Two degree rise could spark Greenland ice sheet meltdown: WWF

Maybe I've been growing things wrong, but last time I checked, a rise in temperature actually helped increase agriculture. Isn't that why we grow crops during the warmer months?

How come every one forgets how lush the plant life was during the age of the dinosaurs?

The temperature change I would worry about is a drop in temp by 2 degrees. Canada would be in a world of hurt and so would Russia. That means that much less farmland to feed people.....Bring on as much CO2 as possible stop global cooling!!!

P.S. I always enjoy your posts

lol, if there was a 2 degree rise I would be more concerned with the massive hurricanes and typhoons that would sprout up in such a temperature change.

Hell I'm still waiting for the 15 degree change that will create a Hypercane

reply to post by whoshotJR

To be perfectly honest, I did give your link a fair chance. I only noticed who it was from after I discounted it for the errors. The source may make information questionable, but it doesn't automatically make it false. Hey, even Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth spelled his name right.

As to the cosmic rays, I felt the same way about the alien invasion idea. I have no real doubt that somewhere in this universe there is probably other life, possibly as advanced () or more advanced than we are. I just can't square with the idea that after traveling hundreds of light-years across the galaxy, they decided to stop here. Isn't that sorta like Ross Perot deciding to vacation in the Harlem Ghetto? That's why I avoid that particular forum.

But luckily I did read the article, and made the connection to climate change. I think we can all agree that the global temperature has risen a bit since the early 1900s. The source of disagreement is not about that, but about future predictions and causes. Cosmic energy, polar shifts, tectonic (and associated volcanic) activity, solar output, these all have something to do with the overall picture, along with a few possibilities we have not even thought of yet. I just think it's a bit on the silly side to ignore them while focusing on a colorless odorless trace gas that forms the basis for all life on earth.

Anyway, watch that turkey: it's sleep-indu.... zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz...

( )

TheRedneck

I, for one, have been keeping a log of local temperatures since the end of summer and i have noted a steady decline in local temperatures, though there have been a few anomalous rises in temperature on a few days I feel its too soon to panic but a definite pattern is emerging.

reply to post by MsSmartypants



MsSmartypants:-
A short term log isn’t going to prove much its better to look up the local weatherman data. Sometime I’m not so sure about that and one way to cross reference is check the local airport they keep good records – at least where I am.


General:-
It’s hot where I am in the southern hemisphere and I don't know if it’s my imagination but it feels like its warmer. I mean much warmer than the measurements are indicating. I am wondering if it’s the same for someone who is in a cold region that is does it feel colder. I know it’s not scientific – just wondering.

Originally posted by crimvelvet

Maybe I've been growing things wrong, but last time I checked, a rise in temperature actually helped increase agriculture. Isn't that why we grow crops during the warmer months?

How come every one forgets how lush the plant life was during the age of the dinosaurs?

The temperature change I would worry about is a drop in temp by 2 degrees. Canada would be in a world of hurt and so would Russia. That means that much less farmland to feed people.....Bring on as much CO2 as possible stop global cooling!!!

P.S. I always enjoy your posts

Bringing on CO2 is not a good thing, you might want to see what it will do to the Southern Ocean.

Southern Ocean

reply to post by majestictwo


Wow, that is a new angle on me. CO2 causing ocean acidic levels to rise. This will have a huge effect on the worlds ecosystem.

The evidence is out there for anyone who bothers to learn on their own. The Earths average temperature is increasing, whether or not the cause is man made. This increase in temperature is going to create some huge changes on Humankind.

reply to post by majestictwo

CO2 has a minimal effect on oceanic acidity levels; this is simply another claim that cannot be supported by science. The chemical equation used here is OH- + CO2 --> HCO3-.

In the first place, the reaction occurs with the OH- ion, not the H2O molecule. Water will contain a certain minuscule portion of H2O molecules that spontaneously 'split' into H+ (H3O+) and OH- ions. This is the mechanism water uses to be such a great solvent, and is responsible for also for most of the life processes. Present theory attributes this activity to the weakness of hydrogen bonding between molecules of H2O.

In the second place, the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere is 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv). That means you only find on average 387 CO2 molecules in every million molecules of O2, Ar, and N2.

