Today’s scary, or, is that, unhinged? story made possible because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle to work today, and might have actually used hair spray
(Reuters) The world’s oceans are under greater threat than previously believed from a “deadly trio” of global warming, declining oxygen levels and acidification, an international study said on Thursday.
The oceans have continued to warm, pushing many commercial fish stocks towards the poles and raising the risk of extinction for some marine species, despite a slower pace of temperature rises in the atmosphere this century, it said.
“Risks to the ocean and the ecosystems it supports have been significantly underestimated,” according to the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), a non-governmental group of leading scientists.
Corals might cease to grow if temperatures rose by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) and start to dissolve at 3 degrees (5.4F), the study said.
“If”. Funny thing is, corals and most life in the sea and on land developed during periods where CO2 was much, much higher as were temperatures. And so was the sea level. How else do they think so many of these coral based islands came into being?
This acidification issue is something that may be used to show the lack of truth on this issue. They keep going on about the acidification leading you to think that it is linked to increased CO2. Yet no one has said what acid it problematic. So if it is secondary to the CO2 problem, we would expect increased levels of carbonic acid. But no one has said.
Also, you can’t have decreased oxygen in the ocean. It’s impossible. There’s just too much mixing.
And, you can’t acidify something that is base. You can make it less base, but the waters flowing in to it are even more basic, thus countering any and all “acififying” going on.
IF is a funny word. It is a qualifier. A suppositional word that adds\dictates that there is only a chance that what follows may not really happen.
Especially since most of the coral came in to being when the ocean was hotter and probably less base than it is now due to the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But then, you can’t fix stupid. Only try and breed it out of existence. Just as they’ve slowly bred it in to existence now.
What scientific committee decided that today’s condition of the oceans/planet are the optimum condition? Change is change, there is no good or bad change unless there is an optimum condition and that then assumes a moral universe of good and bad. And that leads to a design(er) standard. I don’t care if the environ-control freakazoids want to worship Gia or trees or whatever, just leave me out of their proselytizing.
Well, on that it can happen. There’s a spot off the NJ coast called the NJ Blight, which is virtually anaerobic. But, it’s caused by actual pollutants. The Warmists aren’t even pretending to practice science anymore, but witchcraft and soothsaying.
I knew someone would bring those kinds of things up when I said that. Those areas, and those like Red Tide, are due to either pollution or an over-eager growth of algae eating up the oxygen in an isolated area, and most often, time-isolated areas as well.
after those issues go away, the sea returns to normal well mixed self. But, generally speaking, the ocean is not running out of oxygen.
Totally imaginary scenario. But reefs are endangered: by runoff, nitrogen fertilizer from various sources,herbicides, lingering pesticides, erosion and other causes by man. The false argument detracts from what must be done: a zone between the sea and development.
“It’s always projection.”
Your claim that climate scientists are not scientific in their approach but RWNJs such as Monckton and conservapundits ARE scientific is a perfect example of this projection.
pH is the negative log of the hydrogen ion (hydrogen ion, H+, proton) molar concentration. So pH 0 is 1 mol/L H+ or 6.023 x 10e23 H+ atoms per L of water. Since it’s a log scale, pH 7 is ten times more acidic than pH 8. For example, a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid at 10e-3 M has a pH of 3. Human blood has a pH of 7.4 or about 10e-7 M H+. Reducing the pH is called acidification, whether the starting point is 8.25 or 4.
Nearly all chemical reactions are sensitive to the H+ concentration of the solution which is why it is so tightly regulated by animal physiology. Coincidentally, animal pH regulation is largely via the CO2/bicarbonate (HCO3) buffer system! If one intentionally hyperventilates, which removes some CO2 from the bloodstream, the blood pH can increase, but the system quickly re-equilibrates since even a slight change in pH can have catastrophic effects in animals. Clinically, you measure CO2, H+, bicarbonate blood levels but never carbonic acid.
I’ve always been taught that if you start out in a base pH, and you decrease the base pH, then you are “reducing the base”. Now, you can do so by adding acid to it. If you want to further the base to the extreme, you increase the base. (yeah, i’ll say it: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US)
Being in the acid you work with “acidity” scaling. When you decrease an acid’s acidity, you don’t say you are “basing it” or call the process “basification”. You call it “decreasing its acidity”, or “reduction of pH”.
And thanks for the life lesson on how systems can recalibrate due to changes in certain ion concentrations. now… extrapolate that thought.
Atmospheric CO2 is causing a decrease in the pH of the ocean. (We’ve increased atmospheric CO2 some 40% since the start of the industrial revolution).
