Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 Next
Comments 116551 to 116600:
-
dhogaza at 07:18 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
BP:It is not proper to use it to study year to year changes. PIPS, is known to be not terribly useful for sea ice other than perhaps motion; definitely not thickness.
I'm curious as to what about this statement is so difficult to understand. -
CBDunkerson at 06:53 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
BP #41, how are you defining 'worse'? The 2010 June extent is the lowest of the bunch... and in that sense it is "worse" than ALL of them. Presumably you're still concentrating on the green/yellow/red mass in the Arctic basin... but that doesn't look any larger than it was at this point in 2007 (though the shape is different). It is also CLEARLY much smaller than it was in 2002-2005, especially 2004. All these predictions are, of course, contingent upon the weather. In truth anything between 3 and 6 could happen depending on what the weather does. However, we are currently at both the lowest extent and fastest rate of decline on record for this time of year. That perforce means that unless conditions change significantly we're looking at a low extent this year. -
Berényi Péter at 06:28 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
I've put 21 June 2002-2009 PIPS2 images along with smallest extent for each year. Plus 21 June, this year. It does not look worse than any one of them, except the stripe of old extremely thick ice on the western side is gone. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:27 AM on 26 June 2010Ocean acidification
BP, a suggestion. Rather than become angry, why not follow step-by-step the methods used by HOT and identify where you think they run off the rails, where their method is specifically defective? The graphs you're displaying create a strong impression but your argument boils down to There is no way one can get the red line from these raw pH data. This is remindful of the ocean heat matter. You say it's wrong, but you can't say how, exactly. Just so we're on the same page, here's the method as reported by HOT: Feb 17, 2009 - All HOT pH data presently available through HOT-DOGS were collected using the spectrophotometric method of Clayton and Byrne (1993) and are reported at a constant temperature of 25°C. The +0.0047 unit correction suggested by DelValls and Dickson (1998) has NOT been applied to any HOT data. The 1992-1993 HOT pH data were originally reported on the Seawater Scale, while later data have all been reported on the Total Scale. For the sake of consistency, the 1992-1993 pH data have as of today been converted to the Total Scale according to Lewis and Wallace (1998). The Total Scale values are approximately 0.01 pH units higher than the Seawater Scale values they replace. The cruises affected are HOT 36-47 and HOT 49-50. Prior to 1992, on HOT 23-32, pH measurements were made using a pH electrode calibrated with NBS buffers and were reported on the NBS Scale. Potentiometric measurements of pH are inherently less precise than spectrophotometric measurements. Moreover, the relationship between the NBS Scale and the Total Scale is not exact and depends on characteristics of the electrode employed. Given these difficulties, we have not attempted to correct the pre-1992 data to the Total Scale. They are available in the raw data files via FTP and remain as reported on the NBS Scale, but have been assigned a questionable quality flag and thus are not accessible through HOT-DOGS. References: Clayton, T.D., and R.H. Byrne. 1993. Spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements: total hydrogen ion concentration scale calibration of m-cresol purple and at-sea results. Deep-Sea Res. I 40: 2115-2129. ; DelValls, T.A., and A.G. Dickson. 1998. The pH of buffers based on 2-amino-2-hydroxymethyl-1,3-propanediol (tris) in synthetic seawater. Deep-Sea Res. I 45: 1541-1554. ; Lewis, E., and D.W.R. Wallace. 1998. Program Developed for CO2 System Calculations. ORNL/CDIAC-105. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. -
Riccardo at 05:49 AM on 26 June 2010Ocean acidification
Berényi Péter, if the data you found over the internet do not match what's published you have two possibilities: 1) assume you're doing something wrong or misunderstanding something and eventually ask to the people responsible for the data; 2) assume you're right, get angry at the scientists and join the "it's a conspiracy" crew. You choice. The rest of the readers might want to take a look at the "official" data. -
Gneiss at 05:22 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Quite a fracture developing upstream from Nares Strait, between apparently shorefast ice attached to N Greenland, and a soup of floes that looks like it all wants to float south. Looking at past years' NSIDC minimum maps, I didn't see open water in this area. Have features like this long fracture been common, or is it something new? -
VoxRat at 05:16 AM on 26 June 2010Ocean acidification
GeoGuy #55 "From what I've found out only 15% is converted, the balance being held in a "molecular trap" of water molecules." But it turns out you're wrong about that. Where did you get this (mis)information? -
Berényi Péter at 04:34 AM on 26 June 2010Ocean acidification
#44 Peter Hogarth at 20:54 PM on 25 June, 2010 overarching concerns on anthropogenic CO2 (specifically) and reduced alkalinity of the Oceans can be summarized in the following images And you show us this picture:
The original one in Feely, et al. PICES Press 16(1), 22-26 (2008) looked like this:
Caption: Atmospheric carbon dioxide from Mauna Loa (ppmv) and pCO2 (μatm), and surface ocean pH time series data from Ocean Station Aloha
So pCO2 and pH are not from "North Pacific Ocean" in general, but specifically from monthly cruises to the deep-water Station ALOHA (A Long-Term Oligotrophic Habitat Assessment; 22° 45'N, 158° 00'W) as part of the Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT).
