Working to cope with climate change

[Trakar]

Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists. They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.

That continues to be your conspiracy theory.

No theory.

I stand corrected, given the unsupportive character of the evidences offered, this is indeed not a "theory," but merely a very weak hypothesis, lacking in evidences and contradicted by every governmental, academic and scientific review of the email, the science, and the researchers involved in producing the emails.

It was revealed in emails.

The only thing revealed in CRU emails is that researchers are human, and that some denialists will resort to extreme criminal means to distort, lie and libel with regards to those they disagree with.

Pretty obvious to all but the faithers.

The only faithers I see are those who are denying science without any compelling evidences simply because they don't like the implications of what the science signifies.

 

[bobgnote]

OK, you went 1,2,3,4,5,6, without a single link. Maybe your searches are always slow, like mine are, today. I keep getting the message, 'not connected to the internet,' since a lot of people must be tangled up with happy skeptics, in traffic.

Your head is up your ass, Tard1211. Meanwhile, eat some number 2:

You don't admit to any carbonic acidification, at all. Why should you care, about how CO2 has migrated, from 275 ppm (industrial age) to 400 ppm, and acidification is a dire threat?

You don't post links, and my internet is slow, on Saturday. I don't know why an asshole like you claims to be scientific, much less an engineer, since you haven't a pragmatic bone, in your lousy body, which is squid-like and flexible enough, for your head to fit in your butt.

When the internet works well enough, YOU post some links, punk. You are like any other punk on parade, in his speedos, who wants bath-houses, because your gay forebears all had bath-houses, and just because we have all heard about your speed and butt-sex and egregious passing of HIV, you object to how the baths had to close!

Aw, the economy might have to get some other numbers, when the petrol companies don't pay you or other idiots, like you, to be idiots, who don't post links. My internet is punk, today. YOU go get a link, punk-hole. You haven't posted a link or a link-reference report, this whole thread!

 

[Trakar]

Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?

I've been asking for years now

memory a problem?

I gave you several such experiments last year when you repeated this trope, surely you haven't forgotten already?! The only difference now is that you've added in a pH stipulation.

Very well, I assume you recall the temperature experiment from before confirming GHG action, so I'll just address the pH issue this time.

Fill a container to the halfway point with filtered sea-water.

seal, shake well and let settle, this is your control.

take two additional containers prepared in the same manner. Into one container flush the air and replace with pure Nitrogen. in the other container displace the appropriate amount of atmosphere to correctly approximate a change in atmospheric composition equal to change from pre-industrial levels to current levels (120ppm/280ppm = roughly a 42.9% increase, given today's ~ 400ppm level, that means that you will need to add enough CO2 to bring the containers atmospheric CO2 component to approximately 571ppm CO2). Shake the sealed containers vigorously and then allow them to all sit quietly for about an hour. Using good laboratory procedures carefully extract samples of the seawater and test sample pH with appropriately sensitive pH analysis equipment.

previous experimentation and science understanding indicate that the control will read a pH of about 8.1, the sample from the Nitrogen replacement atmosphere will read significantly higher as the CO2 is depleted in that test sample (how much more will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement), The CO2 enhanced sample will read significantly lower than the control due to the additional CO2 in the sample (again, how much lower will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement).

 

[Trakar]

You can look up my posts in this very forum. To give you an index, my scientific concerns and doubts boil down to:

1) Never in my science/engineering life have I seen such a complex interdisciplinity problem be boiled down to one nebulous number -- that's the Mean Global Surface Temperature. I DOUBT that we have a sufficiently accurate pre-satellite record of this prior to about 1970. I doubt we could ever agree on that single number because of the difficulty of defining locations, sampling methods, calibrations, irregularities and such. And I doubt that one simple number varying in the 2nd decimal place tells us as much about the problem as the AGW cult wants us to believe. It's more complex than that.

Gratuitous demonization of those who have different understandings than your own predisposes one to not afford proper and appropriate consideration of their arguments and perspectives. If you don't enter such discussions with at the least, a willingness to entertain considerations different than those you currently hold then you are unlikely to learn anything you don't already know.

Again, I would prefer to deal with each issue in detail, one at a time, but as you have listed several at once, I will quip a comment or two upon each one and then we can work our way through the list successively in subsequent more focussed and detailed examination.

My comments on the first item would largely begin with the question of what you state should not be considered an argument from personal incredulity? (Argument from Personal Incredulity - "I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true." For instance, creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.)*

2) I have doubts about the contribution of CO2. In fact, the equation for heating due to CO2 is not linear. It flattens out at a concentration change that we've yet to determined in the atmosphere. But more importantly the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone is determined by it's spectral absorption. The bands at which CO2 insulates heat are almost identical to water vapor except for 1 maybe 2 spots in the spectrum. Therefore -- in the presence of even MODERATE concentrations of water vapor, the effect of CO2 heat is filtered out. See the next item.{/quote]

This seems a confused mix of fact, misunderstanding and error, but explaining and discussing the topic will require a pretty hefty delve into chemistry, physics and atmospheric dynamics. I have no problem in engaging in such a discussion, but it is going to require a bit more than undergrad level understandings in these areas to comfortably absorb and integrate. I'm up for it if you are!

