Ocean acidification

[gslack]

So either the oceans didn't turn acidic and kill them with 20 times the amount of CO2 in the air, or CO2 has no real measurable impact on PH to the extent if effecting the oceans like they claim. Either way its insane....
------------------------------------

This is an example of "false choice" and a reason why taking examples from millions of years ago, isn't always the logical thing to do. The corals of the past evolved during a time of high CO2 and therefore would be able to tolerate lower pH levels. Modern corals evolved during a time of lower CO2 and don't seem to tolerate an acidic environment as well. You can't use the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.

LOL and this is an example of dancing even after the music has stopped.....

Well if I can't use the past as a a template than neither can your side if we use your own logic....

Perhaps our modern planet has evolved and adapted to absorb more CO2? Perhaps the entire theory of GHG's and their effects are overstated? Perhaps the CO2 millions of years ago was actually a bunch of magic beans which grew into killer spores that killed all the dinosaurs?

Freaking asinine argument man... Seriously, the very word calcite should have been a clue... Clacite and aragonite are both forms of calcium carbonite. Ca CO3 ...

Here is some info on them...





LOL I love that last part especially..... lets repeat that oh so embarrassing bit of science shall we? LOL

Calcite, like most carbonates, will dissolve with most forms of acid. Calcite can be either dissolved by groundwater or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Although calcite is fairly insoluble in cold water, acidity can cause dissolution of calcite and release of carbon dioxide gas.

Dam that was a severe smackdown now wasn't it.......

SOOOOO, calcite is especially susceptible to acidity and PH factors? LOL so the whole claim you just made about them evolving in such conditions and resistant to CO2 induced acidification is one more example of BS posing as science..... Wow what an embarrassment...

As soon as I posted this response above in here all 4 of the warmers came in like a platoon and did everything they could to confound, divert, and derail this topic.... Coincidence? Nah they knew dam good and well what it all meant. And they knew it was factual and true, and indefensible...

The above shows categorically and undeniably that despite 20x the amount of CO2 coral life forms formed and flourished. Which blows the entire claim that CO2 will cause the oceans to turn acidic.

Fact: the above evidence verifiable in the supplied links tells us that the two prime elements in coral are extremely unstable in acidic conditions.

Fact: If they are unstable in acidic conditions, then they could not have survived in the PH factors and acidification levels they claim that CO2 would have caused back then. But despite that the corals did thrive and even develop. Showing that either the theory of CO2 causing ocean acidification is incorrect, the levels of effect of CO2 on the oceans is incorrect, or corals somehow despite the very structure making it an impossibility developed magic powers and lived through an acid bath for hundreds of years....

SO which is it now warmers? Come on we know you have a ridiculous hypothesis to excuse this you always do.... Once more your BS is shown for the nonsense it is...

Another re-post for the tools...

 

[Old Rocks]

Only in your feeble mind, Suckee.

 

[gslack]

No you didnt address the point you came in with your pals to try and disrupt the thread and derail the topic to cover the flaw in your sides claims about ocean acidification.... Proof? You still avoided my re-posting of it....

yeah pretty telling huh dumazz.... yep, one more example of bullshit science and bullshit scientists like you, oldsocks, and chemistry boy....

then you can't or refuse to read. The link in the OP, and mine to a scientific america article citing actually studies did in fact cover most of your bullshit spouted.

Keep trolling though, really show's your scientific acumen

The topic was ocean acidification and your pals used coral as an example I showed the flaw in this. Your link talks about acidic effects on other sea life correct? Of course... Moving on...

Now if you read my post or any of the two repostings of it you would see the theory behind ocean acidification is in question. The post stated using accepted and known facts about calcium carbonites like argonite and calcite. Two primary compounds in coral. Follow me so far? Good...

The theory claims that rising CO2 makes the ocean waters more acidic. And acidic conditions do not allow for coral to thrive because their very compounds dissolve in acidic water. Even a small change in PH overall can have drastic effects on coral due to their clacium carbonite makeup. Got it so far? Calcium carbonites+acidic water= dead coral. Clear?