You can have a look at ocean pH at the HOT site by choosing "pH Comparison". It is the pH data trend as derived by the HOT sampling program and looks like this:
It is not exactly the graph shown by Feely in light blue, but looks similar.
Alas, it is not all actual data, but some measurement (red) overlaid on something calculated by the HOT sampling program in an unspecified way (blue).
Values actually measured, then adjusted by HOT look like this:
Not quite the trend above, but still.
Fortunately HOT also has an ftp site with all the raw data from 206 cruises.
ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/dkarl/hot/water/
If one takes pH measurements from there, gets something like this:
Now that's outrageous. There is no way one can get the red line from these raw pH data. The first run, before 2000 is obviously unusable. It is pure junk. But let's have a closer look at the latter part, between 2003 and 2008.
N O T R E N D whatsoever.
Data enhancement like this in any other branch of natural sciences would be considered impermissible. However, it is standard practice in mainstream climate science (sorry, but I am getting angry).
-
Geo Guy at 04:07 AM on 26 June 2010Ocean acidification
VoxRat # 32 - The issue deals with how much of the CO2 that is taken up by the ocean does in fact convert to carbonic acid. From what I've found out only 15% is converted, the balance being held in a "molecular trap" of water molecules. Hence the basis of my post is that not all of the CO2 going into the ocean is converted to carbonic acid and once you've factored that in, the role of SO2 in acidification becomes much more evident...nuff said. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 04:05 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
I predict a record low. Note how the ice is declining while the temperature is "inclining". Why should either of these things change much by September? Of course the current fast melt will run into some thicker ice. The winds associated with the very negative Arctic Oscillation reduced ice export through the Fram Strait last winter and caused a relative buildup of thicker ice. The same winds and surface driven currents kept the Arctic warmer than usual last winter. Watch the ice melt. dhogaza: "It's going to be a good summer to watch ice." I totally agree. -
Albatross at 04:05 AM on 26 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
ChrisG @124, "It appears to me that, about 100 years ago, AGW proponents were the voice in the wilderness. Over time, and much research, their position has grown in strength." You make an outstanding observation Chris! Have you read Weart's book "The discovery of global warming"? Probably. In 1910, scientists thought Arrhenius was out to lunch. Specifically, skeptics thought that the saturation effect was problematic to his thesis. The skeptics' argument "the CO2 effect is saturated" was raised 100 years ago, and over time science and observations have since dismissed that concern. Yet to this day, that argument is still being made by "skeptics". Callander faced a skeptical and dubious audience when he made his presentation to the Royal Met. Soc. in 1938. Back then (in the late thirties) and to quote Weart "The idea that humans were influencing global climate by emitting CO2 sat on the shelf with other bric-a-brac, a theory more peculiar and unattractive than most". Astounding to think that after all our collective advances in the science and knowledge, and multiple, independent lines of evidence supporting the theory of AGW, that to this day there still remain intelligent and well-educated people who remain highly skeptical and who still hold opinions geld back in the early 20th century. So a fully concur when you say "In that light, the anti-AGW proponents are more like the last holdouts rather than leading edge drivers of a new paradigm." -
michael sweet at 03:24 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
The daily images at Cryosphere Today come from the University of Bremen and are AMSR-E images. The comparison images look like the daily images at NSIDC, which are DSMP SSSM/I images. The AMSR-E images are supposed to be more accurate, but they often show melt ponds as open water. The cutoff for ice free is also different in the two images. If you compare the two they do not look the same on a single day. On the other hand, the comparison ap on Cryosphere Today shows two images from the same sensor so they are useful for comparing two different dates. It often does not work to compare two ice images from different sources. BP: I copied this letter from Goddard's blog at WUWT. Someone wrote the NSIDC and asked about PIPS data. As you can see, Dr. Meier thinks that you cannot use the PIPS data to determine ice volume as you have done. He says both the thickness and concentration are known to be inaccurate. PIPS data is not intended to be used to determine volume-- the scientists at PIPS do not make a claim of ice volume. WUWT likes to use this data because it seems to conform to their agenda, even though it is known to be inaccurate. On the other hand, PIOMAS data is intended to measure ice volume, and PIOMAS is at a record low. “Thank you for contacting NSIDC. Walt Meier, one of our sea ice scientists provided some thoughts which I will sum up along with a few other