Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ocean acidification is another often repeated wobbly pillar of climate alarmism.
It's one of the many back up plans to scare the population.
www.spectator.co.uk...

A paper review suggests many studies are flawed, and the effect may not be negative even if it’s real

Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.

Ocean acidification theory appears to have been fatally flawed almost from the start. In 2004, two NOAA scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine, produced a chart showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels. But then, just over a year ago, Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with 30 years’ experience, noticed while researching his PhD that they had omitted some key information. Their chart only started in 1988 but, as Wallace knew, there were records dating back to at least 100 years before. So why had they ignored the real-world evidence in favour of computer-modelled projections?

Here's the ICES special issue the article refers to.
academic.oup.com...

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

There is little doubt that some areas are experiencing a drop in pH. But, then again, how many times have we heard, in this very thread as well as every single Global Warming thread I have had the (dis)pleasure of debating in over the last decade, that "weather is not climate!"

That is true enough... weather is localized, climate is generalized.

So why, when it comes to ocean acidification, are localized reports treated as indicative of generalized conditions? It would seem to an unbiased observer that this rebuttal, as with so many others, is applied subjectively depending not on the science involved, but on the agenda desired.

A few years back, I did some research into sulfur. At the time, shipping fuels were largely unregulated in international waters, and typically contained a few percent of sulfur, compared to diesel fuel sold in the US since 2006, which is regulated to 15 ppm (0.0015%). A quick investigation into the locations undergoing acidification showed an amazing correlation to two things: well-used shipping routes, and along developed coastlines of poorer (aka unregulated) countries, adjusted for prevailing currents. I'm not sure if I did a thread on it or not.

That is just one of the things that have made me such a hard-line disbeliever in Global Warming. It's simple chemistry. Carbonic acid is weak and dissolves only a little, while sulfuric acid is strong and dissolves easily (as it does in acid rain), but it has been carbonic acid that has gotten the bad rap for the problems that acidification creates. I started out as a believer, but a continual parade of dissenting principles have turned me from believer, to skeptic, to disbeliever. You can all thank the illustrious Al Gore for turning me around. I have no problem with following science where it leads, but it just don't lead where people think it does in this case.

That's why I honor man-bear-pig with references in many of these threads.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
Ocean acidification is another often repeated wobbly pillar of climate alarmism.
It's one of the many back up plans to scare the population.

I would just like to add my two cents in the realm of politics on this one, because I would like to - if we can - shut down the political aspect of this conversation simply because answers or getting closer to them are more important in my view than politics. If you take note of what's happening to us, we have become a world of conflation. The 2016 US Presidential election cycle displaying that more than any other time in history. Long before the election, there was much speculation about Russian influence in the intelligence communities in the US and abroad which a lot of people NOW conflate with a Russian collusion investigation within the Trump campaign. Removing myself from my beliefs, those are two entirely different subjects and should be dealt with as such, yet many, many people I talk to seem to believe that if Russian collusion isn't a "thing" then clearly there was no Russian attempted influence.

Now, with the above in mind, stating that OA is climate alarmism to scare the population (and even more if that thought grows legs) can be a bit dangerous. Let's try not to conflate erroneous or flawed science with "something not happening". For instance, I could easily postulate that sugar cane re-emergence on the Hawaiian Islands is causing global temperatures to rise, and show heat output from sugar canes. If I did, I couldn't be more wrong, yet that doesn't equate to it not happening. If you take note of the ICES source, right near the end is very telling in this regard:

The articles included in this theme issue that report on experiments with multiple variables, and many other such works published elsewhere, confirm that the additional driver(s)—be it temperature, irradiance, salinity, oxygen, nutrients…—typically has a stronger effect than CO2 and that it is difficult to isolate the effect of the individual variables when they are presented simultaneously. Unfortunately, few studies have developed the functional response curves for each variable that would be necessary to more fully assess their individual and interactive effects.

