Ocean acidifying at unprecedented rate

[polarbear]

What I added was in the lead post and covered research which found that the current rate of acidification was unprecedented in 300 million years. I haven't seen anyone address that particular point. All I've seen is folks trying to tell us that ocean acidification is harmless. In response to that I quoted a chunk of Wikipedia's article on the topic including a fairly extensive list of peer reviewed journal articles showing that it is NOT harmless. Like most mainstream scientific evidence, you all rejected all of that out of hand.

The only thing you added was an old CNN article written last year by Susannah Cullinane.
And all she did is quote this ridiculous pdf:
http://igbp.sv.internetborder.se/do...6c91140a/1385975160621/OA_spm2-FULL-lorez.pdf



I said ridiculous, because it`s based on RCP 8.5, thee most exaggerated scenario which also assumes 8.5 watts/m^2 positive feedback.

The only hard data in that pdf comes from 1 single observation post which monitors surface water pH near Mauna Loa:

What else would a free lance writer in need to make a buck pick for an article to get published by a celebrity -Klatsch & daily disaster fodder hungry "news" medium like CNN ?

And after that all you did is bury the posts which exposed your stupidity with no less than 14 new posts just today.

What makes you think that burying them prevented others from noticing that you have no idea how to calculate the pH?...or that you had no idea that moist air is lighter than dry air, etc etc.

So now do tell us what would the pH would be after that 170% increase in acidity....and I want it with a 2 decimal accuracy just to make sure you can`t pick it off that ridiculous graph in that ridiculous RCP 8.5 pdf for policy makers and doomsday news sensations.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification
Bärbel Hönisch1,*, Andy Ridgwell2, Daniela N. Schmidt3, Ellen Thomas4,5, Samantha J. Gibbs6, Appy Sluijs7, Richard Zeebe8, Lee Kump9, Rowan C. Martindale10, Sarah E. Greene2,10, Wolfgang Kiessling11, Justin Ries12, James C. Zachos13, Dana L. Royer5, Stephen Barker14, Thomas M. Marchitto Jr.15, Ryan Moyer16, Carles Pelejero17, Patrizia Ziveri18,19, Gavin L. Foster6, Branwen Williams20

ABSTRACT
Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively. In contrast, the geological record contains long-term evidence for a variety of global environmental perturbations, including ocean acidification plus their associated biotic responses. We review events exhibiting evidence for elevated atmospheric CO2, global warming, and ocean acidification over the past ~300 million years of Earth’s history, some with contemporaneous extinction or evolutionary turnover among marine calcifiers. Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry—a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place. [emphasis mine]

The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification

Full of admissions of lack of ACCURATE assessment. Basically a good description of why you can't make the claim to a higher rate of acidification than ever before.. I've read the first and last pages and SAW NOTHING that would suggest PALEO evidence of rates of acidification could EVER be sensitive enough or have the TEMPORAL RESOLUTION to compare to the 0.1 change in pH that we've seen in the modern era..

This is a paper outlining the DIFFICULTIES of making Paleo studies on Ocean pH...

You have a subscription to Science? Why don't you read the entire article and paraphrase it for us?

I assume you know why I listed all the citations that article had collected.

ps: if that long list of PhD authors say there's no parallel in 300 million years, I'm gonna take their word over yours.

I have library privileges at Vanderbilt.. If you're clever, you might find an illegal copy on the web.. Citations would be expected -- since it is a description of the vagarities of doing Paleo work on this topic. Means nothing in terms of CONCLUSIONS or COMPLETENESS of the science..