points from talking with other scientists here at NSIDC: Unfortunately, there are no continuous, Arctic-wide measurements of sea ice volume/thickness which is why models are used to estimate volume/thickness. Sea ice extent on the other hand is derived from remotely sensed data from satellites. The PIPS model is an operational model, and is designed to forecast the ice a few days into the future (for navy submarine use, etc). It is not proper to use it to study year to year changes. PIPS, is known to be not terribly useful for sea ice other than perhaps motion; definitely not thickness. Our assessment at ( http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) is based on (1) the ice age fields we get from data from our colleagues, Charles Fowler and James Maslanik, Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research, University of Colorado Boulder, (2) models better suited to tracking thickness year to year, such as the University of Washington, PIOMAS model we’ve discussed in the past couple articles, and (3) consultation with operational ice centers that have very high quality data and human expertise at assessing the state of the sea ice. The PIOMAS model is looking back in time and estimating what the volume was in order to monitor trends. It has the benefit of “hindsight” and can incorporate actual recorded measurements (weather, satellite data etc.) that by nature are not available to make a forecasts. The most recent update of the PIOMAS model looks to be May 30th. Let me know if you have any more questions or need more information. Regards, Kara Gergely NSIDC User Services” here is the original blog post http://www.climat-evolution.com/article-banquise-arctique-pips-piomas-52419993.html -
Chris G at 02:23 AM on 26 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
It's unfortunate, but we are in a situation where a judgment has to be made, because withholding a decision is the same as deciding to do nothing, and made by those who really aren't capable of understanding the deeper technical aspects of the science. It's rather like a jury faced with rather technical forensic evidence. They have only the judgements of the experts to base their decision upon. I think that is why there is as much interest in the consensus argument as there is. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:20 AM on 26 June 2010Ocean acidification
Stop whining about C02 Is it an insurmountable intellectual challenge to realize that we're capable of causing more than one problem simultaneously and that different problems may act on different time scales? Please, you can do better. -
dhogaza at 02:19 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
"Currently the arctic is (and has been for a month) at its record low in extent. If going toward the pole the ice is thicker than that found last summer it may slow down a bit. But if the increased thickness is due to ridging it may not happen, it cracks and melts more easily." The thing I find interesting is that the cryosphere ice area calculation is dropping like a rock. It took a real step turn downwards a couple of weeks ago, while the extent estimates continue on roughly a linear pace. There are problems with melt ponds on top of the ice fooling the various ice measurement algorithms, but year-to-year comparisons should still be apple-to-apple. So it appears that not only is extent dropping rapidly, but there's more open water within the extent area compared to the last couple of years, due to recent acceleration of the decrease in area mentioned above. I still think 2008 < 2010 < 2009 but am prepared to be surprised on the low end. It's going to be a good summer to watch ice. -
Chris G at 02:10 AM on 26 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
I would have been interested in seeing the charts above with an added dimension of time. The reason I say that is because I get the impression that the deniers believe that the anti-AGW researchers are like a voice in the wilderness that will eventually be proven correct. It appears to me that, about 100 years ago, AGW proponents were the voice in the wilderness. Over time, and much research, their position has grown in strength. In that light, the anti-AGW proponents are more like the last holdouts rather than leading edge drivers of a new paradigm. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:01 AM on 26 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
Arkadiusz, is there such a thing as "official scientific reviewer" in IPCC terminology? I remember the term "expert reviewer", a status in fact so open that it does not mean much. Are you talking about the same thing? We already had that conversation about Dip Phil Courtney, who is just a PR guy by trade. Full information indeed is necessary, as in the Maxwell Bay sediment core story. The expert review invitation thingy was discussed long ago here: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-astounding-diplphil-courtney.html -
Riccardo at 01:42 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