So, the fact we had 20x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago and coral thrived and even evolved at that time, puts the entire hypothesis in question. How could they have thrived and evolved in such acidic conditions if the theory on CO2 and ocean acidification were correct as they present it? Well they couldn't have, plain and simple.

So either the theory is incorrect altogether, or the claimed level of impact on the oceans is incorrect. So then in some way or another the contentions are inaccurate or the theory itself is inaccurate.

And this my dear watson is deductive reasoning 101. Which brings us back to your post and its irrelevance to it all. If the theory or the contentions made based on that theory are incorrect, as the evidence would lead us to believe, than the article you posted is meaningless in reality.

Your article runs on the assumption the theory of CO2 ocean acidification is sound. Well its got some real holes in it that cannot be excused or dismissed, making it suspect to say the least. So in the end your article is as useless as lips on a chicken...

Got it DR? LOL, doctor of what? Freaking idiot!

And another one..... i can do this all day.... As long as you and your troll army try and bring back old threads with some bullshit to try and hid the truth I will repost the truth in those threads....

 

[gslack]

The topic was ocean acidification and your pals used coral as an example I showed the flaw in this. Your link talks about acidic effects on other sea life correct? Of course... Moving on...

Now if you read my post or any of the two repostings of it you would see the theory behind ocean acidification is in question. The post stated using accepted and known facts about calcium carbonites like argonite and calcite. Two primary compounds in coral. Follow me so far? Good...

The theory claims that rising CO2 makes the ocean waters more acidic. And acidic conditions do not allow for coral to thrive because their very compounds dissolve in acidic water. Even a small change in PH overall can have drastic effects on coral due to their clacium carbonite makeup. Got it so far? Calcium carbonites+acidic water= dead coral. Clear?

So, the fact we had 20x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago and coral thrived and even evolved at that time, puts the entire hypothesis in question. How could they have thrived and evolved in such acidic conditions if the theory on CO2 and ocean acidification were correct as they present it? Well they couldn't have, plain and simple.

So either the theory is incorrect altogether, or the claimed level of impact on the oceans is incorrect. So then in some way or another the contentions are inaccurate or the theory itself is inaccurate.

And this my dear watson is deductive reasoning 101. Which brings us back to your post and its irrelevance to it all. If the theory or the contentions made based on that theory are incorrect, as the evidence would lead us to believe, than the article you posted is meaningless in reality.

Your article runs on the assumption the theory of CO2 ocean acidification is sound. Well its got some real holes in it that cannot be excused or dismissed, making it suspect to say the least. So in the end your article is as useless as lips on a chicken...

Got it DR? LOL, doctor of what? Freaking idiot!

way to ignore my post which tells you why the acidity is rising. You just keep repeating the same bullshit, nothing supported by actual peer reviewed science.
Now, go fuck off you piece of shit troll, you are out of your league here

Oh so now you going to try and lie about what your other links were about?

Good lets address that now shall we?

Your other links.. One was to an article on a site with the word "blog" in the title.... Yeah, blog... LOL, okay okay moving on.... 3 others were to sciencedaily so lets just stick with the sciencedaily links and forgo the blog one....

All 3 of them rely on the theory of CO2 ocean acidification to be correct and accurate as currently claimed by your side. And once again we see that the very theory they rely on is in question.

"knock,knock" Is this thing on? What part of any of this didn't you get DR.dumazz? Is my type too small or hard to read?

I could have swore I just pointed this all out in the last post... Yep there it is, I see it plain as day. It says basically that the coral thrived in the times where CO2 was 20 times greater than today, which given their weakness to acidification in the oceans they could not have survived if the theory you support is accurate in essence or their claimed reaction levels of that theory are indeed accurate.

So which is it? Is the theory wrong altogether or is the effect levels they claim it has on the oceans inaccurate?

LOL, you can't even keep up with the point I make here... And you claim I am out of my league? LOL please, I walk over better posters than you just to take a beating... You are nothing special azzhole. You came in here with 3 friends to shout down something you couldn't defend logically. So if there is any troll in this thread its you and or your 3 amigos.

Still going....

 

[gslack]

Credentials not held
Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts posesses neither certification.[10],[11]

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

But Watts does not have either certification. They require a degree, which Anthony Watts does not have.

