Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[TyroneSlothrop]

Read more: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

1. Global Warming
2. Fight Misinformation

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
• Climatologist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims
• The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he "absolutely" stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was "complete rubbish".
  
  Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit,

 

[Markle]

So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

.

The fanatical denialist did not arrive at their conclusions using facts. This is why facts have no effects on their opinions about Global warming...

When the Hurricane center forecasts the movement of a Vortex in the atmosphere...they create a cone of probability as to the position of the storm in the future they do not declare with total certainty "the storm will be at some particular location"...that is Science...different Hurricane forecasting Computer models interpret the data differently so they vary in the forecast positions ... a consensus is reached via a "cone of probability" using the different models interpretation of data...

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

However look at the seas. The PH levels are going down, the CO2 levels are rising massive, and it just happens to coincide with humanity pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Which part of what I've said do you disagree with?

What do you suppose the Ph levels were just prior to the beginning of the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm?...and how do you suppose CO2 levels got that high...and higher without the aid of internal combustion engines? In fact, if you look at the history of the earth, the present 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 represents an atmosphere that is positively starved for CO2....not massive CO2 levels at all.

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

Please show me your source and link to a reliable source that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. What do any and all green plants produce at night?

 

[Markle]

Read more: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

1. Global Warming
2. Fight Misinformation

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
• Climatologist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims
• The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he "absolutely" stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was "complete rubbish".
  
  Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit,

WOW...investigations by...the group who was hoodwinked by the misinformation and which information would seriously damage their ability to get government grants.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

A Wall Street Editorial is not Scientific
Scientists Just Confirmed The Scientific Consensus On Climate ...
-Apr 13, 2016
Almost 16 years after Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes first documented an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, ...

97% of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans ...
The Independent-Apr 13, 2016

Consensus Affirmed: Virtually All Climate Scientists Agree Warming ...
InsideClimate News-Apr 14, 2016

Consensus confirmed: over 90% of climate scientists believe we're ...
The Conversation AU-Apr 14, 2016

For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent consensus on ...
Grist-Apr 13, 2016


Shoot and a miss: Wall Street Journal op-ed attacks 97% climate consensus | Climate Science Watch

The Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast and serially corrected Dr. Roy Spencer have a new opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal attacking the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming. The bulk of their argument amounts to nitpicking over the meaning of words like “dangerous” and “catastrophic,” completely missing the point on what scientists are actually saying about climate change.

The evidence is solid: 97% of climate scientists agree that warming is real and human-caused. The scientists’ assessment of whether warming is dangerous or urgent is not covered in the 97% surveys, but the dangerous nature of warming is well-documented in other comprehensive sources.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

WOW...investigations by...the group who was hoodwinked by the misinformation and which information would seriously damage their ability to get government grants.

It was independently investigated investigated...none of the charges were supported
“The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review” [pdf]

 

[Markle]

Read more: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

1. Global Warming
2. Fight Misinformation

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
• Climatologist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims
• The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he "absolutely" stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was "complete rubbish".
  
  Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit,

Your sources are totally biased sites which can only exist by funds from the government and other donations. All they support is Global Warming. But, it is a cute try!

 

[Markle]

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation


Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.


By Christopher Booker

6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Read more:

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Your sources are totally biased sites which can only exist by funds from the government and other donations. All they support is Global Warming. But, it is a cute try!

Your sources are WSJ editorial and discredited Scientist one of which [Spencer in Alabama] also denies the theory of Evolution
Dr. Roy Spencer, Please Keep Your Religion Out Of Science
Not everyone might be aware of this but Dr. Roy Spencer is someone who believes in Intelligent Design. He has often defended his support of Intelligent Design and his rejection of the Theory of Evolution quite vocally. Something I mentioned briefly in one of my blog posts.

That Spencer rejects the Theory of Evolution and replaces it with Intelligent Design brings into question his ability to assess evidence in a detached way.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

That article you link to is from 2009 about 7 years ago. I already posted numerous links debunking the "Climategate" Lol scandal
here is more OK...there are links throughout the post OK
Debunked Conspiracy Climategate Five Years Later ...
I am a little reluctant to remind everyone about the so-called “Climategate”incident that was sparked this day five years ago.

