Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations

[@janegitelman2615]

Brilliant speech from Dr. Merrifield! I didn't know scientist had to register only a certain number of smiles while giving a lecture. I thought his manner was authentic, engaging, and passionate. He conveyed in a clear manner the historical background of climate research, the purpose and direction of this new center at Scripps, and showed respect and gratitude for the many dedicated scientists in this field, past and present. Bravo!

[@kimmasterson9529]

The next generation??! You’ve got to be serious. I’m in total agreement with the commentator before me. This is tragic

[@robertpoen5383]

If we already observe accelerated ice melting at 1 degree C above 1750 baseline, then what makes the IPPC think that 2 degrees above the baseline is somehow acceptable and safe? Also I can appreciate your wanting to save multi-million dollar homes and beaches in San Diego but what will you do to help poor people in the 3rd World who only contributed a very tiny fraction of the CO 2 that is causing the problem, and who most certainly will bear the most severe costs?

[@waynebollman]

He said we need to increase funding for renewable energy resources. And then use that energy for what? Continued deforestation? Resource extraction for the production of goods which polute the land and water? Over fishing the oceans. Growing GMO foods? We need to cut back our energy production not find news ways to create more of it.

[@mikebermea9366]

The description alone on this video is riddled with errors and describes inherent conflicts of interest. I break it down line by line below. I do not pretend to be some kind of expert on the subject, However, I am not totally unqualified to make the below assertions. I was a weather forecaster in the US Air Force for many years and do have a much higher than average knowledge of the subject. 1. “As humankind faces massive changes in weather patterns” a. First, the weather is not climate and changes constantly. In fact, the very definition of weather is as follows: the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc. Therefore, the weather is a moment by moment measurement. b. So what is a weather pattern? i. An example of a weather pattern is simply repeating weather. It could be cold and rainy for several days in a row. ii. Another example is a month of repeating hot and dry weather. Meteorologists refer to repeating weather as a weather pattern. It is common for the weather to become locked in a repeating pattern. The same weather will occur day after day. iii. When exploring these two terms you will notice that a weather pattern is nothing more than a period of persistence within a specified region. This then begs the question, is a weather pattern the norm? Is persistent weather a good thing. iv. One could make the argument that an unchanging weather pattern is actually a very bad thing. Let me explain. If you study the most in inhabitable places on earth, you will find that one of the main reason these places are so inhabitable is that they suffer from a lack of variable weather. Take the Libyan Desert, one of the driest places on earth, receiving an average of less than 1 inch of rain per year. The weather pattern in this region could be described as extremely stable. In this example, stable does not equal good for habitation. v. The basic point here is that stable weather patterns are not automatically a good thing. It is much more complex than that. The language used in this description is misleading at best. “Massive changes in weather patterns” sounds ominous but, mean nothing at all. For the author's word to have real weight to his claim, he should have written “ Massive changes in regional climates” This, however, would be a false statement and thus far unproven by science. This is why we spend millions of dollars to have thousands of scientists studying the so-called “settled Science of climate change”. 2. “sea level” a. Sea level is directly related to global temperature. If it is warmer today than it was during the little Ice age approximately 1450-1850 AD than one would expect the sea level to rise. b. One must then ask what is the normal and correct sea level? To this, there is no correct answer. Here is why. Scientist have not yet to determine what the normal and correct temperature of the earth should be. c. Then why might sea level rise be a bad thing? The answer is because so much of the population reside next to the coastlines. Therefore, rising sea levels will impact human civilizations. Hmm? So, the answer from those who want to fix the problem of humanity accidentally causing changes in the atmosphere is to consciously manipulate human activity to cause conscious changes in the atmosphere. d. Here is the paradoxical issue of this movement. To what end? If we don’t have a target temperature to aim for, why we would want to consciously manipulate human activity to achieve an unspecified global temperature. i. To put this into a common sense perspective, I will equate to a hiker who is lost in the woods. 1. The hiker knows that he is lost and knows that he needs to find home. Here is the issue as it relates to climate change. If we as a society are the “hiker” it would be like as if we have amnesia with no recollection of “home”. To survive the Hiker must first establish what home is before attempting to act or that hiker could, in fact, head it the wrong direction making their situation even worse. Climate change proponents argue that we do not need to establish a correct temperature or “home” before we act. In short, it is irresponsible as a society to begin hiking without knowing where home is. This is a rational argument made by people all the time who are then attacked for being a “climate denier”. To ask a question is not denial. To refuse a question is. The use of the phrase “climate denier” is unscientific at its very core. Oh yeah, and there is no such thing as “settle science” to suggest that there is the ultimate assault on the scientific method. 3. “ocean acidity” a. “Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Seawater is slightly basic or “alkaline” (meaning pH > 7), and ocean acidification involves a shift towards pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7)” Yes that is right ocean acidification is not even a real thing. It should be call ocean Neutralization. The phrase “ocean acidity” is meant to sound scary and it use should be frowned upon in the scientific community due to the fact that it is simply inaccurate. 4. “and oxygen levels” a. In an article from Live Science Daniel Stolper, a geochemist at Princeton University said “The new estimates suggest that atmospheric oxygen levels have fallen by 0.7 percent over the past 800,000 years. The scientists concluded that oxygen sinks - processes that removed oxygen from the air - were about 1.7 percent larger than oxygen sources during this time. Although a drop in atmospheric oxygen levels might sound alarming, the decrease the researchers found "is trivial in regard to ecosystems," Stolper told Live Science. "To put it in perspective, the pressure in the atmosphere declines with elevation. A 0.7 percent decline in the atmospheric pressure of oxygen occurs at about 100 meters (330 feet) above sea level - that is, about the 30th floor of a tall building." So why does the description of this video have in it “and oxygen levels” well Stolper says it exactly correct. It sounds alarming. 5. Scripps Oceanography has launched a new center focused on understanding and adapting to the impacts of climate change. a. Let break this down to what it really means. i. These are the people who get paid to find climate change impacts. Wait, I thought all of this was settled science? Why are we funding the study of settled science? Could it be that there are many things about the atmosphere that are yet unknown? 6. Mark Merrifield, Director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations explains how the members of this dynamic network will develop strategies for climate change adaptation. a. In other words, It is literally their 6 figure government-funded job to search for impacts of climate change. That is not science at all. That is paying someone to investigate to find evidence that supports their theory. b. In this case, their mission is literally in the name of the organization. For one to expected unbiased science to come out of an organization would be absurd. c. Let me explain with a little thought experiment. i. Imagine you are the director of Scripps Mike Merrifield. You make $150k/yr (a modest estimate) to report the devastating impact of climate change. What would happen if in your report to your superiors/funding managers? We studied it and found no impacts. please give us more money to research next year. Do you now see how this might be a situation which could impact the scientific process in a negative way? You would be lying to yourself if you don’t see the conflict of interest here.