There will always be more multi-year ice when last summer did not melt as much as the second last. This is trivial. To have volume you have to combine thickness and ice extent or area. Trivial, again. Currently the arctic is (and has been for a month) at its record low in extent. If going toward the pole the ice is thicker than that found last summer it may slow down a bit. But if the increased thickness is due to ridging it may not happen, it cracks and melts more easily. I will not bet on next september minimum, too complicated to put a reasoned one. Considering the standard deviation of 0.5 MKm2 calculated from NSIDC data, I don't see much of a difference between the various estimates. But one thing seems likely, the lack of recovery after 2007 (as a trend, not a few years) will be confirmed. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:32 AM on 26 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
This is so funny. On one hand we have Watts and Goddard doing grotesquely inept maths with percentages so that they can claim "Western snow pack is 137% of normal." And the Hoi Polloi crowd goes wild: "I've had so much snow this winter." Skepticism nowhere to be found. On the other hand we have the Anderegg survey and statements like this in Slate: "perception that climate activists will credulously push any news that might further their case." The double standard has gone so far, it's downright ludicrous. But no "skeptic" protest is to be heard. Skeptics by name only, a name they actively empty of all the substance it used to have. -
CBW at 01:27 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
HR: "I also predict that PIOMAS will underestimate again this year." Note that the Zhang prediction isn't entirely based on PIOMAS. Here is a link to the prediction page: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html Also, Ron Lindsay (also at PSC) has his own prediction method: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/September_ice_extent.html I find all of these predictions interesting, but not particularly helpful to the discussion of AGW because they distract from the data. The long-term trend is what is important. The predictions, while they serve a useful purpose for regional economic and environmental activities, give critics ammunition when they are wrong, as they often will be in an area with weather systems that are as variable as those of the arctic. The data alone make the case well enough. The long-term trends of arctic sea ice extent, area, and volume are downward, and that is very strong evidence of a warming arctic climate. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:15 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
I wouldn't venture to any prognostic myself. Arctic sea ice is very weather dependent from year to year. Right now it is rather low and the decline since the max extent has been quite steep. But the summer decline is dependent on wind patterns perhaps more than anything else. If winds do not disperse the ice, it won't be carried away and melt. Prognostic is much of a gamble. All we can do is wait and see -
snapple at 01:15 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Some of those denialists spin more than a baby seal being tossed by an orca! http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/george-monbiot-attacks-delingpole-spins.html -
dhogaza at 01:09 AM on 26 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
"Given that the ice sheet extent is on track to dip below the record low Sept/Oct 2007 levels that caused panic at the IPCC, you folks are showing admirable restraint. Nobody is going ape s**t." IPCC suggests that the arctic will become ice free in summers in the 2050-2100 time frame, hardly panic. If you want panic, note that those noted warmists Watts and Goddard recently predicted an ice free arctic by 2060. Much more pessimistic than the IPCC! Of course there's been a flurry of posts afterwards trying to live that down, since they were apparently under the misapprehension that the consensus date for an ice free arctic is 2013... -
Peter Hogarth at 23:28 PM on 25 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon Hocker at 17:37 PM on 24 June, 2010 Thank you for commenting here, and the effort at reasoned discussion. I’m late to this conversation, and just posted these images on another thread on “acidification”. They are pertinent to this one also, so I hope all will forgive the repetition.
This image is from here which shows gridded annual average air/sea carbon flux.
By measurement and best estimates the ocean is a net CO2 sink and is changing pH most rapidly in areas of highest uptake. If we accept what NOAA and other Oceanographic Institutes etc are telling us, then your premise is suspect without invoking any maths. How can you account for a trend of more measured CO2 in the ocean over time (and with overall warming in the same period), rather than less?
The ocean is absorbing a large proportion of the extra emitted anthropogenic CO2, which also explains the difference between increasing measured atmospheric concentration and estimated anthropogenic output, ie the extra emissions not residing in the atmosphere are going somewhere (split between Ocean and other sinks such as increased vegetative biomass in NH). These strands of evidence are consistent.
From R. Feely, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, with atmospheric data from Pieter Tans and seawater data from David Karl. Adapted from Feely (2008) in Levinson and Lawrimore (eds), Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc, 89(7): S58.