3) We know JACK about the spectral emission of our sun.
Attempts to study the emissions bands are difficult to impossible when observing thru the very atmosphere that we're trying to determine filtering properties. That's why our REAL knowledge of shifts in solar spectrum begins about 1980 with the 1st GOOD Orbiting Solar Observatories. It's SO interesting and valuable that every country except Zimbabwe has launched one. We know that power cycles, spot cycles, radiation cycles are over long -- perhaps 12 to 100 year cycles. We've only had the TOOLS for 30 years. You might remember that we KNOW the sun is gonna go thru cycles of color (emissions spectrum) from yellow to red. We don't know about subtle shifts in frequencies that change the "greenhouse power" of various gases in the atmosphere. A simple shift in ONE LINE of that spectra could make almost ANY gas the culprit..

"we know JACK about the spectral emission of our sun" - in comparison to our knowledge about what? Unfortunately, there is the incredulity issue again and much the same problem as the previous issue, this statement appears to consist of fact, misunderstanding and error (according to mainstream scientific understandings) bizarrely woven together into some picassonian abstraction. No offense intended, I'm certain that if these were my impressions and understandings of the science involved, I would not be just skeptical, I would probably be derisively dismissive as well.

4) I can't avoid the obvious attempts to falsify and misrepresent data...

The "obvious" nature of what you perceive is borne more out of the biases brought to the issue. In particular, the lies and distortions of presentation made by those you perceive to share your world-view. I can understand that you may make the same statement with regards to my position. By what objective measures can we compare which perspective most closely approximates reality?

5) There are important experiments that SHOULD confirm greenhouse theory that don't show the efffect. My favorite is the "night-time cooling" studies done in the deserts without the presence of the sun to simplify the experimental set-up. You SHOULD see night-time low temperatures trending higher with the CO2 increase. The data aren't obvious. A 2nd is that you SHOULD see not only surface, but atmospheric temperature increases tracking as well. THey do -- but nowhere near the GH models..

Please cite and reference the studies and discrepancies you assert. Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.

6) A couple degC / century change ought to be something we can mitigate without HOBBLING the entire world economy...

There are several problems that this (a couple deg C/century change) understates. Our planetary environment is such that ice-sheets to the equator and deserts to the poles conditions are only seperated by a span of about 15-20º C. The geologic record tells us that natural climate changes in our planet's past, at their most rapid, tended to only average 1º C/1-10ky. Current rates of increase are 0.2º C/decade and accelerating. The longer action is forestalled the more difficult and expensive it will be to take any action. Wait long enough and there will be no action we can take to avoid or ameliorate the consequences, once the natural feedback trigger points are reached there will be nothing anyone can do to slow down, or reverse this process and nature will take over what we initiated.

Any one of my list items you want to set me straight on????

I'm not trying to straighten you out about anything, I just want to understand what you understand and why, and I will share what I understand and why I have those understandings. Its more about finding out what information and evidence we each use to support the areas were we individually disagree, and what common ground areas we share.

*Skeptics Guide to the Universe - "top 20 logical fallacies" - Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When somebody posts a link to how Al Gore and politicians and regulations generate circle-jerk media, I'll put it right up. As for science, my links are all good. Go back and read some.

I'm glad you know how to user hyperlinks.

That's right, Pooplemeyer! I like to find an issue, get a current news item or scientific report, and apply those, to show why we need to re-green, in the case of climate change, AGW, acidification, or even other issues.

So why don't you tell me, why do you reply, to my posts, in the useless, one-line way you did this twice, which suggests you do not subscribe to either my disgust with Al Gore's refusal to endorse specific re-greening or hemp, or to my disgust with his simultaneous profiteering, at global warming controversy, which has ripened into a real nuisance, while the CO2 has increased, to 400 ppm, in Arctic areas:

Arctic CO2 Hitting 400ppm - Greenland Sets New High Temperature Record for May : TreeHugger

I repeat: Al Gore refused to endorse legal hemp, his entire time, as Senator or Veep. Al Gore goes up as AGW-mogul, before Congress, and doofuses how he is 'emotional.' If you like Al, or you are having trouble understanding why his famous intransigence for the drug war swings against CO2-neutral hemp, for CO2 emitters, go ahead and make some specific post about this. Your one-liners merely suggest you don't think well, but you are afraid to comment, on the context of my posts, expressing disgust, with Gore.

I only suspect you have an issue, which you will not reveal, but here's a link:

Henry Ford And Roudolph Diesel - Hemp History Video

Do YOU have a real comment, which would allow me, to reply to a question you have? Because you are commenting, without real information, I am inferring you have an issue, you refuse to reveal. But I am interested, in all this. Go ahead and spill it. Is it a girly thing, I don't get to know?

I don't really give a shit about Al Gore.

 

[westwall]

Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser
Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser | NOLA.com

...When extreme weather hits, communities suffer in myriad ways: homes are destroyed, businesses lost, ecosystems ravaged. As the heads of a national energy company and a global humanitarian organization, we've seen the damages first hand, and engaged in the painstaking and often dangerous work of recovery and restoration. We believe it's time to rally together to recognize the dangers of a changing climate, and to invest in reducing risk and building resilience.

At Entergy, we have a unique perspective on climate change. Our product -- power -- is vital to the public good. Extreme weather puts the reliability of our product at risk, and we must work with our communities to prepare for and respond to these hazards.

