Very Bad News: Southern Ocean Saturated With CO2

I see this article has provoked the amateur climate scientists to get all irate again.....especially Paul Atreides

I think it is totally insluting to the tens of thousands of professional people round the world that investigate these things to say they are wrong. Simply based on your, unprofessional (unless you are a climate scientist) analysis of some of the information. If you live in the US you most definitely do not have all the information and quite a lot has been doctored.

You don't like what they are saying and you'll have to change your lifestyle. Well tough, I suspect the vast majority of you skeptics live a far far more luxurious lifestyle than the millions of people who are being affected by climate change. But they are not American and probably not Christians so who cares......

Originally posted by apex
If these large amounts of methane were to be released, rapid warming could occur as a result of this.

I saw something about this on tv. The effect feeds off itself in that the more methane released, the warmer it gets, and the warmer it gets, the more methane is released, like a cascade effect. Pretty alarming if true.

Originally posted by yuefo

Originally posted by apex
If these large amounts of methane were to be released, rapid warming could occur as a result of this.

I saw something about this on tv. The effect feeds off itself in that the more methane released, the warmer it gets, and the warmer it gets, the more methane is released, like a cascade effect. Pretty alarming if true.

So did I, but I couldn't find the exact thing on google video or youtube. It had a good bit of footage of methane coming to the surface and burning, and it looked really strange.

Originally posted by apex
So did I, but I couldn't find the exact thing on google video or youtube. It had a good bit of footage of methane coming to the surface and burning, and it looked really strange.

I think it was on Discovery or National Geographic, something like the Top 10 Ways the Earth will End. They keep repeating it, and I've wound up watching the thing 3 times. I don't know why, but on some level I find these disaster scenarios morbidly fascinating and frightening. Maybe the same reason people watch horror flicks.

"Tens of thousands" Source please.

IPCC summary report written by greenpeace and policy committe members not scientists. ( I know I have playground chats with some of them. - kids go to same school)

Is a Volvo DC90 a green car I ask ....LMAO

Scientists that contributed to IPCC study disagree with sumary report (for policy makers i.e. NOT scientists) I know I share playground chats with some of them too...Guess what they don't talk to the policy makers anymore ..LMAO

Anyway they are all coming round to my house week after next for a Barbe. on the new GAS grill ( propane though .....LOL)


enjoy..

So I have to assume that should this occur that it would take a toll on almost every living thing on the planet. With more methan and less oxygen, I would think that lung related diseases would skyrocket. The weak, elderly, and very young would be hit very hard.
Is this a correct assessment?

[edit on 18-5-2007 by lombozo]

Originally posted by lombozo


This is very alarming. They're finding things like this 50 years earlier than they thought. Things like this are the beginning to a quickly growing snowball.

If you watch a pond for 50 days. Every day an algae bloom doubles in size slowly covering the pond. On the 50th day the pond is completely covered. When is the pond only halfway covered?

On the 49th day.

This really is very bad news.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Please, also look for research on the impact of CO2 and how it has actually helped to create spurts of evolution before we start to condemn. CO2 is the basis of ALL life as we know it my friend. It HELPS life to grow and evolve faster.

We must make sure that we don't swallow everything we are told about 'global warming' and CO2. This scare has been constantly revived for 100 plus years. Just do the research and you will see this to be the truth. It's just kind of funny how it keeps coming up with a different angle and then it dies down because people stop buying it.

So please don't help to spread the 'panic' so that people will welcome the big moneys 'solution' of taxes and credits. Remember, the best way to get people to accept what you are trying to sell them (even if it is controversial and not what they want) is to create a major problem for them, panic them on it, and then provide the solution that they really didn't want but feel they must accept for the benefit of all.

I'm just saying to look at both sides and all of the research being presented. A red flag should go up when opposing arguments from other experts are pushed to the background.

Just some advice.

Originally posted by lombozo

So I have to assume that should this occur that it would take a toll on almost every living thing on the planet. With more methan and less oxygen, I would think that lung related diseases would skyrocket. The weak, elderly, and very young would be hit very hard.
Is this a correct assessment?