...which is merely a long-winded way of saying, we can't reasonably asses what's causing it, but we CANT create a science model around CO2 as the master antagonist...or "we know its happening, but dont know why". With that knowledge fully in-hand, it's not alarmism as much as it is ignorance to the real causes which may or may not be naturally occurring.

a reply to: TheRedneck

At the time, shipping fuels were largely unregulated in international waters, and typically contained a few percent of sulfur, compared to diesel fuel sold in the US since 2006

Ocean upwellings can quickly change pH.
Not sure how much would be manmade, it really hasn't been studied well.
Modelled, yes. Actual empirical evidence, no.

Sulfur is on it's way out, the sooner the better.
It's easy enough to desulfur the fuel, and it is an actual pollutant, unlike C02.

Article is a couple years old but I don't think anything has changed.
www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com...

originally posted by: bluechevytree
I`ll believe in global warming when someone can explain to me how the ice age in north America happened and ended with NO human intervention.

until that can be explained I`ll just assume that hot and cold cycles are a natural occurance and us tiny humans have no ability to cause it or stop it,and while I`m waiting for the explaination please don`t steal money out of my pocket to put in your own pocket in the name of preventing global warming or preventing global ice age.

I hope you will hear me out, and read with understanding not just to respond...

Here is something to ponder what if we are in another Ice Age right now...right now the reason we keep getting these cold winters in certain areas is because we are at the brink of another ice age cause not by humans, but like you say.

We are in another periodic Ice Age or cooling right now, but here is the kicker what happens when that ends?

Can you conceptualize that? Can you imagine what it will be like when that natural change is over?
We live in a bubble and to think that 7 billion humans do not have an impact on the bubble is naive or ignorant at best and just plain stupid at the worst.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

It's easy enough to desulfur the fuel, and it is an actual pollutant, unlike C02.

That is something a lot of people can't seem to get their heads around. You can take every single sulfur atom out of a hydrocarbon fuel, and you haven't changed the fuel... you just made it cleaner. But you cannot take a single carbon atom out of hydrocarbon fuel without losing the fuel itself. Carbon is the fuel (along with hydrogen)... sulfur is not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Libs don't understand that without carbon emissions plants would die.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Nothing pisses me off more than the ocean acidification hoax. The pH of the ocean doesn't matter much and it is overwhelmingly stable. The current pH of the ocean is right around 8. The aquarium in hawaii has kept their corals and fishes in well water that has a pH of 7.1 for decades with little to no effect. As an avid reef keeper this one just really grates on my nerves. There are very few species, if any (I'm aware of none), that are pH intolerant.

And before someone brings up the swings in pH, no they don't matter either, even quick swings in pH don't matter. I can take my tank from 7.8 to 8.3 by opening the windows for a few hours (get's the CO2 out of the atmosphere and out of the water) with no observable detriment to my coral. That's a much larger swing in a time frame that is at least 100x smaller than anything that happens to the natural coral reefs.

The owners of the Weather Channel rails against this fake global wanrming Meme and the media uses him for comic effect despite his science and wisdom.

We didn't have a winter the last 2 years in Detroit. We haven't had significant snow storm in 10 years. Currently it's warmer in Anchorage Alaska. It's been cold this year but compared to the 80's and 90's winter isn't what it used to be. I've been ice fishing for 35 years. Every year I watch when the ice comes and goes on the great lakes. The last 15 years have been really warm. Last year and the year before was the first time two years in a row the lakes didn't freeze. Back in the 70's and 80's we could drive our cars on the lakes not anymore.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Weather Channel Founder: Man-Made Global Warming is ‘Baloney’

from back in 2014.
www.cnsnews.com...

a reply to: wantsome

Come to Wisconsin. Ice fishing is colder than in the past. No global warming here.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: wantsome

Come to Wisconsin. Ice fishing is colder than in the past. No global warming here.

What are you in northern Wisconsin? Northern Michigan is always colder then southern. Ice forms on the lakes in the upper peninsula a month sooner then here. No ice fishing the last 2 years on Lake St Clair. Parts of Wisconsin are 600 miles further north. Also lower Michigan is surrounded by water and if the lakes don't freeze it keeps the temps an average 10* warmer then Chicago.