At Oxfam, we work to find lasting solutions to global poverty -- and the weather is literally working against us. Of the 820 disasters recorded last year, 90 percent were related to severe weather. Climate change is playing a role in this, and it's the poorest -- at home and around the world -- who are affected most acutely, and find their struggle against poverty increasingly difficult...

...Our country has been slow to accept the reality and risks of climate change. But it is absolutely essential at this point. With Oxfam, Entergy has joined companies representing a range of sectors -- insurance to finance, apparel to food -- to promote the importance of taking action. We believe that responsible business practices and strong policies will help us prepare for and respond to climate change. Failing to act will mean much greater costs later -- in dollars and cents, and in human suffering.

No matter our different perspectives, we end up at the same place: determined to act together to improve our ability to cope with the profound effects of climate change. The choice is ours to make; the time to make it is now.

••••••••

J. Wayne Leonard is CEO of Entergy Corp. and Raymond C. Offenheiser is president of Oxfam America.

It seems your concerns are unfounded.....



On the linkage between tropospheric and Polar Stratospheric clouds in the Arctic as observed by space–borne lidar

P. Achtert, M. Karlsson Andersson, F. Khosrawi, and J. Gumbel
Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract. The type of Polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) as well as their temporal and spatial extent are important for the occurrence of heterogeneous reactions in the polar stratosphere. The formation of PSCs depends strongly on temperature. However, the mechanisms of the formation of solid PSCs are still poorly understood. Recent satellite studies of Antarctic PSCs have shown that their formation can be associated with deep-tropospheric clouds which have the ability to cool the lower stratosphere radiatively and/or adiabatically. In the present study, lidar measurements aboard the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite were used to investigate whether the formation of Arctic PSCs can be associated with deep-tropospheric clouds as well. Deep-tropospheric cloud systems have a vertical extent of more than 6.5 km with a cloud top height above 7 km altitude. PSCs observed by CALIPSO during the Arctic winter 2007/2008 were classified according to their type (STS, NAT, or ice) and to the kind of underlying tropospheric clouds. Our analysis reveals that 172 out of 211 observed PSCs occurred in connection with tropospheric clouds. 72% of these 172 observed PSCs occurred above deep-tropospheric clouds. We also find that the type of PSC seems to be connected to the characteristics of the underlying tropospheric cloud system. During the Arctic winter 2007/2008 PSCs consisting of ice were mainly observed in connection with deep-tropospheric cloud systems while no ice PSC was detected above cirrus. Furthermore, we find no correlation between the occurrence of PSCs and the top temperature of tropospheric clouds. Thus, our findings suggest that Arctic PSC formation is connected to adiabatice cooling, i.e. dynamic effects rather than radiative cooling.



http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/3791/2012/acp-12-3791-2012.html

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory.

There are no complete theories of anything.

[flacaltenn]

Then how come the AGW leadership is whining about "settled science" and trying to stifle dissent? Which is it Oopie? Settled or incomplete?? I really need you to tell me.

You'll have to be more specific about who said what and what they said before I could even begin to anwer that.

That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..

You just keep believing we're the nuts...

Holes such as?

You can look up my posts in this very forum. To give you an index, my scientific concerns and doubts boil down to:

1) Never in my science/engineering life have I seen such a complex interdisciplinity problem be boiled down to one nebulous number -- that's the Mean Global Surface Temperature. I DOUBT that we have a sufficiently accurate pre-satellite record of this prior to about 1970. I doubt we could ever agree on that single number because of the difficulty of defining locations, sampling methods, calibrations, irregularities and such. And I doubt that one simple number varying in the 2nd decimal place tells us as much about the problem as the AGW cult wants us to believe. It's more complex than that.

I'm sorry, but having a number called the global mean temperature and having it vary in the 2nd decimal place isn't proof or disproof of anythig. Youre 1) point is really just laughable, it boils down to "I feel like this number is silly, and I'm an enigeer, I should know!"

2) I have doubts about the contribution of CO2. In fact, the equation for heating due to CO2 is not linear. It flattens out at a concentration change that we've yet to determined in the atmosphere. But more importantly the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone is determined by it's spectral absorption. The bands at which CO2 insulates heat are almost identical to water vapor except for 1 maybe 2 spots in the spectrum. Therefore -- in the presence of even MODERATE concentrations of water vapor, the effect of CO2 heat is filtered out. See the next item.

No one is disputing the non-linear response of atmopsheric IR absorption due to CO2 or any other gas.

3) We know JACK about the spectral emission of our sun.. Attempts to study the emissions bands are difficult to impossible when observing thru the very atmosphere that we're trying to determine filtering properties. That's why our REAL knowledge of shifts in solar spectrum begins about 1980 with the 1st GOOD Orbiting Solar Observatories. It's SO interesting and valuable that every country except Zimbabwe has launched one. We know that power cycles, spot cycles, radiation cycles are over long -- perhaps 12 to 100 year cycles. We've only had the TOOLS for 30 years. You might remember that we KNOW the sun is gonna go thru cycles of color (emissions spectrum) from yellow to red. We don't know about subtle shifts in frequencies that change the "greenhouse power" of various gases in the atmosphere. A simple shift in ONE LINE of that spectra could make almost ANY gas the culprit..

Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.

