scientist should know that!

  • Avatar

    John from Michigan

    |

    Daniel Cressey says “As the oceans’ chemistry is altered by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide….” From reports that I have read (I’m not an oceanographer), there has been no alteration in ocean chemistry due to rising levels of carbon dioxide, and the pH level has experienced no significant change in recent times. One thing that we all should remember: The oceans are a repository of CO2. Historically, when the oceans have cooled, the oceans absorb more CO2, and when the oceans warm, they release more CO2. Neither process has ever altered the pH one whit. And what happens when more CO2 enters the oceans? There is a great amount of plant life in the oceans, much of or maybe most of, is in relatively shallow waters allowing it to be influenced by sunlight. The photosynthesis that occurs on terrestrial plant life also occurs in the oceans. This is one of the sources of oxygen that sustains the oceans’ animal life. It is a positive thing.

    • Avatar

      Qwerty

      |

      The ocean, as you said, is a repository of CO2. The amount it can hold varies with the temperature of the ocean* and… Eh, either way, an increase or decrease in that would probably qualify as a change in its chemistry. CO2 does change the pH of the water it is dissolved it. A soft drink is a typical example. (Guess I’m just restating facts, doesn’t seem like you got that wrong there)

      *source needed

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        What is the pH of the oceans now?

        • Avatar

          Qwerty

          |

          Seven is neutral. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.
          Ocean Acidification — National Geographic – The Ocean
          ocean.nationalgeographic.com › ocean

          Copied and pasted from Google.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            And 8.1 on the pH scale is described as what again?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Maybe it’s a miracle.

            Papa Francis can probably declare and infallibly canonize that.

            And maybe that would secure his

            NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yeah, look up the history of that, it was meant to do good, but ended up making thing things worse, kinda like the gore effect.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            When we run out of rocks on Earth or plate tectonics ceases, then we will have acid oceans.
            [quote]In the oceans, there is a buffering reaction between the sea floor basalts and sea water (see below). Sea water has a local and regional variation in pH (pH 7.8 to 8.3). It should be noted that pH is a log scale and that if we are to create acid oceans, then there is not enough CO2 in fossil fuels to create oceanic acidity because most of the planet’s CO2 is locked up in rocks. [/quote]
            http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/not-enough-co2-to-make-oceans-acidic-a-note-from-professor-plimer/

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            Well, as soon as the oceans are acidic, just about all fish and plant life will be gone. Fish need to stay within a small pH range to live, just as plants do. I hope we never get to that point. It would be a disaster. Thank goodness there is just about nothing that could change the oceans pH so far without killing us all off first.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Small pH range for fish, what like 6.4 to 8.2 range? What is the percentage for that? Would that be 450%? Do you know 100% is it, there is no more. but that doesn’t sound scary enough for you. Isn’t that right? 😀

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            Mmmm no. That would be far too large. 8.0-8.4 is the safe range for saltwater fish, according to a website about aquarium care.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Really, so trout and atlantic salmon aren’t fish then! 😆

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            How is fresh water mussels survive in the pH range of 6.8 then?

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            What about all the things they have to eat to survive that lives in that water?

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            What about al those big cities that has rivers flowing trough them, are there fish there? How do they survive? You know all that polution and stuff?

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            The key here is salt water fish. Trout is a large group of fish, in which salmon are included. Freshwater fish need a lower pH than the ocean in general, but salmon, who live in salt water and fresh water, understandably, have a much large pH tolerance.

            Remember that the ocean’s change in pH is dangerous to the fish that live in the ocean. Fresh water fish aren’t the issue, because they don’t live in the ocean. Also, as I said before, some species will benefit. Some will not react at all. Others will experience a decline of some sort, and some will perish. If you can list a fish that won’t be affected, great. It happens to fall in that category. Not all fish do.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Ahh so the term have change suddenly, Just like you alarmist do. but you said fish.

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            The key here is salt water fish. Trout is a large group of fish, in which salmon are included. Freshwater fish need a lower pH than the ocean in general, but salmon, who live in salt water and fresh water, understandably, have a much large pH tolerance.

