So about that climate "Pause"......

[Paratus]

🙄

Douche.

First off that comment wasn't only directed at you.
Second it wasn't meant as an insult but more as a term of frustrated endearment.


But since my comment upset you, when that wasn't my intention, I'll offer up my apologies.

 

[thraashman]

Then you haven't ever taken a serious look at the other side. For an example, follow the link in the OP and read the GW 101 article.

I'm not sure what your point there is as far as the other side to be honest. But I looked up the 101 link and that Roy Spencer guy needs to stick to data only. Because once he tries to interpret data he goes off the rails. I looked him up and found out he also believes that intelligent design is equally as viable as evolutionary theory. And his views on climate change are influenced by his views on intelligent design in that he believes an Earth created God can't be significantly affected by man's actions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In addition to CO2 there's methane, water vapor, ozone and others. In fact without them the Earth's average temperature would be below freezing. But the warming since the 1950's or so has been primarily due to the addition of our greenhouse gases.

Interesting. But warming was essentially static from the 50s through late 70s. How do you explain that?

 

[bshole]

Even though Paratus has dropped science bomb after science bomb on you guys, taking his word for it is entirely unnecessary. All he's really doing is providing the evidence that is already there in abundance from thousands of experts all over the globe.

The bombs proving global warming is bad haven't been persuasive or particularly scientific.

https://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/negative_impacts.asp

Positive effects of climate change may include greener rain forests and enhanced plant growth in the Amazon, increased vegetation in northern latitudes and possible increases in plankton biomass in some parts of the ocean. Negative responses may include further growth of oxygen poor ocean zones, contamination or exhaustion of fresh water, increased incidence of natural fires, extensive vegetation die-off due to droughts, increased risk of coral extinction, decline in global photo-plankton, changes in migration patterns of birds and animals, changes in seasonal periodicity, disruption to food chains and species loss.
Economic

The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. The Stern report made clear the overall pattern of economic distress, and while the specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate change were far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios projected in the IPCC AR4 report would witness massive migration as low-lying countries were flooded. Disruptions to global trade, transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and finance, investment and insurance, would all wreak havoc on the stability of both developed and developing nations. Markets would endure increased volatility and institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies would experience considerable difficulty.

How does one quantify "may"? Global warming "may" result in a golden age for civilization. The effects of global warming on society should be a completely different branch of science. It is really weird to hear climate scientists making projections of what climate change will do to life forms on earth. Their opinion is worthless (or equal to mine) in this regard.

Our best economic minds can't project what the market is going to do next year, much less what will happen in a decade. If you think climate models are complicated, they are a walk in the park compared to economic models. IF anybody could reliably predict markets, they would own the world.

 

[bshole]

Interesting. But warming was essentially static from the 50s through late 70s. How do you explain that?

I think they said something about ocean currents. It is weird that they can never predict the pauses but have plenty of explanations afterwards.

That being said, it is unquestionable that we are warming.

 

[nickqt]

Interesting. But warming was essentially static from the 50s through late 70s. How do you explain that?

One possible explanation would be that from about 1929 until 1946, the world economy slowed significantly during the depression, decreasing the amount of carbon being burned.

Then from 1946 on the world started burning carbon at much greater rates than before.

Considering that it takes time for carbon to increase the trapped heat inside the atmosphere, it took time for warming to begin again.

It's similar to how violent crime began to rise 20 years after leaded gasoline came online in the 20s, as it slowly poisoned children and affected their neurological development. As it was phased out in the 1970s, crime continued to rise up until the early 1990s, where it then precipitously dropped, everywhere, as children were no longer being poisoned by lead en masse across the country.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It certainly isn't the sole cause of the greenhouse effect. The graphic I posted of the forcings showed that it isn't.

In addition to CO2 there's methane, water vapor, ozone and others. In fact without them the Earth's average temperature would be below freezing. But the warming since the 1950's or so has been primarily due to the addition of our greenhouse gases.