[edit on 18-5-2007 by lombozo]

And yet you also submitted the post where, in this VERY same area of the oceans they found 700 new species of life. Hmmmmmm, doesn't this kind of tell you something?.....

Originally posted by dariousg
And yet you also submitted the post where, in this VERY same area of the oceans they found 700 new species of life. Hmmmmmm, doesn't this kind of tell you something?.....

The fact that they found 700 species and that they've discovered that the waters of the area are near a saturation point with CO2 are 2 different things. They may be related, who knows. As the waters become more saturated with CO2 maybe new species are evolving. Personally I doubt it, but it may be the case.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The Antarctic Ocean is not isolated from all oceans.

The intake of CO2 will be spread around the oceans by the "Global Conveyor Belt".

Which is exactly why the concentration of CO2 has raised everywhere in the ocean, it's just that the Southern Ocean is saturated, causing news.

Obviously, your theory isn't working, though, is it, or there wouldn't be such a large concentration of CO2 in the Southern Ocean.

It is only natural for colder oceans to absorb and contain more CO2, because cold water absorbs CO2, meanwhile in warm waters this is what happens.

RELEASE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC OCEAN
INTENSIFIED DURING THE 1990S
.............................
“The results of our study show that the intensity of CO2 release from the western equatorial Pacific has increased during the past decade. By 2001, this reduced the global ocean uptake – about 2 billion tons of carbon a year – by about 2.5 percent, ” said Takahashi who directed the study that provides a clearer picture of the importance of PDO events on the Earth’s carbon cycle. “This is on top of the CO2 emission and absorption fluctuations seen between El Niño and La Niña years, which occur on shorter timescales.”

www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov...

Another little fact which is not being presented in that article is that even if CO2 levels were to double the present level, the increase in temperature would only be 0.014C.

Where on earth did you get this? I find it very hard to believe. Could you list some credible sources, please?

Water vapor has more than twice the heat trapping capacity than CO2, and it is more abundant. During warming cycles natural occurring GHGs which include H2Ov (water vapor) Carbon Dioxide, and Methane increase in the atmosphere.

Yes, mankind is also releasing CO2, but even in the last 150-200 years CO2 levels only increased 0.01% of total gases in the atmosphere, while water vapor also increase yet it is not being blamed for Global Warming.

That's because water vapor is a byproduct of global warming, not a cause.

The current warming cycle began in the early 1600s for most of the world, and in some parts of the world it started in the early 1500s, CO2 levels did not start increasing until at least the 1860s, and some estimates put it closer to the 20th century.

It is only obvious the current warming was not caused by CO2, CO2 always lags temperature increases. Meaning the increase of CO2 levels has always been an effect of Global Warming as the Geological record has shown.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Muaddib]

It is true that the last Ice Age ended in the 1500's or 1600's. However, it is thought that we might have begun another Ice Age in the '50's, if not for global warming.

CO2 is not a pollutant, but in sufficient levels, you won't have enough oxygen to stay alive. Decreased oxygen levels = decreased life on Earth.

It's all about balance of the Earth's gasses. When they get out of balance, it spirals into all kinds of other problems.

Originally posted by lombozo

Originally posted by dariousg
And yet you also submitted the post where, in this VERY same area of the oceans they found 700 new species of life. Hmmmmmm, doesn't this kind of tell you something?.....

The fact that they found 700 species and that they've discovered that the waters of the area are near a saturation point with CO2 are 2 different things. They may be related, who knows. As the waters become more saturated with CO2 maybe new species are evolving. Personally I doubt it, but it may be the case.

Very true. They may be completely unrelated. Now, don't get me wrong. I am definitely concerned about the health of the environment. I do believe that man has had a massively negative impact on it.

I am just saying that I have decided to look at the other side and have found that, as with most controversial subjects, there is as much in support of the opposite. Unfortunately I am NOT a climate scientist so I cannot make a call one way or ther other. I am simply saying that the 'very bad news' in the title of this thread may or may not be very bad. We simply don't know. For every article pointing towards it being bad I can find one saying the opposite. That's all I am saying.

To me it is the typical psychobable. Keep people confused on the issue in order to generate enough panic thus make a killing on taxes and credits.

