News

Three EPRI scientists on climate-change panel

Palo Alto-based Electric Power Research Institute trio will focus on the science of mitigating effects of climate change

Three scientists from the Palo Alto-based Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) have been chosen to be lead authors on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment.

Scientists Richard Richels, Geoffrey Blanford and Steven Rose will be on the team for the Working Group III Report titled "Mitigation of Climate Change."

They will be among 831 experts from around the globe selected from more than 3,000 nominations to serve on the Fifth Assessment.

Clay Perry, senior media relations manager for EPRI, said it is an international honor for the scientists selected as well as for EPRI to have them on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) team.

The IPCC was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization to provide a comprehensive scientific view on the current status and potential consequences of climate change. The findings of their experts are compiled in regular Assessment Reports.

Since 1990, Assessment Reports similar to the Fifth Assessment Report have been filed by the IPCC roughly every five or six years. The most recent of these reports was the 4th Assessment, published in 2007. Synthesis reports are published, pending panel approval, synthesize the material presented in the Assessment Reports. Synthesis reports "are written in a non-technical manner suitable for policymakers," according to the IPCC website.

"The IPCC makes assessments and influences the direction that governments try to go to direct issues of climate change," Perry said . He said the idea behind the assessments is to form a consensus among all countries that global warming is occurring and is an issue.

Perry said the work of the EPRI scientists has little to do with the policy aspect of the IPCC but rather focuses on the science aspects. Richels, Blanford and Rose will be looking at greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change for the Working Group III Report.

"The Working Group III assesses options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere."

The completed Fifth Assessment Report is expected to be published between 2013 and 2014 with a Synthesis Report published in 2014, Perry said.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Tea Party
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Is the Tea Party going to start picketing their office?


Like this comment
Posted by skeptic
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jul 13, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Maybe the EPRI folks will bring some real science to the otherwise pitiful IPCC reports.


Like this comment
Posted by Genius Bar
a resident of Stanford
on Jul 13, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Nearly half of this nation didn't believe the lies of the climate scammers to start with and the other half found out that empty suits can't keep the Kool-Aid pitcher full.

Good Luck with trying scam 2.0
I think, I would have better luck selling one of those Portland sex poodles in Palo Alto.


Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Jul 13, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Do these guys believe in evilution too?


Like this comment
Posted by Scientific?
a resident of Green Acres
on Jul 13, 2010 at 7:41 pm

Just the title alone presumes that humans have the power to affect climate..and have..and need to "mitigate" it..

So much for a "scientific" panel. Sort of like someone, for example like Holder or Obama have done multiple times, being judge and jury and coming to a decision before the trial.

Business as usual for the left.

I hope these guys manage to bring some reason and sense to this Panel. We'll see.


Like this comment
Posted by Shorebreak
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 13, 2010 at 10:28 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Climate Bias
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 14, 2010 at 9:18 am

I was struck by this quote:

"The IPCC makes assessments and influences the direction that governments try to go to direct issues of climate change," Perry said He said the idea behind the assessments is to form a consensus among all countries that global warming is occurring and is an issue.

That's a complete misunderstanding of what the IPCC assessment is supposed to do. The IPCC is supposed to provide an unbiased and policy-neutral digest of the existing scientific literature. Furthermore, the idea is merely to communicate a consensus, should one exist within the scientific community.


Like this comment
Posted by show your faces
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 14, 2010 at 10:09 am

If the Tea Party thinks this is a waste of tax payer money, then show your faces and protest in front of the company in person. No one takes anonymous internet postings seriously. The EPRI is on Hillview Avenue in the Stanford research park.


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 14, 2010 at 11:49 am

MAN MADE Global Climate Change is a SCAM; anyone who has seen an ACTIVE VOLCANO or undersea fumarole knows the basic fact that WE SIT BETWEEN TWO VERY HOT FIRES!!!

Are you ready to drastically change YOUR lifestyle to appease these PSEUDO SCIENTISTS?

Scam 2.0 is just a rehash of the one that made Al Gore ( A POLITICIAN ) rich by exploiting that dangerous type of pseudo science.

To put THIS scam in perspective, read your history about GALILEO. The same type of pseudo scientists did the same type of " consensus building ".

Galileo's response as he was led off to house arrest: IT STILL MOVES


Like this comment
Posted by Anony Mouse
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Anony Mouse is a registered user.

Wow. Lovin' the ALL CAPS. It must be serious. The capitalization really convinces me of your points.

Could there be another type of SCAM? Is there another party in this issue that may have a STAKE in this? Might the ENERGY INDUSTRIES also profit from the STATUS QUO?