Dude I said it once and I will say it again... Sourcewatch is unreliable.... Completely and totally run by irresponsible and unethical lazy dipshits... here is the proof....

Your link to source watch page on anthony watts.... Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

They claim the following part you keep commenting on. In their words....

Credentials held
Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[6] with a status of "retired".[7]

Now see the little numbers on the site next to the claims they make? Those are for references to back the claims.... pay close attention to number 6. shown on the site as subscript number 6 just after the college/university words.

Well I followed the link and low and behold I get this site...Untitled
The site says the following....

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM
Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008. After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.

(A) Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

(B) Hold a Bachelor's degree (or higher) in "other sciences and engineering" and be engaged in an activity in which the applicant's knowledge is being applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences. Acceptable degrees will be determined after a review of the applicant's college/university transcripts. Arts and humanities are not included; therefore, degrees in English, literature, philosophy, languages, journalism, communications and business administration would not lead to eligibility for Seal application. In addition to a degree in a related science, applicants must also have completed at least 12 semester credit hours in meteorology with 8 of the 12 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 3 of the 5 core areas is required). See (C) for a description of the core areas.

(C) This set of requirements is intended to recognize individuals without a degree from an accredited institution but who have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else.

WOW!...... Just completely and totally WOW!!!! UNFUCKINGBELEIVABLE!!!!!!

YOUR site source watch caught red-handed and bald faced outright and undeniably lying through there fucking teeth!!!!!!!!

You two bit, pseudo-science pushing, shit talking imbecile..... NOW do me and everyone else here a favor and kiss both sides of my ass you complete and total hack!!!!!

Heres one where oldsocks was caught lying....

 

[gslack]

Come on socks you little coward......

While i wait on your latest song and dance, I will inform the forum about source watch ....

the link oldsocks posted to sourcewatch... Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

Now in the left corner of that page we see this a little badge with a earth pic on it saying this... "This is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's climate change project."

I follow the link and it goes here.....Portal:Climate Change - SourceWatch

Turns out sourcewatch has a special portal for a group known as "the Center for Media & Democracy"

Well who the heck are they? Well they aren't very forthcoming about that on the page and there is no link to their site or contact info anywhere on the page....

Way to show that transparency sourcewatch

So like a thorough OCD sufferer I do a google on them... and bingo! I find they are part of PR watch.

About CMD | Center for Media and Democracy
prwatch says the following about themselves....

About CMD
The Center for Media and Democracy is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, public interest organization that focuses on:

Investigating and countering spin by corporations, industries, and government agencies that affects our health, liberty, security, economic opportunities, environment, and the vitality of the democratic process.
Informing and assisting grassroots action that promotes public health, economic justice, ecological sustainability, human rights, and democratic principles.
Advancing transparency and media literacy to help people recognize the forces shaping the information they receive about important issues affecting their lives.
Promoting "open content" media that enable people from all walks of life to "be the media" and help write the history of these times.

Hmm, we have a organization claiming non-partisanship while they use an alternate outlet to lie and mislead about a meteorologist who retired after 25 years working in the field, simply because they back AGW and he does not..

WOW!

Seriously douche bag oldsocks not only showed sourcewatch to be a hack site as relaible as he is, but he also showed PRwatch to be a front to promote AGW...... LOL nice inestigative journalism oldsocks bravo!

More on oldsocks ethics ...

 

[gslack]

Untitled

Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008.

Just for you, dumbo, I will break this down. Until 31Dec08, you need not have a degree to get an AMS Seal of Approval. See the link below this one.

After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.

(A) Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

(B) Hold a Bachelor's degree (or higher) in "other sciences and engineering" and be engaged in an activity in which the applicant's knowledge is being applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences. Acceptable degrees will be determined after a review of the applicant's college/university transcripts. Arts and humanities are not included; therefore, degrees in English, literature, philosophy, languages, journalism, communications and business administration would not lead to eligibility for Seal application. In addition to a degree in a related science, applicants must also have completed at least 12 semester credit hours in meteorology with 8 of the 12 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 3 of the 5 core areas is required). See (C) for a description of the core areas.

