DW >> Carlton and the Veneto

It's all good Bro!
: )

"Changes of PH in the ocean are so small they can't be directly measured. Ask your oceanographer friends. Again, the people working on this stuff are relying on computer models, which means any prediction of the future is worthless, because of the uncertainty involved."

I haven't gotten together with my friend recently, but will in the next week or so. Pending that, I have included a list of links to studies dealing with increasing acidification of the oceans. They are all from reputable universities and 2 scientific publications, also reputable. The studies do, indeed, rely on models, but I disagree with you when you say they are worthless as predictive tools. They all agree that the Ph of the oceans has dropped something on the order of .1 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and that the likely increase in the next century will be .3 to .4. This is a very large increase in acidity and the main area of uncertainty seems to be how, and whether, the oceans' biota, beginning with phytoplankton and progressing up the food chain, will be able to adapt. They do not deal directly with the impact on O2 production by phytoplankton, but the connection is obvious: If phytoplankton suffer a massive die off, the result is fairly obvious to my mind. I suspect anything my friend , and his sources, have to add to this will not differ by much. To have this many disparate groups of scholars in agreement is, to me, compelling. And, PLEASE, Rog, spare me the scornful dismissal of the work of any reputable scientist that you disagree with as fraud perpetrated by Warmista or Acidista(my word) conspiring with the world's governments to impose a carbon tax on the benighted masses. Were I on your side of The Pond, I would probably call it balderdash, or some such Anglicism.; over here we call it BS. At any rate, I think my concern about O2 depletion is as reasonably grounded as your dismissal of it with a patronizing "try not to worry too much about it".

"If you are sufficiently interested, read this page, and then the comments from Ken Griffith near the bottom, which go unanswered...
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php"



I found the article you cite, with Mr Griffin's comments, very interesting because it dealt more directly with declining atmospheric O2, quite convincingly to my mind, Mr Griffin's comments notwithstanding. I found the section "The Mystery of the Oxygen Sink" particularly interesting in that it made a case for O2 depletion based on changes in the nature of the earth's flora brought about primarily by deforestation and modern agricultural practices. The decomposition(oxidation) of plants(trees) composed primarily of lignins and lipids, rich in reduced carbon, requires atmospheric O2 not contained in those materials. To the degree that deforestation proceeds and organic matter of similar composition in the soil is exposed to the air by plowing, there will be a reduction in atmospheric O2 as the material is oxicdized. To this I might add that, as desertification and salting of agricultural soils due poor irrigation techniques increases, less O2 will be returned to the atmosphere by photosynthesis, simply because nothing will grow, further augmenting O2 depletion. I did not see anything in Mr Griffin's comments that addressed these issues. Perhaps you could tell me what I am missing here.

There was another article I read a couple days ago, which I didn't locate this time due to slightly different search parameters, that indicated a fall in Ph can cause dissolved iron compounds to bind to particulate organic matter suspended in sea water, rendering it unavailable to phytoplankton. Sound familiar?

A list of links to ocean acidification studies.

http://www.pics.uvic.ca/assets/pdf/publications/BN_Ocean_Acidification_2010.15.pdf
http://www.pics.uvic.ca/assets/pdf/publications/BN_Ocean_Acidification_2010.15.pdf
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/mcneil2-1HI76.pdf
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~mdmccar/ocea80b/public/lectures/lect_notes_2/13_ocean_acidification_2010_F.pdf
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Ocean_Acidification.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/~longcao/Cao&Caldeira(2010).pdf

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-acidity-in-the-ocean

Edited by ouzel on 12/11/2010 21:25:20 MST.

Hi Tom,

"And, PLEASE, Rog, spare me the scornful dismissal of the work of any reputable scientist that you disagree with as fraud"

I think you are mischaracterising what I'm saying. It's not the reputable scientists that are the problem, it's the funding agencies and their political masters.

"They all agree that the Ph of the oceans has dropped something on the order of .1 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and that the likely increase in the next century will be .3 to .4."

This projection is based on atmospheric co2 increasing at an exponential rate. I don't believe that will happen, for several reasons. But I won't convince you, so wait and see.

"This is a very large increase in acidity"

But the oceans are quite strongly alkaline Tom. They are not acidic at all. This is a myth created by the torturing of language. The alarmists move from "acidification" a correct technical term, to talking about "increases in acidity". What they should say is that the oceans may have become slightly less alkaline. Ask you oceanologist friend when you see him and report back. Since ph varies across the oceans, it will take a 10 to 18 times bigger fall than .1ph (which took three centuries, assuming the model is right - HAH!) to make them acidic.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/12/2010 03:17:26 MST.

"And, PLEASE, Rog, spare me the scornful dismissal of the work of any reputable scientist that you disagree with as fraud."