Even you have to admit that simply comparing the data and links I've provided against the ones you have undeniably shows the last 70 years of warming is ours and the predictions have been scientifically accurate.

I'm aware of the balance that maintains temps in a range that is livable to most life on Earth.

My problem is that you, and others, have shown some correlation between risings temps and CO2. But we all know the phrase "Correlation does not equal causation". And claiming that predictions have been scientifically accurate is dubious at best. Look at the CMIP models. Approximately 95% of them missed the mark, many by a relatively wide margin, and all in one direction...overestimated. The IPCC has revised their estimate downwards every single time.

Sorry, but that doesn't instill confidence in any way, shape, or form that the science of AGW knows what the hell it is doing. They can only cry wolf so many times. They have exceeded that limit and lost trust in the process.

I agree that man is a driver in climate change, likely even the primary driver. However, until the IPCC and other scientists come up with realistic predictions that mirror reality it's going to be a tough sell that we should spend 100s of billions or trillions of dollars to do something about it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

First off that comment wasn't only directed at you.
Second it wasn't meant as an insult but more as a term of frustrated endearment.


But since my comment upset you, when that wasn't my intention, I'll offer up my apologies.

No problem. The intent of my own words have often been misinterpreted in here so I understand completely. Your apology was gracious and I never hold a grudge against a gracious soul.

Cheers. :thumbsup:

 

[bshole]

I'm not sure what your point there is as far as the other side to be honest. But I looked up the 101 link and that Roy Spencer guy needs to stick to data only. Because once he tries to interpret data he goes off the rails. I looked him up and found out he also believes that intelligent design is equally as viable as evolutionary theory. And his views on climate change are influenced by his views on intelligent design in that he believes an Earth created God can't be significantly affected by man's actions.

Ah shit man. I always liked Roy Spencer. In his defense, Ben Carson is first class neurosurgeon and he is young earther. Their need for meaning in life has overwhelmed their intellect. It is a fair criticism of Spencer that he rejects evolution science. Keep in mind that Spencer's area of expertise is climatology, not evolution.

I'm aware of the balance that maintains temps in a range that is livable to most life on Earth.

My problem is that you, and others, have shown some correlation between risings temps and CO2. But we all know the phrase "Correlation does not equal causation". And claiming that predictions have been scientifically accurate is dubious at best. Look at the CMIP models. Approximately 95% of them missed the mark, many by a relatively wide margin, and all in one direction...overestimated. The IPCC has revised their estimate downwards every single time.

Sorry, but that doesn't instill confidence in any way, shape, or form that the science of AGW knows what the hell it is doing. They can only cry wolf so many times. They have exceeded that limit and lost trust in the process.

I agree that man is a driver in climate change, likely even the primary driver. However, until the IPCC and other scientists come up with realistic predictions that mirror reality it's going to be a tough sell that we should spend 100s of billions or trillions of dollars to do something about it.

I agree with you on this. Paratus is good people. He has made by far the most compelling and interesting posts on the threat and reality of global warming. While I do not agree with him, I have learned alot from his posts. I hope sticks around and continues to engage on this issue.

 

[bshole]

One possible explanation would be that from about 1929 until 1946, the world economy slowed significantly during the depression, decreasing the amount of carbon being burned.

Then from 1946 on the world started burning carbon at much greater rates than before.

Considering that it takes time for carbon to increase the trapped heat inside the atmosphere, it took time for warming to begin again.

It's similar to how violent crime began to rise 20 years after leaded gasoline came online in the 20s, as it slowly poisoned children and affected their neurological development. As it was phased out in the 1970s, crime continued to rise up until the early 1990s, where it then precipitously dropped, everywhere, as children were no longer being poisoned by lead en masse across the country.

Nice hypothesis but it does not match the measured reality. There was no decrease in carbon burned. Looking at the chart between carbon and temperature, the correlation is not very good at all.

 

[nickqt]

Nice hypothesis but it does not match the measured reality. There was no decrease in carbon burned. Looking at the chart between carbon and temperature, the correlation is not very good at all.

