Everything related to climate change is settled science, of course (by a 97 – 0 margin we’re told endlessly), except that no one seems to have told the scientific journals.
For example, one of the parade of horribles we hear about is ocean acidification, which will kill the oceans! Sounds likely in theory, but what do the actual data say? Never mind data, which seem to be scarce. Turns out the models aren’t working very well. (Where have we heard that before?) Nature magazine reported last week:
Poorly designed studies leave future uncertain for sea dwellers.
As 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.
Oceans absorb much of the CO2 emitted by human activities such as coal burning. This leads to a variety of chemical changes, such as making waters more acidic, which are referred to as ocean acidification. . .
Bayden Russell, an ocean-acidification researcher at the University of Hong Kong . . . thinks that most research groups are now trying to use appropriate designs, but says that there are still problems, which he attributes to a variety of factors. “Unfortunately, truly rigorous designs are logistically complex and expensive in both set-up costs and ongoing maintenance time,” he says. “When superimposed on the increasing pressure to publish rapidly, and in top journals, some researchers or research groups are still attempting to publish what I would consider sub-standard research.”
Ah yes, the “publish or [species will] perish” syndrome. And didn’t Nature get the memo that you’re not supposed to use the word “uncertainty” connected with climate change? Splitters!
Meanwhile, an advance preview for the next issue of Nature has this tantalizing summary:
How will Earth’s vegetation cover respond to climate change, and how does this compare with changes associated with human land use? Modelling studies reveal how little we still know, and act as a clarion call for further work.
Maybe we’d get somewhere if the climatistas would quit sniffing model glue.