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 14, 2010 at 2:08 pm

So carbon dioxide is the culprit. CO2 is about 350 parts per million of the total atmospheric content, or about 4-100ths of one percent. Can someone tell me what chemical or physical property CO2 has that can make such a small amount have such a large effect on our climate.


Like this comment
Posted by gws
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 14, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Anony Mouse are you saying the bigger problem (evil) is that the energy industries are ripping us off? The few (rich, powerful, oil) are making obscene profits and recklessly polluting the environment?

While I agree the oil companies can be gauging us and yes taking risks with oil drilling that should be reigned in, still, I don't get the push for global warming. GW sounds like a scam too. Sure it's packaged in "save the world" but the GW science doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Questioning GW feels akin to Galileo's day.


Like this comment
Posted by John Galt
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jul 14, 2010 at 5:39 pm

Hold on!
Man can do NOTHING about Climate Change! It has been grinding along for 4 billion years. The Political Scam called "Global Warming" (Man Made Climate Change) implies that man is changing the climate.
Notice how silly "Man Made Global Warming" sounds! They are actually saying "Man Made Man Made Climate Change".
You notice now that the "Global Warming" hucksters are trying to sneak in under the scientific term Climate Change. Only the fools will be fooled.
This is another self serving Democratic Party attempt to legitimize their scam. I'm sure that ALL the "Scientists" (especially those IPPC flacks) are devoted Liberals who have eagerly pledged their loyalty, fortunes, and bent their ethics, to the greater good of their political "beliefs". "Global Warming" has become a multimillion dollar business, everyone wants to cash in, scientists included.
Check back in 20 years, we will NOT be up to our knees in sea water and the polar bears will still be happily chomping on seals.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 14, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

The "solution" they seek is a drastic reduction in freedom of movement and and a reversal of the trend toward the comfort and health benefits of affordable air conditioning for the masses.


Like this comment
Posted by Michael Ruescher
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 14, 2010 at 10:25 pm

My guess is that there is one person making multiple denier posts, I cannot explain the level of ignorance demonstrated by most of these comments in a highly educated community like Palo Alto any other way.

It's alright if you don't know, we can't all be experts, but please don't make unsubstantiated claims that are not backed by scientific evidence on a topic that is the most daunting challenge facing civilization today.

I applaud John for at least having an inquiring mind and asking questions to deepen your scientific understanding of this complex issue.

The reason CO2 is the main culprit in human induced climate change is that it is a green house gas.
What makes it a greenhouse gas is it's molecular arrangement happens to be such that when light in the infrared wavelength hits it, it will cause the molecular bonds to vibrate, kind of like an accordion. By definition, an increase in vibrational state is an increase in temperature. That's essentially what heat is: how much molecules are vibrating.

Although it is only about 387 ppm right now, it should be about 280. And there is a lot of atmosphere out there, I don't know how many Gigatons but it's a lot. So that extra 100 ppm of carbon floating around which wouldn't be there if it weren't for human activities is significant. It has a radiative forcing value of about 1.66 Watts/m2. A good way to visualize the extra heat this extra 100 ppm is contributing to earths atmosphere is to imagine about 2 Christmas lights, turned on 24 hours a day, 356 days a year for every square meter of the earth!

So when places like NASA or Stanford or the Potsdam Institute create climate models in their supercomputers, this is one of the factors they look at amongst all the others like heat from the sun and the earths core mentioned by one the posters above.

There is an excellent resource on the topic of CO2 at Web Link
Your tax dollars at work.

Hope this helps and pique's your curiosity to learn more climate science, it really is fascinating.


Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Jul 14, 2010 at 10:52 pm

Glen Beck see's right through that gobbledygook and he tells the real story. Theres a big global cabal behind it that changed all the measurements and the weather datas to scare us and make elect a world goverment they control. They even made up some big storms like Katrina to fool us. President Bush paid no attention to Katrina because he was in on the inside story. They can't fool me or my friends here.


Like this comment
Posted by Genius Bar
a resident of Stanford
on Jul 14, 2010 at 11:30 pm

How about you explain this Michael.

The real question is can these people depart from their own self invented doxy to be objective and pursue the truth?

Unlikely -

Ask this question: Under the tenants of climate change the key information is temperature data.

What type of information does this collection point in Marysville, CA tell you?
Web Link

or here is another location Petaluma, CA
Web Link

or Tucson University, AZ
Web Link

or Forest Grove, OR
Web Link

No wonder there is global warming.