This change has been incredibly rapid in geologic terms. Yes, CO2 has been higher in the past (just probably not in the past million years), but those changes happened over thousands of years and the oceans were likely better able to adjust by the long-term sequestration of carbonate as calcium carbonate. It’s thought that the pH did not change much. Of course, this is not possible to prove definitively.
Animals do have a “set-point” for an optimal pH, and have evolved integrated systems to control pH both acutely and chronically. An intravenous bolus injection of a strong acid can overwhelm the systems and cause death. A very slow infusion of the same amount of acid can be handled (decreased urine pH, buffering, increased respiration rate). The oceans do not have a “set-point” and thus have no way to regulate pH back to the level that it has been for a million years or so.
From the title, Teach wishes to trivialize this, referring to a “trace” amount of a gas “necessary for life”. Just because something is necessary for life doesn’t inoculate it from being harmful in excess. Potassium (K+)is necessary for life but can also be used to stop the heart. “Trace” is an imprecise and relative term, anyway.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 some 40%. Even a “trace” amount of CO2 has well-characterized and significant physical/chemical effects, e.g., decreasing the ocean pH and the greenhouse effect. Whether these effects also have significant social costs is yet to be seen.
40% of 0.03% is still 0.03%. 40% of not much is still not much. 40% more of one needle in a massively large haystack is still one small needle.
And, there is not way, NO WAY, to determine how much CO2 humans have put in the air compared to what nature has done herself.
Atmospheric CO2 has not been shown to affect ocean pH. In theory it is reasonable.
and, all I see from you so far is .. could, should, if, probably, might, what if, …
you have no idea how fast CO2 concentrations fluctuated in past geologic times, thus you can’t know if today’s is any different than then. Nor, can you tell if today’s rate is in any way harmful.
So far, your CAGW religion depends on rising CO2 = rising atmospheric temps. Except, recent temps over the last 150 years has proven that to be false. Thus, your religion is falsified.
Scientists always talk in would, should, can, if, might, probably… Only preachers, politicians and morons are certain.
The Earth is warm because of the greenhouse effect. Why is it so hard to believe that adding to the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere would increase warming?
There are two ways to tell if man has added CO2 to the atmosphere. One is the knowledge of how much fossil fuel we have burned. One pound of gasoline burned yields about 4 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. If we know how much fossil fuel we burn, we know how much we added. More direct is that the ratio of carbon isotopes in accumulating CO2 matches that of fossil fuels carbon. There is little question that humans are adding significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
All available evidence based on proxy studies (sediments, ice cores etc) shows that the changes in CO2 levels were likely not as rapid as now. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
It’s clear that your anti-science religion does not allow you to evaluate evidence.
Please show the evidence that the temperature record is inconsistent with the theory of AGW.
thanks for clarifying your status for us. Though, we already knew that.
So, all of our burning of petroleum products has been turned into CO2 and has been put in to the atmosphere and remains there now?
Interesting that you believe that. You might want to tell the EPA that their agency is obsolete.
So, our burning of petroleum products creates a different carbon isotope on CO2 than naturally produced CO2, even by fire or volcanism?
While ago you said we humans added only 40% of 0.03% to the atmosphere. Which is it?
While I dispute a bit from that skeptical science link you posted, I did find this:
And yet your religion believes CO2 causes temperature. Also, if this link suggests 1,000 years of lag, then why are we discussing 100 years for today’s timeline? Seems like we got another 900 years cushion.
And, thanks for also pointing out, in that same link you use to justify your “rate of warming” argument, that the resolution is only in thousands of years. Again, you are talking about a change of a few hundred ppm of CO2 within the last 100.
And no one can tell us if the CO2 would be where it is now had we not been burning petroleum products.
For example: There is a tub sitting outside in the rain. You have some notion about past levels of water in that tub. but you don’t know where it came from or if those measurements are really true. We all agree that they could be true. We really have no way of knowing since we were not back in history.
The tub is getting water due to rain. But there are also some holes in the tub. We can’t see them, nor can we determine how large they are. Or if they are one way or two-way holes. WE have some results that suggest that we know some are one way and some are two-way, but then we really only assume they are of a certain size. Now, we add in a water hose and add some more water.
Is the water level increasing because of the water we ourselves are adding, or did the rainfall increase? Or did the holes get plugged up? Or, did we not know about another source that is now adding in its own water that we didn’t know to look for before? Could our water addition actually lead to a larger hole being opened up later? Much like the bobcat\hare population cycles.
