Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

[Saigon]

Last December, the respected journal “Oceanography” published projections for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH , through to the end of the century [ii]. In 2095, the projected average ocean surface pH is 7.8, and lower still in the Arctic Ocean.

CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 278 ppm in pre-industrial times to 390 ppm today. During this time, the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean has risen by more than 30% , decreasing the pH of the ocean by 0.11 units. As with CO2 and global warming, there is some lag between cause and effect. That means that, even if all carbon emissions stopped today, we are committed to a further drop of up to 0.1 units.

Ocean acidification: global warming's evil twin

 

[gslack]

Last December, the respected journal “Oceanography” published projections for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH , through to the end of the century [ii]. In 2095, the projected average ocean surface pH is 7.8, and lower still in the Arctic Ocean.

CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 278 ppm in pre-industrial times to 390 ppm today. During this time, the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean has risen by more than 30% , decreasing the pH of the ocean by 0.11 units. As with CO2 and global warming, there is some lag between cause and effect. That means that, even if all carbon emissions stopped today, we are committed to a further drop of up to 0.1 units.

Ocean acidification: global warming's evil twin

Skeptical science a proper source???

Since when?

You said it was from a journal and link to the skeptical science blog, a known alarmist propaganda site...Nice work...

Well then I can link to Watts up with that...

Scripps paper: Ocean acidification fears overhyped | Watts Up With That?

Scripps blockbuster: Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally

There goes another scare campaign.

Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed.

It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.


Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

As I said it was hyped up BS based on a minute data set. The one by scribbs covered multiple sites and varying environments..

Don't talk shit junior, you should know better than this by now...

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Congratulations on actually posting some on-topic material - I believe that is your first real post on this board? It's good to see.

Unfortunately your source is based largely on models:

"All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH"

When the study I linked to claims about what has already occured:

"decreasing the pH of the ocean by 0.11"

Whether the environmental can handle that change is another issue.

You claimed the Ph has not changed - please prove that it has not changed.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Congratulations on actually posting some on-topic material - I believe that is your first real post on this board? It's good to see.

Unfortunately your source is based largely on models:

"All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH"

When the study I linked to claims about what has already occured:

"decreasing the pH of the ocean by 0.11"

Whether the environmental can handle that change is another issue.

You claimed the Ph has not changed - please prove that it has not changed.

AAAAAHHHH!!!!! WRONG AGAIN SOCKO!!!

"Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed."

First paragraph of my link, says the exact opposite of your claim.... odd how that is, I mean you claimed it mostly used models.. NO!

Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

Last paragraph again, states the exact opposite of your claim.... Just where did you get that claim then?

Here's the source they got it from..

PLOS ONE: High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison

"Here, we present a compilation of continuous, high-resolution time series of upper ocean pH, collected using autonomous sensors, over a variety of ecosystems ranging from polar to tropical, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef."

Third sentence first paragraph and AGAIN we see it states the exact opposite of your claim.. Any explanation for that?

Come on genius just a little explanation of why you lied about their methods?

So where did you get the claim from? Perhaps they were talking about your alarmist claims???!!!!!

"All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day."

Nice try socko back to the drawing board... Quit trying to edit shit to lie...pathetic...

Point to where I said, implied or otherwise gave the impression "You claimed the Ph has not changed "

Never said it, never implied it, never even hinted it. I provided the source which stated the claims of "catastrophic acidification" are unrealistic and flawed, given the actual data shows times where the claimed "catastrophic levels" were met or exceeded at various points through out the study, and no devastation to the ecosystem was witnessed...

Try actually reading for once dumbass...

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Again, can you PLEASE try to write in coherent English. At the moment your comments are almost impossible to make any sense out of. Perhaps dial down the hysteria a few notches, and focus on actually presenting something solid and interesting.

Your source claims data was gathered from FIFTEEN monitors, and you somehow find this compelling?

Of the 15 monitors - why were 11 located off the west coast of the US?

Why were only 15 monitors used? Over how many years did they collect data? Why did they not place a single monitor in the Indian or Arctic Oceans?

I am constantly amazed by the absolutely dreadful quality of material posters present here....it just takes the breath away.

I assume you are aware that Argos has literally thousands of monitors - do you not think that might provide slightly more balanced data?

