Two Theories

[SSDD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO
2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs [8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods and services.[9]

REFERENCES
1) "Feely et al. - Evidence for upwelling of corrosive "acidified" water onto the Continental Shel". pmel.noaa.gov. Retrieved 2014-01-25.
2) Caldeira, K.; Wickett, M. E. (2003). "Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH". Nature 425 (6956): 365–365. Bibcode:2001AGUFMOS11C0385C. doi:10.1038/425365a. PMID 14508477.
3) Millero, Frank J. (1995). "Thermodynamics of the carbon dioxide system in the oceans". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 59 (4): 661–677. Bibcode:1995GeCoA..59..661M. doi:10.1016/0016-7037(94)00354-O.
4) Feely, R. A.; et al. (July 2004). "Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 System in the Oceans". Science 305 (5682): 362–366. Bibcode:2004Sci...305..362F. doi:10.1126/science.1097329. PMID 15256664.
5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96–9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop
8) Mora, C (2013). "The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability". Nature 502: 183–187. doi:10.1038/nature12540.
9) Mora, C. et al. (2013). "Biotic and Human Vulnerability to Projected Changes in Ocean Biogeochemistry over the 21st Century". PLoS Biology 11: e1001682. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001682.
*************************************************************************

So, numbnuts, it took 30% more than was there in 1751.

and now, you stupid ass, tell us what you're going to DO with the number.

Gotta give you credit not only didn't you stop digging, you dug yourself down the Laurentian abyss.

Your articles state that 40% "of the CO2 released by humans" is what turning the oceans to gastric juice.

Don't you see its physically impossible for that to happen?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

These people simply lack any ability to think for themselves. Imagine, believing that the rate of ocean acidification is unprecedented in the history of the earth when the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half of what it was at the beginning of the present ice age and it was low, relatively speaking even then.

If it is, in fact, unprecedented, then atmospheric CO2 is obviously not the cause. Blind faith is what they have and they have it in spades. If it agrees with their political leanings, then they gobble it up as quickly as it can be spoon fed to them.

 

[Crick]

Increasing the half life of ozone will NOT make it well mixed across the entire stratosphere because the upper portions have too much UVC. The regions of the stratosphere where you say it should be greatest is where it cannot exist under any circumstances.

This whole argument is just another wasted detour. Human CFC emissions are responsible for it's disappearance. The ban on CFC's is responsible for its return. Your contentions otherwise are not borne out by the facts and this simply smacks of another of your "all scientists are stupid, greedy, dishonest and incredibly conspiratorial" fantasies.

I bet you were really into chemtrails, weren't you.

Human activities: GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary causes of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. The rise in CO2, the warming and the concomitant ocean acidification are all taking place at rates that grossly exceed any historical examples - including a number of extinction events. It is NOT that the temperatures, the CO2 levels or the ocean's pH have no historical analogues. It is that the RATE at which these things are happening will not allow natural or synthetic accommodation or adaptation.

The efforts of you and the rest of the deniers here and deniers worldwide have made to slow or stop any response or reform to address these problems will cost humanity - our children and theirs - for a dozen generations - incredibly. I will do my best to make certain our descendants know exactly who is responsible for the pain they will suffer and how greed, ignorance and cowardice motivated those individuals to do what they did. Perhaps they'll take it as a lesson: in the future they'll know whom to teach, to whom to listen and who to utterly ignore.

 

[Crick]

On top of that, pH changes recently have taken place at a rate unprecedented in Earth's history. But you seem to think that means nothing.

Of course it means something...but not what you think it means. Unprecedented in earth's history? Even when atmospheric CO2 levels were 1000ppm, 2000ppm, 3000ppm, 4000ppm, 5000ppm, 6000ppm, 7000ppm???

You failed to read what you should have read.

 

[Crick]

These people simply lack any ability to think for themselves. Imagine, believing that the rate of ocean acidification is unprecedented in the history of the earth when the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half of what it was at the beginning of the present ice age and it was low, relatively speaking even then.

Read this you incredible fool.

A review by climate scientists at the RealClimate blog, of a 2005 report by the Royal Society of the UK similarly highlighted the centrality of the rates of change in the present anthropogenic acidification process, writing:[38]

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

 

[SSDD]

Increasing the half life of ozone will NOT make it well mixed across the entire stratosphere because the upper portions have too much UVC. The regions of the stratosphere where you say it should be greatest is where it cannot exist under any circumstances.

You just can't stop lying can you? When you have no actual argument, you make up statements from your opponents and argue against them...same as you did in your last idiot incarnation before you got banned.

I said that if you find yourself a graph of oxygen concentration in the upper atmosphere, you will find that the ozone concentration will match the upper level of any significant O2 concentration. Ozone stays where it forms because it decays to fast to move about.

whole argument is just another wasted detour. Human CFC emissions are responsible for it's disappearance.

This whole argument is just another example of how easily it is to dupe idiots with no science background with side show tricks. You accept a long half-life of O3 but never question why it isn't well mixed within at least the stratosphere. And when questioned about it, you make up arguments from your opponent to rail against.