Many people, in the end, were embarrassed by this major attack on climate change scientists when it turned out to be nothing more than manufactured media hype. Nine independent inquiries by multiple agencies all arrived at the same conclusion that the Climategate conspiracy was nonsense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The fanatical denialist did not arrive at their conclusions using facts. This is why facts have no effects on their opinions about Global warming...

When the Hurricane center forecasts the movement of a Vortex in the atmosphere...they create a cone of probability as to the position of the storm in the future they do not declare with total certainty "the storm will be at some particular location"...that is Science...different Hurricane forecasting Computer models interpret the data differently so they vary in the forecast positions ... a consensus is reached via a "cone of probability" using the different models interpretation of data...

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

However look at the seas. The PH levels are going down, the CO2 levels are rising massive, and it just happens to coincide with humanity pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Which part of what I've said do you disagree with?

What do you suppose the Ph levels were just prior to the beginning of the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm?...and how do you suppose CO2 levels got that high...and higher without the aid of internal combustion engines? In fact, if you look at the history of the earth, the present 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 represents an atmosphere that is positively starved for CO2....not massive CO2 levels at all.

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

Please show me your source and link to a reliable source that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. What do any and all green plants produce at night?

I didn't say that CO2 is the only cause of change in the oceans.

 

[SSDD]

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

However look at the seas. The PH levels are going down, the CO2 levels are rising massive, and it just happens to coincide with humanity pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Which part of what I've said do you disagree with?

What do you suppose the Ph levels were just prior to the beginning of the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm?...and how do you suppose CO2 levels got that high...and higher without the aid of internal combustion engines? In fact, if you look at the history of the earth, the present 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 represents an atmosphere that is positively starved for CO2....not massive CO2 levels at all.

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

Please show me your source and link to a reliable source that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. What do any and all green plants produce at night?

I didn't say that CO2 is the only cause of change in the oceans.

Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.

 

[frigidweirdo]

However look at the seas. The PH levels are going down, the CO2 levels are rising massive, and it just happens to coincide with humanity pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Which part of what I've said do you disagree with?

What do you suppose the Ph levels were just prior to the beginning of the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm?...and how do you suppose CO2 levels got that high...and higher without the aid of internal combustion engines? In fact, if you look at the history of the earth, the present 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 represents an atmosphere that is positively starved for CO2....not massive CO2 levels at all.

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

Please show me your source and link to a reliable source that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. What do any and all green plants produce at night?

I didn't say that CO2 is the only cause of change in the oceans.

Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.

You've made a claim, but will you back it up?

 

[jc456]

What do you suppose the Ph levels were just prior to the beginning of the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm?...and how do you suppose CO2 levels got that high...and higher without the aid of internal combustion engines? In fact, if you look at the history of the earth, the present 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 represents an atmosphere that is positively starved for CO2....not massive CO2 levels at all.

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

Please show me your source and link to a reliable source that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. What do any and all green plants produce at night?

I didn't say that CO2 is the only cause of change in the oceans.

Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.

You've made a claim, but will you back it up?

what is it you expect back up on?

 

[SSDD]

You've made a claim, but will you back it up?

Sure...it's basic chemistry.....refer to Henry's Law. Henry's law says that the solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas...if atmospheric temperatures increase, then the resulting warmer oceans will outgas more CO2 than they take up which will make the oceans more basic, not more acidic.

It's like this...either the oceans are getting warmer due to atmospheric warming in which case, the CO2 concentration in sea water is decreasing and therefore acidification from manmade CO2 is just more alarmist gibberish, or the oceans are cooling and absorbing manmade CO2 causing an insignificant amount of acidification which means that the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere is not causing warming, and not causing sea level rise....

so take your pick...you can't have both...warmer oceans due to CO2 induced warming which results in less acidic oceans or cooler oceans in spite of more atmospheric CO2 which results in slightly more acidic oceans but puts the lie to the claim of warming due to more atmospheric CO2...