Carbonic acid is therefore one of the weaker of the acids. I'm drinking it right now. We call it 'carbonated water'. Every time you open a bottle of carbonated drink, that fizz you hear is CO2 escaping from the water, due to the sudden drop in pressure. The CO2 is put into the water under extremely high pressures in a factory, and using concentrated CO2. The head on a beer is made up mostly of CO2 molecules escaping for the same reason, although they exist in beer due to the yeast action during the brewing process. Neither condition (extreme pressure or high CO2 concentration) exists in the open atmosphere.

Do a little math, study a little chemistry, and the fear disappears.

----------------------------------
reply to post by poet1b

Very little in nature is defined as linear (meaning a continuous increase/decrease). Rather, the natural state is either sinusoidal (like a sine wave) or logarithmic (like a spiral). The only way the observations on Global Warming can be interpreted as catastrophic is by using linear projections.

If you look at any graph showing temperature trends from around 1900 onward, you will see a part of a sine wave, peaking at around the present time. If you overlay a line, the temperature extremes show up fairly obviously, even for a noise signal, but if you overlay a sine wave, those noise extremes become much more minimal.

By that observation, we are not actually warming anymore. Instead, we have peaked the warming trend and should now begin to slowly cool. My apologies for physics to Mr. Gore and his followers should future events prove me correct on this (as I believe they will).

TheRedneck


[edit on 28-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by majestictwo

CO2 has a minimal effect on oceanic acidity levels; this is simply another claim that cannot be supported by science. The chemical equation used here is OH- + CO2 --> HCO3-.

blah blah small numbers

my addition

A 'minimal' effect could well be sufficient to significantly alter marine biochemistry.

Most carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels will eventually be absorbed by the ocean1, with potentially adverse consequences for marine biota2–4. Here we quantify the changes in ocean pH that may result from this continued release of CO2 and compare these with pH changes estimated from geological and historical records.We find that oceanic absorption of CO2 from fossil fuels may result in larger pH changes over the next several centuries than any inferred from the geological record of the past 300 million years, with the possible exception of those resulting from rare, extreme events such as bolide impacts or catastrophic methane hydrate degassing.

Science with Maths

Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset
J. Timothy Wootton1, Catherine A. Pfister, and James D. Forester2
+Author Affiliations

Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637
Communicated by Robert T. Paine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, October 8, 2008 (received for review August 8, 2008)

Abstract
Increasing global concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are predicted to decrease ocean pH, with potentially severe impacts on marine food webs, but empirical data documenting ocean pH over time are limited. In a high-resolution dataset spanning 8 years, pH at a north-temperate coastal site declined with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and varied substantially in response to biological processes and physical conditions that fluctuate over multiple time scales. Applying a method to link environmental change to species dynamics via multispecies Markov chain models reveals strong links between in situ benthic species dynamics and variation in ocean pH, with calcareous species generally performing more poorly than noncalcareous species in years with low pH. The models project the long-term consequences of these dynamic changes, which predict substantial shifts in the species dominating the habitat as a consequence of both direct effects of reduced calcification and indirect effects arising from the web of species interactions. Our results indicate that pH decline is proceeding at a more rapid rate than previously predicted in some areas, and that this decline has ecological consequences for near shore benthic ecosystems.

Science with Maths Extra

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L07603, doi:10.1029/2006GL028554, 2007

Impact of elevated CO2 on shellfish calcification

Frédéric Gazeau

Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Yerseke, Netherlands

Christophe Quiblier

Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Yerseke, Netherlands

Jeroen M. Jansen

Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Yerseke, Netherlands

Jean-Pierre Gattuso

Laboratoire d'Océanographie de Villefranche, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Villefranche-sur-Mer, France
Laboratoire d'Océanographie de Villefranche, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VI, Villefranche-sur-Mer, France

Jack J. Middelburg

Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Yerseke, Netherlands

Carlo H. R. Heip

Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Yerseke, Netherlands

Abstract
Ocean acidification resulting from human emissions of carbon dioxide has already lowered and will further lower surface ocean pH. The consequent decrease in calcium carbonate saturation potentially threatens calcareous marine organisms. Here, we demonstrate that the calcification rates of the edible mussel (Mytilus edulis) and Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) decline linearly with increasing pCO2. Mussel and oyster calcification may decrease by 25 and 10%, respectively, by the end of the century, following the IPCC IS92a scenario (∼740 ppmv in 2100). Moreover, mussels dissolve at pCO2 values exceeding a threshold value of ∼1800 ppmv. As these two species are important ecosystem engineers in coastal ecosystems and represent a large part of worldwide aquaculture production, the predicted decrease of calcification in response to ocean acidification will probably have an impact on coastal biodiversity and ecosystem functioning as well as potentially lead to significant economic loss.