[@teeheehee9226]

He openly admits he is a marketer. "How do I personalise Co2 changes".

[@Kombrig_2]

What the hell are you happy about, Dr.Merrifield? Why this idiotic smile during the entire lecture? It's driving me mad. You were talking a scary & horrible changes -- you got to be serious!

[@404Dannyboy]

I'm sorry, did you want O Fortuna playing in the background as he talks while frowning the whole time with lightning bolts going off behind him?

[@johnmerrifield9801]

I don't think he smiles too much.I checked out your accordian videos.You should smile more.

[@BabyandLittleGuy]

That's funny, I thought Mark Merrifield's physical presence was engaging and communicative. Did we see the same thing? Mr. Merrifield's is passionate about his new work, and has studied the field for over 30 years.

[@Kombrig_2]

John, I didn't want to offend you -- I am sorry! I've found the info you've provide -- valuable & thoughtful. But ...as the musician, I see some dissonance between ugly facts you're talking and a *happy face* ...that's all!

[@teeheehee9226]

I love it. First thing the speaker says it that just returned from a seminar in Spain. With the Technology available why are these career orientated so called environmentalists being listened to. What ever happened to the online seminar where these people can pass on their message in an environmental way. Apparently these people are progressives. Personally i call them marketers. Have fun

[@krymz1]

when's the last time you talk to someone in real life?

[@teeheehee9226]

I got to the 15th minute and had to turn this garbage off. Self congratulations from a marketing department. This guy is not a scientist.