Please read the material I linked earlier - which you obviously did not even look at - and try to muster a coherent response.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Again, can you PLEASE try to write in coherent English. At the moment your comments are almost impossible to make any sense out of. Perhaps dial down the hysteria a few notches, and focus on actually presenting something solid and interesting.

Your source claims data was gathered from FIFTEEN monitors, and you somehow find this compelling?

Why were only 15 monitors used? Over how many years did they collect data?

I am constantly amazed by the absolutely dreadful quality of material posters present here....it just takes the breath away.

I assume you are aware that Argos has literally thousands of monitors - do you not think that might provide slightly more balanced data?

Please read the material I linked earlier - which you obviously did not even look at - and try to muster a coherent response.

Nice try liar...

Any comment on your attempt to lie about the papers methods? Or how about editing what they said to give a false impression?

Now you suddenly can't understand english again... How quaint...

Sorry socko, you should go get the admiral persona again.. Oh wait he lost it and had a crying fit, and now this ones a shown and proven liar... Wow, dropping like flies now... So sad..

btw, only 7 were off the west coast moron, another lie by you... YOUR study used just one source and extrapolated data using models phony...LOL

 

[Saigon]

This is from the Royal Society of the UK:

"The natural pH of the ocean is determined by a need to balance the deposition and burial of CaCO3 on the sea floor against the influx of Ca2+ and CO2−3 into the ocean from dissolving rocks on land, called weathering. These processes stabilize the pH of the ocean, by a mechanism called CaCO3 compensation...The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."

plus....

In the 15-year period 1995–2010 alone, acidity has increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska.[34] According to a statement in July 2012 by Jane Lubchenco, head of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "surface waters are changing much more rapidly than initial calculations have suggested. It's yet another reason to be very seriously concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now and the additional amount we continue to put out.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Saigon]

Nice try liar...

Any comment on your attempt to lie about the papers methods? Or how about editing what they said to give a false impression?

Now you suddenly can't understand english again... How quaint...

Sorry socko, you should go get the admiral persona again.. Oh wait he lost it and had a crying fit, and now this ones a shown and proven liar... Wow, dropping like flies now... So sad..

Please stick to the topic.

I'll ask again:

Your source claims data was gathered from FIFTEEN monitors, and you somehow find this compelling?

Of the 15 monitors - why were 11 located off the west coast of the US?

Why were only 15 monitors used? Over how many years did they collect data? Why did they not place a single monitor in the Indian or Arctic Oceans?

Why does the research provide GLOBAL results, when the research was not conducted globally?

 

[gslack]

This is from the Royal Society of the UK:

"The natural pH of the ocean is determined by a need to balance the deposition and burial of CaCO3 on the sea floor against the influx of Ca2+ and CO2−3 into the ocean from dissolving rocks on land, called weathering. These processes stabilize the pH of the ocean, by a mechanism called CaCO3 compensation...The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."

plus....

In the 15-year period 1995–2010 alone, acidity has increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska.[34] According to a statement in July 2012 by Jane Lubchenco, head of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "surface waters are changing much more rapidly than initial calculations have suggested. It's yet another reason to be very seriously concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now and the additional amount we continue to put out.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, wikkiepedia stating the claims for the theory is the answer.. Eureka you've done it!

ROFL!!!!

Done yet socko or do we need to add incessant twerp to your list of accomplishments?

 

[Saigon]

only 7 were off the west coast moron, another lie by you..

Um...you might want to look again.

Of the 15 monitors, fully 11 are located west of the US in the Pacific Ocean - you may have missed those to the south of Hawaii.

Yes, wikkiepedia stating the claims for the theory is the answer.. Eureka you've done it!

If you look at the link, you will find the material is provided by th UK Royal Society, and the US NOOA.

 

[gslack]

only 7 were off the west coast moron, another lie by you..

Um...you might want to look again.

Of the 15 monitors, fully 12 are located west of the US in the Pacific Ocean - you may have missed those to the south of Hawaii.

LOL, you said west coast asshole... So now the west coast is the pacific ocean?? WTH kind of idiotic crap you tell yourself this time?

Your study used one source and extrapolated using models, mine used 15 actual sources and used the raw data to show that the alarmist claims were baseless...

Read junior!

Illiterate lazy weasel, read!



You sat here arguing that they claimed it wasn't changing, when they said no such thing. They said the changes they witnessed were well beyond the alarmist claimed "catastrophic levels" and did so routinely. Meaning their claims for "catastrophic" were unfounded and alarmist..