Originally posted by Muaddib
For most of the Earth's existance CO2 levels have been much higher than now and life thrived.

This is just flat out wrong. 3.8 billion years ago CO2 levels started a dramatic decline due to photosynthetic bacteria. The lowest levels of CO2 were during the carboniferous era.

Originally posted by forestlady

Originally posted by Muaddib
For most of the Earth's existance CO2 levels have been much higher than now and life thrived.

This is just flat out wrong. 3.8 billion years ago CO2 levels started a dramatic decline due to photosynthetic bacteria. The lowest levels of CO2 were during the carboniferous era.

In both of the above quotes I simply beg to ask: Sources please. That will help us non-climate scientific types to be able to research it on our own instead of seeing opinions on the subject. Like I had said in my previous post. As with most controversial subjects we can find someone stating that the CO2 was much higher and life thrived and then in the same breath find someone stating that it is not the case and that CO2 levels were much lower.

Does anyone else not see this? It's almost like the issue is intentionally confused.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by dariousg]

[edit on 18-5-2007 by dariousg]

DariousG, I do understand your dilemma.
My information comes from my husband, who is a biologist/virologist who taught at the country's top public high school, from which many students have won Nobel prizes, etc. and are very distinguished such as Diane Fossey (Gorillas in the Mist lady).

Originally posted by ladarl

Very interesting read.

So how do the sun spots affect us on Earth? Is this something that is going to make drastic changes here on Earth? I am aware this will affect our satellites, but what else?

An increase in sunspots means that the brightness of the sun increases.

It has been demonstrated over the "centuries", yes centuries because studies about the Sun have been done since at least the 17th century, that changes in the sun affect the climate on Earth.

Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Authors: Lev A. Pustilnik, Gregory Yom Din
Comments: 17 pages, 9 figures, 1 appenix, Proceedings of International Cosmic Ray Conference 2003,SH,p.4131

The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions, caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.

We compared statistical properties of the intervals between wheat price bursts during years 1249-1703 with statistical properties of the intervals between minimums of solar cycles during years 1700-2000. We show that statistical properties of these two samples are similar, both for characteristics of the distributions and for histograms of the distributions.

We analyze a direct link between wheat prices and solar activity in the 17th Century, for which wheat prices and solar activity data (derived from 10Be isotope) are available. We show that for all 10 time moments of the solar activity minimums the observed prices were higher than prices for the correspondent time moments of maximal solar activity (100% sign correlation, on a significance level < 0.2%). We consider these results as a direct evidence of the causal connection between wheat prices bursts and solar activity.

xxx.lanl.gov...

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years


An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

www.mpg.de...

Originally posted by malcr
I see this article has provoked the amateur climate scientists to get all irate again.....especially Paul Atreides

I often time find that some members such as yourself make such comments because you have no way to counter the argument except for making ad hominem attacks...

Such responses only show you can't debate the topic hence you try to dismiss it.

Originally posted by malcr
I think it is totally insluting to the tens of thousands of professional people round the world that investigate these things to say they are wrong. Simply based on your, unprofessional (unless you are a climate scientist) analysis of some of the information. If you live in the US you most definitely do not have all the information and quite a lot has been doctored.

Tens of thousands of professionals?... Probably the most you have heard from are a couple dozen scientists who claim mankind is to blame...not "tens of thousands"... and there are as many if not more other "professional scientists" who say the claim that mankind is the cause of the current warming is nothing more than BS.

Originally posted by malcr
You don't like what they are saying and you'll have to change your lifestyle. Well tough, I suspect the vast majority of you skeptics live a far far more luxurious lifestyle than the millions of people who are being affected by climate change. But they are not American and probably not Christians so who cares......

What the heck do you know about my lifestyle?...

And what the hell does that have anything to do with this discussion?...

Kid, go back to watch your cartoon shows please.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by forestlady

It is true that the last Ice Age ended in the 1500's or 1600's.

It wasn't an Ice Age, it was named Little Ice Age, if it would have been an Ice Age we would still be in it and most of the northern hemisphere would not be habitable. The last Ice Age ended about 11,500-12,000 years ago as seen in the following graph.

You can also see that the Little Ice Age was a hicup compared to the Ice Age yet the changes of the LIA were felt around the world.

