Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 Next
Comments 38951 to 39000:
-
Vonnegut at 07:13 AM on 6 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Is there a citation for the corals being a source of co2? Ive seen the question asked but not seen a reply.
-
John Hartz at 05:07 AM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
All: joeygoze's most recent comment was a moderation complaint and therefore was deleted.
-
mgardner at 05:01 AM on 6 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
chriskoz@19
Thanks. I did come across one of those images in my image search, but there is some other good stuff in there. -
joeygoze9259 at 04:41 AM on 6 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Moderator:
Paul Beckwith - http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease
John Kerry - ""It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now," he wrote. "Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now. Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and — yes — even to American national security." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/john-kerry/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013/
Al Gore - "Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years."
So correction on the Al Gore assertion, if it happened in as little as 7 years, would be the 2014 minimum would be ice free, not 2013
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for providing the references. Why are the statements of these three non-scientists important and relevant?
-
jja at 03:13 AM on 6 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Hansen & Soto have the average 2005-2010 (average time=June 2008) of .581 (W/m^2) - see figure 10.b
End of year TOA
1988 0.0933
1989 0.094553
1990 0.098292
1991 0.104517
1992 0.113228
1993 0.124425
1994 0.138108
1995 0.154277
1996 0.172932
1997 0.194073
1998 0.2177
1999 0.243813
2000 0.272412
2001 0.303497
2002 0.337068
2003 0.373125
2004 0.411668
2005 0.452697
2006 0.496212
2007 0.542213 Hansen & Soto Value fits
2008 0.5907 inbetween these two years.
2009 0.641673
2010 0.695132
2011 0.751077
2012 0.809508
2013 0.870425
2014 0.933828
2015 0.999717
2016 1.068092
2017 1.138953
2018 1.2123 -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:13 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut, no, it is still excessive repetition whether the links are given or not, it is still sloganeering to ignore the content of the posts and peer reviewed litterature that contradict your assertions, whether you give the links or not. You would know this had you read the comments policy as you were directed to do by the moderator. Here are the two sections that were explicitly drawn to your attention:
No Excessive Repetition: Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
No sloganeering: Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error. It is asked that you do not clutter up threads by responding to comments that consist just of slogans.
Please read the comments policy and abide by it.
-
Vonnegut at 03:07 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Sorry was it because I forgot the link?
-
Vonnegut at 01:47 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@95 Done know why you think that but we all have an opinion.
Bikini atoll had 23 nuclear devices dropped on it between 1946 and 1958 there are coral there today, I think that it would be fair to say theyre persistant and resiliant, wouldnt you?
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of slaganeering and excessive repitition -- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
CBDunkerson at 01:33 AM on 6 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Regardless of how long it takes. You wrote, "Lady Elliot Island reef flat (Great Barrier Reef, Australia) can range from preindustrial values pH 8.6 to future ocean acidification scenarios pH 7.6) over the course of a day."
This seems to argue that the ability to survive shifts of 1 pH over the course of a day indicates the ability to survive a 1 pH shift in average daily acidity. It should be obvious that there is no logical connection between the two.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:24 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
"I'm just looking at the other side of the coin." No, you're looking at the side of a coin that you like and saying "Look, how pretty!" while there is a pile of $100 bills next to it. Not impressed. The Palau study does not invalidate the overall content and conclusion of the OP at all.
-
climatelurker at 01:01 AM on 6 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
Love the -11 comment count today! (Here it's more like -15.)
-
jja at 01:00 AM on 6 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom@57
decade Energy
1 0.0933
2 0.2177
3 0.5907
4 1.2123
5 2.0825
6 3.2013
7 4.5687 -
Vonnegut at 00:49 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@92 Tom "Vonnegut @91, Fortunately, a crashing economy and potentially a crashing global civilization will effectively our further emissions of CO2 long before that. So, almost certainly, will a limited supply of fossil fuels. Consequently, the question is not if we will stop emitting CO2, but when - and how much damage we will do to ourselves and the environment in the meantime."
My sentiments entirely , mother nature always wins in the long term.
Specifically, you have scoured the internet for one or two quotes from coral experts that indicate OA may not be totally disasterous (at least by itself). In the meantime you are ignoring far more quotes from coral scientists that indicate that OA plus SST increase by themselves may be enough to destroy the worlds major reefs. Some scientists put that possibility at 50/50 by 2050. As neither you (nor I) are experts, we have no basis to ignore any actual experts within the range of opinion. By formulating your opinions on only the more upbeat reports, you are biasing them so that they do not correspond with what the totallity of observations and analysis are showing.How do you know Im ignoring other views? Im just looking at the other side of the coin.I dont rest easy knowing the oceans are polluted more each day or knowing that 'global warming did it' is being used as a get out clause and diverting money and resources away from fixing the obvious.