See the difference between Michigan and Wisconsin?

www.slate.com...

a reply to: wantsome

Not Northern Wisconsin. I'm right by the Green Bay Packers.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
...which is merely a long-winded way of saying, we can't reasonably asses what's causing it, but we CANT create a science model around CO2 as the master antagonist...or "we know its happening, but dont know why". With that knowledge fully in-hand, it's not alarmism as much as it is ignorance to the real causes which may or may not be naturally occurring.

Let's take your methaphore about Russian collusion. The US of A. has been trying to influence any election around the globe 24/7 for the past 70 years. The Russians have their own interest, so "of course" they are trying to influence an election. Wether that is in the US or elsewhere. They are a Superpower, wether we like it or not. The problem is, the US is just a whining "puzzi", to put it bluntly.

The same thing applies to CO2 and other aspects. People are not conerned with what is right or wrong. They don't care to find the truth, wether scientific or otherwise. They're just looking for a way to hang the butler for it.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Even where there is evidence of ocean acidification, there is a strong correlation between sulfur content in fuel adjusted for ocean currents and the areas dropping in pH. It's not carbonic acid as much as it is sufuric acid (a situation that is mostly corrected now). Once the ocean has time to regulate itself, the issue will disappear.

The carbon dioxide level in an enclosed room can top 4+ times as much as the atmospheric levels without anyone experiencing problems. "It's stuffy in here" is layman's terms for an abnormally high carbon dioxide content in the room, and to date I have heard of no one dying from a room being "stuffy." That's why opening your window raises the pH in your tank. The atmosphere is no longer as "stuffy."

And no, the planet is not going to get "stuffy" itself. We have raised the carbon dioxide content from 75% to 100% of its current level in 150 years. At that rate, we'll be fine for another 1800 years, and I'm sure we'll get rid of fossil fuels long before then.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Even where there is evidence of ocean acidification, there is a strong correlation between sulfur content in fuel adjusted for ocean currents and the areas dropping in pH.

Do you have links to papers showing this? Curious to learn more.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Unfortunately, no I don't. I didn't read this on a web site; I personally looked at the evidence to draw a conclusion. The correlation was something I found myself by looking at allowable fuel sulfur content by country and then looking at ocean current and ocean acidification maps. All of those things are available with a quick Google search, though. I would be happy to hear about anyone else who would take the time to research the situation for themselves, to see if their conclusion agrees with mine.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The correlation was something I found myself by looking at allowable fuel sulfur content by country and then looking at ocean current and ocean acidification maps.

Are we looking at ocean acidification maps comprised of real data, or is it computer models?

There is virtually no data collected at stationary calibrated stations that cover multi-decadal periods.

There was a million dollar x prize for a reliable pH meter, that is kind of telling.

I'll just drop a couple quick links for now, tired, have to be up in the morning. Certainly interested in discussing further.

Physical and biogeochemical modulation of ocean acidification in the central North Pacific, Dore et al
www.pnas.org...

Despite the urgency of the ocean acidification problem, there are few available data sets directly documenting its long-term (decadal to interdecadal) rate or its shorter-term (seasonal to interannual) variability. Repeat hydrography has been used to document a decadal increase in the inventory of DIC in the Pacific (8); however, the technique has not yet been applied to the detection of pH changes. Long-term trends in pCO2oce globally have also been documented from large data synthesis efforts (9), but these results do not directly address pH and are confined to the surface layer.

Quality of pH Measurements in the NODC Data Archives
www.pmel.noaa.gov...

It is only since the 1990s that it has been possible to discern small pH changes in the ocean with reasonable confidence.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I was looking at records of ocean pH, not records of ocean pH change. I wasn't able to find those, obviously. But if there is an area in the ocean that has a higher acidic content than the water around it, it stands to reason that there must be a source, and that source appears to be sulfur from fuel use.

TheRedneck