Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Wysiwyg]

Carbon Dioxide - The Breath of Life

Maybe with the large amount of deforestation on the planet, nature has made the necessary adjustments. After all, the planet is a living organism constructed from multiple living organisms and we have observed constant balancing throughout existence to achieve the optimum life sustaining conditions.

 

[Calliope]

Thousands of climate change alarmists are gathered in Copenhagen to devise a way to save the earth from an apocalypse by limiting the output of CO2.

There must be a good reason why they don't take the easier and more eco-friendly path of limiting human population. You don't have to be an IPCC scientist to know that CO2 is not the problem. It is us. All the other species on earth would do fine without us.

 

[basilio]

Can you please show me the maths that proves 8.104 is 30% more acidic than 8.179.

If you punch in 30% increase in acidity in Google you will get a swathe of references. I found one last night that actually did the maths but can't find it again today. However the reference below appears to explain the situation clearly.

What is causing ocean acidification?

As carbon dioxide obeys Henry's Law (which states that the concentration of a dissolved gas in a solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the solution) an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere directly leads to an increase in the amounts of CO2 absorbed by the oceans. Human induced CO2 emissions have increased since the industrial revolution through the burning of fossil fuels, land use practices and concrete production[1]. This increase from around pre-industrial values of 280 parts per million (ppm) to 383ppm today (See Enhanced Greenhouse Effect) has resulted in the acidification of the ocean.

The averaged CO2 concentrations measured at Cape Grim Tasmania from 1975-2005 [2]. Reprinted with Permission from CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology.

Figure 1. The averaged CO2 concentrations measured at Cape Grim Tasmania from 1975-2005 [2]. Reprinted with Permission from CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology.

The rate of increase is far greater than generally occurs naturally and is predicted to continue to rise well into the future [3]. Approximately 25% of the CO2 from burning fossil fuels and cement production in the past 200 years has already been absorbed by the oceans. This CO2 absorption has already led to a decrease in the pH of the oceans of about 0.1 units from pre industrial levels. While this value seems very small, this is mostly an artefact of the way that pH is measured. Put another way this change represents about a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ in seawater. More importantly the H+ concentration, and the rate at which it is rising, are both still increasing [4].

http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/indicators/ocean_acid.jsp

 

[wayneL]

If you punch in 30% increase in acidity in Google you will get a swathe of references. I found one last night that actually did the maths but can't find it again today. However the reference below appears to explain the situation clearly.


http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/indicators/ocean_acid.jsp

That 30% more H ions are required to raise the oceans pH by ~0.1 does not equate to 30% greater acidity (or more properly 30% less alkalinity).

To suggest so is disingenuous and emotive use of figures.

The fact remains that the purported average reduction in pH is a small percentage of the normal variation that occurs from one place in the ocean to the next.

 

[Wysiwyg]

There must be a good reason why they don't take the easier and more eco-friendly path of limiting human population. You don't have to be an IPCC scientist to know that CO2 is not the problem. It is us. All the other species on earth would do fine without us.

Do you mean there is something significant the masses are not being informed of or a distraction from an economic downturn?

I like the idea of a mutual agreement on bearing children. Not enforcement but simply a globally responsible and recognised acknowledgment that too many human beings WILL NOT be good for the planet. Surely two offspring per couple is satisfying.

 

[basilio]

That 30% more H ions are required to raise the oceans pH by ~0.1 does not equate to 30% greater acidity (or more properly 30% less alkalinity).

To suggest so is disingenuous and emotive use of figures.

The fact remains that the purported average reduction in pH is a small percentage of the normal variation that occurs from one place in the ocean to the next.

Well that explains it all doesn't it Wayne? You will obviously have to inform every one of those ocean scientist who have been studying acidification that they have simply got it wrong and that there is just nothing ( or very little) to worry about. We can now all rest easier with your firm certainty that practically every ocean scientist is just a dill.

It's good to get reaffirmation on the fundamental strengths of our forum members.

___________________________________________________
Dunning- Kruger strikes again and again and again

 

[wayneL]

Well that explains it all doesn't it Wayne? You will obviously have to inform every one of those ocean scientist who have been studying acidification that they have simply got it wrong and that there is just nothing ( or very little) to worry about. We can now all rest easier with your firm certainty that practically every ocean scientist is just a dill.

It's good to get reaffirmation on the fundamental strengths of our forum members.

___________________________________________________
Dunning- Kruger strikes again and again and again

Shrill sarcasm does not substitute for fact basilio, and the fact remains that 0.075 lowering of pH is not a 30% lowering of alkalinity. The H ion factor is just the chemistry to get it there. Two different things buddy.