4) I can't avoid the obvious attempts to falsify and misrepresent data. Hand-picking trees for tree-rings studies should be a capital offense when this much money and time has been wasted on INTENTIONALLY fraudalent data. THAT -- and the political shenanigans and the masses of 3rd world countries SCREAMING for money in the name of AGW -- just makes me a skeptic by itself.. It's disgusting and the biggest abuse of science in my lifetime.

You'll need to be more speficic about what you're talking about.

Tree rings have diverged from real temperatures since 1960. Its a well known problem. No one has attempted to cover it up or hide that.

5) There are important experiments that SHOULD confirm greenhouse theory that don't show the efffect. My favorite is the "night-time cooling" studies done in the deserts without the presence of the sun to simplify the experimental set-up. You SHOULD see night-time low temperatures trending higher with the CO2 increase. The data aren't obvious. A 2nd is that you SHOULD see not only surface, but atmospheric temperature increases tracking as well. THey do -- but nowhere near the GH models..

Please be more specific. "They" and "the GH models" just isn't anything I can validate for myself.

6) A couple degC / century change ought to be something we can mitigate without HOBBLING the entire world economy.

??? It is. Uhh HELLO DUDE, It is the skeptics that claim efforts to curb global warming will hobble the world's economy. Jeez.

Obviously, the promoters of this circus don't WANT to solve it -- or we'd have 180 new nuclear plants in this country yesterday.THAT should tell you how THEY assess the relative risks between the Earth's "fever" and nuclear paranoia. Furthermore, the claims of what we're seeing now range from increased hemmoroids to total annilation -- and are grounded very LITTLE in any real science. They've been debunked, reputed, shot-down repeatedly. The adults are not in charge.

There you have it folks - the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING MUCH BE INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

Well that just about does it for me, I've heard enough.

Let me know if that's enough for you to ALLOW me to be a skeptic. I'd sure appreciate your approval and sanction to question the morons behind the circus.....

What do you need my approval for?

 

[flacaltenn]

Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?

I've been asking for years now

memory a problem?

I gave you several such experiments last year when you repeated this trope, surely you haven't forgotten already?! The only difference now is that you've added in a pH stipulation.

Very well, I assume you recall the temperature experiment from before confirming GHG action, so I'll just address the pH issue this time.

Fill a container to the halfway point with filtered sea-water.

seal, shake well and let settle, this is your control.

take two additional containers prepared in the same manner. Into one container flush the air and replace with pure Nitrogen. in the other container displace the appropriate amount of atmosphere to correctly approximate a change in atmospheric composition equal to change from pre-industrial levels to current levels (120ppm/280ppm = roughly a 42.9% increase, given today's ~ 400ppm level, that means that you will need to add enough CO2 to bring the containers atmospheric CO2 component to approximately 571ppm CO2). Shake the sealed containers vigorously and then allow them to all sit quietly for about an hour. Using good laboratory procedures carefully extract samples of the seawater and test sample pH with appropriately sensitive pH analysis equipment.

previous experimentation and science understanding indicate that the control will read a pH of about 8.1, the sample from the Nitrogen replacement atmosphere will read significantly higher as the CO2 is depleted in that test sample (how much more will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement), The CO2 enhanced sample will read significantly lower than the control due to the additional CO2 in the sample (again, how much lower will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement).

Trakar --
I don't doubt that OA (acidification) is happening. But your little experiment is limited to grade school utility compared to the magnitude of the analysis that is being done. For starters, the OA is primarily a SURFACE phenomenom. And mixing with deep water occurs constantly. In addition, the buffering in the ocean depends on HUGE deposits of Calcium buffering on the floor (tum and rolaids for Neptune).

Yeah it needs to be understood.. But right now -- the equal logical conclusion is that PH is changing due to FRESH WATER intrusion (much more acidic) -- ie the melting polar ice...

 

[flacaltenn]

Non-responsive oopiedoo' --- I got as far as the part where you CLAIM you don't know who was shouting "shut -up, the science is settled"...

I need to know whether you still think "all theories are incomplete" or "the science is settled"...

I WANT to debate/discuss with you --- but don't bait me or waste my time.. I've got to go watch a Nancy Pelosi special -- I hear she's gonna give Al Gore some advice on dating...

Please copy/paste/edit and take out the pretend stupidity.. Gosh I hope it's only "pretend"... THEN I can tell how phoney AGW scientists examined tree rings from 100 cut trees in Russia and hand-picked the 20 or so that fit their theory of lower surface temp. And how THAT data got all exposed in Al Gores' fantasy film that helped win him a Nobel prize...

Another clue as to how much YOU MIGHT LEARN if you weren't just flirting with me... All that talk I did about spectral absorption of CO2 and the spectrum of solar radiation HAS NOTHING to do with plot of solar irradiance. The learning we have to do concerns the "color" of sunlight and the variation in different bands of frequencies like the visible light, the infra-red and maybe even the UV spectrum...

Cheers pal --- I know you're trying...

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting that tree rings are considered gospel up until 1960. Then those pesky trees became unreliable. One day solar flares are the Faithers line of defense, the next it means nothing. Dodging the AGW settled science point was lame at best.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?

I've been asking for years now

memory a problem?

I gave you several such experiments last year when you repeated this trope, surely you haven't forgotten already?! The only difference now is that you've added in a pH stipulation.