Science with Maths Extra Extra

Letters to Nature
Nature 407, 364-367 (21 September 2000) | doi:10.1038/35030078; Received 2 August 1999; Accepted 18 July 2000

Reduced calcification of marine plankton in response to increased atmospheric CO2

Ulf Riebesell1, Ingrid Zondervan1, Björn Rost1, Philippe D. Tortell2, Richard E. Zeebe1,3 and François M. M. Morel2

The formation of calcareous skeletons by marine planktonic organisms and their subsequent sinking to depth generates a continuous rain of calcium carbonate to the deep ocean and underlying sediments1. This is important in regulating marine carbon cycling and ocean–atmosphere CO2 exchange2. The present rise in atmospheric CO2 levels3 causes significant changes in surface ocean pH and carbonate chemistry4. Such changes have been shown to slow down calcification in corals and coralline macroalgae5,6, but the majority of marine calcification occurs in planktonic organisms. Here we report reduced calcite production at increased CO2 concentrations in monospecific cultures of two dominant marine calcifying phytoplankton species, the coccolithophorids Emiliania huxleyi and Gephyrocapsa oceanica . This was accompanied by an increased proportion of malformed coccoliths and incomplete coccospheres. Diminished calcification led to a reduction in the ratio of calcite precipitation to organic matter production. Similar results were obtained in incubations of natural plankton assemblages from the north Pacific ocean when exposed to experimentally elevated CO2 levels. We suggest that the progressive increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations may therefore slow down the production of calcium carbonate in the surface ocean. As the process of calcification releases CO2 to the atmosphere, the response observed here could potentially act as a negative feedback on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Extra Extra Extra Extra


You're a pretty good example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing - Dunning-Kruger extraordinaire. Thank Zeus we have scientists with extensive knowledge out there studying this stuff and doing 'the maths'.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by TheRedneck


well that's understandable, but i'm talking about the rise of an average of 2 degrees Celcius, worldwide. with that, the hot, dry third-world crops are going to be that much harder to grow and maintain... with starvation and poverty already about as high as they're gonna get in those equatorial countires, it won't take much for them to dissolve through the hands of the elite...

that make any more sense?

let's see if Dan Burisch can shed some more light on this from an older interview of his:

D: The people should have the upper hand and they should have the upper hand for their own destiny and that's why we two, have gone as far as what we have to expose the NSSM200 report which was put in during the Ford administration, which I believe was written by Dr. Henry Kissinger, wherein he suggested the possible use of food as a weapon and its use against, in fact, as a tool against, the third world.

...

Now, at the same time we notice that is a correlation going with findings from the IPCC report concerning global warming that if the world average temperature rises, I believe between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius, that the Northern hemisphere, the higher latitude, growth will increase. However, if it goes over that it will decrease. Yet the lower latitudes ... by the way that's where you find most of the third world countries ... the 2 to 3 degree Celsius increase will cause starvation and crop loss.

K: OK.

D: Now isn't this funny, how they're just allowing the global warming to increase through the provoking ... with the use of fossil fuels? Now I'm not saying that's the total cause. It's not. There are cycles involved, short as well as long term cycles. But isn't that funny? And it's my best guess that they'll probably order just enough ameliorative steps to be taken where it levels off where the higher latitudes probably don't lose their crops, where you find the majority of the rich countries.

K: Interesting. Well, that's actually a fascinating critical observation. I think that it is also interesting that most of the crops are being grown, though, in the lower latitudes. They're not being grown in North America anymore.

D: Right. But you have sustainability, though.

K: Sure.

D: Whereas when you have the loss of the crops in the lower latitudes you're also losing a lot of the population from the third world, which, unfortunately, according to the way that the documents read, some people find them expendable.

K: Right.

D: We don't feel that way.

K: That's the Iron Mountain report ... also talks about things of that nature. And you're familiar with that.

...

D: At the same time, I mean, you know, when we start hearing that the Codex [Alimentarius] is being placed in place which actually delimits food value. Oh, you can have all the food you want and starve to death while you're eating it if there's no nutrients.