You say Ive scoured the internet for a few quotes, Im surprised how many coral positive reports there are from more than 2 places on the planet. Coral wont be missing off the planet anytime soon because of warming, some will, some wont. I can and have backed that up with links I can do it again if needed.
-
michael sweet at 00:39 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut:
At post 61 you claim that it is difficult to find scientific data about survival of species in high CO2 situation. That is exactly what everyone here is trying to tell you. We know that it is possible to search the scientific literature and find exceptional animals or plants that will survive under increased temperatures. The fact that you claim that you have to search many papers to find one that supports your argument that CO2 is not bad shows that most outcomes will be bad. If you have to search many papers to find one that supports your claim indicates that the claim is incorrect.
Think through what you have said. The fact that most papers say ecosystems will have difficulty surviving AGW indicates that is the most common result . Scientists publish everything they find. They do not look for the exceptional ecosystems that are not going to survive, they show what will happen to all ecosystems. A few will do fine for a while, but that will not do the rest any good.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:31 AM on 6 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut @91, if we are "...never going to stop producing co2..." then we are going to kill ourselves of as a species. It is that simple. Fortunately, a crashing economy and potentially a crashing global civilization will effectively our further emissions of CO2 long before that. So, almost certainly, will a limited supply of fossil fuels. Consequently, the question is not if we will stop emitting CO2, but when - and how much damage we will do to ourselves and the environment in the meantime.
If you begin on the assumption that we will not stop emitting CO2, and look only for the evidence that might suggest that could be OK in the short term, you will get a very distorted view of the science. Instead of trying to understand, you will have been merely trying to find a security blanket for your pre-established belief. There have been a lot of signs that that is indeed what you are doing.
Specifically, you have scoured the internet for one or two quotes from coral experts that indicate OA may not be totally disasterous (at least by itself). In the meantime you are ignoring far more quotes from coral scientists that indicate that OA plus SST increase by themselves may be enough to destroy the worlds major reefs. Some scientists put that possibility at 50/50 by 2050. As neither you (nor I) are experts, we have no basis to ignore any actual experts within the range of opinion. By formulating your opinions on only the more upbeat reports, you are biasing them so that they do not correspond with what the totallity of observations and analysis are showing.
-
Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Chriskoz#54
I understand that warming of the atmosphere will increase heat loss to space and therefore decrease the energy imbalance & heat accumulation in the climate system as a whole.
My point was that if the atmospheric warming still was 0.2oC/decade, this would produce an energy imbalance of only 0.006 W/m2, or about 1% of the energy imbalance in the rest of the climate system if that had continued to warm at its present rate.
-
chriskoz at 23:57 PM on 5 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
mgardner@18,
I found these slides (Lecture on Thermohaline circulation (THC) with several pictures that maybe of interest to you. For example:
Page 5 'simpleton' overview
Page7 explanation of circumpolar currents and gyres
Pages 16+ (Sandstrom Theorem) explain the mechanisms and structure of ocean circulation
Page 24 upwelling
-
chriskoz at 23:23 PM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze@20,
I would correct your [chriskoz's] statement to say it was "simple and primative distortion of the scientific literature by alarmists". That "moronic slogan" was repeated by Al Gore, John Kerry and even as late as March of 2013, Paul Beckwith.
Your "alarmists" may also be considered "science deniers", because they did not check the scientific source before pronouncing the slogan. Or, more likely, they may have fallen victims of the slogan, because they did not have time/will to verify it. They, like the deniers obstructing action against AGW I refered to earlier, also need education so that they also understand the problem of AGW and do not raise 'false alarm'.
Back to the subject of your objection re this article. I may skid onto thin ice of comment policy however cannot help but ask, what's the motivation of your objection? I've already proven you to be wrong on your assertion that "No one from any side of this discussion in the mainstream is arguing that CO2 can not trap heat". You understand that basic science and you don't need this article. Good for you. But do you want those poeple who are not as fortunate not to learn the basic climate science stuff?