            Remember that the ocean’s change in pH is dangerous to the fish that live in the ocean. Fresh water fish aren’t the issue, because they don’t live in the ocean. Also, as I said before, some species will benefit. Some will not react at all. Others will experience a decline of some sort, and some will perish. If you can list a fish that won’t be affected, great. It happens to fall in that category. Not all fish do.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            feel the need to repeat your self, like is makes it more true the second time you say it!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]If you can list a fish that won’t be affected, great. It happens to fall in that category. Not all fish do.[/quote] Except that the Empirical Observation based, Peer Reviewed Literature says other wise.
            [quote]We begin by plotting in Figure 1 the percent changes in all five of the major life characteristics included in this study (calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival) as functions of experimentally-orchestrated declines in seawater pH from the presently prevailing value, where each entry in our Ocean Acidification Database is represented by its own individual data point.[/quote] Of course you refuse to even look at it because the site that compiled the data from many Peer Reviewed studies is funded by dirty oil money instead of dirty alarmist money. 😮
            http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            What’s your view on hunting then? and about livestock? Bet you’re one of them free range peps, or a vegan type?

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            I have no opinion on either. I hear free range makes it taste better, but I don’t really care. Vegans are scary folk; it’s not a good enough reason not to eat meat.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Funny that one pollution fer you is suddenly different that what you’re calling pollution, because fish!

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            You are invested in the Green energy thing aren’t you and don’t want to lose your shirt?

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            And coal fired power plants with scrubbers! 😆

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            for you it’s all about carbon dioxide, and you want to call it carbon pollution, then the same with sulfur dioxide, because your target is coal, isn’t it?

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            That is very unfortunate. It is also rather ironic that the EPA caused it, even accidentally. The toll it will take on that river… I can’t even imagine.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            What’s truly unfortunate and not so ironic, is that no one in the EPA will ever be held responsible, let alone liable.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Well… It’s from an aquarium site? Wow! Too bad it in no way trumps actual real world observations, which show actual real world ocean pH ranges from pH 7.8 to 8.3 . Actual real world fish seem to do just fine.

            Aquariums, much like test tubes are not the real world.

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            I would think you’d be less likely to make things up if the information was from a source that has absolutely nothing to do with AGW. Guess I was wrong there.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            What exactly did I make up there? The stats I posted are from empirical observations as reported in Peer Reviewed Journals.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It should be noted that pH is a log scale and the 25% increase is complete nonsense.

            A drop of 0.1 ph units is hardly alarming when you consider Sea water has a local and regional variation in pH (pH 7.8 to 8.3).

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            Actually, it is a cause for concern. I don’t know exactly to what your number refers to, but if it’s 8.3-7.8 now, then a .1 drop in the average means that it once could have been 8.4-7.9, a range that organisms had adapted to. Now, some organisms how could survive in only that range may find themselves in a 7.8 pH, which is toxic to them.

            From an aquarium website: Saltwater pH is usually between 8.0 and 8.4, varying only slightly according to ecosystem. Reef tanks tend to be a bit more sensitive than fish-only tanks, and should be close to 8.2 or 8.3.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            No… Not really.
            [quote] And, interestingly enough — and even incorporating pH reduction data all the way out to 0.30 — the linear trend of all the data is actually positive, indicating an overall beneficial response of the totality of the five major life characteristics of marine sea life to ocean acidification, which result is vastly different from the negative results routinely predicted by the world’s climate alarmists.[/quote] So according to the Peer Reviewed literature, so called ocean acidification is in now way alarming.
            [quote]The results we have depicted in the figures above suggest something very different from the doomsday predictions of the climate alarmists who claim we are in “the last decades of coral reefs on this planet for at least the next … million plus years, unless we do something very soon to reduce CO2 emissions,” or who declare that “reefs are starting to crumble and disappear,” that “we may lose those ecosystems within 20 or 30 years,” and that “we’ve got the last decade in which we can do something about this problem.” Clearly, the promoting of such scenarios is not supported by the vast bulk of pertinent experimental data.[/quote]
            http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            Unfortunately, your source is funded by a an energy corporation, ExxonMobil. This does not make for a very credible source.