 

[Old Rocks]

What the fuck are you talking about, you ignorant ass?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm. Those of us alive today breathe air never tasted by any of our ancestors in the entire Homo genus.

You guys just flap your silly yaps, and never research anything that you claim. You are dead wrong, at the beginning of the last ice age, the CO2 levels were between 280 and 300 ppm.

Sorry rocks...I keep forgetting that you are one of those poor dupes who believes that the earth has exited the ice age that began at the mid point of the tertiary period and continues today and will continue till such time as there is no ice at the poles....as you can see from the graph below, when the decent into the ice age that continues today began, atmospheric CO2 was at about 1000ppm...

Do yourself a quick google of the term "current ice age" and read some of the 15,000 odd hits you get...learn something rocks...

Lordy, lordy, Cannot read a simple graph, eh. The current ice ages began about 2 million years ago. And the CO2 level was considerably less than 1000 ppm at that time. Since the Tertiary is roughly 65 millions years in length, two million years ago is hardly the midpoint.

So rocks....in order to melt the ice at one or both poles, and effectively end the ice age, the average mean temperature would need to reach about 18C...when has that happened?

My goodness, SSDD, you do enjoy playing the complete idiot. Melt enough ice to raise the sea level three feet, and most of the seaports in the world are in major trouble. With just on increase of 20 ppm over the normal 280, during the eemian period, about 130,000 years ago, the sea level was at least 20 feet higher than today. We have not even began to see the results of the present 400+ ppm in the atmosphere today. But that same inertia in the system means that when we do see it, we will be seeing it for a long time.

 

[Old Rocks]

The fanatical denialist did not arrive at their conclusions using facts. This is why facts have no effects on their opinions about Global warming...

When the Hurricane center forecasts the movement of a Vortex in the atmosphere...they create a cone of probability as to the position of the storm in the future they do not declare with total certainty "the storm will be at some particular location"...that is Science...different Hurricane forecasting Computer models interpret the data differently so they vary in the forecast positions ... a consensus is reached via a "cone of probability" using the different models interpretation of data...

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

However look at the seas. The PH levels are going down, the CO2 levels are rising massive, and it just happens to coincide with humanity pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Which part of what I've said do you disagree with?

What do you suppose the Ph levels were just prior to the beginning of the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm?...and how do you suppose CO2 levels got that high...and higher without the aid of internal combustion engines? In fact, if you look at the history of the earth, the present 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 represents an atmosphere that is positively starved for CO2....not massive CO2 levels at all.

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

Please show me your source and link to a reliable source that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. What do any and all green plants produce at night?

Please show me a reliable link that any scientist has stated that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. Have you quit beating your wife yet?

Don't play stupid games, Markle, you are not smart enough to win. Just keep repeating mindless drivel like the rest of the denialists here, and you will be ok.

 

[Old Rocks]

You've made a claim, but will you back it up?

Sure...it's basic chemistry.....refer to Henry's Law. Henry's law says that the solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas...if atmospheric temperatures increase, then the resulting warmer oceans will outgas more CO2 than they take up which will make the oceans more basic, not more acidic.

It's like this...either the oceans are getting warmer due to atmospheric warming in which case, the CO2 concentration in sea water is decreasing and therefore acidification from manmade CO2 is just more alarmist gibberish, or the oceans are cooling and absorbing manmade CO2 causing an insignificant amount of acidification which means that the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere is not causing warming, and not causing sea level rise....

so take your pick...you can't have both...warmer oceans due to CO2 induced warming which results in less acidic oceans or cooler oceans in spite of more atmospheric CO2 which results in slightly more acidic oceans but puts the lie to the claim of warming due to more atmospheric CO2...