Scam 2.0 will only prove that there is more fake science coming out of those pretty and very very expensive super computers that need to be funded and filled with data. The consensus will be that old saying garbage in garbage out is still true.

The American People are on to this scam.

How about some real science? Like improving Zinc-Air batteries and developing new methods for managing humidity to improve battery life or component standardization. You know good old fashion hard work?


Like this comment
Posted by Tea Party
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 15, 2010 at 8:17 am

I'll see you folks at the protest. The EPRI is on Hillview Avenue in the Stanford research park. If you don't speak out in person, then you implicitly approve of the work they are doing.


Like this comment
Posted by Michael Ruescher
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 15, 2010 at 8:48 am

Genius Bar, your 4 cherry picked data points = garbage in / garbage out

Tens of thousands of thermometers at different levels of the atmosphere along with things like satellite imagery, ice cores, and tree rings.
= Good science

And all these separate date sets are telling the same story; converging lines of evidence that indicate with a very high degree of confidence that human induced global warming from greenhouse gasses is indeed happening.

I'm not sure what motivates you to make these somewhat kooky posts, it seems to be a fear of totalitarianism, well I'm willing to bet that likelyhood of a real strong command and control government is dramatically increased in the perpetual state of emergency that civilization is at risk of finding itself in if we continue to delay on mitigation actions and some of the worst case climate change scenario's begin to play out.


Like this comment
Posted by Debbie Mytels
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 15, 2010 at 9:06 am

First, thank you to Michael Reuscher for using his real name in making comments. It's time that Palo Altans stop tolerating the anonymous accusations and rants that purport to be "dialog" in this forum. Why hide who you are if you have something of value to day?

Secondly, thank you also, Michael, for contributing some real information about how scientific consensus is reached -- referring to the multiple data points that are used to continuously measure temperatures around the world, for example -- and for the additional information in your first post regarding the relative impact of CO2 from human burning of dirty fuels versus pre-industrial era CO2 loads. You've contributed to everyone's understanding of climate science -- and that's what we need more of.


Like this comment
Posted by gws
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 15, 2010 at 9:30 am

Michael, I'm old enough to remember the Global Freezing scare in the 1970's which was taken very seriously at the time. That's why I'm a skeptic about Global Warming. Admit I'm no scientist. But have seen fads come and go. How do you explain the big scandal surrounding Britain's Hadley's figures/climate studies which the UN relied on heavily?


Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 15, 2010 at 9:43 am

"Genius Bar, your 4 cherry picked data points = garbage in / garbage out"

In this case, garbage in / gospel out.


Like this comment
Posted by Carroll Harrington
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 15, 2010 at 11:45 am

I agree with Debbie Mytels about using our names. And kudos to Michael Ruescher for his statements.

Here is a succinct statement about the 1970s global cooling issue by Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider:
Web Link

Whatever Happened To... Whatever Happened to Global Cooling?
by Susan Kruglinski
From the February 2006 issue; published online February 20, 2006

Global warming skeptics often cite contradictory reports from a generation ago warning of global cooling. In 1975 Newsweek wrote of "ominous signs" that temperatures were dipping, and a year later National Geographic suggested the possibility of a worldwide chilling trend. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, recalls those stories well. "I was one of the ones who talked about global cooling," he says. "I was also the one who said what was wrong with that idea within three years."

Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols—floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human-made pollutants. His research suggested that industrial aerosols could block sunlight and reduce global temperatures enough to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, possibly triggering an ice age. But he soon realized that he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases.

"Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility. Evidence suggests that average worldwide temperatures did decrease between the 1940s and the 1970s. Some climatologists partially attribute the temporary cooling trend to industrial smog, which has since been overcome by the effects of growing greenhouse emissions and, ironically, by clean-air laws that have reduced atmospheric particulates.

"Science is a self-correcting institution," Schneider says. "The data change, so of course you change your position. Otherwise, you would be dishonest."


Like this comment
Posted by Scientists, Smi-entists!
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 15, 2010 at 12:51 pm

Yea, why listen to the collective expert opinion of thousands of scientists when Glen Beck can tell me all I need to know?


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Jul 15, 2010 at 1:09 pm

I use a pseudonym because I don't want to have people ASSuME that because I have a trail of successful accomplishments and titles to show for it that all my comments are gospel.

Let it suffice to say that I am a REAL Scientist who made a living out of finding FACTS and properly reporting them. Many teachers in the SFBA taught me the way to handle PROPER SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY and apply these discoveries properly.