 

[wayneL]

Basilio,

Normal ocean pH varies from ~8.0 to ~8.3 in different places, that's ~0.3 variance. That is far greater than 0.075

What you're saying is that the ocean in one place can be perhaps 150% more acidic than in another place on the same day. Or said the other way round he ocean in one place can be perhaps 150% more alkaline than in another place on the same day.

Absolutely ludicrous.

 

[basilio]

It's really simple. Is the body of ocean scientists who have been researching the issue of ocean acidification a pack of dills or not? They seem to believe from their studies that we have a significant problem already and that projections of rapidly increasing CO2 levels will magnify these considerably. The outcome is likely to be crashes in the oceans ecosystem with obvious ramifications for all marine life and humans who depend on it as well.

Or alternatively you have worked out that there is nothing to worry about.

Let's refresh our memories of the article which was taken from the Press Release of the body that had done the review and research.

Quote:
Ocean acidification rates pose disaster for marine life, major study shows

Report launched from leading marine scientists at Copenhagen summit shows seas absorbing dangerous levels of CO2

The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55m years, threatening disaster for marine life and food supplies across the globe, delegates at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen have been warned.

A report by more than 100 of Europe's leading marine scientists, released at the climate talks this morning, states that the seas are absorbing dangerous levels of carbon dioxide as a direct result of human activity. This is already affecting marine species, for example by interfering with whale navigation and depleting planktonic species at the base of the food chain.

The report ”” Ocean acidification: the facts ”” says that acidity in the seas has increased 30% since the start of the industrial revolution. Many of the effects of this acidification are already irreversible and are expected to accelerate, according to the scientists.

The study, which is a massive review of existing scientific studies, warns that if CO2 emissions continue unchecked many key parts of the marine environment – particularly coral reefs and the algae and plankton which are essential for fish such as herring and salmon – will be "severely affected" by 2050, leading to the extinction of some species.

Dr Helen Phillips, chief executive of Natural England, which co-sponsored the report, said: "The threat to the delicate balance of the marine environment cannot be overstated - this is a conservation challenge of unprecedented scale and highlights the urgent need for effective marine management and protection."

Although oceans have acidified naturally in the past, the current rate of acidification is so fast that it is becoming extremely difficult for species and habitats to adapt. "We're counting it in decades, and that's the real take-home message," said Dr John Baxter a senior scientist with Scottish Natural Heritage, and the report's co-author. "This is happening fast."

..... Congressman Brian Baird, a Democrat representative from Washington state, who championed a bill in Congress promoting US research on ocean acidification, said these findings would help counter climate change sceptics, since acidification was easily and immediately measurable.

"The consequences of ocean acidification may be every bit as grave as the consequences of temperature increases," he said. "It's one thing to question a computer extrapolation, or say it snowed in Las Vegas last year, but to say basic chemistry doesn't apply is a real problem [for the sceptics]. I think the evidence is really quite striking."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fication-epoca

_______________________________________________________

Dunning-Kruger strikes again and again and again

 

[wayneL]

So I take it you've conceded my point.

It's late in Havelock North, I'm going to bed. Stay tuned for more ocean acidification debunking.

NB There is no argument that pH has been gradually dropping. The question is whether the alarmism is warranted or not.

 

[basilio]

For those forum members who would like to increase their knowledge of what is happening in our oceans because of acidification I have attached an url for an excellent slide show presentation from Stanford University. Quite absorbing.

It also addresses Wayne's point.

http://i2i.stanford.edu/carbonlab/co2lab.swf

__________________________________________________
Dunning-Kruger strikes again and again and again

 

[basilio]

Just a thought for members who follow these forums.

How interested are people in exploring and learning new ideas? Are forums like this useful in exposing ourselves to information we might otherwise never see? Are we prepared to have a look at ideas that may be a bit challenging but give us new perspectives ? Or do we have set positions that we just aren't prepared to see challenged and will defend to the death any questioning of them?

Up until a couple of days ago I had only a general idea of acidification of the oceans. I knew a little but there was no way I would call myself an expert or even largely knowledgeable.

After coming across the press release from Epocia I thought I must come up to speed on the issue. And after a few hours of reading I became quite interested and really concerned. It was discovering a whole new world of science that until then was just a relatively vague generality. I thought others might like to share that knowledge which was why I included the information URLS.

I would not pretend that I am now some expert. Certainly much more informed and concerned. But what do other members think? Is it actually worthwhile doing some reading to learn about topics we want to voice our opinion on ? Or is it just a waste of time and far easier to read Andrew Bolt et al?

____________________________________________________

Dunning-Kruger strikes again and again and again.