Please don't bar Rog's entry to one of his tiny happy places.

Yogi says...

I'm so smart it hurts

http://yogibear.warnerbros.com/#/splash

" But I won't convince you, so wait and see."

Ummm, this is the crux of the problem. If we wait and see, and Rog is wrong, then we have a huge problem on our hands that won't go away. Rog won't accept computer models, yet what else do we have to go on? Of course we won't convince Rog either, so this thread is really just one long moot point, isn't it? The data we have can be interpreted however we choose to.

The depths some people stoop to is matched only by the shallowness of their thinking.

I wouldn't expect to get my socks wet wandering through Dave T's tiny happy place.

Hi Lynn,
That's why I'm working on trying to find a better and more coherent explanation for climate change. We can't measure the effect of co2 in the atmosphere, but we can measure the effect of changes in albedo on the oceans.

Co2 radiative forcing can't come up with sufficient energy for the rate of accumulation of heat content in the oceans in the 1993-2003 decade. No can it explain the drop in ocean heat content as empirically measured by the ARGO buoy network from 2003 onwards.

The sun's variation and the cloud cover changes can though.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/12/2010 12:48:59 MST.

METRODOME ROOF COLLAPSE


http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/snow-collapses-metrodome%2C-vikings-postponed-dec-12-2010


Wonder if a computer model forecast that one?

21" of white global warming flakes are pretty heavy George.

It's about the 5th time it's happened though, so not really 'unprecedented'.

Thanks for the tidbit about the global warming flakes collapse history. I did not recall there being more than a couple dating back to the eighties. Bottom line, baby it's cold outside.

Here is a warmist studying the situation.

> Rog [T] won't accept computer models, yet what else do we have to go on?
I am going to sit on the middle of the fence here, but I do have to agree with Rog T that hard measured data is the only thing we can really trust. Models depend on the underlying assumptions, and we have no way of knowing whether the assumptions made are either correct or complete.

I am willing to believe that *most* of the assumptions are probably correct, but we do know that they are not complete. The effect of cloud cover remains afaik still very hazy (sorry). What else have the models missed? We just don't know, and therein lies the problem.

I have to say that, if the shift in pH of the oceans over the last few centuries is 0.1 units, then extrapolating this to an imminent future shift of 0.3 - 0.4 is 'an extraordinary claim'. It may be so: I don't know.

Cheers

Hi Rog T

I think the better spelling is capice.

Cheers

9000 years ago


http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/index.php?id=1332&L=1


9000 years ago the sea surface was 30 m lower than it is today. There were large amounts of seawater trapped in the remains of the thick ice cap from the previous Ice Age which still covered parts of the northern hemisphere. During the same period, land areas from which the ice had already retreated gradually rose as the enormous weight of the ice was released. Denmark was connected to Sweden and Britain, and the Baltic was a freshwater lake. Hunting and fishing were major activities in the everyday lives of Stone Age people, and settlements were often located on the coast. The land level continued to rise as time passed, but around 7000 BC, the ice melted so rapidly that the sea rose faster than the land. Funen became an island, the Sound between Denmark and Sweden was formed, and the Baltic Sea became salt. The coastal settlements were flooded and gradually covered by protective layers of sediment, providing good preservation conditions for tools and other artefacts of perishable materials. That is why many well preserved items of wood are found under water whereas they are seldom preserved on land. Archaeologists estimate that the remains of some 20,000 Stone Age settlements are to be found in Danish coastal waters.

Nice link George. Other interesting Viking artifacts include their farms and chapel buildings on Greenland, from the Medieval warm period. Nobody farms on Greenland today...

Roger C, thanks for the additional voice of reason, I feel a bit beleaguered here sometimes. It is perfectly possible co2 has had some effect on global surface temperature, and I've never said otherwise. I'm just glad someone of Judith Curry's standing is now standing up and saying we need to look more carefully at natural variation to see how much that may have contributed too. It is important, because if natural variability was responsible for more of the rise in surface temp than previously thought, then the sensitivity calculation for co2 diminishes accordingly. This then reduces the model projection's over the top temperature increases for the future.

We can already see that the model projections are departing from reality. A rethink is urgently needed before the UN the EU and the U.S. EPA inflict heavy damage on the productivity of the western world. Impoverishment always leads to increased pollution, and less resource to deal with it.

Co2 is not pollution.

Also, if all our infrastructure is geared to warming, the cooling I believe is just around the corner according to my own energy model is going to take societies by surprise. The effect on agriculture, which has had a free ride on the back of co2 increase raising productivity and positive oceanic phases providing warmth is going to go into reverse, with pretty heavy consequences for large numbers of people unless we wise up and start planning a more sensible food economy than the 'just in time' nonsense we use at the moment to keep the financial marketeers happy.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/12/2010 15:41:42 MST.