Maybe CFC's do destroy ozone, but so what. It decomposes in minutes and is replenished almost immediately during daylight hours. Look back at the video I provided...it shows the ozone hole increasing as less and less light becomes available to make more. The ozone hole is a hoax and only the bases idiots fell for it.

 

[SSDD]

On top of that, pH changes recently have taken place at a rate unprecedented in Earth's history. But you seem to think that means nothing.

Of course it means something...but not what you think it means. Unprecedented in earth's history? Even when atmospheric CO2 levels were 1000ppm, 2000ppm, 3000ppm, 4000ppm, 5000ppm, 6000ppm, 7000ppm???

You failed to read what you should have read.

Earth's history is the key phrase there you idiot. If the rate is unprecedented, then it isn't atmospheric CO2 that is causing it....and don't even try to tell me that a proxy exists that will tell you at what rate atmospheric CO2 levels have changed prior to the beginning of the present ice age. The statement is made up bullshit based on nothing more than a political bias.

 

[SSDD]

These people simply lack any ability to think for themselves. Imagine, believing that the rate of ocean acidification is unprecedented in the history of the earth when the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half of what it was at the beginning of the present ice age and it was low, relatively speaking even then.

Read this you incredible fool.

A review by climate scientists at the RealClimate blog, of a 2005 report by the Royal Society of the UK similarly highlighted the centrality of the rates of change in the present anthropogenic acidification process, writing:[38]

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

And how long is the Vostok record? It records the decent into an ice age where atmospheric CO2 is naturally going to be decreasing. How stupid are you? Do you think the earth formed during the period the Vostok record covers and there was nothing prior to the beginning of the ice age? The Vostok data records the descent of the earth into an ice age, and just a little bit of its exit from an ice age. You have no idea what the normal is for coming out of an ice age and yet you believe that you do because you can see the emperor's clothes.

 

[Crick]

The same may be seen ANYWHERE in the geological record. As I posted here earlier, the geological evidence indicates that the rate of ocean acidification between 1751 and today is greater than any in the last 300 million years. CaCO3 compensation via weathering is unable to keep up and ocean pH will spike as it has never spiked before.

You are the most perfect example of that Dunning Kruger effect I have ever seen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gotta give you credit not only didn't you stop digging, you dug yourself down the Laurentian abyss.

Your articles state that 40% "of the CO2 released by humans" is what turning the oceans to gastric juice.

Don't you see its physically impossible for that to happen?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

Explain yourself. Tell us why that's physically impossible.

How much CO2 is released by humans?

Take 40% of that number

OK. Start there

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Gotta give you credit not only didn't you stop digging, you dug yourself down the Laurentian abyss.

Your articles state that 40% "of the CO2 released by humans" is what turning the oceans to gastric juice.

Don't you see its physically impossible for that to happen?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

Explain yourself. Tell us why that's physically impossible.

How much CO2 is released by humans?

Take 40% of that number

OK. Start there

Then, of course, we might want to consider the total VOLUME of the oceans.

And of course, it might help to ascertain how many parts per unit (CO2 in water) turns water into an acid akin to gastric juices.

All of that is just a small start, by the way.

Science, bitches.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Explain yourself. Tell us why that's physically impossible.

How much CO2 is released by humans?

Take 40% of that number

OK. Start there

Then, of course, we might want to consider the total VOLUME of the oceans.

And of course, it might help to ascertain how many parts per unit (CO2 in water) turns water into an acid akin to gastric juices.

All of that is just a small start, by the way.

Science, bitches.

Yeah, when they realized the error of their ways they changed it to "it's not the WHOLE OCEAN that's turning to acid, it's only the area we're measuring"

It's Fake Science from start to finish.

Also confusing is the entire concept of 40% of AGW CO2 being absorbed by the ocean, but that's for another time

 

[G.T.]

the study didn't say that

its say up to 30-40%

and didn't say just oceans

it mentioned oceans rivers and lakes

and it also said "some of it reacts" to form carbonic acid

not all of it


I know I know, you cant do nuance.

 

[jc456]

So where is your proof it is there? Ah......probably don't have any, just spouting off like normal.

jc, things never turn out well for those who choose the path of the personal vendetta. Not because of anything I do, but because my stalkers usually end up self-destructing out of frustration and bitterness. Instead of obsessing about me, think about walking away from the computer and doing something useful.

sure, you think you're some big bad message board dude, eh? Let me tell you something jack, I've asked and others have asked and still you have not provided any evidence, zip, nadda. Before you start flexing your itsy bitsy muscles, perhaps you could do one thing, prove your point!!!!! Hahahahahahaahaha you loser.

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on people. You're not being realistic here. Their computer models have simply failed in their predictions of doom and gloom scenarios of disappearing glaciers and ice caps and Greenland turned into a banana belt and inundation of coastal cities and all that. And with it being more and more difficult to sell the thinking public on a concept of global warming, they have to have some other kind of catastrophic scenario for scientists to study and write terrifying papers about in order to keep all those lovely billions of government money flowing into their bank accounts.