K: Right. Absolutely.

D: When I start hearing that food is being used as a weapon and it's being used concerning the use of fossil fuels, I start getting personally angry. There's not one person in the lower latitudes that's worth any less than me.

K: Right. Right.

D: You know, everybody is worth exactly the same thing on this Earth and unfortunately there are individuals who feel otherwise.

www.projectcamelot.org...

the truth hurts...

reply to post by TheRedneck

Carbonic acid is therefore one of the weaker of the acids. I'm drinking it right now. We call it 'carbonated water'. Every time you open a bottle of carbonated drink, that fizz you hear is CO2 escaping from the water, due to the sudden drop in pressure. The CO2 is put into the water under extremely high pressures in a factory, and using concentrated CO2. The head on a beer is made up mostly of CO2 molecules escaping for the same reason, although they exist in beer due to the yeast action during the brewing process. Neither condition (extreme pressure or high CO2 concentration) exists in the open atmosphere. Do a little math, study a little chemistry, and the fear disappears.

Redneck : I take your point about this but if the bottle of 'carbonated water' was released then subjected to a vacuum wouldn't more CO2 be released. Atmosphere is around 14.6psi at sea level so couldn't we assume that the sea is under atmosphere pressure and therefore could hold some amount of CO2.

This is totally off topic and for this I am sorry.

Just wondering, how many people see the title and think of wrestling. The old WWF which is now WWE. Man, it sure looks like the old logo even if it is for wildlife. Some of the wrestlers do have a wild life, but this is a different type.

reply to post by melatonin

The difference is your links are mostly predictions, whereas I am stating established chemical data. To wit:

When carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean it lowers the pH, making the ocean more acidic. Owing to a paucity of relevant observations,we have a limited understanding of the effects of pH reduction on marine biota.Coral reefs, calcareous plankton and other organisms whose skeletons or shells contain calcium carbonate may be particularly affected. Most biota reside near the surface, where the greatest pH change would be expected to occur, but deep-ocean biota may be more sensitive to pH changes.

Yes, when CO2 dissolves, the solution obviously becomes more acidic (lower pH value), but that is not what I claimed. I claim that the amount of CO2 that will be absorbed under normal atmospheric conditions is extremely minimal, due both to the fact that CO2 is only slightly water-soluble and the amount of available CO2 at anything like our present atmospheric concentration (0.04%) is extremely minimal.

CO2 at a certain level is actually necessary to calciferous organisms like mussels and clams. Their shells are made of calcium carbonate. The carbonate is the result of the intake and proper use of the carbonate ion (HCO3-), the exact same ion that produces carbonic acid from CO2. There are obviously pH ranges where the organisms survive best, but too much carbonate is no better or worse than too little. We are talking about a range of acceptable levels, not a black-and-white 'CO2 is bad' scenario.

To investigate the effects of CO2 emissions on ocean pH, we forced the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ocean general-circulation model (Fig. 1a) with the pressure of atmospheric CO2 (pCO2) observed from 1975 to 2000, and with CO2 emissions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s IS92a scenario1 for 2000–2100.

At least here we have a good description of the 'experiment' conducted, so I cannot explain this as a total fraud of misrepresentation.

But, the explanation does cause me concern for the accuracy of the results. In the first place, no actual experimentation was used to confirm the conclusions. The 'model' used is no more than a computer program written to virtually emulate the conditions assumed to be happening as close as is practical using information from the environment. The is a handy tool for developing a hypothesis, but it is a far cry from actual experimentation. What climactic conditions were modeled? Was anything omitted by error (or on purpose) in the calculations? Did the calculations take into account all of the information needed to adequately describe the environment over all? We simply don't know; only the programmer does. And remember, the programmer is not a climatologist or even a meteorologist; he/she is a programmer, working with data supplied by such.

Also, we discover here that the conditions input as data are the predictions from the infamous IPCC. This is the same agency that has a history of making errors in their data which are only discovered when someone outside the agency cries foul. Perhaps this input data is accurate; perhaps it is not. This is why so many will challenge the IPCC over the veracity of their data when problems are reported: that data trickles down into computer models and becomes dire predictions.

Simulated atmospheric CO2 exceeds 1,900 parts per million (p.p.m.) at around the year 2300.