(C) This set of requirements is intended to recognize individuals without a degree from an accredited institution but who have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else.

The word is grandfathered tv weatherman can use Section 3. No degree required. Again, by those requirements, I could call myself a Geologist with as much justification as Watts calls himself a meteorologist.


AMS Certification Programs


AMS Seal of Approval
The AMS is no longer accepting applications for the Seal of Approval Program

The AMS Seal of Approval was launched in 1957 as a way to recognize on-air meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public. Among radio and television meteorologists, the AMS Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction.

To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must apply to the Society, offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work. The application is judged by a national board of examiners to assess four elements: technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills.

Applications for the Seal of Approval were accepted from 1959 - 2008. There have been over 1700 Seals awarded.

With reading skills as minimal as yours, I would careful about calling others names.

LIAR!

You're busted sourcewatch was busted, prwatch was busted, and all because you had to post a BS propaganda misleading article from them..... LOL

So you have all the requirements do you? HAHAHAHAHAHA! you have ...

"have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else."

Sure ya do stooge sure ya do.....LOL knew you would have to try and dance your way out of it.....

You got owned azzhole.... Sorry but the facts are.... He was a meteorologist for 25 years. he retired and now does his site and few times a week works at his local radio station as a meteorologist. Kind of like our channel 8 we have here. A guy there is about 70 years old, was doing the weather when i was a kid. he comes on a couple times a week to do a report and such....

Question... If a seal or accreditation is now obsolete, what are the requirements to get one of those obsolete and no longer done or awarded accreditations? LOL, nothing... The seal has been replaced by a new seal and he retired way before that time. So he, you or I do not need anything to get a obsolete and no longer awarded accreditation.... You just been schooled on a propaganda snow job douchebag.... They say things that are inapplicable and then the layman who doesn't check the story (like you) read it and go off posting like idiots half truths and innuendo that means nothing....

And to think you have sourcewatch to thank for all this...... HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

LOL okay that one was me being mean....LOL love twisting the knife....

 

[gslack]

YES YOU DO have to prove your logic. AND that is the problem with your parroting what others tell you without even checking it for obvious logical fallacies. You have done nothing but post crap after crap and then scream that its fact. When we point out problems in the basic premise and logic behind it, you post more of the same crap and then scream about it again. You never showed any bit of logic or reason, or even basic understanding of what you posted.

Want me to demonstrate fake dr boy?.... Here we go...

I have a close friend/co-worker who is a theoretical physicist. His capacity at work is the lead in our little group of number crunchers, coders, and analysts (me). Basically he oversees all our work and tries to keep things from going beyond the factual to the realm hypothetical. Understand so far?

I am the lead analyst, we work closely all the time. I kick my groups findings to him after I go over them, and then he makes sure my reasoning and logic are sound, and that I stay within the proper scope of the task and not venture into speculation.

You see thats the problem with our kind of work. It's real easy for relatively smart people to make assumptions based on their own preconceptions and thoughts. So we need two people to make sure we stay in the proper frame. I oversee the analysts, the coder lead oversees the coders, and my friend ( call him dave ) Dave oversees all of us. That process is essential to our work.

Now our findings and recommendations are only as sound as the data we derive it from. If we get an inaccurate report that is key to the premise, the report or recommendation will be off. And no amount of excuse making, stretching, or reaching for a hypothesis to secure that premise will change that. And that my ignorant little forum fake is how a scientific process is protected and maintained in research.

Your links, all of them all regard CO2 ocean acidification as fact.

There have been many, many studies, measurements of the increasing acidity, worldwide. That is a fact.

That is their premise. However many scientists look at it in published journals and nod their heads that their equations and practices are correct according to what they see in the paper, it means nothing unless the theory holds up in real world application.

Ain't a real world application, boy. It is measured data.

But we find fossil records stating that life that was particularly susceptible to Ocean acidification not only survived but evolved and thrived at times where the CO2 was 20 times the level of today.

They claim that even current levels of CO2 are causing severe problems with these same type of life forms in the oceans today, and if CO2 levels increase much more those life forms will perish. They even cite fossil evidence from the past showing what they believe to be mass extinctions, and they claim it was due to CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.