All you had to do was read the paper or the article, and you just couldn't do it.. Instead you went off arguing against something you knew shit about..again... How many times are you and socks going to do this to yourselves before you catch on.. The problem isn't me shithead, it's you.. You too damn lazy, to eager to take the shortcut, to willing to lie to get a pious victory...

Freaking amazing man...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein


Read more at Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein at BrainyQuote

 

[gslack]

only 7 were off the west coast moron, another lie by you..

Um...you might want to look again.

Of the 15 monitors, fully 11 are located west of the US in the Pacific Ocean - you may have missed those to the south of Hawaii.

Yes, wikkiepedia stating the claims for the theory is the answer.. Eureka you've done it!

If you look at the link, you will find the material is provided by th UK Royal Society, and the US NOOA.

Wikki explained the claims dumbass. Think... You can wikki "the loch ness mosnter" and get an explanation of what people claim on it... Idiot LOL

 

[Saigon]

So now the west coast is the pacific ocean??

Which ocean lies off the coast off the West Coast if not the Pacific?

Look at where the monitors are located - off the 15 monitors, fully 11 of them are located between California and a point south of Hawaii.

Not a single buoy in the Indian or Arctic Oceans. This is their "worldwide" study.

By all means get back to us when you have read what I linked earlier.

 

[gslack]

So now the west coast is the pacific ocean??

Which ocean lies off the coast off the West Coast if not the Pacific?

Look at where the monitors are located - off the 15 monitors, fully 11 of them are located between California and a point south of Hawaii.

Not a single buoy in the Indian or Arctic Oceans. This is their "worldwide" study.

By all means get back to us when you have read what I linked earlier.

LOL, and your excuse for falsely claiming the west coast is to claim that the pacific ocean is now the west coast???? LOL

 

[SSDD]

'

Thank you for your update, CIA chatterbot. · ·
.

No problem socko... Yes I am a CIA robot... You caught me. I was sent here to monitor stupidity and bullshit in the web forum subculture. They specified you as the mastermind of the rash of ignorance plaguing this forum specifically.

It's my duty to stop your ignorance..

You forgot "ersatz verbage" He is a major source of ersatz verbage which certainly doesn't move a conversation any closer to reality.

 

[SSDD]

Gslack -

If you are going to make claims - be prepared to back them up.

The ocean acidification claims have been proven alarmist nonsense

Either present some solid science which backs this up, or do what an honest person would do and retract the claim.

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.

Again - please try and post in coherent English.

How about the fact that 8.14 is not acid....ph must be below 7 to be considered acidic. Even when the atmosphere had atmospheric CO2 in excess of 5000 ppm, the oceans were not acidic. Calling something that is very slightly less basic acid is simply false and represents nothing more than hysterical handwaving which is all the warmist side of the discussion has to offer....when asked for observations, measurements, examples of anything that is unprecedented, etc., as a group you wave your hands in a most undignified manner and pretend that the sky is falling.

 

[SSDD]

Last December, the respected journal “Oceanography” published projections for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH , through to the end of the century [ii]. In 2095, the projected average ocean surface pH is 7.8, and lower still in the Arctic Ocean.

Projected? With what? A crystal ball? An 8 ball? An ouiji board? Chicken entrails? Or perhaps something less accurate, like....a computer model?

If the idiots making such claims could take a moment and look back into paleohistory, they would find that the oceans have never been acidic...even when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 5000 ppm.

 

[Saigon]

LOL, and your excuse for falsely claiming the west coast is to claim that the pacific ocean is now the west coast???? LOL

And again - if it is NOT the Pacific Ocean, which ocean is it?

 

[Saigon]

Last December, the respected journal “Oceanography” published projections for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH , through to the end of the century [ii]. In 2095, the projected average ocean surface pH is 7.8, and lower still in the Arctic Ocean.

Projected? With what? A crystal ball? An 8 ball? An ouiji board? Chicken entrails? Or perhaps something less accurate, like....a computer model?
.

No, by something called SCIENCE. Projections based on current trends and evidence of likely future trends.

The material from both NOOA and the British Royal Society has been presented. By all means ignore it.

 

[Saigon]

How about the fact that 8.14 is not acid.

Where in THIS statement do you see the word "acid"?

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.

Is there a link between poor literacy and climate denial?

Based on the available evidence, I suspect there probably is.