 

[flacaltenn]

The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification
Bärbel Hönisch1,*, Andy Ridgwell2, Daniela N. Schmidt3, Ellen Thomas4,5, Samantha J. Gibbs6, Appy Sluijs7, Richard Zeebe8, Lee Kump9, Rowan C. Martindale10, Sarah E. Greene2,10, Wolfgang Kiessling11, Justin Ries12, James C. Zachos13, Dana L. Royer5, Stephen Barker14, Thomas M. Marchitto Jr.15, Ryan Moyer16, Carles Pelejero17, Patrizia Ziveri18,19, Gavin L. Foster6, Branwen Williams20

ABSTRACT
Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively. In contrast, the geological record contains long-term evidence for a variety of global environmental perturbations, including ocean acidification plus their associated biotic responses. We review events exhibiting evidence for elevated atmospheric CO2, global warming, and ocean acidification over the past ~300 million years of Earth’s history, some with contemporaneous extinction or evolutionary turnover among marine calcifiers. Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry—a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place. [emphasis mine]

The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:

Analysis of periodicity of extinction using the 2012 geological timescale
Paleobiology 1 March 2014: 177-196.

High-resolution {delta}13C stratigraphy through the Selli Oceanic Anoxic Event (OAE1a) in the Apulia carbonate platform: the Borgo Celano section (western Gargano Promontory, Southern Italy)
Ital J Geosci 1 October 2013: 477-496.

Evidence for a rapid release of carbon at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1 October 2013: 15908-15913.

Warm climates of the past--a lesson for the future?
Phil Trans R Soc A 16 September 2013: 20130146.

Long-term legacy of massive carbon input to the Earth system: Anthropocene versus Eocene
Phil Trans R Soc A 16 September 2013: 20120006.

Seawater chemistry driven by supercontinent assembly, breakup, and dispersal
Geology 1 August 2013: 907-910.

Coral reef calcification: carbonate, bicarbonate and proton flux under conditions of increasing ocean acidification
Proc R Soc B 12 June 2013: 20130031.

Surviving rapid climate change in the deep sea during the Paleogene hyperthermals
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 4 June 2013: 9273-9276.

Zircon U-Pb Geochronology Links the End-Triassic Extinction with the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province
Science 24 May 2013: 941-945.

Ocean acidification alters the otoliths of a pantropical fish species with implications for sensory function
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 30 April 2013: 7366-7370.

Evolutionary change during experimental ocean acidification
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 23 April 2013: 6937-6942.

Section 3. Introduction to the Geochemical Evolution of the Earth's Ecosphere
Geochemical Perspectives 1 April 2013: 24-27.

Systems paleobiology
Geological Society of America Bulletin 1 January 2013: 3-13.

Equatorial decline of reef corals during the last Pleistocene interglacial
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 26 December 2012: 21378-21383.

A subseafloor carbonate factory across the Triassic-Jurassic transition
Geology 1 November 2012: 1043-1046.

MACROFAUNAL RESPONSE TO THE END-TRIASSIC MASS EXTINCTION IN THE WEST-TETHYAN KOSSEN BASIN, AUSTRIA
PALAIOS 4 October 2012: 607-616.

I'm beginning to think that ole abe here is an o'fraud sock. He posts the same way as when o'fraud gets upset. You know three posts of dubious quality.....

First, you claim to be a moderator yet you accuse me (and many others in the past) of being a sockpuppet. Doing so is a specific violation of USMB rules. The choices here are limited:

1) You are getting away with this because you are NOT a moderator and are thus a liar.
2) You are getting away with this because you ARE a moderator and are thus an unprincipled ass.

So you think this reference, authored by 21 individuals, published in the American Academy of Science's magazine "Science" and cited by at least fifteen other papers was of "dubious quality".

God are you stupid.

C'mon Abe. Use your superpowers.. There is a list of Moderators and Admins on the HomePage.. It's in a textbox right above the WHos On listing. Has a strange title like Forum Leaders.. Click it for once.. Lemme know if you help finding it.. .

 

[Samson]

I'd rather hear you describe how Ocean pH was measured before the industrial revolution.

My first guess would be calcareous marine sediments.

That explains a lot.

 

[flacaltenn]

What I added was in the lead post and covered research which found that the current rate of acidification was unprecedented in 300 million years. I haven't seen anyone address that particular point. All I've seen is folks trying to tell us that ocean acidification is harmless. In response to that I quoted a chunk of Wikipedia's article on the topic including a fairly extensive list of peer reviewed journal articles showing that it is NOT harmless. Like most mainstream scientific evidence, you all rejected all of that out of hand.