            Acidification does in fact, damage marine life. Some species will benefit, I’m sure, as they are more tolerant of a less basic environment, but just as many will perish because of this and many more will suffer damage to their health etc.

            The shells of certain organisms will actually dissolve in a more acidic ocean. http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It’s Peer Reviewed Science. I noticed you have not produced anything that refuted the papers cited. The overwhelming majority of the peer reviewed experiments do not support your alarmist views. Sorry.

            Your “source” is funded by the 29 Billion a year Government funded climate alarmist industry. They are paid to find predetermined results and to fiddle with the data.

            [quote] But when the researchers looked for patterns, they found that the increase in ocean temperature had such a strong affect on how these animals distributed themselves, they couldn’t even tell what the effects of ocean acidification were.[/quote]
            Wondering how “warming” oceans will absorb more Co2? They are supposed to off gas Co2 when they warm right?

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            If that were true, I wouldn’t support it.

            My refutation was evidence to the contrary and a discredit to your source.

            The day we can’t trust the research of universities is the day all “science” has gone to hell. They are the ones in search of knowledge, and putting a spin on it is not their concern. Respectfully, I think you are misled to believe that only things that agree with your world view can be correct, legitimate, or otherwise not dishonest.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Again 8.1 on the pH scale is described as what again?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Grant money driven result-orientated research !

            We’ll try it again.

            Grant money driven result-orientated research !!!!!!!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]The day we can’t trust the research of universities is the day all “science” has gone to hell.[/quote]

            http://retractionwatch.com/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Putting a spin on it is all they do. Please provide a single CAGW Model produced by the research of universities that has skillfully predicted climate.

            Just one?

            Your “refutation” was rubbish. From your so called “refutation”… [quote]But when the researchers looked for patterns, they found that the increase in ocean temperature had such a strong affect on how these animals distributed themselves, they couldn’t even tell what the effects of ocean acidification were.[/quote] Yep! Real credible there Q-Ball.

            I showed you peer reviewed papers based upon empirical observations. And you “refuted” it with “they couldn’t even tell what the effects of ocean acidification were?” 😀

          • Avatar

            Qwerty

            |

            That wasn’t part of what I linked, it was part of what you did. Please don’t attribute it to me.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Yes actually, it is from the link you posted to and that you apparently never bothered to read.

            You see Q-Ball, I actually read past your first linked page to the “Searching for Ocean Acidification Signal” page. And read more about your “Sea Butterfly” that you claimed is proof of dangerous ocean acidification. Seems it is not so cut and dried after all. 😀

            Scroll down to near the bottom where the paragraph starts with “What is driving this change?”

            http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-news/searching-ocean-acidification-signal

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Really, if all your going to do is cheery pick the crap that supports your alarmist world views you should move on.

            If you have no interest in actually looking at the empirical observations instead of failed model results, your wasting your own time.

  • Avatar

    ok

    |

    To say there is no change is a lie. The ocean PH changes throughout the seasons. At the moment every 6 months it shifts something like 500x the amount that co2 could in theory cause in the same timeframe. Fish and coral are still happy and alive. Its silly to think a shift so small its lost in the seasonal noise would affect anything

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Can we get off of this talk about CO2 ?

    It is totally irrelevant

    There is no such thing as a

    GREENHOUSE GAS

    as proposed by the idiot alarmists,

    Water vapor as a minor part of the atmosphere can as clouds cause a dampering and modulation of extreme cold and warmth and most especially a cooling factor because it reflects back into interplanetary space infrared heat.

    CO2 causes nothing, regardless how much

    G-D ON EARTH

    O’BAMA

    wants to say it does.

    Time to reject O’bama as G-D

    Time to reject DOPE FRANNY
    as a

    NOBEL LAUREATE

  • Avatar

    Qwerty

    |

    Pardon that repeat reply. My slow computer caused me to submit it twice.

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      OK I’ll give you that one. 😀

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.