Very well, I assume you recall the temperature experiment from before confirming GHG action, so I'll just address the pH issue this time.

Fill a container to the halfway point with filtered sea-water.

seal, shake well and let settle, this is your control.

take two additional containers prepared in the same manner. Into one container flush the air and replace with pure Nitrogen. in the other container displace the appropriate amount of atmosphere to correctly approximate a change in atmospheric composition equal to change from pre-industrial levels to current levels (120ppm/280ppm = roughly a 42.9% increase, given today's ~ 400ppm level, that means that you will need to add enough CO2 to bring the containers atmospheric CO2 component to approximately 571ppm CO2). Shake the sealed containers vigorously and then allow them to all sit quietly for about an hour. Using good laboratory procedures carefully extract samples of the seawater and test sample pH with appropriately sensitive pH analysis equipment.

previous experimentation and science understanding indicate that the control will read a pH of about 8.1, the sample from the Nitrogen replacement atmosphere will read significantly higher as the CO2 is depleted in that test sample (how much more will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement), The CO2 enhanced sample will read significantly lower than the control due to the additional CO2 in the sample (again, how much lower will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement).

Trakar --
I don't doubt that OA (acidification) is happening. But your little experiment is limited to grade school utility compared to the magnitude of the analysis that is being done. For starters, the OA is primarily a SURFACE phenomenom. And mixing with deep water occurs constantly. In addition, the buffering in the ocean depends on HUGE deposits of Calcium buffering on the floor (tum and rolaids for Neptune).

Yeah it needs to be understood.. But right now -- the equal logical conclusion is that PH is changing due to FRESH WATER intrusion (much more acidic) -- ie the melting polar ice...

Flat, have you ever considered a little research before you embarress yourself?

Northwest Oyster Die-offs Show Ocean Acidification Has Arrived by Elizabeth Grossman: Yale Environment 360

Ocean acidification — which makes it difficult for shellfish, corals, sea urchins, and other creatures to form the shells or calcium-based structures
The region’s thriving oyster hatcheries have had to scramble to adapt to these increases in acidity.
they need to live — was supposed to be a problem of the future. But because of patterns of ocean circulation, Pacific Northwest shellfish are already on the front lines of these potentially devastating changes in ocean chemistry. Colder, more acidic waters are welling up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean and streaming ashore in the fjords, bays, and estuaries of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, exacting an environmental and economic toll on the region’s famed oysters.
For the past six years, wild oysters in Willapa Bay, Washington, have failed to reproduce successfully because corrosive waters have prevented oyster larvae from forming shells. Wild oysters in Puget Sound and off the east coast of Vancouver Island also have experienced reproductive failure because of acidic waters. Other wild oyster beds in the Pacific Northwest have sustained losses in recent years at the same time that scientists have been measuring alarmingly corrosive water along the Pacific coast.

 

[bobgnote]

Trakar --
I don't doubt that OA (acidification) is happening. But your little experiment is limited to grade school utility compared to the magnitude of the analysis that is being done. For starters, the OA is primarily a SURFACE phenomenom. And mixing with deep water occurs constantly. In addition, the buffering in the ocean depends on HUGE deposits of Calcium buffering on the floor (tum and rolaids for Neptune).

Yeah it needs to be understood.. But right now -- the equal logical conclusion is that PH is changing due to FRESH WATER intrusion (much more acidic) -- ie the melting polar ice...

It's been a couple of days, since I tried to get you, fathead, to address carbonic acidification. Since you are finally after it, hit your own search, and do your own science, if you don't like what somebody did for you, when you have spam after spam post, ignoring carbonic acid. So now, you want somebody to write a dissertation!

Acid has an affinity for cold water, fathead. Go ahead and do your own search! You hang out here, a lot. You claim to be an engineer. But you are too fucking queer, to do your own homework. Unbunch your damn panties and do a search, choo-choo bitch!

Damn! O.R. popped one right before I replied. Read O.R., punk!

 

[westwall]

memory a problem?

I gave you several such experiments last year when you repeated this trope, surely you haven't forgotten already?! The only difference now is that you've added in a pH stipulation.

Very well, I assume you recall the temperature experiment from before confirming GHG action, so I'll just address the pH issue this time.

Fill a container to the halfway point with filtered sea-water.

seal, shake well and let settle, this is your control.

take two additional containers prepared in the same manner. Into one container flush the air and replace with pure Nitrogen. in the other container displace the appropriate amount of atmosphere to correctly approximate a change in atmospheric composition equal to change from pre-industrial levels to current levels (120ppm/280ppm = roughly a 42.9% increase, given today's ~ 400ppm level, that means that you will need to add enough CO2 to bring the containers atmospheric CO2 component to approximately 571ppm CO2). Shake the sealed containers vigorously and then allow them to all sit quietly for about an hour. Using good laboratory procedures carefully extract samples of the seawater and test sample pH with appropriately sensitive pH analysis equipment.

previous experimentation and science understanding indicate that the control will read a pH of about 8.1, the sample from the Nitrogen replacement atmosphere will read significantly higher as the CO2 is depleted in that test sample (how much more will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement), The CO2 enhanced sample will read significantly lower than the control due to the additional CO2 in the sample (again, how much lower will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement).