The only thing you added was an old CNN article written last year by Susannah Cullinane.
And all she did is quote this ridiculous pdf:
http://igbp.sv.internetborder.se/do...6c91140a/1385975160621/OA_spm2-FULL-lorez.pdf



I said ridiculous, because it`s based on RCP 8.5, thee most exaggerated scenario which also assumes 8.5 watts/m^2 positive feedback.

The only hard data in that pdf comes from 1 single observation post which monitors surface water pH near Mauna Loa:

What else would a free lance writer in need to make a buck pick for an article to get published by a celebrity -Klatsch & daily disaster fodder hungry "news" medium like CNN ?

And after that all you did is bury the posts which exposed your stupidity with no less than 14 new posts just today.

What makes you think that burying them prevented others from noticing that you have no idea how to calculate the pH?...or that you had no idea that moist air is lighter than dry air, etc etc.

So now do tell us what would the pH would be after that 170% increase in acidity....and I want it with a 2 decimal accuracy just to make sure you can`t pick it off that ridiculous graph in that ridiculous RCP 8.5 pdf for policy makers and doomsday news sensations.

Holy COW Glad I didn't waste time on that herring.. It was over-pickled to begin with. Thanks PBear...

 

[bripat9643]

They say the rate of change may be faster than at any time in the last 300 million years, predicting that by 2100 there will have been a 170% increase in ocean acidity, compared to pre-industrial times.

http://igbp.sv.internetborder.se/download/18.30566fc6142425d6c91140a/1384420272253/OA_spm2-FULL-lorez.pdf

Come... tell us about that oyster farm again.

I'd rather hear you describe how Ocean pH was measured before the industrial revolution.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd rather hear you describe how Ocean pH was measured before the industrial revolution.

My first guess would be calcareous marine sediments.

That explains a lot.

Here's the interesting part of all that. Every parameter in Global Warming lore is reduced to a silly "global averages".. For instance when discussing OAcidification, the principle number is something like pH 8.2 pre-industrial to pH 8.1 or 8.0 today.. What is that number? It's the average of EVERY FUCKING OUNCE of seawater on the planet.. So in the 1st place -- we have an ERROR BRACKET on today's number and anyone with a brain should question how that number is derived.

NOW -- you talk about comparisons to Paleo numbers and blindly make assumptions about levels and rates 20 Million years ago.. To make ANY comparisons, You would have to not only have the time resolution in the historical record to SEE a 100 year event, but you'd also have to have the GLOBAL COVERAGE to assess the number as a GLOBAL AVERAGE 20 Million years ago.. We'd be lucky to assess the differences for just a few hundred square miles around Hawaii for instance. IF we had the proper fossil records.. But the ENTIRE FREaking GLOBE? For the entire content of the OCEANS ??? For any period over 100 Million years??? Not in your life.. Never happened.. Doubt that it will..

That's why on Paleo studies of ANYTHING GW -- the most you can get in confidence is to look at a particular area -- with a particular proxy and make assertions on the changes..

This GLOBAL variable crap is horseshit..

 

[Abraham3]

I'm glad you have something to fixate on but you might want to stand aside while the rest of the world conducts real science.

 

[SSDD]

I'm glad you have something to fixate on but you might want to stand aside while the rest of the world conducts real science.

As you have demonstrated repeatedly...you wouldn't recognize real science if it bit your foot off.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm glad you have something to fixate on but you might want to stand aside while the rest of the world conducts real science.

"Real science?! LOL. Man, you guys will believe anything!"

 

[Abraham3]

I'm glad you have something to fixate on but you might want to stand aside while the rest of the world conducts real science.

As you have demonstrated repeatedly...you wouldn't recognize real science if it bit your foot off.