Originally posted by forestlady
However, it is thought that we might have begun another Ice Age in the '50's, if not for global warming.

Not so, it was believed we were heading to a cool period but the climate often times does not do what mankind wants it to do. "Global Warming" started in the early 1600 for most of the world 260 years before CO2 levels even began to increase. Mankind had nothing to do with the current warming cycle.

Originally posted by forestlady
CO2 is not a pollutant, but in sufficient levels, you won't have enough oxygen to stay alive. Decreased oxygen levels = decreased life on Earth.

In order for CO2 to kill life it has to exist as 15% of the gases in the atmosphere. You can rest assured that this is not going to happen any time soon. The current level of CO2 as total gases in the atmosphere is 0.038%

Originally posted by forestlady
It's all about balance of the Earth's gasses. When they get out of balance, it spirals into all kinds of other problems.

What balance are you talking about? and who has the say as to what that balance is?...

Earth has had more CO2 in the past than now.

The following graph shows "on overall" how levels of CO2 have changed over the last 300 million years.



The above graph shows that CO2 levels have been more often a lot higher than they are now, as high as 0.7% of total gases in Earth's atmosphere, yet there was no "runaway global warming" and CO2 levels have never risen to 15% which is the amount needed to kill life.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by forestlady

This is just flat out wrong. 3.8 billion years ago CO2 levels started a dramatic decline due to photosynthetic bacteria. The lowest levels of CO2 were during the carboniferous era.

I wasn't wrong, i just gave a graph which shows CO2 levels have been higher for most of Earth's existance and during much of those times life thrived just fine...

Take as an example the Ordovician period. For most of the
Ordovician CO2 levels were from 4,000 to 4,400 ppm, right now CO2 levels are at 380 ppm, yet life thrived during most of the Ordovician, except during the Ice Age, at almost the end of the Ordovician which killed 65% to 85% of all marine life.

Even when large animals roamed the Earth CO2 levels have been around 1,000 to 2,000 ppm yet life thrived.

Even to get CO2 to those levels it would take thousands of years.

Climate Change will continue to happen with or without mankind being present.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by dariousg
To me it is the typical psychobable. Keep people confused on the issue in order to generate enough panic thus make a killing on taxes and credits.

I agree, this entire phony debate is just the Hegelian dialectic being used to provide a solution to the general public who otherwise wouldn't be so happy to hand over control to global organizations such as the UN to regulate their emissions. Sure, it may be true that industrialization, mass transport, consumer waste etc over a long enough timeline all add up to a significant negative effect on the environment.

However, is that really a significant problem when compared to the proposition of fighting an endless war against "terror", burning unimaginable quantities of fossil fuels in the process, deploying nuclear weapons of various sizes and countless depleted uranium shells with their radioactive half-life of literally billions of years? The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world. Don't worry though, I'm sure the new hybrid-electric Humvee will really make a dent in that, reall soon now..

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Mankind has no control over? Sure nature has change earth dramatically in the past, but you really think our industrialization of the planet has no effect?

Industrialization has an effect on the environment, but not on the climate, and much less on the global climate.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
You have to be totally delusional if you really believe that.

I could as well say that you are totally delusional to think anthropogenic CO2 caused the current warming, more so when the current warming trend started and has been increasing for at least 260 years before CO2 levels began to increase.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
We need to not contribute to the problem, industrialization left unchecked will eventually make this earth uninhabitable for people. Add to that the effect of nature and you have problems.

Pretty bold statement to make...First of all i still see you using a computer...and electricity...so i ask the people that make such bold statements why don't you stop using your computers, the electricity you use...the AC, or even the fans during summer and heater during winter, etc, etc, etc...

Often time I find that some members make claims without thinking what they are saying.

Industrialized countries have come a long way from the start of the Industrial Age, we have been using cleaner technology, and improving the way of life of millions of people.

I often find that the people who want to blame "industrialization" are the last ones that would give up their computers, their electricity, etc, etc...

Industrialization is not going to "destroy the planet". Granted we need to be more concious of the environment, but being environmentaly friendly is not going to mitigate nor stop Climate Change/Global Warming.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Muaddib]