1900 ppmv? That's almost 5 times the present level of 387 ppmv! I would be concerned if our CO2 level went up to 1000 ppmv, for plenty of reasons besides seafood, not the least of which would be the fact that it would indicate we need more vegetation to absorb CO2. I am just not going to wring my hands at our present level.

Speaking of which, you do realize that oceanic flora absorbs CO2 from the water for photosynthesis, increasing the pH as it does so. The more CO2, the more water-based flora, which means more food for the non-carnivorous fauna species, which means more food for the carnivorous fauna. Did that computer model take into account increased floral growth? We don't know, do we?

I think I have made my point. while at least the scientists involved with this report disclosed their procedure, this procedure is virtual only with no real-world testing to determine if the results are accurate, and the input data is questionable, coming from predictions by the IPCC. Now, should they decide to run some actual experiments, please let me know.

(All above excerpts are from pangea.stanford.edu... )

Increasing global concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are predicted to decrease ocean pH, with potentially severe impacts on marine food webs, but empirical data documenting ocean pH over time are limited.

Source: www.pnas.org...

There is little doubt that even moderate oceanic pH level shifts would affect the food web. That is not under debate, at least not by me. Again, my post indicates not a disregard for the necessity of oceanic pH remaining within an acceptable range, but rather whether CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the range of 387 ppmv (the present) +/- a reasonable change will be able to make such a variation in the oceanic pH level as to be considered hazardous to wildlife.

In the highlight in the quote above (emphasis mine), it is acknowledged that there is little to no empirical data concerning such an argument.

Mussel and oyster calcification may decrease by 25 and 10%, respectively, by the end of the century, following the IPCC IS92a scenario (∼740 ppmv in 2100). Moreover, mussels dissolve at pCO2 values exceeding a threshold value of ∼1800 ppmv.

Source: www.agu.org...

Here again, we have a prediction based on a prediction. Sure, the numbers may be correct, but the context of those numbers does not exist. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is half of the assumed level at present. In your first link, the minimum CO2 level in the last 300 million years was stated to be 100 ppmv. This means we would have to increase the CO2 level by more than double the rise from that lowest point to present, and many times the rise reported since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, just to get to the lowest level used here.

Diminished calcification led to a reduction in the ratio of calcite precipitation to organic matter production. Similar results were obtained in incubations of natural plankton assemblages from the north Pacific ocean when exposed to experimentally elevated CO2 levels. We suggest that the progressive increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations may therefore slow down the production of calcium carbonate in the surface ocean. As the process of calcification releases CO2 to the atmosphere, the response observed here could potentially act as a negative feedback on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Source: www.nature.com...

Well, it took four tries, but we finally have some information on an actual experiment.

Now my question becomes: what were the conditions of the experiment? Was there a control? What elevated CO2 levels were used? 400 ppmv? 4000 ppmv? 40,000 ppmv? What were the observed pH levels of the water under test at what CO2 levels?

See if you can find a link to answer those questions and you might just convince me there's a problem.

Oh, and I guess I should point out... there were no mathematical calculations or specific input data values involved in your links, only qualitative results mixed with a hint of quantitative values. To truly review an experiment, one must know both the input data and the output data.

TheRedneck

reply to post by adrenochrome

OK, I do see your point, but it is based on politics and not pure science. Perhaps that was what threw me off.

Any change in climate, regardless of the source of the change will always result in some people being helped and others being harmed to some degree. The real question then becomes, is the overall benefit to humanity greater or less than the overall detriment?

Even without climate change, there have been dry years and wet years, cold years and warm years. Dry years mean those who normally have to concern themselves with making a crop in flood-prone areas will benefit, while those who are in drier climates will suffer. Wet years mean the reverse. Cold years endanger southern tropical crops, while they make life easier for the non-farmers in that area. Warmer years mean a few areas become too hot to grow crops without irrigation, but others which are barely able to manage a crop in a normal year have a boon to their production.

One thing that is rarely mentioned about the effect of rising CO2 levels on farming is that plants of all kinds grow faster in higher CO2 levels. That is one mitigating factor to a temperature rise, both economically and climatologically. Plants also actually cool the atmosphere by respiration through their leaves as a result of photosynthesis. Want proof? Check the temperature difference between a heavily wooded area and an open area some cloudy summer day (or at night even, although the light reaction is not in operation and respiration decreases due to this).