But if that is the case, why did they not die off millions of years ago when CO2 was much higher? If they evolved some form of resistance to this back then, why didn't they evolve that resistance in the same manner again rather than die off? Why indeed....

Indeed, do you have a problem understanding rate of change? Life adapts readily to gradual changes over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Changes on the century or millinial scale is far differant. And the fossil record quite clearly shows that.

You see the problem here yet? Its a illogical to make assumptions either way especially when the premise is so full of holes and unexplainable points of contention.

What is contentuous about increasing CO2 in the oceans raising the acidity level? Straight forward chemistry. What is contentious about the fact that we are now actually measuring that increase?

What we have here is a series of organizations and research groups, all banking on this. We already know how research money is granted. hot ticket items get the bigger shares and fan fair. And AGW is the biggest ticket. You want funding? then it better be what will sell or what is wanted, and right now that is AGW. Its hip and cool and all the celebrities back it. And there are all those new grant allocations for climate change research or green tech.

So that is the ethics of your group. Most people in science are a good deal more ethical than that.

So do you really think it is shocking when you can cite a review of a paper up for publication, that supports some form of climate change or CO2 theory from a group who tells you in their mission statement they are in fact trying to prove climate change and educate on it? Give me a break..... Of course they will publish, its the dream of most scientists these days. And if you want the recognition of your peers you will publish, publish, publish...

So do us all a favor and stop with ignorant childish wannabe scientist crap. its fake and it shows...

Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up.

The increase in adidity in the oceans is a measured fact.

An increase in CO2 content in the ocean will result in increased acidity is what Chemical theory states, and is being validated by present observations.

No amount of obfuscation on your part can change any of this.

Many, many studies about ocean acidity which already make the assumption of it being caused by CO2 you idiot. When the fact is there no less than 6 other compounds rated above CO2 whose fluctuations could result in ocean acidity levels rising. But you and your algorian dipshits, pseudo-scientists and even real scientists who have their professional reputation riding on CO2 alone being the cause seem determined to ignore those all and focus on this one possibility. The fact is any of the 7 alone could be the cause, yet the7y and you want this to be the cause and forget everything else....

Well retard that just isn't good enough anymore... Look at all the things scientists have been not just wrong about, but dangerously wrong about. DDT, X-Rays, everyday we see this or that medication which was created, examined, tested, and given the go ahead by scientists has now been found to do more harm than it ever did good. For all of that crap alone I can tell them and you to kiss my azz on this theory.



And statements like that are why we know you are no scientist.... Real world application is the goal of scientific theory you imbecile.... If its just supposed to be a theory with no real use than its just rambling. The ignorance you just displayed in that is astounding even for a basement dwelling forum troll. The very core of scientific research hopes for one day a real world application.... What a freakin moron....



Moron why don't you tell me what my side is then.... Azzhole you don't even understand the idea that this is not about republican or democrat or liberal versus conservative. Why don't you ask about my political standing first before you make assumptions like a real scientist would....

Scientists more ethical huh? Okay like the ones who work for Monsanto? Yeah they made DDT, then tried to cover up its bad side effects. And today they are helping to create a new system of seed, fertilizer and pesticide which are dependent on one another. This will force farmers to buy Monsanto round-up ready seed every season. Have their products copyrighted and got the courts to declare saving their seed each season is illegal. They also have scientists who created Bovine Growth Hormone which has been talked about all over the press for its destructive and dangerous results on both dairy cows and the milk they produce.

or how about the scientists who made all those medicines that are continually turning up deadly. Scientists helped to create all those ephedrine energy supplements which are now illegal. Scientists told us that tobacco was harmless or even actually healthy at one time. In fact scientists work in the freaking labs that still churn out more and new ways to get nicotine into peoples system. Scientists are the ones who make WMD's, biological weapons and many many other terrible things that should not have been invented..

Why? Because they get so wrapped up in if they can do this, they forget to examine if they should. They are so eager to be successful and or famous for a theory or discovery, they don't even give a second thought before they jump. This is a business to them every bit as real as Big Oil.