-
Vonnegut at 22:42 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
"So, this good news story with a loss of coverage, but some survival if we can exclude other stressors (which we are not doing) starts to look like a Titanic story. 'Well, there will be significant loss of life, but at least some first class passengers will get into life boats" sort of thing."
I can see why you say that, You know i disagree, I think more sould be done about what we know about runoff pollutants etc because we're never going to stop producing co2 we have to mitigate the effects. Maybe while we are doing that things may adapt?
-
chriskoz at 22:37 PM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze@20
My issue with the above article is the characterization that the denial of a greenhouse effect existing at all is mainstream argument. That is simply not true. No one from any side of this discussion in the mainstream is arguing that CO2 can not trap heat or that No greenhouse effect exists
That is simply not true. Obvious examples of influential peoples (who have thousands of followers) who still deny GFE are: james inhofe in US Congress, Cuccinelli in Senate of VA, Tony Abbott - AUS PM, who said that climate science is "crap" and that CO2 is invisible substance.
Therefore an article as this is needed to debunk Tony Abbott's taking point, because Tony does implicitly deny the existence of GHE here and his argument dismissing GHE is indeed his "mainstream argument". Which proves that your statement above is not true.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:35 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut @82 and 84, unfortunately one of the "other" stressors is high Sea Surface Temperatures, which we are not limiting under current policies. Other stressors such as soil runoff, fertilizer runoff and polution will be very hard to limit in a world with a doubling population by the mid 21st century. Finally, some biological competitors are favoured by high temperature and lower pH; so will place corals under further stress. So, you have to understand that just as some scientists are saying OA may not kill of even the majority of species if we can limit other stressors, other biologists studying the impacts of these other factors, and saying the same thing, with OA included as another stressor. Thus a glimmer of hope is not a panacea.
Specifically to 82, a major shift in reef species means the at least local extinction of many species of coral. That will significantly reduce the ability of the reef to sustain biodiversity, resulting in the at least local extinction many species of fish, crustaceans, and other reef associate species. The total loss of local biodiversity has two further knock on effects. First it reduces the total biomass sustainable by the reef (reducing its potential as a source of food); and it reduces the potential to resist other shocks to the reef. The reef become less robust, and more precarious. The loss of coverage (ie, smaller reefs) reinforces that. Smaller reefs support fewer species, and are more vulnerable to complete destruction by additional hazard.
So, this good news story with a loss of coverage, but some survival if we can exclude other stressors (which we are not doing) starts to look like a Titanic story. 'Well, there will be significant loss of life, but at least some first class passengers will get into life boats" sort of thing. It is telling of the predicament facing reefs that such essentially bad news stories if taken by themselves are regarded as signs of hope.
Further, the widespread loss of species at least locally probably means the extensive loss of some species globally. Even without other stressors, this is starting to put us into survival in refugia only scenarios. That means globaly we are looking at the extinction of a very large number of coral and associated species; with hundreds of years to restore healthy reef communities, and tens of thousands of years to restore the variety of reef species, and hence the sustainable biomass of the reefs.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:10 PM on 5 February 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
vonnegut, This is covered by the post from Tom Curtis at 125, CO2 is not a big absorber of visible light or ultra violet or the wavelengths of much of the IR we recieve from the sun.
Incidentally, see my post at 126 for an example of how to deal with getting something wrong.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:05 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut @78, the free swimming stage typically lives for only a few days before forming a new colony (or dying), although they can live for up to two months. During two months they might disperse several thousand kms, but would tend to follow ocean currents so that their dispersal locations would be fairly predictable. As only a tiny number do this, their chance of forming a new colony is limited due to competition.
The fact that dispersal is limited is demonstrated by the fact that you have specialized corals adapted to local and unusual conditions in Palau. If dispersal was wide spread, such adaptability to local conditions would not be possible. On the other hand, if an area becomes coral free (and hence coral predator free), the potential for dispersal means it will be recolonized quickly (tens to hundreds of years, depending on remoteness) in suitable conditions. Of course, high acidity and high temperatures are unsuitable conditions and will limit the length of survival of planulae (the mobile form) and the probability of their succesfully forming a colony.
This does mean that for the levels of temperature rise and ocean acidification expected for this century, total extenction of corals was unlikely in that it is probable that some species will find refugia, ie, locations which due to local sea water chemistry (either due to river outflow, or nearby rocky outcrops acting as buffers), or some other favourable factor makes survival possible. Thus, total extinction of corals as a phylum is unlikely unless CO2 levels continue to rise strongly into the 22nd century. More on what that means in a later post.