Trakar --
I don't doubt that OA (acidification) is happening. But your little experiment is limited to grade school utility compared to the magnitude of the analysis that is being done. For starters, the OA is primarily a SURFACE phenomenom. And mixing with deep water occurs constantly. In addition, the buffering in the ocean depends on HUGE deposits of Calcium buffering on the floor (tum and rolaids for Neptune).

Yeah it needs to be understood.. But right now -- the equal logical conclusion is that PH is changing due to FRESH WATER intrusion (much more acidic) -- ie the melting polar ice...

Flat, have you ever considered a little research before you embarress yourself?

Northwest Oyster Die-offs Show Ocean Acidification Has Arrived by Elizabeth Grossman: Yale Environment 360

Ocean acidification — which makes it difficult for shellfish, corals, sea urchins, and other creatures to form the shells or calcium-based structures
The region’s thriving oyster hatcheries have had to scramble to adapt to these increases in acidity.
they need to live — was supposed to be a problem of the future. But because of patterns of ocean circulation, Pacific Northwest shellfish are already on the front lines of these potentially devastating changes in ocean chemistry. Colder, more acidic waters are welling up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean and streaming ashore in the fjords, bays, and estuaries of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, exacting an environmental and economic toll on the region’s famed oysters.
For the past six years, wild oysters in Willapa Bay, Washington, have failed to reproduce successfully because corrosive waters have prevented oyster larvae from forming shells. Wild oysters in Puget Sound and off the east coast of Vancouver Island also have experienced reproductive failure because of acidic waters. Other wild oyster beds in the Pacific Northwest have sustained losses in recent years at the same time that scientists have been measuring alarmingly corrosive water along the Pacific coast.

Ummmmmm, no.....I think you need to keep up with the research there olfraud.


From the 2009 report.....


"Identified water quality/hatchery problems:
Shellfish hatcheries have historically used coarsely filtered but otherwise untreated seawater for larval culture with few problems, and larval shellfish have thrived in water in the Pacific Ocean and coastal estuaries. Upwelling of deep, cold, nutrient-rich water from the continental shelf off the coast of Oregon and Washington is typical during summer months in this region and drives high primary productivity.

Since 2003, however, higher than normal upwelling increased the extent and intensity of intrusions of deep acidic, hypoxic water off the Oregon and Washington coasts, and contributed to the formation of persistent dead zones. These events have resulted in fundamental changes in the character of our coastal bays, which contribute to high larval mortality throughout the entire year.

These fundamental changes in seawater quality influence a host of complex chemical interactions, many of which are not fully understood. However, recent research has identified at least four potential stressors that adversely affect shellfish larvae:

• Larval and juvenile shellfish are highly sensitive to acidic (low pH) seawater because their shells are formed from calcium carbonate, and dissolves when pH is low.

• Because this hypoxic and relatively acidic up-welled water is coming from deep basins and is cold (8 – 10 oC), it is saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen while at the same time being low in oxygen as a result of biological decomposition in the benthic zone. When hatcheries heat this gas-saturated seawater to 25 – 28 oC in order to meet the temperature requirements of young shellfish, the seawater becomes super-saturated. Preliminary experiments indicate that oyster larvae are very sensitive to gas super-saturation under these conditions.

• A third problem for shellfish hatcheries is the recent increase in the prevalence of a pathogenic bacterium (Vibrio tubiashii or Vt) that seems to out-compete other, more benign species in this distorted environment. Vt infections are lethal to shellfish larvae and juveniles. High levels of mortality in shellfish hatcheries and in the wild have been associated with high levels of Vt in 2006, 2007, and intermittently in previous years, such as in 1998 when environmental conditions favored disease outbreaks.

• There is potential for further stress to oyster seed given the difference between water conditions in the hatcheries where larvae are produced, and quality of water found in the remote settings where larvae set onto cultch (“mother shell”) are planted in the natural environment for grow-out.

So, in summary the causes are:

1. Deep water upwelling, bringing colder more CO2 saturated water to the surface is the root cause. Colder water holds more CO2, it is basic chemistry.



That deep benthic ocean water doesn’t interact with the atmosphere, but it is brought to the surface by changes in ocean current patterns such as ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which have nothing to do with the small (20 Parts Per Million) global increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last decade.

2. Heating of the water to make it suitable for tank aquaculture. They get the soda pop bottle on a warm day effect. The oyster larvae don’t like that. No surprise there.

3. A periodic pathogenic bacterium Vibrio tubiashii which seems to follow ocean patterns. What happened in 1998? Oh yeah, the biggest El Niño in modern times.

4. Stress with relocation into a different water environment. Anybody who has ever bought tropical fish, especially salt water fish, knows this problem.

It seems “…acidic seawater, caused by the ocean absorbing excessive amounts of CO2 from the air…” isn’t in this report."


Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association | Sustainably farmed oysters, clams, mussels & scallops

 

[flacaltenn]

Trakar:

Please cite and reference the studies and discrepancies you assert. Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.

I'm dissapointed that you chalk up all my points to ignorance of science. You ASSUME I haven't this.

Yet YOU let loose with this gem about "every study I'm aware of". Maybe you haven't read enough studies pal. Or maybe your knowledge of the studies is filtered thru the Huffington Post for all I know.

I don't want to play at this level. You should trust ME more and I want to trust YOU more. That way we don't hurl links at each other that maybe we don't understand.