"Co2 is not pollution."

Agreed. And I also agree that hard data is always better than any model, however, as always, I see it as a much bigger issue than just CO2, or global warming. Coal, mining, deforestation, drilling for oil and a myriad of other industrialised practices that produce CO2 are not the best environmental practices, nor are they sustainable, so investing in alternatives now makes sense in the larger scheme of things, IMHO. The warming issue may or may not be a red herring along the way.

it produces monsters!



Audrey II: Feed me!
Seymour: Does it have to be human?
Audrey II: Feed me!
Seymour: Does it have to be mine?
Audrey II: Feeeed me!
Seymour: Where am I supposed to get it?
Audrey II: [singing] Feed me, Seymour / Feed me all night long - That's right, boy! - You can do it! Feed me, Seymour / Feed me all night long / Ha ha ha ha ha! / Cause if you feed me, Seymour / I can grow up big and strong.

"I think you are mischaracterising what I'm saying. It's not the reputable scientists that are the problem, it's the funding agencies and their political masters."

Ah. Now that is progress of a sort. All this time I thought your posts indicated you thought the lot of them were unscrupulous frauds. I suspect you confused a lot of other people following this thread as well. As for the funding agencies and their political masters, these nefarious eminences grises lurking in the background, do you have any solid documentation to buttress your claim? Seriously. I would very much like to know who they are, but I struggle to get a grip on this one. I hear all sorts of disturbing things, from a lot of sources, but I have yet to have any source present solid evidence, naming names and the like.

"This projection is based on atmospheric co2 increasing at an exponential rate. I don't believe that will happen, for several reasons. But I won't convince you, so wait and see."

I stand ready to be convinced if you present a compelling case. I fear the wait and see approach will make the whole discussion a moot point, as I doubt any of us will be around at the end of the century.

"But the oceans are quite strongly alkaline Tom. They are not acidic at all. This is a myth created by the torturing of language. The alarmists move from "acidification" a correct technical term, to talking about "increases in acidity". What they should say is that the oceans may have become slightly less alkaline."

I think we can all agree that the Ph of the oceans, currently varying a bit above or below 8.1 on average, Rog, is alkaline. No source that I have come across says otherwise, so you are quibbling about terminology when everyone else seems to be quite clear on the meaning of acidification as used in this context. What they are concerned about is the increase in hydrogen ions in sea water and its impact on the availability of nutrients such as iron, without which phytoplankton cannot maintain healthy populations. This, in turn, is directly related to the falling level of atmospheric O2. There are a number of other issues relating to the integrity of the food chain that are of concern as well, but that is the big one. Again, my concern as a lay person is with the potential impact on the biosphere if the emerging concerns of the considerable number of scientists currently engaged in research prove founded. I guess my attitude is quite simply: If there is a chance that they are right, why continue down our current path of over consumption when we already have far more than we need? Perhaps better to work on effecting a more equitable distribution of our economic output and stabilizing our population, in order to achieve a more sustainable future for all living things. Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winning economist had it right, IMO, when he postulated that poverty is not a problem of insufficient resources but, rather, a problem of unequal distribution. Let us get on with addressing these pressing human problems and put further increases in consumption on hold, rather than risk destroying the web of life that supports us all for a few more trinkets.

"Since ph varies across the oceans, it will take a 10 to 18 times bigger fall than .1ph (which took three centuries, assuming the model is right - HAH!) to make them acidic."

Again, the problem as I understand it is not whether Ph is greater, or less, than 7.0 but, rather the increase in hydrogen ions and its attendant impact on bioavailability of iron among other things. As far as timing, the rate of change is often more important than the amount of the change when it comes to organisms' ability to adapt. 3 centuries is a millisecond on an evolutionary time scale.

Lynn,
I agree with you too, but get real about non-fossil fuel energy production please. All the windmills in Britain have been stationary for the last month because their blades are covered in ice. Just when you need more energy, windpower lets you down.

Are you prepared to go nuclear to avoid oil?

Edited by tallbloke on 12/12/2010 15:46:03 MST.

"The data we have can be interpreted however we choose to."

I would like to believe that the scientists working on these issues will hold themselves to a higher standard of intellectual honesty that that, Lynn. Otherwise they are little better than glorified accountants who, when asked "What is two and two?", reply "What do you want it to be?"

My feeeling regarding models is that you have to start somewhere, and a model is a good way of beginning to ask the right questions. Gradually, as data from the real world accumulates, the models can be refined and become more useful as a predictive tool. Given the potential gravity of the situation we are facing I, for one, am thankful that the questions are beginning to be asked.