So I think ocean acidfication is probably the trial balloon they are floating to see if it will develop any legs.

 

[mamooth]

I gave you 5.

Zero is not 5. You're just lying now. Other than that advertisement, which doesn't count, you gave us no references at all stating that atmospheric ozone has a half life of minutes.

If O3 even had a half life of 24 hours it would be a well mixed gas within the stratosphere at least.

"Because I say so!", the only argument you ever have on any topic, is not particularly convincing to anyone outside of your cult.

I gave you a 9 month video of the ozone "hole" over antarctica. It clearly shows the hole forming and growing as the winter progresses....precisely as I stated. No UV...no ozone.

So now you're claiming that the ozone hole has zero ozone, and that it exactly matches the polar night? That's what your theory says must happen, that the night side must instantly go to zero ozone. And it doesn't happen. Not even close. Hence, your theory is a delusional crock of shit. That would be why the whole world laughs at it.

 

[mamooth]

sure, you think you're some big bad message board dude, eh?

Um, no. That's why I said your meltdown has nothing to do with what I do. I'm just pointing out you're melting down into incoherence. You're not even trying to talk about issues, you're just going totally obsessive about me.

If simple criticism of your suckass science and logic flusters you that badly, you might want to take a break. I'm just looking out for your welfare here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

the study didn't say that

its say up to 30-40%

and didn't say just oceans

it mentioned oceans rivers and lakes

and it also said "some of it reacts" to form carbonic acid

not all of it


I know I know, you cant do nuance.

LOL

Wait.

You think that was helpful?

I was being generous to your "Theory"

You clowns keep spewing the "30 gigatons of CO2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as if it's a big deal, but when you divide that by the volume of the ocean, it's less than a rounding error. If you take only 30% of it as you suggest it's even less; if you add in the rivers and streams, the number goes down even further

The mass of water in the oceans is 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg

Theres about 1000 kg in a ton so the 30 gigatons is about 3 *10 ^13, so you see how the math is not your friend even assuming 100% of the CO2 enters the oceans

Try not being a reflexive dupe.

Think it through, the AGWCult Theory makes no sense!

 

[G.T.]

the study didn't say that

its say up to 30-40%

and didn't say just oceans

it mentioned oceans rivers and lakes

and it also said "some of it reacts" to form carbonic acid

not all of it


I know I know, you cant do nuance.

LOL

Wait.

You think that was helpful?

I was being generous to your "Theory"

You clowns keep spewing the "30 gigatons of CO2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as if it's a big deal, but when you divide that by the volume of the ocean, it's less than a rounding error. If you take only 30% of it as you suggest it's even less; if you add in the rivers and streams, the number goes down even further

The mass of water in the oceans is 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg

Try not being a reflexive dupe.

Think it through, the AGWCult Theory makes no sense!

Your posts read like this:

hurr dee durr, derpa derpa Obama is a mooslim....

her deeee derr, I hate my life the pres is a Kenyan!!!!!! bases on the moon!@!@




so, shut the fuck up. kindly.

regards,

yo dad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

the study didn't say that

its say up to 30-40%

and didn't say just oceans

it mentioned oceans rivers and lakes

and it also said "some of it reacts" to form carbonic acid

not all of it


I know I know, you cant do nuance.

LOL

Wait.

You think that was helpful?

I was being generous to your "Theory"

You clowns keep spewing the "30 gigatons of CO2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as if it's a big deal, but when you divide that by the volume of the ocean, it's less than a rounding error. If you take only 30% of it as you suggest it's even less; if you add in the rivers and streams, the number goes down even further

The mass of water in the oceans is 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg

Try not being a reflexive dupe.

Think it through, the AGWCult Theory makes no sense!

Your posts read like this:

hurr dee durr, derpa derpa Obama is a mooslim....

her deeee derr, I hate my life the pres is a Kenyan!!!!!! bases on the moon!@!@




so, shut the fuck up. kindly.

regards,

yo dad.

I said don't be a reflexive Dupe.

I tired to help.

 

[jc456]

the study didn't say that

its say up to 30-40%

and didn't say just oceans

it mentioned oceans rivers and lakes

and it also said "some of it reacts" to form carbonic acid

not all of it


I know I know, you cant do nuance.

LOL

Wait.

You think that was helpful?

I was being generous to your "Theory"

You clowns keep spewing the "30 gigatons of CO2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as if it's a big deal, but when you divide that by the volume of the ocean, it's less than a rounding error. If you take only 30% of it as you suggest it's even less; if you add in the rivers and streams, the number goes down even further

The mass of water in the oceans is 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg

Try not being a reflexive dupe.

Think it through, the AGWCult Theory makes no sense!

Your posts read like this:

hurr dee durr, derpa derpa Obama is a mooslim....

her deeee derr, I hate my life the pres is a Kenyan!!!!!! bases on the moon!@!@




so, shut the fuck up. kindly.

regards,

yo dad.

Do you need an aspirin? Seems your brain is gone.