Was that demonstrated when you blew off an article in AAAS Science with 15 citations as junk? Is that YOUR command of what constitutes real science? Or was that Westwall? I can't keep you two apart. If you aren't sock puppets (and I have no evidence that you aren't) you ought to be.

If not, just sub in your objection to the greenhouse effect. Same result.

 

[Abraham3]

Are you threatening me?

 

[Samson]

Are you threatening me?

 

[Abraham3]

I'd rather hear you describe how Ocean pH was measured before the industrial revolution.

My first guess would be calcareous marine sediments.

That explains a lot.

What do you believe that explains?

 

[flacaltenn]

My first guess would be calcareous marine sediments.

That explains a lot.

What do you believe that explains?

If you read that paper you recommended --- they would explain to you all the difficulties in INTERPRETING "calcareous" marine sediments.. It's an iffy proposition. Even IFFIER if you're trying to get a numerical average for the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME 20 Million years ago..

 

[SSDD]

That explains a lot.

What do you believe that explains?

If you read that paper you recommended --- they would explain to you all the difficulties in INTERPRETING "calcareous" marine sediments.. It's an iffy proposition. Even IFFIER if you're trying to get a numerical average for the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME 20 Million years ago..

As he has already shown beyond any reasonable doubt....reading charts....reading material and understanding what it says....being smart, are not his best things. He is a myopic, cult wacko....no more...no less. He can't bear the thought that any part of climate science may be wrong.....he can't bear the thought that humans aren't wrecking the climate....in fact, he can't bear thinking. He prefers to be told what to regurgitate and skip the whole thinking thing.

 

[Abraham3]

That explains a lot.

What do you believe that explains?

If you read that paper you recommended --- they would explain to you all the difficulties in INTERPRETING "calcareous" marine sediments.. It's an iffy proposition. Even IFFIER if you're trying to get a numerical average for the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME 20 Million years ago..

The text in the link in my lead post states:

[HIGH CONFIDENCE]
The ocean is acidifying more rapidly than it has in millions of years

Today’s human-induced acidification is a unique event in the geological history of our planet due to its rapid rate of change. An analysis of ocean acidification over the last 300 million years highlights the unprecedented rate of change of the current acidification31. The most comparable event 55 million years ago was linked to mass extinctions of calcareous deep-sea organisms and significant changes to the surface ocean ecosystem31. At that time, though the rate of change of ocean pH was rapid, it may have been 10 times slower than current change32.

31) Hönisch, B., Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D.N., Thomas, E., Gibbs, S.J., Sluijs, A., Zeebe, R., Martindale, R.C., Greene, S.E., Kiessling, W., Ries, J., Zachos, J.C., Royer, D.L., Barker, S., Marchitto Jr., T.M., Moyer, R., Pelejero, C., Ziveri, P., Foster, G.L., Williams, B., 2012. The geological record of ocean acidification. Science 335(6072):1058–1063, doi:10.1126/science.1208277.

Full text and graphics available at http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Honisch_et_al_2012_Science_ocean_acidification.pdf

32) Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D.N., 2010. Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release. Nature Geoscience

Abstract at Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What do you believe that explains?

If you read that paper you recommended --- they would explain to you all the difficulties in INTERPRETING "calcareous" marine sediments.. It's an iffy proposition. Even IFFIER if you're trying to get a numerical average for the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME 20 Million years ago..

The text in the link in my lead post states:

[HIGH CONFIDENCE]
The ocean is acidifying more rapidly than it has in millions of years

Today’s human-induced acidification is a unique event in the geological history of our planet due to its rapid rate of change. An analysis of ocean acidification over the last 300 million years highlights the unprecedented rate of change of the current acidification31. The most comparable event 55 million years ago was linked to mass extinctions of calcareous deep-sea organisms and significant changes to the surface ocean ecosystem31. At that time, though the rate of change of ocean pH was rapid, it may have been 10 times slower than current change32.