-
Vonnegut at 21:59 PM on 5 February 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Not sure its been covered yet, Is a 250ppm co2 laden atmosphere thinner than a 400ppm co2 laden atmosphere.
Is it thicker in depth and does it let the same amount of solar radiation through?
-
Vonnegut at 20:55 PM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 1
Could someone check out this interactive on sea chemisty and tell me if its incorrect?
www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/a-quest-for-resilient-reefs
The interactive on the right, thank you.
-
Vonnegut at 20:34 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Does my post 84 not include a caveat?
-
MarkR at 20:19 PM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
#12 joeygoze: it is one of the craziest IMO, but I think this discussion is worthwhile because people who start looking at climate but don't have a strong physics background (which is most people?) could easily find one of the Principia Scientific sites while googling for the greenhouse effect and fall for it.
You're right in saying that it's completely physically baseless, but the same goes for many of the more common myths that you see on the more 'mainstream' pseudoskeptic sites. 'Warming has paused' contradicts statistics. 'The deep oceans can't be warming without heating up the upper layers' also contradicts basic physics. So does 'CO2 is saturated' or 'CO2 is only a tiny portion of the atmosphere so it can't cause warming'.
So I don't think that 'the pseudoskeptic argument is completely physically unrealistic' is a good reason to avoid posting about it. :)
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:10 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut@85 no, you have to honestly represent the sources that you use to support your argument, including relevant caveats. If you don't understand the basic need for truthfullness in science, there is no point in me continuing the discussion any further.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:07 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut, any WHY do we need to protect corals from other stressors such as polution and overfishing, according to the article?
-
Vonnegut at 20:07 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@83 So I have to post quotes that only confirm only your beliefs? Thats intellectually dishonest.
These are not random words ive quoted they are findings of respected scientists, sorry if they dont confirm what you think.
-
Vonnegut at 20:02 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
"We need to protect corals from other stressors, such as pollution and overfishing. If we can control those, the impact of ocean acidification might not be as bad."
www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=128243
From the same article, I so heartily agree with her sentiments.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:02 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
sorry voneggut, just going out and finding another source without acknowledging that the previous one didn't actually support your position is intellectually dishonest. What you are doing is known as "quote mining", and demonstrates that you are not looking for the truth, just conformation of your existing beliefs. That is not science.
-
Vonnegut at 19:56 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
""There are likely to be major shifts in reef species and some loss of coral cover, but if ocean acidification is the only factor there won't be total destruction," Paytan said."
www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=128243
After studying reefs on the caribbean coastline of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula
-
Kevin C at 19:53 PM on 5 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
From Peru:
BEST have lots of Peruvian stations, including some with long records, although many of them require homogenisation. Start from here and zoom out to look for for bold markers with stars in (or clusters to zoom in on).
As expected the southern stations show much bigger trends than the tropical ones.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 19:50 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
voneggut wrote "So because someone said that I have to agree with it? is that how science works?"
yes, you do have to agree with what an article says if you use that article as support for your argument, as you did. If the paper includes caveats that contradict your position, truthfullness obliges you to openly acknowledge that fact. That *is* how science works.
-
Vonnegut at 19:47 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
"It doesn't mean that coral reefs around the globe are going to be fine under ocean acidification conditions. It does mean that there are some coral communities out there--and we've found one--that appear to have figured it out. But that doesn't mean that all coral reef ecosystems are going to figure it out."
So because someone said that I have to agree with it? is that how science works?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 19:41 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut. you first raised the example of Palau in your post here, where you gave this link:
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=130129&preview=false
Do you agree that the text at that link includes the following quote:
"It doesn't mean that coral reefs around the globe are going to be fine under ocean acidification conditions. It does mean that there are some coral communities out there--and we've found one--that appear to have figured it out. But that doesn't mean that all coral reef ecosystems are going to figure it out."
If so please explain why you are ignoring this explicit caveat. Note that you are currently misrepresenting what your source of information actually says, which is every bit as much of an academic wrong-doing as plagiarism.
I suggest we ignore voneggut until he/she gives an adequate explanation of why he/she is repeatedly ignoring this caveat, even though it has been pointed out more than once. -
Vonnegut at 19:35 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Wont the free swimming stage every month mean they are widely distributed?