Teach and I and the other realists do not claim to know anything for certain. CAGWers like you do. There is so much that we don’t know. We are just now starting to realize what kind of effect clouds have upon our global atmosphere. We don’t know what kind… but we know there’s an effect.
You asked for any suggestion\proof that CAGW theory does not explain recent warming. We’ve given you tons. You continue to deny and ignore reality.
You’re confused, but I understand your confusion. Science is hard. All the CO2 from burning fossil fuels ends up in the atmosphere but of course all of it doesn’t stay there. Some dissolves in the ocean, some is taken up by plants (did you know the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere drops a bit during each northern hemisphere spring-summer?). Unfortunately, for our future generations, some of the CO2 stays in the atmosphere, contributing to warming.
You are right about the “natural” cycles of temperature and CO2. You DO recognize that the current warming episode is not natural at all, but is driven by our adding CO2, unless you have a better explanation. In previous cycles warming caused by solar cycles warmed the Earth to the point of releasing greenhouse gases from permafrost, ocean clathrates, degassing of the ocean. The added gases add to the warming.
From the same article you quoted:
“To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
•
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
•
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
•
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet”
There is little question that the CO2 added to the atmosphere the past 100 yrs came from human activities. Where do you think it came from?
Open question to all science deniers.
You repeatedly refer to “trace” amounts of CO2 or 0.03% CO2.
Here’s the question: Do you really believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not sufficient to interact with infrared irradiation? (Obviously, if you prove this the Theory of AGW is dead).
Aside: I call this my “One lie at a time” paradigm. Deniers tend to bring up more and more extraneous issues to avoid answering specific questions.
Atta boy Jeffery!
Demand people prove a negative without first proving the positive.
That’ll show people how well versed in science and logic you are.
Well done.
I’m sorry that you are ignorant of reality and what science really is. Unfortunately some people are incapable of learning. You seem to be one of them.
No, not all CO2 from the burning of petroleum ends up in the atmosphere. You can thank many of your “green” friends for that. No one, NO ONE, can really know how much is emitted and resident in the atmosphere at any one point.
CO2 residency is only about 10 years. Typical for most molecules. Nice try on scare tactic.
glad you agree. Now, welcome to the Realist side.
Again, association is not causation. NO ONE… NO ONE.. can prove that CO2 amplified or assisted past warming or hindered past cooling episodes. There is no way to prove it is doing so now. Unless you can remove a MAJOR portion of the CO2 from our atmosphere and then compare the temperature for a few decades following, this is all conjecture and “could be”s.
So? So does methane. So does water vapor. So does the sun. Temperature is mainly dispersed through storms and low pressure systems. To claim it is solely due to CO2 just because CO2 happens to be in the air is folly and childish.
So, all CO2 in our atmosphere in the last 100 years is human made????
You hear that?? That’s the world laughing at you
No one denies this. And we do not deny science. We only demand that you CAGWers use science to prove your pet belief system. CO2, among all other molecules in our atmosphere absorb solar radiation and either warm and\or warm the air around them.
We realists believe that the sun’s radiation, energizing all molecules ON EARTH, warm our earth – as well as the warmth that the Earth herself provides. Plus the affect that space radiation adds.
We just do not believe the fallacy that CO2 is the molecule responsible for all warming and will lead to our destruction.
You typed: “We realists believe that the sun’s radiation, energizing all molecules ON EARTH, warm our earth – as well as the warmth that the Earth herself provides. Plus the affect (sic) that space radiation adds.”
Thank you for finally supplying a hypothesis of why the Earth has been warming.
So the warming of the past century is because the sun has been heating the Earth more? Do you have evidence to support this?
Tell me more about your space radiation hypothesis, too.
Finally, where is the warming coming from “that the Earth herself provides?”
Now I know you are a complete imbecile. These two facts have been studied and known for decades, volcanism and nuclear decay has been known for longer.
Can you tell me how planets and moons twice the distance from the sun as earth is, can be warmer than we are, or have melted ice and geyser activity?
I’m sorry you didn’t understand.
The positive is proved. Svante Arrhenius described the effect in 1896 (Nobel 2003), so scientists have been familiar with this for about 115 years. During that entire time the concept has not been refuted. It’s a fact.
You typed: “These two facts have been studied and known for decades, volcanism and nuclear decay has been known for longer.”
So it should be easy for you to explain or at least cite the evidence that supports the relationship of volcanism and nuclear decay to the current warming.
Which planets and moons are warmer than Earth? What is the nature of the “space rays”?