Looking at the chart you posted, carbon emissions do appear to drop around 1929, and then do go into hyperdrive right around 1946. As I said.

 

[sandorski]

Nice hypothesis but it does not match the measured reality. There was no decrease in carbon burned. Looking at the chart between carbon and temperature, the correlation is not very good at all.

It had to do with particulates in the air reflecting light .

 

[Paratus]

There was no pause (Karl, et al)
http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...e.aaa5632.full


There was a pause (Fyfe, et al)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2938.html

After looking into these it's basically a bunch of scientists arguing semantics for the best way to describe the "slowdown".

Karl et al said there was no slowdown in warming because the ocean absorbed more heat and the rest was down to reducing sources of errors in the temperature record

Fyfe et al said yes we agree but there was a slowdown in the troposphere temperatures because the heat went into the ocean.

There's no fundamental difference here. Just a difference in how to relay that information.

Interesting. But warming was essentially static from the 50s through late 70s. How do you explain that?

We'd have to look at all forcings and where energy was going. Was it like now and the ocean was absorbing more heat. As was already mention particulate pollution significantly cools the atmosphere. I did check the solar output at the time at it peaked a bit after 1950 and then dropped so that played a part.

I'm aware of the balance that maintains temps in a range that is livable to most life on Earth.

My problem is that you, and others, have shown some correlation between risings temps and CO2. But we all know the phrase "Correlation does not equal causation". And claiming that predictions have been scientifically accurate is dubious at best. Look at the CMIP models. Approximately 95% of them missed the mark, many by a relatively wide margin, and all in one direction...overestimated. The IPCC has revised their estimate downwards every single time.

Sorry, but that doesn't instill confidence in any way, shape, or form that the science of AGW knows what the hell it is doing. They can only cry wolf so many times. They have exceeded that limit and lost trust in the process.

I agree that man is a driver in climate change, likely even the primary driver. However, until the IPCC and other scientists come up with realistic predictions that mirror reality it's going to be a tough sell that we should spend 100s of billions or trillions of dollars to do something about it.

Well let me address the correlation vs causation argument for CO2. If there is definitive link we should have a theory that describes the process and the observed data.

Greenhouse Gas Theory (feel free to skip this part if you know it already. I don't know your technical background)

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

If we follow a visible light photon from the sun to the Earth it will pass through the atmosphere because most of the gases are transparent to visible light. When the photon strikes the Earth some are reflected straight back out through the transparent atmosphere.

Other photons are absorbed and re-radiated as infrared photons. While N2 and O2 are transparent to IR CO2 is not. When an IR photon hits a CO2 or other greenhouse molecule on its way back to space it's reradiated. When this occurs it can be reradiated in any direction, 50% of which are not up. This slows the escaping heat and raises temperature. This will happen each time the photon encounters a greenhouse molecule.

Direct Evidence

Effectively this means if we look up through a column of atmosphere we should be able to directly measure the amount of IR being directed back at the surface from CO2.

A study that did just that recently completed.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/newsflash-the-greenhouse-effect-really-exists/

You'd think that over a century after Svante Arrhenius described the greenhouse effect, we'd be done arguing about it. After all, as Arrhenius suggested, the Earth would be an icy place without it, and there'd be no explaining the hellish temperatures on Venus, either. Yet you often see people claiming that carbon dioxide's role in greenhouse warming is already maxed out—people that include a well credentialed physicist.

The simplest thing to do, then, would just be to measure it. If rising levels of carbon dioxide were absorbing more infrared radiation, it should be possible to detect it. And that's now been done, using a decade's worth of data taken at two different sites. The results show, to very few people's surprise, that carbon dioxide's greenhouse impact is alive and well.

Attempts have been made to directly measure the impact of rising CO2 before. But the challenge comes from tracking changes. The amount of the gas in the atmosphere varies substantially with the seasons (it dips in the spring as deciduous trees use it to grow leaves), and can be swamped by temporary events like hot, humid weather. So, to detect any trend, you need long-term data. Satellite measurements that cover sufficient lengths of time require data from instruments on different vehicles, complicating the analysis.