We have irrigation technology that will allow agriculture in almost any location on earth. The only problem is the expense, which is an economic factor that will correct itself in the free market. So while I understand your argument, I don't think there is any reason why the amount of available farming resources would decrease rather than increase under a 2° temperature rise. There may be a political reason such resources could be misused, but can we really expect that controlling the planetary atmosphere is a simpler solution to that than political action?

TheRedneck

reply to post by majestictwo

Redneck : I take your point about this but if the bottle of 'carbonated water' was released then subjected to a vacuum wouldn't more CO2 be released. Atmosphere is around 14.6psi at sea level so couldn't we assume that the sea is under atmosphere pressure and therefore could hold some amount of CO2.

Yes, if subjected to a vacuum, practically all of the dissolved CO2 would exit. So would the water, as the pressure would be less than the surface pressure of the liquid and turn it into vapor as well.

1 Atmosphere of pressure is indeed about 15 psi (I'll take 14.6 as more exact, to save some searching). The constants for CO2 absorption are based on atmospheric pressures (1 Atm). Wikipedia has a pretty good page on carbonic acid. If you will look about halfway down the page, you will see a chart that gives the chemical characteristics of carbonic acidification at various pressures of CO2. Our present CO2 pressure is 3.87x10E-4, based on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 3.87x10E-4 (387 ppmv) and an atmospheric pressure of 1 Atmosphere. The table shows a base of 3.5x10-4, which is a bit dated, but still close enough for our purposes.

You will see the pH level at baseline is 5.65. Now, at 3 times the amount of CO2, partial pressure of 1x10E-3 (1000 ppmv atmospheric concentration), the pH drops to 5.42. Still minimal, but perhaps enough to start becoming concerned. But this is based on water, not water containing life. Look at the dissolved CO2 level; this is what is available to the flora in the water. It jumps from 1.18x10E-5 to 3.36x10E-5, a difference of 3 fold. That's 3 times the amount of CO2 available for any oceanic flora (i.e. plankton) to use to grow. As this CO2 is used up, the equilibrium will shift and the carbonate ions will become free CO2 until equilibrium is again reached. This will in turn counter the dropping pH levels.

You can see that the H2CO3 molecule concentration increases almost as much, but it is the ions that are responsible for the pH decrease, not the molecules. The HCO3- (carbonate) ion increases in concentration by about 70% (as opposed to the three-fold increase in CO2), and the secondary ionization (CO3--) barely increases at all.

So at 3 times the present concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the pH drops slightly but noticeably, without considering the mitigating effects of photosynthesis. If we begin to approach that level of CO2 in the atmosphere, I will be right there with you looking for a solution. I just don't see why we should go to drastic lengths (such as carbon credits) when the problems are far from imminent, the science is evolving, and there are already commercial CO2 scrubbers available.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

The difference is your links are mostly predictions, whereas I am stating established chemical data...

The whole post you made before was just deflection and red herring. You criticise a number of scientific papers for being predictions, yet the studies use the same information that you are, but apply it to relevant real-world scenarios, rather than silly examples of beer bottles, lol. Then we have 'but it's only a really, really, small number. It can't possibly be a problem because I said so'.

And so rather than accept real science, with real maths, done by real scientists, your own wishful-thinking and basic Chem101 is given comparable weight - abe: no, incorrect, actually given greater weight, heh.

I think I have made my point. while at least the scientists involved with this report disclosed their procedure, this procedure is virtual only with no real-world testing to determine if the results are accurate, and the input data is questionable, coming from predictions by the IPCC. Now, should they decide to run some actual experiments, please let me know.

Aye, they went a tad further than high school aquatic chemistry.

See if you can find a link to answer those questions and you might just convince me there's a problem.

I don't have such fanciful ideas like convincing you of anything on this issue. Your posts in this thread clearly show you're beyond that.

Oh, and I guess I should point out... there were no mathematical calculations or specific input data values involved in your links, only qualitative results mixed with a hint of quantitative values. To truly review an experiment, one must know both the input data and the output data.

TheRedneck

lol

[edit on 28-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

The whole post you made before was just deflection and red herring. You criticise a number of scientific papers for being predictions, yet the studies use the same information that you are, but apply it to relevant real-world scenarios, rather than silly examples of beer bottles, lol.