Enough instrumental evidence has now accumulated so that this trend in overall pCO2 increase and reduction in alkalinity is now accepted as measured fact rather than possible emerging trend, model or theory. As such, your proposed mechanism needs revision. However the correlation between temperature and CO2 derivatives is interesting, and would go some way to explain the variations superimposed on the rising trend. To counter this however, I would suggest you check Southern Hemisphere CO2 seasonal variations (relatively much more Ocean), which are considerably less than NH variations (relatively more land). Just a thought.
-
VoxRat at 23:17 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
"THESE WARM SEA’S CHARACTERIZED MOST DIVERSE AND VARIED LIFE IN OCEANS AS WE KNOW." I don't think anyone is suggesting that dropping the pH a few tenths of a point - even a full point or two - or raising the temperature a degree or two or five is incompatible with life, which seems to be the strawman argument you're addressing. Try this thought experiment: change the temperature in the Red Sea to that of the mid-Pacific. What happens to the that "MOST DIVERSE AND VARIED LIFE"? Now change the pH to that of the mid-Pacific. What happens? Now, change both of them, and not over the tens or hundreds of thousands of years that (I'm guessing) the Red Sea biome had to adapt to the current conditions, but in the course of a century or two. What happens? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:16 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
“A team of scientists from the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has reported a rapid recovery of coral reefs in areas of Indonesia, following the tsunami that devastated coastal regions throughout the Indian Ocean four years ago today. The team, which has surveyed the region's coral reefs since the December 26, 2004 tsunami, looked at 60 sites along 800 kilometers (497 miles) of coastline in Aceh, Indonesia. The researchers attribute the recovery to natural colonization by resilient coral species, along with the reduction of destructive fishing practices by local communities. While initial surveys immediately following the tsunami showed patchy (albeit devastating) damage to coral reefs in the region, surveys in 2005 indicated that many of the dead reefs in the study area had actually succumbed long ago to destructive fishing practices such as the use of dynamite and cyanide to catch fish. [...] It is also possible that the crown of thorns starfish—a marine predator—had caused widespread coral mortality.” -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:41 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Arabian Sea - with a pH of one of the lowest in the world (less than 7.95) ... In my youth, the first textbook about the life of the sea was, of course, "Sea Life" (Demel, 1974) Professor Demel, the eminent scientist (already dead), a member of many international scientific societies ... Recently, after many years, I found this book. Today I found there the following passages: "The Red Sea is a sea of the world's hottest maximum temperature in summer on the surface to 30oC, with "slots" extremely hot waters with temperatures exceeding 50 ° C and at depths to 2000 meters, not falling below 21.5 ° C ...", they has: "many strange sponge and very rich [...] coral reefs." and: "Persian Gulf, plate, lying on the shelf, the highest in the sea water temperature (up to 36 deg. C) is a place in the richest fishing mollusc (Pteriidae) of global world... " Professor ends like this: "THESE WARM SEA’S CHARACTERIZED MOST DIVERSE AND VARIED LIFE IN OCEANS AS WE KNOW." -
CBDunkerson at 21:35 PM on 25 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon Hocker #116: "CBDunkerson: Thank you for your strangely illogical comment. I found it amusing. As with e, I see little hope in helping you. Doug: Stop picking on e and CBDunkerson!" Ah. Trolling. Ok, you've officially passed the point of being worth bothering with. -
CBDunkerson at 21:27 PM on 25 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
BP #14/30, why would the yellow spot forming in the Beaufort be indicative of HIGH extent this year? Essentially what is happening is that a large area of thinner ice is being compressed into a smaller area of thicker ice by the gyre. Given that extent is 'ice area / concentration' wouldn't decreasing area and increasing concentration serve to yield a LOWER extent? That said, I expect the yellow swathe will break up as the season continues. That's the kind of pressed together 'rotten ice' they've been finding which doesn't really have much solidity to it. As to the general premise of the arctic basin ice being thicker this year than last - there has been alot of dispute about that with different methodologies coming up with different thickness measurements. However, I don't think it is as significant as you suggest... from the rate of decrease on the map it seems very likely that all the ice now at 2.5 meters in thickness or less is going to melt (indeed by the end of the animation the only such ice left is a small band that previously was 3+ meters thick). If you then look at the 3+ meter ice on the last frame of that 2010 map you'll see that it covers roughly a triangular shape "anchored across the northern edge of Greenland and Ellsmere Island and stretching northwards towards Severnaya Zemlya"... in other words, precisely the section I predicted would NOT melt this year. So yes, there is a core of potentially thicker / more solid ice (though some studies seem to indicate it is thinner/weaker than aerial observations suggest) in the Arctic basin this year. But if that is all which survives the melt, as seems very likely, then we're still looking at a very low extent this year. -