The new work, done by a US-based team, used instruments funded by the Department of Energy. Located in Alaska and the southern Great Plains, the instruments look straight up into the sky and measures the spectrum of infrared light it receives, revealing the presence of various molecules in the atmosphere, such as water vapor, ozone, carbon dioxide, and methane.

The spectrum it sees looks very much like the one we'd calculated it should see, with a few exceptions caused by heating of the instrument itself. But the precise details vary based on the factors noted above, like the weather and seasons. Using a decade-long time series, the authors are able to get all these other factors to effectively cancel out; what emerges shows "the unmistakable spectral fingerprint of CO2."

And not just CO2, but rising CO2. Over the deade the authors examined (2000 to 2010), the average level of the gas in the atmosphere went up by 22 parts-per-million. And the time series shows a steadily rising trend in its impact, layered on top of the seasonal changes. By the end of that period, the gas was retaining an extra 0.2 Watts for every square meter of the Earth's surface compared to the start.

Given longer periods of time, these measurements should allow us to confirm some of the basic features of the greenhouse effect. But they won't provide a complete picture of climate change, as they have to be done under clear-sky conditions; clouds play an important and somewhat uncertain role in both insulating and cooling the planet.

Still, it seems worth noting that the continued increase in greenhouse energy retention measured during this time coincides with a period where the Earth's surface temperatures did not change dramatically. All that energy must have been going somewhere.

Nature, 2014. DOI: 10.1038/nature14240 (About DOIs).

This in the field test corroborates the theory and the in the lab tests.

Other data that supports this conclusion comes from applying basic heat and mass transfer to to planetary science.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html

If we use the Stefan-Botlzmann law of black body radiation to calculate the temperatures of the planets we get some interesting data.

Tobs is the measured temperature
Tp is the predicted temperature
Save is the average energy per area the planet receives
Alpha is the albedo or percent of sunlight reflected back into space.

Notice for Mercury a planet with no atmosphere the predicted temp is within 1% of the observed.

For the Earth it's off by 12-15% due to the effects of greenhouse gasses.

Venus makes this totally clear. It has a very high albedo meaning it reflects most of the sunlight due to the high altitude clouds of sulfuric acid. This is why Venus is so bright. Conversely this means only 1/4 of the Suns energy actually reaches the surface (165W/m^2). It should be colder than the Earth. Yet it has a surface temperature 70% hotter than Mercury!

At the surface Venus would be radiating something like 10-20,000W/m^2. The only way Venus can maintain this surface temperature is if only 165W/m^2 are escaping to space. That means there has to be an excellent insulator between the surface and space. There is one. It's the Venusian atmosphere that's 95% CO2 and extremely high density.

Hope this answers the question of CO2 causing warming.

 

[Paratus]

No problem. The intent of my own words have often been misinterpreted in here so I understand completely. Your apology was gracious and I never hold a grudge against a gracious soul.

Cheers. :thumbsup:

Ah shit man. I always liked Roy Spencer. In his defense, Ben Carson is first class neurosurgeon and he is young earther. Their need for meaning in life has overwhelmed their intellect. It is a fair criticism of Spencer that he rejects evolution science. Keep in mind that Spencer's area of expertise is climatology, not evolution.



I agree with you on this. Paratus is good people. He has made by far the most compelling and interesting posts on the threat and reality of global warming. While I do not agree with him, I have learned alot from his posts. I hope sticks around and continues to engage on this issue.

:thumbsup: I'll try and stick to the facts even when things get heated :sneaky: around here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Well let me address the correlation vs causation argument for CO2. If there is definitive link we should have a theory that describes the process and the observed data.

[snip]

Hope this answers the question of CO2 causing warming.

Let me preface my response by saying that those who were born after 1975 were born after I first learned about the Greenhouse Effect. My high school physics thesis was about nuclear fusion. I was all about green energy and saving the world by dumping petrochemicals long before it became a thing.

