Yesterday, August 26th, I read a global warming gloom and doom article that I actually liked. Researchers in Germany have just released a study showing that increased carbon dioxide in the air causes the oceans to absorb the gas faster, which changes the acidity of the oceans. That acidity is changing faster than the marine animals can adapt. If it continues to accelerate many species of marine animals could become extinct.
Most climate gloom and doom articles use carbon dioxide levels as a proxy for temperature and then discuss gloom and doom as it relates to temperature.
Temperature and carbon dioxide are not as directly related as most climate hawks want us to believe. This article deals with carbon dioxide directly. Direct is good.
Temperature and carbon dioxide have a spotty correlation record, sometimes going in the opposite direction for thousands of years, even as they tend to move in the same direction generally over time. Carbon dioxide is at a million year high, temperature is currently a bit cooler than it was 10,000 years ago and it has been relatively stable for the last 11.000 years.
I liked this article because it made no effort to try to imply that carbon dioxide proved temperature predictions. Increased temperature could accelerate the problem they say, but the study is primarily concerned with carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
I have no difficulty believing that man has increased the carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere. I would not be surprised if there were significant negative impacts because of that relatively rapid change. And this research may have found a real and direct impact.
That said, I still am skeptical…not of this research specifically, but of the process. I am not qualified to judge whether the change in the environment is sufficient to cause the impacts described…but I have a problem. The process encourages exaggeration.
Virtually all funding in this area is government sponsored. Scientists are consultants working for the government. The first job of every consultant I have ever met is continued employment. If a scientist completes a study and that study fails to find a significant problem, there is no follow up study. No follow up study means no future employment.
The process encourages scientists to find problems whether or not they actually exist.
I am not qualified to tell whether the rate of change in the oceans is significant….but I wonder. 75,000 years ago a huge super volcano erupted in Indonesia that would have introduced rapid change into all the oceans of the world. I wonder, which is more significant…the super volcano eruption or the changes in the atmosphere we are seeing today?
Perhaps they are both significant, I don’t know…but I wish the process was more about science and less about achieving employable results.