chris at 21:18 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Berényi Péter at 21:07 PM on 25 June, 2010 Peter, you really need to read the Manzello paper whose abstract you linked to. The very fact that upwelling waters are [CO2] rich and thus relatively acidic means that coral reefs struggle in regions of upwelling. Manzello states this explicitly. In fact it's much of the point of his study, namely that as ocean acidification becomes widespread the degradative effects on coral reefs he observes in the eastern Pacific and around the Galapagos, will occur throughout the oceans. I just described this here with an excerpt from the Manzello paper -
Berényi Péter at 21:07 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
#38 Peter Hogarth at 18:32 PM on 25 June, 2010 "These naturally high-CO2 reefs persist near the Ωarag distributional threshold for coral reefs and are thus expected to be the first and most affected by ocean acidification" And how do you plan to prevent upwelling? BTW, damage to Galápagos reefs occurred during super El Niño events. When upwelling is suppressed, ocean pH goes up, and corals are starved to death. -
VoxRat at 21:05 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Arkadiusz: ? No, it's not "acid". It's acidification: a drop in pH. -
chris at 21:02 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Berényi Péter at 08:51 AM on 25 June, 2010 and Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:42 PM on 25 June, 2010 You guys are rather missing the point. VoxRat and Peter Hogarth have mentioned this but it's worth emphasising what the issues are. We can use the Manzello paper [*] that you (Peter) referred to as a guide: You (Peter) are doubly confusing (i) the nutrient content and (ii) [CO2] content (acidity) of cold upwelling waters in relation to (a) fishery productivity and (b) coral sustainability. These need to be seperated out properly: Upwelling cold waters have high [CO2] (and highish acidity), and high nutrient content. These (largely inorganic; e.g. nitrates and phosphates) nutrients are required for the photosynthetic plankton in the surface waters where sunlight penetrates. These phytoplankton use photosynthesis to convert [CO2] to biomass and this process is nutrient-limited. Therefore upwelling nutrient-rich cold waters promote phytoplankton growth and this stimulates bioproductivity higher up the food chain (lots of sardines to fish). The [CO2] levels and acidity of the waters are relatively unimportant for this except for those orgainsms that fix carbonate into their shells and skeletons. This is the problem in relation to acidification of the oceans. Corals are particularly sensitive to acidification, and not surprisingly the areas of upwelling of [CO2] rich waters is detrimental to coral growth. Manzello points this out specifically: He says (p. 245 of the paper Peter referred to):"Not surprisingly, reef development is scant in this highly marginal environment and ephemeral on geological timescales (Manzello 2009). Binding calcium carbonate cements do not precipitate[**] above trace levels in this low-Sigma(arag) environment and rates of bioerosion are the highest measured for any reef in the world (Manzello et al. 2008)."
[*] Manzello, D. P. (2010) Ocean acidification hotspots: Spatiotemporal dynamics of the seawater CO2 system of eastern Pacific coral reefs Limnol. Oceanogr., 55, 239–248 [*] i.e. the calcium carbonate "cement" that physically consolidates coral reefs, can't precipitate (it redissolves) as increased acidification drives down the concentration of dissolved carbonate, shifting the equilibrium between [carbonate(aq) ---- carbonate(precip)] in the direction of carbonate(aq). -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:59 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
... and whether such reconstructions: http://ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/OAimages/TurleypH.gif - are reliable and in general possible? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:55 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
"acid" - it's of course acid?: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's worst case scenario predicted that the pH of ocean waters could decrease to 7.85 by 2100." -
Peter Hogarth at 20:54 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:31 PM on 25 June, 2010 and Berényi Péter at 08:51 AM on 25 June, 2010 We’re getting off topic. Concentrating on the global issue, I think the overarching concerns on anthropogenic CO2 (specifically) and reduced alkalinity of the Oceans can be summarized in the following images.
from here which shows gridded annual average air/sea carbon flux. The ocean is a net CO2 sink and is changing pH most rapidly in areas of highest uptake.