That was another telling example of how you are no scientist. All scientists know there are just as many unethical shits in the scientific fields as there are in any other. Education doesn't necessitate ethics, and brains doesn't equate decency. Hitler was a genius too...

Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up.

Only an idiotic fake like you would deny solid logic and reason because it wasn't peer reviewed. And whats worse no real scientist would go to a web forum and demand every refutation have a peer reviewed paper to back it up.. This isn't yale or harvard, and its not MIT, its a web forum douchebag...

You couldn't out yourself as a fake any more than you just have...

Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up.

The increase in adidity in the oceans is a measured fact.

An increase in CO2 content in the ocean will result in increased acidity is what Chemical theory states, and is being validated by present observations.

No amount of obfuscation on your part can change any of this.

Measured fact? Well then it shouldn't be a problem for you to show some actual real world evidence of this... Not the crap you have been posting because all of it is operating on the assumption of it being fact already....

CO2 can effect PH balance but the effect is based on other compounds. CO2 is a amplifier to those other elements resulting in PH fluctuations. If those compounds change in essence or volume and CO2 is present then we see the change. The reality is CO2 volume has little to do with actual PH balance without those other elements.

The way they make the claim is "CO2 causes ocean acidity". When the true way to say it would be "CO2 reacting with other compounds can cause ocean acidity". The volume or amount of CO2 can alter PH but only if the other compounds are present and in correct quantities and distribution. Co2 alone is no where near a threat no matter how much we make. CO2 with other compounds in correct conditions and criteria is another matter.

And those other compounds and their required conditions are left out of the claims made by the algorians and their bought and paid for researchers.

Now want to debate the logic feel free. Want to go and google to see if my claims about CO2 chemical reactions and requiring other compounds to effect PH? Please knock yourself out.... BUt don't cry and tell me its not scientific just because its not from a green blog linked peer reviewed paper, because thats just juvenile..

See a pattern yet?

 

[RollingThunder]

Already busted ya on that one tool try again....

Want me to dig up the thread and repost it for ya?

LOLOLOL....oh, poor little slack-jawed-idiot, the only thing you've ever "busted" is your own pitiful excuse for a brain. Ocean acidification is a reality that is recognized and studied by scientists all around the world.

You asked for it....

the first page where I showed the OP's flaws...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2199920-post3.html

I have much more in this thread alone tool....

Your BS is busted...

Just more of your usual brain-dead ignorant crap, slack-jawed. The actual observed reality is that the ocean's pH levels are dropping so your theoretical objections are based on your own ignorance of the real world physical phenomenon at play here.

USF Study Shows First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification

January 20, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Seawater in a vast and deep section of the northeastern Pacific Ocean shows signs of increased acidity brought on by manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- a phenomenon that carries with it far-reaching ecological effects -- reports a team of researchers led by a University of South Florida College of Marine Science chemist.

The scientists, whose results are published in the American Geophysical Union’s journal Geophysical Research Letters, analyzed Pacific seawater between Oahu, Hawaii, and Kodiak, Alaska by comparing pH readings from 1991 and from 2006. This study provides the first direct measurements of basin-wide pH changes in the ocean’s depths and at its surface and has produced the first direct evidence of acidification across an entire ocean basin, the investigators said.

Principal investigator Robert Byrne, a USF seawater physical chemistry professor, said the study leaves no doubt that growing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are exerting major impacts on the world’s oceans.

“If this happens in a piece of ocean as big as a whole ocean basin, then this is a global phenomenon,” Byrne said.

Adding carbon dioxide to seawater makes it more acidic, and each year the world’s oceans absorb about one-third of the atmospheric CO2 produced by human activities.

Using pH-sensitive dyes that turn from purple to yellow in more acidic waters, the scientists were able to track changes produced by 15 years of CO2 uptake near the ocean's surface, Byrne said. In deeper waters, down to about half a mile, both anthropogenic and naturally occurring changes in CO2 and pH were seen. In the very deepest waters, no significant pH changes were seen.

The results verify earlier model projections that the oceans are becoming more acidic because of the uptake of carbon dioxide released as a result of fossil fuel burning, said Richard Feely, a member of the research team and chief scientist of the cruise and NOAA researcher from the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle.