That also means that I don't have a stake in the results of my observations and I don't fudge the data, true scientists never do. Many of the pseudoscientists MUST fudge the data, their cushy jobs and grants depend on it! Heaven forbid, I will have to WORK for a living!

Cherry picking to support your data and throwing out the " obvious " errors is what consensus (pseudo) science is all about. That is why I included Galileo as he ( and true scientific knowledge ) appears to be one of the victims of consensus science.

On mq Qualifications:

Quite a few of those supercomputers that these so-called experts use, I helped design. I had to come up with the basic building block numbers to insert into the design that created the whole system. If I fudge the data, I would have been quickly out of MY cushy job and you wouldn't have these supercomputers to use on YOUR cushy PUBLIC FUNDED job...

I am familiar with many people in the hardware and science community as they have given feedback on how a design can help them...

Back OT:

If you fudge ANY data, ALL data becomes suspect. Smart people don't deal with partially fudged data, they chuck ALL data out and find a more reliable source.

That is why the compulsive liars in politics and true science don't mix.

Period.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 15, 2010 at 2:14 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

One common characteristic of The Coming Ice Age, Nuclear Winter, The Population Bomb, The Ozone Hole Over Kennebunkport and Global Warming and it's child, Global Climate Change is that they share one common element - their cure is a drastic reduction in free choice and our standard of living with a strong Malthusian/Ehrlich touch.
Our climate is not metastable, needing just a trigger to push it over into the abyss. To anthropomorphize, the Earth is the way it is because it wants to be that way. As an engineer, the "Urban Heat Island Correction Factors" used to massage the data from weather stations, and the reluctance of "researchers" to release raw data sounds perilously close to the statistics used to justify government spending. Et al & Sagan, Ehrlich and Schneider, shame on you.


Like this comment
Posted by Tea Party
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 15, 2010 at 2:43 pm

I walked by EPRI this afternoon and didn't see any Tea Party protesting. Was the weather too hot for them? Or are they just like talking to themselves over the internet and don't really believe anything they are saying.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 15, 2010 at 2:58 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Most Tea Party members have jobs.


Like this comment
Posted by gws
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 15, 2010 at 6:50 pm

from Carol: "Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility.

As I remember it, it was definitely predicted to have dire consequences. Good that the climate scientists found problems with global cooling theory and admitted it. But how come the reverse still has the same outcome? Sounds to me like they were looking for a theory to fit an a priori conclusion.

Makes more sense to me that the sun has more influence on Earth's climate than CO2. And the climate has been changing since the beginnings of the formation of the planet.

And why did Hadley and his team manipulate so much data?


Like this comment
Posted by An Engineer
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 15, 2010 at 9:18 pm

Genius Bar says: "Under the tenants [sic] of climate change the key information is temperature data. What type of information does this collection point in Marysville, CA tell you [etc.]?"

It makes me wonder why the air over that street at "Tucson University, AZ" keeps getting warmer with time Web Link. Also, why are those air conditioners apparently putting out ever nore hot air? Could they be working harder because the ambient temperature is going up? Perhaps Genius Bar can cool my worried brain.

Also, exactly where is "Tucson University, AZ"? I know the University of Arizona is in Tucson. Did the University of Phoenix transfer there and rename itself?


Like this comment
Posted by Michael Ruescher
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 15, 2010 at 10:35 pm

@the_punisher If indeed you are involved with climate modeling, how lucky we are to have you engaged in this discussion, please share your science story with us. We're all here to learn and I wouldn't worry too much about your credentials distorting people ability to think critically about this issue and your statements.

Personally, I attribute more weight to the words of those who are willing to put themselves on the line and use their real name, regardless of their title.

It seems to me that there are independent organizations reaching similar conclusions, with or without data, My understanding is that these models are refined by inputting hypothetical data sets to test it's predictive accuracy against the historical data and the future as it unfolds.

A project I find particularly intriguing is the Planetary Skin initiative, an interdisciplinary effort with NASA, Cisco, Imperial college and others, it seems their endeavor is to pull together a lot of the different sensory networks and data sets to get a more comprehensive perspective on the state of our planet. Web Link

NOAA

NASA

Department of Energy - Oak Ridge Laboratory

Department of Energy Los Alamos Lab - Climate, Ocean and Sea Ice Modeling Project

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

University of Tokyo - Center for Global Environmental Research

Oxford University Atmospheric Physics

All of the above using supercomputers to do climate modeling, you're suggesting that all of these reputable organizations are somehow conspiring and cooking their data?

and that they would fool the Pentagon, the CIA?
Web Link

Also, what about ocean acidification, that's independent of temperature, is it not directly attributable to rising CO2 concentrations?
Web Link

@Walter E Wallis: The earth wants the ocean to acidify too?