From R. Feely, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, with atmospheric data from Pieter Tans and seawater data from David Karl. Adapted from Feely (2008) in Levinson and Lawrimore (eds), Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc, 89(7): S58. See also Sabines testimony and paper on this topic and Fabry 2008 where effects on the ocean ecosystem are discussed, and lack of detailed knowledge and need for more work is acknowledged, but:
“Nevertheless, sufficient information exists to state with certainty that deleterious impacts on some marine species are unavoidable, and that substantial alteration of marine ecosystems is likely over the next century”. I think this fairly reflects the view of most published ocean researchers in this field that I have read.
The current extremely high rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is not something encountered in non-catastrophic “normal” geological history, and the trend should give cause for concern. We are correct to look at other factors and details also, but we should not miss the bigger picture. Why (if correct) is the balance of species changing?
-
philipm at 20:46 PM on 25 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#95 and #100: you may appreciate this article I wrote a while back, somewhat provocatively titled "When old men kill their children". -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:42 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Just add by the “ship and tourists”: AIMS, 1997: “Firstly, the effects of the outbreaks have been confined largely to the central third of the Great Barrier Reef where the majority of tourist developments are located. Such effects may have severe ramifications for the local economy of Queensland and Australia in general.”, “In essence they revealed that the central third of the Great Barrier Reef (between Lizard Island and Townsville) had been affected by outbreaks within the previous 6 years. Within this region approximately 65% of all reefs surveyed were considered to have experienced a recent outbreak of starfish.” And where to from here is “the place” for “acid” - CO2? -
VoxRat at 20:30 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Berenyi Peter: RE: pH Great! So now if we can just get the entire ocean to upwell, we can stop worrying that CO2-induced acidification is going to a problem. Though you did seem to miss thiz bit (that I meant to quote but Peter Hogarth did): "These naturally high-CO2 reefs persist near the Ωarag distributional threshold for coral reefs and are thus expected to be the first and most affected by ocean acidification" RE: pesticides "That's it" Pesticides are identified as a problem, therefore CO2/acidification is not? -
Berényi Péter at 20:02 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
The Independent Environment Great Barrier Reef polluted by pesticides By Kathy Marks in Sydney Thursday, 22 February 2007 "they show sediment creating a hazy cloud in the water over the reef, blocking out sunlight and preventing photosynthesis, the process which keeps coral alive" "sediment run-off carried pesticides washed off farmland" Well, stop whining about CO2.- use pesticides that decompose into harmless stuff in several weeks
- promote farming practices that limit soil erosion, the Right Thing to Do anyway
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:06 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
The increase in atmospheric pCO2 in the past 20 years, compared with 1.5 - 1.6% CO2 (free and chemically bonded) in the SS ocean ... Temperature - indeed the variability of El Nino - La Nina, the 90s, it was extremely violent - it is probably the most important here (does not "simply" temperature but its change - up - down). Anthropogenic pressures: period of 90 - those - that period of putting into service a significant number of large cruise ships, whose favorite "tour" is GBR. Direct damage to the GBR are not the most important fact here. Species, ecosystems individual reefs - atolls, it is often endemic. "Mixing species" - from bacteria to starfish ("The 2003 LTMP surveys showed that 15% of the surveyed reefs had outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish. This is higher than the number of reefs affected in the 1988 series, which resulted in widespread declines in coral cover on reefs in the central Great Barrier Reef ..." ) - is a disaster for most ecosystems GBR ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:42 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
4. “Carbon dioxide has been high in the past year coral reefs have continued to lay down calcium carbonate”. ... and at the present day (the current state of knowledge), the word: "NORMAL" should suffice for us, the rest is really "pure speculation" ... -
Berényi Péter at 18:35 PM on 25 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
#18 Neven at 11:37 AM on 25 June, 2010 Peter, maybe you can add a ice thickness colour index. Here you go.
Current extent of ice thicker than 2 m in arctic basin is almost twice as much as it used to be last year, same date. Beaufort Gyre is working hard this year, ice thickness at its center is getting close to 4 m (due to ridging).