As per normal, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
DOI
10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the global ocean induces fundamental changes in seawater chemistry that could have dramatic impacts on biological ecosystems in the upper ocean. Estimates based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenarios suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels could approach 800 ppm near the end of the century. Corresponding biogeochemical models for the ocean indicate that surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8 in the IPCC A2 scenario by the end of this century, increasing the ocean’s acidity by about 150% relative to the beginning of the industrial era. In contemporary ocean water, elevated CO2 will also cause substantial reductions in surface water carbonate ion concentrations, in terms of either absolute changes or fractional changes relative to pre-industrial levels. For most open-ocean surface waters, aragonite undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentrations drop below approximately 66 μmol kg-1. The model projections indicate that aragonite undersaturation will start to occur by about 2020 in the Arctic Ocean and 2050 in the Southern Ocean. By 2050, all of the Arctic will be undersaturated with respect to aragonite, and by 2095, all of the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Pacific will be undersaturated. For calcite, undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentration drops below 42 μmol kg-1. By 2095, most of the Arctic and some parts of the Bering and Chukchi seas will be undersaturated with respect to calcite. However, in most of the other ocean basins, the surface waters will still be saturated with respect to calcite, but at a level greatly reduced from the present.

 

[Old Rocks]

Near-future level of CO2-driven ocean acidification radically affects larval survival and development in the brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis


Tools


Dupont, Sam; Havenhand, Jon; Thorndyke, William; Peck, Lloyd S.; Thorndyke, Michael. 2008 Near-future level of CO2-driven ocean acidification radically affects larval survival and development in the brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 373. 285-294. 10.3354/meps07800



Before downloading, please read NORA policies.
Text
m373p285.pdf - Published Version
Download (847kB)


Official URL: http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m373p285.pdf
Abstract/Summary
The world's oceans are slowly becoming more acidic. In the last 150 yr, the pH of the oceans has dropped by similar to 0.1 units, which is equivalent to a 25 % increase in acidity. Modelling predicts the pH of the oceans to fall by 0.2 to 0.4 units by the year 2100. These changes will have significant effects on marine organisms, especially those with calcareous skeletons such as echinoderms. Little is known about the possible long-term impact of predicted pH changes on marine invertebrate larval development. Here we predict the consequences of increased CO2 (corresponding to pH drops of 0.2 and 0.4 units) on the larval development of the brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis, which is a keystone species occurring in high densities and stable populations throughout the shelf seas of northwestern Europe (eastern Atlantic). Acidification by 0.2 units induced 100 % larval mortality within 8 d while control larvae showed 70 % survival over the same period. Exposure to low pH also resulted in a temporal decrease in larval size as well as abnormal development and skeletogenesis (abnormalities, asymmetry, altered skeletal proportions). If oceans continue to acidify as expected, ecosystems of the Atlantic dominated by this keystone species will be seriously threatened with major changes in many key benthic and pelagic ecosystems. Thus, it may be useful to monitor O. fragilis populations and initiate conservation if needed.

SSDD, maybe you should actually research some science before posting nonsense. You actually think that you know more than these scientists?

 

[Old Rocks]

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms : Abstract : Nature

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms
James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3, Laurent Bopp1, Scott C. Doney4, Richard A. Feely5, Anand Gnanadesikan6, Nicolas Gruber7, Akio Ishida8, Fortunat Joos9, Robert M. Key10, Keith Lindsay11, Ernst Maier-Reimer12, Richard Matear13, Patrick Monfray1,19, Anne Mouchet14, Raymond G. Najjar15, Gian-Kasper Plattner7,9, Keith B. Rodgers1,16,19, Christopher L. Sabine5, Jorge L. Sarmiento10, Reiner Schlitzer17, Richard D. Slater10, Ian J. Totterdell18,19, Marie-France Weirig17, Yasuhiro Yamanaka8 & Andrew Yool18

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.

Many, many more articles, not one of which supports your silly hypothesis.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

Please show me your source and link to a reliable source that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. What do any and all green plants produce at night?

I didn't say that CO2 is the only cause of change in the oceans.

Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.

You've made a claim, but will you back it up?

what is it you expect back up on?

How about 1) there aren't enough fossil fuels on the Earth to raise PH levels to dangerous levels.
2) Prove what are dangerous levels of PH in seas.


You know, the claims that were made.