I DO understand this one however. Lemme do you a big favor tonight -- because after you read the follow study -- you will NEVER again be able to honestly claim that ....

Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.

Per my #Whatever on desert night-time low temperatures correlating with increasing CO2. I can't find the BETTER study that confirms this right now, but this one is easier to read anyway..


A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.


Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.

Spoiler alert -- no important correlation with CO2 increase..

Read the conclusion first and validate to your hearts content. Researchers are having a hard time confirming the increase in desert night-time lows that SHOULD BE in the temp record as CO2 increases. Maybe because the GH effect is coupled to changes in solar spectrum (my #whatever in the list)????

BTW: Pardon my frustration, I've posted this crap for so many different people, that I'm tired of the repetition..

 

[westwall]

Trakar:

Please cite and reference the studies and discrepancies you assert. Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.

I'm dissapointed that you chalk up all my points to ignorance of science. You ASSUME I haven't this.

Yet YOU let loose with this gem about "every study I'm aware of". Maybe you haven't read enough studies pal. Or maybe your knowledge of the studies is filtered thru the Huffington Post for all I know.

I don't want to play at this level. You should trust ME more and I want to trust YOU more. That way we don't hurl links at each other that maybe we don't understand.

I DO understand this one however. Lemme do you a big favor tonight -- because after you read the follow study -- you will NEVER be able to claim that ....

Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.

Per my #Whatever on desert night-time low temperatures correlating with increasing CO2. I can't find the BETTER study that confirms this right now, but this one is easier to read anyway..


A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.


Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.

Read the conclusion first and validate to your hearts content. Researchers are having a hard time confirming the increase in desert night-time lows that SHOULD BE in the temp record as CO2 increases. Maybe because the GH effect is coupled to changes in solar spectrum (my #whatever in the list)????

BTW: Pardon my frustration, I've posted this crap for so many different people, that I'm tired of the repetition..

Trakars knowledge of the subject is severly limited by a willfull ignorance on his part.

 

[flacaltenn]

<WestWall>
Thanks for that save... You'll get credit for the kill back at the base..

OleRocks -- Don't make me do this.. it's late and you're forcing me to horse picture upload to USMB for nothing. "... CO2 welling up from deeper, colder waters...." is NOT ACID. It has to disassociate to contribute to PH. In fact, it''s part of the 440GTons of CO2 that the OCEANS contribute to GW every year. (it's a net sink, but what the oceans pump into the atmosphere dwarfs cow farts and man-made crap)

AGW OA occurs at the boundary of the interface. That would be the surface. The measured decrease in PH correlated with AGW effects will be driven now and in the future AT THE SURFACE!! It'll be a hundred years before the depths even see it...

Ocean Acidification

Based on the increase of atmospheric CO2 that has already occurred and on future increases, scientists have modeled future seawater chemistry. They have used knowledge of ocean currents and mixing, so that projections can be made for surface and deep waters. Although it is fairly complicated, the illustration in Figure 1 has been displayed in many places to illustrate the modeling of future pH changes. ..................... The bottom panel of the figure shows the pH in ocean waters from the surface to 4.5 km depth (4500 meters, about 15,000 feet) for the same time period.

Find the picture yourself dammit until I get uploaded...

 

[Old Rocks]

Trakar:

Please cite and reference the studies and discrepancies you assert. Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.

I'm dissapointed that you chalk up all my points to ignorance of science. You ASSUME I haven't this.

Yet YOU let loose with this gem about "every study I'm aware of". Maybe you haven't read enough studies pal. Or maybe your knowledge of the studies is filtered thru the Huffington Post for all I know.

I don't want to play at this level. You should trust ME more and I want to trust YOU more. That way we don't hurl links at each other that maybe we don't understand.

I DO understand this one however. Lemme do you a big favor tonight -- because after you read the follow study -- you will NEVER be able to claim that ....



Per my #Whatever on desert night-time low temperatures correlating with increasing CO2. I can't find the BETTER study that confirms this right now, but this one is easier to read anyway..


A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.


Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.

Read the conclusion first and validate to your hearts content. Researchers are having a hard time confirming the increase in desert night-time lows that SHOULD BE in the temp record as CO2 increases. Maybe because the GH effect is coupled to changes in solar spectrum (my #whatever in the list)????

BTW: Pardon my frustration, I've posted this crap for so many different people, that I'm tired of the repetition..

Trakars knowledge of the subject is severly limited by a willfull ignorance on his part.

LOL. Funny on your part, Walleyes. Trakar's acedemic background and life expreriances far exceed yours. As the quality of his posts demonstrate.

 

[Old Rocks]

<WestWall>
Thanks for that save... You'll get credit for the kill back at the base..

OleRocks -- Don't make me do this.. it's late and you're forcing me to horse picture upload to USMB for nothing. "... CO2 welling up from deeper, colder waters...." is NOT ACID. It has to disassociate to contribute to PH. In fact, it''s part of the 440GTons of CO2 that the OCEANS contribute to GW every year. (it's a net sink, but what the oceans pump into the atmosphere dwarfs cow farts and man-made crap)

AGW OA occurs at the boundary of the interface. That would be the surface. The measured decrease in PH correlated with AGW effects will be driven now and in the future AT THE SURFACE!! It'll be a hundred years before the depths even see it...