-
Peter Hogarth at 18:32 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
33.Berényi Péter at 08:51 AM on 25 June, 2010 From Manzello 2010: "These naturally high-CO2 reefs persist near the Ωarag distributional threshold for coral reefs and are thus expected to be the first and most affected by ocean acidification" -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:31 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
"... complicated ..." So let us focus on Australia, the Australian scientists, Australian coral reef ... "Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification" Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007, "Repeated bleaching episodes in the same coral assemblages and the increasing scale and frequency of coral bleaching have been cited as evidence that corals have exhausted their genetic capacity to adapt to rising sea surface temperatures ." "Indeed, the effects of temperature and acidification on even the most basic vital rates in corals, such as growth, mortality, and fecundity, are LARGELY UNKNOWN, as are the physiological trade-offs among these traits." "Consequently, the sensitivity of population growth to climate-induced changes in vital rates remains almost COMPLETELY UNEXPLORED. In the absence of LONG-TERM [!] demographic studies to detect temporal trends in life history traits, predicting rates of adaptation, and whether they will be exceeded by rates of environmental change, is PURE SPECULATION." "The majority of coral generation times, however, are still long (decades) relative to the ACCELERATING PACE of climate change, throwing doubt on the scope of most coral species for RAPID adaptation ..." And here (again) back, "ab ovum": "Abrupt tropical climate change: Past and present"(Thompson et al., 2006). If the former (including even those fairly recent) changes were more violent than the present or similar (and a lot to suggest it), then this question: "It took millions of years for these organisms [calcifying marine organisms] and ecosystems to recover."; is not the slightest importance ... Kleypas et al (2006) : " It is certain that net production of CaCO3 will decrease in the future", "Determine the calcification response to elevated CO2 in . . ", " .. in many cases even the sign of the biochemical response, let alone the magnitude, is UNCERTAIN ". Lough and Barnes (1997) found that "the 20th century has witnessed the second highest period of above average calcification in the past 237 years." Currently, however: "The study shows that the biggest and most robust Porites corals on Australia's Great Barrier Reef have slowed their growth by more than 14 percent since the "tipping point" year of 1990." "The data suggest that this severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least 400 years," Lough: "It is cause for extreme concern that such changes are already evident, with the RELATIVELY MODEST CLIMATE CHANGES observed to date, in the world's best protected and managed coral reef ecosystem," ... however: "The causes of this sharp decline remain UNKNOWN, but our study suggests that the combination of increasing temperature stress and ocean acidification may be diminishing the ability of Great Barrier Reef corals to deposit calcium carbonate," "Dr Lough said there had been some concern that coral growth has been declining in recent times. "However, data from density bands place these results into a larger context. Density bands show that coral growth and calcification on the Great Barrier Reef vary considerably over time."" "Coral records show that there have been several major increases and decreases over the past several centuries." Generally conclusion: "THE CURRENT DECLINE APPEARS TO BE A RETURN TO MORE NORMAL GROWTH CONDITIONS FROM HIGH GROWTH RATES EARLIER THIS CENTURY". ... ??? (http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/explore/feat37.html) -
Berényi Péter at 18:05 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Compare it to distribution of Chlorophyll a concentration along the tropics. Notice huge deep blue desert in south Pacific with rather high pH.
At higher latitudes it's a different story, as CO2 solubility increases with decreasing water temperature.
-
Berényi Péter at 17:30 PM on 25 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Re: Moderator Response: The last several comments already are collected together. Click the "Recent Comments" link in the blue horizontal bar that is at the top of every page. Each comment's time-date stamp is a link to that particular comment's original location.Thanks, I haven't noticed. It helps a lot. As soon as people start using it the discussion can get more focused. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:19 PM on 25 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Further to HR's thoughts about psychological influences on predictions, I took a closer look at the rationales and methods described in the supporting material for the SEARCH collection. With the exception of Wilson and Wellman it's hard to see where the psych angle fits in. I suspect the undershoots have a lot to do w/the statistical input to the various models in play but I don't have the chops to prove that, rather I'll just surmise that if the trajectory of past statistics is overwhelmed by variability expressing itself as an upswing the upshot would tend to be an undershoot. Doubtless the expert cohort in the SEARCH participants could help to clarify that. -
Berényi Péter at 15:57 PM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
#34 VoxRat at 09:47 AM on 25 June, 2010 Do you know what the pH was? Yessir!
Guess where upwelling occurs.
-
RSVP at 15:38 PM on 25 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
<> Quite prophetic assuming this was before the internet (for the first part of the quote), and more so if you consider how quickly certain comments on this site get deleted.
Prev 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 Next