31) Hönisch, B., Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D.N., Thomas, E., Gibbs, S.J., Sluijs, A., Zeebe, R., Martindale, R.C., Greene, S.E., Kiessling, W., Ries, J., Zachos, J.C., Royer, D.L., Barker, S., Marchitto Jr., T.M., Moyer, R., Pelejero, C., Ziveri, P., Foster, G.L., Williams, B., 2012. The geological record of ocean acidification. Science 335(6072):1058–1063, doi:10.1126/science.1208277.

Full text and graphics available at http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Honisch_et_al_2012_Science_ocean_acidification.pdf

32) Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D.N., 2010. Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release. Nature Geoscience

Abstract at Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

Really????

Even more than when North America deglaciated these last 14,000 years?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What do you believe that explains?

If you read that paper you recommended --- they would explain to you all the difficulties in INTERPRETING "calcareous" marine sediments.. It's an iffy proposition. Even IFFIER if you're trying to get a numerical average for the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME 20 Million years ago..

The text in the link in my lead post states:

[HIGH CONFIDENCE]
The ocean is acidifying more rapidly than it has in millions of years

Today’s human-induced acidification is a unique event in the geological history of our planet due to its rapid rate of change. An analysis of ocean acidification over the last 300 million years highlights the unprecedented rate of change of the current acidification31. The most comparable event 55 million years ago was linked to mass extinctions of calcareous deep-sea organisms and significant changes to the surface ocean ecosystem31. At that time, though the rate of change of ocean pH was rapid, it may have been 10 times slower than current change32.

31) Hönisch, B., Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D.N., Thomas, E., Gibbs, S.J., Sluijs, A., Zeebe, R., Martindale, R.C., Greene, S.E., Kiessling, W., Ries, J., Zachos, J.C., Royer, D.L., Barker, S., Marchitto Jr., T.M., Moyer, R., Pelejero, C., Ziveri, P., Foster, G.L., Williams, B., 2012. The geological record of ocean acidification. Science 335(6072):1058–1063, doi:10.1126/science.1208277.

Full text and graphics available at http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Honisch_et_al_2012_Science_ocean_acidification.pdf

32) Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D.N., 2010. Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release. Nature Geoscience

Abstract at Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

You keep avoiding the simple math and science.

We know the volume of the Earth oceans, how much CO2 do you have to add to drop the pH by .1?

 

[flacaltenn]

What do you believe that explains?

If you read that paper you recommended --- they would explain to you all the difficulties in INTERPRETING "calcareous" marine sediments.. It's an iffy proposition. Even IFFIER if you're trying to get a numerical average for the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME 20 Million years ago..

The text in the link in my lead post states:

[HIGH CONFIDENCE]
The ocean is acidifying more rapidly than it has in millions of years

Today’s human-induced acidification is a unique event in the geological history of our planet due to its rapid rate of change. An analysis of ocean acidification over the last 300 million years highlights the unprecedented rate of change of the current acidification31. The most comparable event 55 million years ago was linked to mass extinctions of calcareous deep-sea organisms and significant changes to the surface ocean ecosystem31. At that time, though the rate of change of ocean pH was rapid, it may have been 10 times slower than current change32.

31) Hönisch, B., Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D.N., Thomas, E., Gibbs, S.J., Sluijs, A., Zeebe, R., Martindale, R.C., Greene, S.E., Kiessling, W., Ries, J., Zachos, J.C., Royer, D.L., Barker, S., Marchitto Jr., T.M., Moyer, R., Pelejero, C., Ziveri, P., Foster, G.L., Williams, B., 2012. The geological record of ocean acidification. Science 335(6072):1058–1063, doi:10.1126/science.1208277.

Full text and graphics available at http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Honisch_et_al_2012_Science_ocean_acidification.pdf

32) Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D.N., 2010. Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release. Nature Geoscience

Abstract at Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

Wouldn't waste much time on the one quoted above.. I doubt you'll find more than token numbers and data on the humongeous LEAP to conclusions in the title. Why don't you go take a peek and scare the shit out of me with some numbers from that one.. Abstracts for GW papers are notably hysterical..