I don't doubt that CO2 causes warming. That is not my question and I don't require any sort of education on the subject. My question is "How much does CO2 currently affect climate change?"

That is where the correlation comes in. Yes, we know CO2 is involved in the Greenhouse Effect. No, we don't actually know how much of an impact CO2 alone has in Climate Change (which is different from the Greenhouse Effect, a sterile scenario). If it were that simple, the models would be simple. They are not.

I am not asking the simple question - Does CO2 cause warming. I am asking how much is it affecting climate change and, sorry, but you have not provided the answer to that question. You have not addressed causation, you have only provided correlation.

 

[Paratus]

Let me preface my response by saying that those who were born after 1975 were born after I first learned about the Greenhouse Effect. My high school physics thesis was about nuclear fusion. I was all about green energy and saving the world by dumping petrochemicals long before it became a thing.

I don't doubt that CO2 causes warming. That is not my question and I don't require any sort of education on the subject. My question is "How much does CO2 currently affect climate change?"

That is where the correlation comes in. Yes, we know CO2 is involved in the Greenhouse Effect. No, we don't actually know how much of an impact CO2 alone has. If it were that simple, the models would be simple. They are not.

I am not asking the simple question - Does CO2 cause warming. I am asking how much is it affecting climate change and, sorry, but you have not provided the answer to that question. You have not addressed causation, you have only provided correlation.

Fusion. Always 30 years away. Although I understand Lockheed Martins Skunk Works has had a breakthrough in compact fusion reactor design and it's now always 10 years away. 😛 My high school paper was on advanced fission reactors. 🙂

Anyway, since you agree them at CO2 causes warming, I'm going to assume that you agree that the increase in CO2 is due to anthropogenic sources since we have entire markets based on how much fossil fuel is sold. Not to mention we can verify the ratio of natural carbon to anthropogenic carbon due to the presence of radioactive C14 in the natural carbon cycle.

I'll also assume you are familiar with an energy budget analysis.

(If these assumptions are wrong we can revisit them)

This work by NASA GISS, (J. Hansen - I know this is 😱 for some of you), puts the impact of CO2 in perspective.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

During 2005-2010 the Earth gained energy at an average rate of 0.58 + .15 W/m^2. That energy imbalance came during an extended solar minimum, (which I can attest to). So the natural solar radiative forcing was negative during this time by over .2W/m^2.

They estimate that 350PPM of CO2 or about a 50 PPM reduction as of today would be required to offset this gain.

....
Target CO2. The measured planetary energy imbalance provides an immediate accurate assessment of how much atmospheric CO2 would need to be reduced to restore Earth's energy balance, which is the basic requirement for stabilizing climate. If other climate forcings were unchanged, increasing Earth's radiation to space by 0.5 W/m2 would require reducing CO2 by ~30 ppm to 360 ppm. However, given that the imbalance of 0.58±0.15 W/m2 was measured during a deep solar minimum, it is probably necessary to increase radiation to space by closer to 0.75 W/m2, which would require reducing CO2 to ~345 ppm, other forcings being unchanged. Thus the Earth's energy imbalance confirms an earlier estimate on other grounds that CO2 must be reduced to about 350 ppm or less to stabilize climate (Hansen et al., 2008)....

To really understand how they came up with those numbers we'd have to dig into the actual studies. But I don't see anything wrong with the explanation. It also is in the same ball park as the direct measurement experiment I linked to. Basically all the warming we are currently seeing are due to the CO2 we out there. The other forcings are either neutral/negative or Feedbacks due to the increasing global temperature.

In this thread I calculated that a 50 PPM reduction of CO2 is the equivalent mass of carbon in ~75% of the Amazon rainforest.


The last thing I say is dynamic thermal modeling is very difficult. It's comaparitvely easier when dealing with steady state systems. So while I'd be hard pressed to build a model accurately provided temperatures and flow rates at every point in a glass of ice water, that doesn't mean I can't accurately state in five hours the ice will be melted and the water will be at room temperature.

