In an eye-opening "perspective" article published a couple of years ago in the 9 December 2009 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, three researchers from the Marine Biogeochemistry Section of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, describe their assessment of various possible responses of the global ocean's seawater carbonate system, plus its physical and biological carbon pumps, to ocean warming and associated changes in vertical mixing and overturning circulation, as well as the closely-allied phenomena of ocean acidification and carbonation.

All of these phenomena, many of which are nonlinear and extremely complicated, are interlinked; and Riebesell and his colleagues thus conclude, from their objective review of the pertinent scientific literature, that the magnitude and even the sign of the global ocean's carbon cycle feedback to climate change are, in their words, "yet unknown."

They note, for example, that "our understanding of biological responses to ocean change is still in its infancy." With respect to ocean acidification, in particular, they write that the impact it will have on marine life "is still uncertain," and that the phenomenon itself is but "one side of the story," the other side being what they call "ocean carbonation," which, as they describe it, "will likely be beneficial to some groups of photosynthetic organisms." Thus, they write that "our present understanding of biologically driven feedback mechanisms is still rudimentary," and that with respect to many of their magnitudes, "our understanding is too immature to even make a guess." What is more, they imply that even what we do think we know could well be wrong, because, as they elucidate, "our present knowledge of pH/CO2 sensitivities of marine organisms is based almost entirely on short-term perturbation experiments, neglecting the possibility of evolutionary adaptation."

So who are you going to trust? Genuflexing gurus? ... who kneel at the altar of the earth goddess Gaia? ... who just know that CO2 is bad for the planet? Pontificating preachers? ... who claim to have obtained a similar testimony during some environmental epiphany? Celebrated scientists? ... for whom the all-powerful climate model is their Holy Grail? Or, will you give heed to much more down-to-earth researchers ... who value real-world data and who appreciate the almost unbelievable complexity of the world of nature? ... who are not afraid to declare their lack of understanding of all that we know to be of importance to the phenomena of climatic, oceanic and biological change, as well as the likelihood that there is much of importance relative to these matters that we still do not understand?

We do not know to whom you look for guidance in these important matters; but we look to those scientists who are not afraid to acknowledge the limitations of what they think they know, and who will not be goaded into implying they know enough to justify something as drastic as what the world's climate alarmists are trying to force upon all of humanity, especially when the science of the subject is so clearly unsettled.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Reference
Riebesell, U., Kortzinger, A. and Oschlies, A. 2009. Sensitivities of marine carbon fluxes to ocean change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 20,602-20,609.