Byrne and colleagues at USF’s College of Marine Science developed the methods for precise pH measurements and the project was the first time a team of researchers employed those methods in the field.

Byrne led a team of scientists that made pH measurements aboard the NOAA-National Science Foundation-sponsored cruise R/V Thomas G. Thompson in the spring of 2006 using state-of-the-art techniques developed at USF’s College of Marine Science. The researchers found that upper-ocean pH had, over the preceding one-and-a-half decades, decreased by approximately 0.026 units, equivalent to an average annual pH change of ‑0.0017, over a large section of the northeastern Pacific. Similar recent pH trends have been found at isolated time-series stations in the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and corroborating observations have also been reported by scientists who study other CO2-related substances in seawater.

"The pH decrease is direct evidence for ocean acidification of a large portion of the North Pacific Ocean," said Richard Feely. "These dramatic changes can be attributed, in most part, to anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean over a 15-year period.”

The implications for sea life and the world’s food web are serious, Byrne said. When seawater becomes more acidic, lower concentrations of carbonate result. Because the protective shells of sea organisms are made of calcium and carbonate, more acidic waters make it more difficult for many organisms to make their shells and thrive.

That affects not only the food web, but also many important processes essential for healthy marine ecosystems, such as coral reef formation, Byrne said.

The cruise was part of a decade-long series of repeat hydrographic sections jointly funded by NOAA-Office of Global Programs (now the Climate Program Office) and NSF-Division of Ocean Sciences as part of the Climate Variability and Predictability/CO2 Repeat Hydrography Program.

The program focuses on the need to monitor inventories of CO2 and heat in the ocean. Earlier programs under the World Ocean Circulation Experiment and U.S. Joint Ocean Global Flux Study have provided baseline observational fields.

Scientists from 11 academic institutions and two NOAA research laboratories participated in the expedition, whose goal was to determine how the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, land-use practices, and cement production will affect the chemistry and biology of the ocean.

Over the next millennium, the global oceans are expected to absorb approximately 90 percent of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, says Christopher Sabine, chief scientist for the first leg of the cruise.

"It is now established from models that there is a strong possibility that dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean surface will double over its pre-industrial value by the middle of this century, with accompanying surface ocean pH decreases that are greater than those experienced during the transition from ice ages to warm ages," Sabine said. "The uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide by the ocean changes the chemistry of the oceans and can potentially have significant impacts on the biological systems in the upper oceans."

“Estimates of future atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenarios and general circulation models, indicate that by the middle of this century atmospheric CO2 levels could reach more than 500 ppm, and near the end of the century they could be over 800 ppm. Current levels are near 390 ppm, and preindustrial levels were near 280 ppm," Feely said.

Corresponding models for the oceans indicate that surface water pH would drop approximately 0.4 pH units, and the carbonate ion concentration would decrease almost 50 percent by the end of the century. This surface ocean pH would be lower than it has been for more than 20 million years.

Byrne and many other scientists expect that even if substantial reductions are made in the pace at which humans produce carbon dioxide, ocean acidification will continue for hundreds of years to come.

“The bad news is it takes many hundreds of years for self-correcting factors to occur,” he said. “That leaves many centuries of ugly consequences.”

Provided by University of South Florida

© PhysOrg.com 2003-2010

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[Big Fitz]

The power of Christ compels this thread to stay dead!

Damn stupid thread necromancy.

LOL. Can't handle reality so you deny it. No wonder you belong to a cult of reality denial. Too bad nobody can raise your brain from the dead.

No, just can't believe you keep saying the same things and expecting a different result.

Stubborn consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Give it up, reality has whupped your skinny dumb ass.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting how these fruitcakes have all these unsupported opinions, claiming they know and understand the science, yet never post any articles from peer reviewed scientific journals in support of their wingnut ideas.