 

[Wysiwyg]

For those forum members who would like to increase their knowledge of what is happening in our oceans because of acidification I have attached an url for an excellent slide show presentation from Stanford University. Quite absorbing.

Hi, From that presentation I didn't understand how world ocean ph level averages were arrived at, both distant and present. Did you see that data anywhere?

 

[basilio]

Hi, From that presentation I didn't understand how world ocean ph level averages were arrived at, both distant and present. Did you see that data anywhere?

Your right of course. The presentation was geared to explaining how changing acidity levels would affect various sea creatures.

This reference http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519111031.htm explains how scientists have built up a picture of our past climate through extensive drillings.

With regard to predicting future PH levels in the ocean it seems to be largely a function of how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere will result in increased absorption of CO2 in the oceans and thus lowering of ph levels. I think one of the later slides had a moving graphic which showed the effect of this.

There is a good debate on this topic at climate skeptic. Get past the opening statement and you see some quite perceptive analysis. I thought the analysis by the contributor James pulled together most of the threads and the science particularly well.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/09/ocean-acidification.html

 

[Wysiwyg]

The presentation was geared to explaining how changing acidity levels would affect various sea creatures.

Over the last several revolutions of the sun and with the rapid pace of information disseminated, I have become such a 'doubting Thomas'. I knew marine researchers working toward education degrees and they relied on Government grants to support 'research' of whatever was deemed researchable. Whale sound recordings or observing zooxanthellae under a microscope, present a sound case (see persuasion) and they were off to some remote island or out in the boats collecting water samples. Living simply on Government grants in some beautiful location was the culture they subscribed to.

I could rave on but I won't. The 53 million year samples have turned up what is already known in that the Earth has been constantly changing. Assuming the facts are adhered to, a greater knowledge of cause and effect should result. I personally don't jump to conclusions based on every scientific report. Planetary effects are the issue and small samples not a reflection.

I have learned much tonight and thankyou.

 

[Whiskers]

That's quite a profound post Wysiwyg.

I've been exploring the cycles of weather among other things for quite awhile now and you make sound sense re 'scientific' research. People often loose track of, or are never informed of, the funding source vested interests and the particular research project adgenda as in prescribed (often limited) processes and (sometimes biased) objectives.

Re weather or climate, the late Indego Jones had a brilliant record forcasting long range weather in Aus from the middle of last century... based largely on the prominant influence on our weather, the cycle of solar flares.

Most good farmers and gardeners know the influence of the cycles of the moon on plant germination, growth and ripening esentially via gravitational forces on water as in sap flow... but many people discount, even dismiss those influences on animals and humans.

There are other cycle analysis also, eg others who use (loosely) astrology as in the gravitational influences of the sun, planets and moons for a wide range of cycle analysis.

For me the hysteria is a deliberate marketing ploy of relating the 'product' to the consumer in an emotional, personal and fearful way to move them from their comfort position to the desired position asap.

I'm with those who think the main aim of the so called 'Climate Change' phenomenom is to introduce new taxes.

The real concern should be about improving immisions in the context of toxic pollution, better planned urban development and resource management eg more controlled forest burnoffs to simulate 'natural' conditions and the weather and climate will do what it will do... wax and wane in short and long cycles and cycles within cycles as it has always done.

Too many people complain that it's hotter, colder, drier or whatever than they can remember.

These peoples lifetime is hardly a blip in the total cycle of things.

It's like waking up late... missed the start of the market which has gone up 100 points in a couple of hours and only noticed it correct back 40 in half an hour and getting into a hysteria that the market is crashing.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The real concern should be about improving immisions in the context of toxic pollution, better planned urban development and resource management

They will be some of the better outcomes from this scenario. So much noise. Gee.

 

[wayneL]

FYI

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#carbon_situation

 

[Calliope]

Do you mean there is something significant the masses are not being informed of or a distraction from an economic downturn?

I like the idea of a mutual agreement on bearing children. Not enforcement but simply a globally responsible and recognised acknowledgment that too many human beings WILL NOT be good for the planet. Surely two offspring per couple is satisfying.

I don't think anyone can deny that over-population is the problem that should be pursued, and not CO2.

The Guardian gets it right for a change;

Offset your return flight to London for the price of a condom in Kenya

British newspaper The Guardian reports on December 3:

CONSUMERS in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries.

The scheme argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

Every pound stg. 34 ($60.50) spent on contraception, the Optimum Population Trust says, saves one tonne of CO2 being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require a pound stg. 38 investment in tree planting, pound stg. 315 in wind power.

Calculations based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya.

 

[Knobby22]

FYI

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#carbon_situation

Good article.