It's much the same with global warming models. Long term is sometimes easier than short term.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It would be much simpler to admit that, currently, you can't really answer my question because the models keep failing rather than trying to deflect with ridiculous graphics. The whole "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." schtick is getting old.

 

[Paratus]

It would be much simpler to admit that, currently, you can't really answer my question because the models keep failing rather than trying to deflect with ridiculous graphics. The whole "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." schtick is getting old.

Then I need you to point out a specific model and in what method you feel it failed. Otherwise we're going to continue talking past each other.

 

[MongGrel]

I'll have to dig for this one, but CO2 is definitely causing more problems than just atmospheric.

 

[MongGrel]

Lethal Seas


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/lethal-seas.html

Basically, CO2 is causing such a PH disruption in the ocean that plankton is not even forming shells correctly these days, which is one of the largest biomass's on the planet and the bottom of the food chain in the ocean.

That is even besides the obvious salinity issues and disruption of how the various streams operate.

Is just another environmental variable.

It is informative at any rate.

 

[Paratus]

Lethal Seas


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/lethal-seas.html

Basically, CO2 is causing such a PH disruption in the ocean that plankton is not even forming shells correctly these days, which is one of the largest biomass's on the planet and the bottom of the food chain in the ocean.

That is even besides the obvious salinity issues and disruption of how the various streams operate.

Is just another environmental variable.

It is informative at any rate.

Thanks man!

The PH change was an environmental impact I hadn't thought about.

 

[IGBT]

http://principia-scientific.org/mic...tcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/

The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.” In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.

 

[MongGrel]

I do not even see the point why you bothered posting that.

Had to go back two years to find something derogatory relating to Canada not able to justify his grant money and the UN somehow ? Yep, that sure proves everything regarding climate change wrong right there, you sure do win.

🙄

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Then I need you to point out a specific model and in what method you feel it failed. Otherwise we're going to continue talking past each other.

I believe I already mentioned those models previously - CMIP. If you'd like to read further on the issue, in a technical manner that may be more suited to your liking, go here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-1/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/12/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-2/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/29/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-3/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/01/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-4/

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Lethal Seas


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/lethal-seas.html

Basically, CO2 is causing such a PH disruption in the ocean that plankton is not even forming shells correctly these days, which is one of the largest biomass's on the planet and the bottom of the food chain in the ocean.

That is even besides the obvious salinity issues and disruption of how the various streams operate.

Is just another environmental variable.

It is informative at any rate.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/...in-of-climate-change-aka-ocean-acidification/

It has been dubbed the “evil twin of climate change” and hundreds of studies have claimed to show that it destroys coral reefs and other marine life by making it harder for them to develop shells or skeletons.
The review found that many studies had used flawed methods, subjecting marine creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never be experienced in real life.

“In some cases it was levels far beyond what would ever be reached even if we burnt every molecule of carbon on the planet,” Howard Browman, the editor of ICES Journal of Marine Science, who oversaw the review, said. He added that this had distracted attention from more urgent threats to reefs such as agricultural pollution, overfishing and tourism.

Dr Browman, who is also principal research scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, found there had been huge increase in articles on ocean acidification in recent years, rising from five in 2005 to 600 last year.

He said that a handful of influential scientific journals and lobbying by international organisations had turned ocean acidification into a major issue.

“Such journals tend to publish doom and gloom stories . . . stated without equivocation,” he said. The bias in favour of doom-laden articles was partly the result of pressure on scientists to produce eye-catching work, he added.

“You won’t get a job unless you publish an article that is viewed as of significant importance to society. People often forget that scientists are people and have the same pressures on them and the same kind of human foibles. Some are driven by different things. They want to be prominent.”

Dr Browman invited scientists around the world to contribute studies on ocean acidification for a special edition of his journal. More than half of the 44 studies selected for publication found that raised levels of CO2 had little or no impact on marine life, including crabs, limpets, sea urchins and sponges.