 

[westwall]

http://www.solas-int.org/resources/ESF__Impacts-OA.pdf

There is growing scientific evidence that, as a result of
increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
absorption of CO2 by the oceans has already noticeably
increased the average oceanic acidity from pre-industrial
levels. This global threat requires a global response.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), continuing CO2 emissions in line with current trends
could make the oceans up to 150% more acidic by 2100 than
they were at the beginning of the Anthropocene.
Acidification decreases the ability of the ocean to absorb
additional atmospheric CO2, which implies that future CO2
emissions are likely to lead to more rapid global warming.
Ocean acidification is also problematic because of its
negative effects on marine ecosystems, especially marine
calcifying organisms, and marine resources and services
upon which human societies largely depend such as energy,
water, and fisheries. For example, it is predicted that by
2100 around 70% of all cold-water corals, especially those
in the higher latitudes, will live in waters undersaturated
in carbonate due to ocean acidification. Recent research
indicates that ocean acidification might also result in
increasing levels of jellyfish in some marine ecosystems.
Aside from direct effects, ocean acidification together
with other global change-induced impacts such as marine
and coastal pollution and the introduction of invasive alien
species are likely to result in more fragile marine ecosystems,
making them more vulnerable to other environmental impacts
resulting from, for example, coastal deforestation and widescale
fisheries.

Old Fraud,

I am going to give you a free lesson in the difference between science and propaganda. In propaganda (as practiced by all of you AGW frauds) the operative words are "maybe",
"suggests", "possibly", "might", "could" and other adjectives of the same variety. In science I can tell you that if you add a to b you WILL get c. If you do this particular thing...this other thing WILL occur.

There is no maybe in real science beyond a few years of research. All you clowns have is maybes. You have not had a significant discovery in over 12 years in the "science" of climatology because they are so busy trying to hide the falsification of data that they have no time to do real research....nor are they inclined to do real research because so far it has all proven their theories wrong.

AGW theory is a failure and has now extended into active fraud. You are a fraud.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can predict with absolute certainty that the Warmers will NEVER subject their theory to laboratory testing

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 might have increased by 1 part in 10,000 over the last 100 years of which some small faction is the fault of mankind and that means we're turning the oceans into gastric juices?

 

[westwall]

I can predict with absolute certainty that the Warmers will NEVER subject their theory to laboratory testing

CrusaderFrank, No I am allmost certain they have tried it. What they will never do is demonstrate their lack of success PUBLICLY.

 

[RollingThunder]

The power of Christ compels this thread to stay dead!

Damn stupid thread necromancy.

LOL. Can't handle reality so you deny it. No wonder you belong to a cult of reality denial. Too bad nobody can raise your brain from the dead.

No, just can't believe you keep saying the same things and expecting a different result.

Stubborn consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Give it up, reality has whupped your skinny dumb ass.

No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.

The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can predict with absolute certainty that the Warmers will NEVER subject their theory to laboratory testing

CrusaderFrank, No I am allmost certain they have tried it. What they will never do is demonstrate their lack of success PUBLICLY.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

 

[RollingThunder]

CO2 might have increased by 1 part in 10,000 over the last 100 years of which some small faction is the fault of mankind and that means we're turning the oceans into gastric juices?

Actually atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 40% over the last hundred years or so due to mankind's burning of fossil fuels. Too bad you're so ignorant and clueless, CrusaderRabbit.

 

[westwall]

LOL. Can't handle reality so you deny it. No wonder you belong to a cult of reality denial. Too bad nobody can raise your brain from the dead.

No, just can't believe you keep saying the same things and expecting a different result.

Stubborn consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Give it up, reality has whupped your skinny dumb ass.

No BigFritz, reality "whupped" your ass when you were born retarded.

The current ocean acidification is an established, scientifically observed reality. Your denial of the facts is a symptom of your derangement and stupidity.

Blunder/old fraud,


You're wrong again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 might have increased by 1 part in 10,000 over the last 100 years of which some small faction is the fault of mankind and that means we're turning the oceans into gastric juices?

Actually atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 40% over the last hundred years or so due to mankind's burning of fossil fuels. Too bad you're so ignorant and clueless, CrusaderRabbit.

Once again, 100 years ago we measured out to parts per 10,000 so assuming any margin of error there may in fact be NO INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 over that time span.

Your "40% increase" sounds oh so scary until you look at the baseline and how even at a 40% increase" CO2 is still an atmospheric trace element