Ocean Acidification

Based on the increase of atmospheric CO2 that has already occurred and on future increases, scientists have modeled future seawater chemistry. They have used knowledge of ocean currents and mixing, so that projections can be made for surface and deep waters. Although it is fairly complicated, the illustration in Figure 1 has been displayed in many places to illustrate the modeling of future pH changes. ..................... The bottom panel of the figure shows the pH in ocean waters from the surface to 4.5 km depth (4500 meters, about 15,000 feet) for the same time period.

Find the picture yourself dammit until I get uploaded...

I posted an observed phenomonem, one studied by real scientists. If you don't like the observations, it still does not change them one whit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?

I've been asking for years now

memory a problem?

I gave you several such experiments last year when you repeated this trope, surely you haven't forgotten already?! The only difference now is that you've added in a pH stipulation.

Very well, I assume you recall the temperature experiment from before confirming GHG action, so I'll just address the pH issue this time.

Fill a container to the halfway point with filtered sea-water.

seal, shake well and let settle, this is your control.

take two additional containers prepared in the same manner. Into one container flush the air and replace with pure Nitrogen. in the other container displace the appropriate amount of atmosphere to correctly approximate a change in atmospheric composition equal to change from pre-industrial levels to current levels (120ppm/280ppm = roughly a 42.9% increase, given today's ~ 400ppm level, that means that you will need to add enough CO2 to bring the containers atmospheric CO2 component to approximately 571ppm CO2). Shake the sealed containers vigorously and then allow them to all sit quietly for about an hour. Using good laboratory procedures carefully extract samples of the seawater and test sample pH with appropriately sensitive pH analysis equipment.

previous experimentation and science understanding indicate that the control will read a pH of about 8.1, the sample from the Nitrogen replacement atmosphere will read significantly higher as the CO2 is depleted in that test sample (how much more will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement), The CO2 enhanced sample will read significantly lower than the control due to the additional CO2 in the sample (again, how much lower will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement).

Couldn't find an experiment at 120PPM CO2.

I understand

And, by the way, the Warmers who have added the "atmospheric CO2 is making the oceans turn acidic" condition, not me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

memory a problem?

I gave you several such experiments last year when you repeated this trope, surely you haven't forgotten already?! The only difference now is that you've added in a pH stipulation.

Very well, I assume you recall the temperature experiment from before confirming GHG action, so I'll just address the pH issue this time.

Fill a container to the halfway point with filtered sea-water.

seal, shake well and let settle, this is your control.

take two additional containers prepared in the same manner. Into one container flush the air and replace with pure Nitrogen. in the other container displace the appropriate amount of atmosphere to correctly approximate a change in atmospheric composition equal to change from pre-industrial levels to current levels (120ppm/280ppm = roughly a 42.9% increase, given today's ~ 400ppm level, that means that you will need to add enough CO2 to bring the containers atmospheric CO2 component to approximately 571ppm CO2). Shake the sealed containers vigorously and then allow them to all sit quietly for about an hour. Using good laboratory procedures carefully extract samples of the seawater and test sample pH with appropriately sensitive pH analysis equipment.

previous experimentation and science understanding indicate that the control will read a pH of about 8.1, the sample from the Nitrogen replacement atmosphere will read significantly higher as the CO2 is depleted in that test sample (how much more will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement), The CO2 enhanced sample will read significantly lower than the control due to the additional CO2 in the sample (again, how much lower will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement).

Trakar --
I don't doubt that OA (acidification) is happening. But your little experiment is limited to grade school utility compared to the magnitude of the analysis that is being done. For starters, the OA is primarily a SURFACE phenomenom. And mixing with deep water occurs constantly. In addition, the buffering in the ocean depends on HUGE deposits of Calcium buffering on the floor (tum and rolaids for Neptune).

Yeah it needs to be understood.. But right now -- the equal logical conclusion is that PH is changing due to FRESH WATER intrusion (much more acidic) -- ie the melting polar ice...

Flat, have you ever considered a little research before you embarress yourself?

Northwest Oyster Die-offs Show Ocean Acidification Has Arrived by Elizabeth Grossman: Yale Environment 360

Ocean acidification — which makes it difficult for shellfish, corals, sea urchins, and other creatures to form the shells or calcium-based structures
The region’s thriving oyster hatcheries have had to scramble to adapt to these increases in acidity.
they need to live — was supposed to be a problem of the future. But because of patterns of ocean circulation, Pacific Northwest shellfish are already on the front lines of these potentially devastating changes in ocean chemistry. Colder, more acidic waters are welling up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean and streaming ashore in the fjords, bays, and estuaries of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, exacting an environmental and economic toll on the region’s famed oysters.
For the past six years, wild oysters in Willapa Bay, Washington, have failed to reproduce successfully because corrosive waters have prevented oyster larvae from forming shells. Wild oysters in Puget Sound and off the east coast of Vancouver Island also have experienced reproductive failure because of acidic waters. Other wild oyster beds in the Pacific Northwest have sustained losses in recent years at the same time that scientists have been measuring alarmingly corrosive water along the Pacific coast.

Speaking of embarrassment.

If believe you've limited an increase in carbonic acid as the culprit, isn't the right way to test with 2 containers of harbor water and in the second you add a wisp of carbonic acid?

That's not what the "Experiment" did