Like this comment
Posted by If you only have a hammer, every problem is a nail
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jul 19, 2010 at 8:38 am

My distrust of anything "consensus" science used to justify a few folks in government stealing liberty and property from hundreds of millions of its citizens is high.

Period.

Far too "convenient", this marriage of politics and "science".

I don't buy it.

Too much like the marriage of "science" and religion for me. Too easily becomes the "every problem is a nail since all I have is a hammer" thinking, which goes a long way to explain the box that leads to "why else is the ocean acidifying if not for warming?" type of statements.

Let's be veeeeery careful to not think of all the factors involved since we already know it must be "global warming"..btw, don't let "global cooling" lately get in the way of your thesis, ok?



Buyer beware!


Like this comment
Posted by If you only have a hammer...
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jul 19, 2010 at 8:47 am

PS to my post above: nobody argues against the fact that the earth warms and cools. It has cyclically and predictably done this since its beginning. We have ice/terra firma records that show a predictable cycle of warming and cooling for millions of years.

The problem is with inserting "man-made" in front of global warming and cooling. And this type of thinking has ALWAYS lead to a few wanting to control and steal from the many.

We have had many threads on this topic, going back through all the data, all the web sites, all the books, even through the history of the media back to the late 1800s crying that the earth was going to freeze us to death, then burn us to death, then freeze us to death, then lately burn us to death...not coincidentally going right along with the now very predictable every 30 year sun spot/earth position to the sun cycle.

We are at the end of the latest warming cycle..entering our cooling cycle. I am awaiting the great journalistic minds to start showing the Statue of Liberty with that torch above a frozen wasteland ( again). And, of course, accompanied by the plaintive cry of controllers everywhere "let me control you and take your money and I will save you!"



No.


Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm

"We have ice/terra firma records that show a predictable cycle of warming and cooling for millions of years."

Yup. And always for a cause. The earth does not just sit here, warming and chilling.

"We are at the end of the latest warming cycle..entering our cooling cycle."

Nonsense. There is no evidence of a "cooling cycle" in the temperature record Web Link. As you can plainly see, the secular trend is up.

Mom Nature has a very poor record of obeying fatuous fiats like this one. You might as well order the sun not to set this afternoon.

"Far too "convenient", this marriage of politics and "science". I don't buy it."

That marriage is the Military-Industrial Complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about. Republicans love it, but your suspicion is well founded.




Like this comment
Posted by Yawn
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 19, 2010 at 12:49 pm

Yawn, that horrible "military-industrial complex"...


Like this comment
Posted by Michael Ruescher
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 19, 2010 at 1:16 pm

@ if you only have a hammer...

I specifically state that acidification is NOT linked with warming.

But that is yet another negative impact rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation is having on our planet.


Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Jul 19, 2010 at 5:12 pm

Dear Mr. Ruescher

You have proven my point about the hammer. You state that the rising atmospheric C02 from burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are the cause of the acidification. You have a hammer, and use it.

However, our core ice samples find rising C02 eras during cooling periods long, long before we burned fossil fuels and "deforested" ..therefore it throws into doubt the rest of the assertion that this is the cause of the acidification of our ocean. There are many possible causes. To leap at this one without due consideration of the many possible causes is a little iffy.

BTW, as an almost non-sequiter, did you know we have more forests now, for example, in the USA than when Columbus landed? The Amazon etc is a different story, and one which needs addressing in terms of human costs, and I am open to considering the loss of rainforest may have an effect on our atmosphere, but the extent of the effect is still in grave doubt for many of us.

Apologies for not using my name. I have learned through hard exp


Like this comment
Posted by oops
a resident of Meadow Park
on Jul 19, 2010 at 5:13 pm

hard experience that my views are harshly punished in many ways, including shunning..


Like this comment
Posted by Michael Ruescher
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 19, 2010 at 6:03 pm

I will repost the link about Ocean Acidification from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory

Web Link

this report is quite comprehensive.
Web Link

It is very basic science that the more CO2 molecules in the air, the more will dissolve into water. And the more CO2 dissolves into water, the more it increases H+ (hydrogen ion) concentrations of that water, which decreases the PH = acidification

This one is pretty straightforward. The ball is in your court to explain how elevated CO2 could somehow NOT be causing acidification.

At least we can agree on the situation in the Amazon...


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Post-election reflections -- and sponges
By Diana Diamond | 12 comments | 1,405 views

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,064 views

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 4 comments | 463 views