The same principles apply to both the large scale and the small scale situations. CO2 acts no differently in an open bottle than it does in the open air. The same principles used to run the lights in my home are also applicable to regional power grids. Only when one begins to enter the sub-atomic world do the laws of physics shift, and even then that shift is more of a realization of the forces behind the observable world than a rejection of such.

And so rather than accept real science, with real maths, done by real scientists, your own wishful-thinking and basic Chem101 is given comparable weight

Real science is more than computer programming and attempts to prove hypothesis while sitting at the keyboard. Real science is thinking critically and questioning the theories and hypothesis as they are presented. Real scientists conduct experiments, with controls and careful attention to detail, and then publish complete information on their experimental methods and their results for others to verify in independent repeated experiments. Real scientists duplicate the efforts of others in order to verify the results independently, rather than accepting a conclusion without question.

Running a computer program is not an experiment; it is an observation tool to help predict results before spending time and expense on experimentation. It is not a replacement for such experimentation; rather it is a replacement for hand calculation. It can not be independently repeated, since the program is required to repeat the experiment and use of the same program is not an independent review; it is a repeat performance of a mathematical algorithm, guaranteed to give identical results with identical inputs.

Real maths? Where was a calculation in any of your links? Where was the raw data revealed? Where was the raw output? All I saw were conclusions, occasionally quantized, and predictions based on predictions fed into a computer. My son could have easily followed all the 'maths' in your links, and he is only now in Algebra. Mathematical calculations are not the same as reading numbers.

How about a calculation as to the expected pH of the ocean's surface at a CO2 level of 500 ppmv, based on the observed rate of CO2 absorption by natural processes and the solubility of the gas? Or maybe a calculation on how deep the acidity differential will extend, based on diffusion constants? That's math, my friend. You are telling me a wire wrapped into a coil will produce a magnetic field when I am asking how much current is needed to produce a specific force.

I don't have such fanciful ideas like convincing you of anything on this issue. Your posts in this thread clearly show you're beyond that.

Nope, not above being shown up at all. I just want to verify the data and the ways it is manipulated in order to obtain the results. I realize that is a lot to ask (sorta smacks of the Scientific Method even), but I dare ask it.

Come on, mel, bend to the logic. Sell those carbon credits you're hoarding and reinvest in Ameros. You'll get a better return. I'll even give you a phone number to a broker if you like.

(And no, I don't own any Ameros at this time.)

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Hmm, perhaps you could give us your mathematical modeling to back up your claims.

When you are talking about miniscule amounts of CO2 in the ocean, then miniscule increases in the amounts of CO2 in the ocean can easily increase the amount of CO2 in the ocean by several fold. While you might fool the simpletons with this mathematical sleight of hand, those of us who understand how these things work are not fooled in the least.

Nowhere did I imply or claim that increases in global temperatures were linear, you are simply building a straw man argument of your own to knock down.

Where is your evidence that global warming has peaked. What the evidence is showing is that global warming is accelerating, not peaking. What the historical record shows is that we might reach a tipping point, where global warming causes the Atlantic current to shut down, bringing on a new ice age.

There is only a tiny pass between Asia and North America to the Pacific ocean, while there is a large swath of ocean between Europe and North America, and the numerous islands of the North Atlantic where water circulates in and out of the Artic ocean. As the Arctic warms, this will have extreme effects on the circulation of the worlds oceans. With an ice coverd Arctic Ocean, the water cools immensly, and drops deep down under the incoming warm water, creating our oceans currents. As the surface ice dissapears in the Arctic Ocean, as it currenlty is, the water coming in will not chill nearly as fast, and we will see far more resistance to the global ocean currents. This change in global ocean currents will most likely have considerable affect on global climate. We might see global warming last only a few years, or a few centuries, followed by another ice age. This is what the historical record indicates.

It certainly will not be linear.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by poet1b]

Thank goodness researchers like evolutionary biologist Dr Angela Moles are one step ahead of the game because this information will become very valuable.

Link

sorry to double post but you have got to see this

The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a broad plate of floating ice south of South America on the Antarctic Peninsula, had been stable for most of the last century before it began retreating in the 1990s. The peninsula has been experiencing extraordinary warming in the past 50 years of 2.5°C.

Sat photos from Envisat worth a look
Wilkins ice shelf breakup