-
Tom Curtis at 19:20 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut @75, the individual coral polyps are probably not very old at all. The coral species, however, are likely thousands of years old, and potentially 100s of thousands years old, with Palau adapted subspecies being less than about 8 thousand years old.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:17 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut @72, it is highly unlikely that a mobile species such as fish would adapt more rapidly than corals. That is for two reasons. The first of these is that species adapt to the range of environments they typically experience. For mobile species, that is likely a far greater range than for sessile species such as corals. Second, fish are likely to have a slower rate of repreduction, which slows adaption. Corals reproduce monthly, and in bulk which allows a very fast turn over of generations, and high mutation rates - both conducive to rapid adaption. Fish are variable, but generally have fewer generations in a given period, and fewer offspring.
Consequently, while fish are probably well able to survive being caught in tide pools with aberrant pH values, that is probably primarilly because the pH is normalized within hours so that the damage, if any, is transient and quickly recovered. In contrast to that case, with OA there will be no convenient tides to flush out the water and restore the prior pH balance.
-
Vonnegut at 19:05 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
"Although coral mortality was as high as 90% is some areas after the 1998 bleaching event, recovery has been tremendous. The Palau International Coral Reef Center has monitored 22 sites since 2001 and found that coral cover has increased at an annual rate of 2.9% from 2001 to 2004. The average coral cover across all monitoring sites in 2004 was 31%. Surveys from 2006-2007 show continuing recovery and increased coral cover at all sites. In addition to the Protected Areas Network Act of 2003, which supports local communities in setting up MPAs, the Micronesia Challenge is a specific initiative originally proposed by the President of the Republic of Palau that has attracted wide support"
www.reefbase.org/global_database/default.aspx?section=t4
Maybe many corals arent that old in Palau?
-
Tom Curtis at 18:14 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut, consider your text in your post @72. If I wanted to quote it, I would first copy and paste it. I would make sure it was a seperate paragraph. I would then place quotation marks at the start and the begining of the text. Having done all that, I would then highlight the text, including the quotation marks and press the "blockquote" button on the basic dashboard of comments. The result:
"While I agree with the thrust of your argument, its easy to forget there are many other creatures that live in the area by choice and are free swimming so maybe adaption to an environment like this is more instant. Such as when the tide goes out fish get stuck in tidal pools and have to put up with less alkaline even sometimes acidic water."
If the quotation was on a different site, or a different page on this site, I would then indicate who wrote it, and where. Often I do that simply by name and with a link in the introduction to the quote. If I wanted to emphasize a particular point within the quotation, I would highlight it, but then note in brackets after the quote that the emphasis (ie, the highlighting) was mine.
Now, here is a quote from my post @66:
"Interestingly, the site at Milne Bay has the '... local traditional site name “Illi Illi Bua Bua” [which] translates to “Blowing Bubbles”' (Fabricius 2011, supplementary information)."
(Emphasis added).
You will notice that I have emphasized the quote within that quote by italicizing it. That was probably necessary to avoid confusion, given the number of double and single quotation marks in the text. As the quote from Fabricius was only of part of a sentence, I did not give it a distinct paragraph, but rather simply led into within the sentence. I made a point of noting missing text with ellipsis ( "..."); and of noting my addition to the text by enclosing it in square brackets ( "[ xxx ]"). Neither the omission nor the addition alter the meaning of the text. It is important that you never in fact alter the meaning of the text when quoting. The addition was only necessary to form a gramatically correct sentence. Of course, you can, and typically should check those claims for yourself, which is one of the reasons citing the source is necessary. I forget to include the link through pure oversight. That is, I intended to do it, but forgot that I had not yet done so when I pressed submit.
For now, as this is new to you, do not bother with quoting anything less than a full paragraph. Make sure you enclose it in quotation marks and indent it with the blockquote button, and cite the source prefferably with a link. It is too easy for inexperienced quoters to inadvertently alter the meaning of text if they try to do more than that.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:57 PM on 5 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
jja @56, sorry, I was insufficiently clear.
I understand that your equation for TOA flux is:
y=0.1243*x^2 - 0.2485*x +0.2175
where y is the TOA flux, and x is the date.
When I plug that equation in using years AD for X, I get values of the order of 500,000. I am sure you will agree that is absurd. Consequently I tried subtracting 1977 from AD for years on the assumption that years are numbered over the period of interest. In that case, 2008 has a "TOA flux" ~116 W/m^2 which is again absurd. At that stage I have assumed that you are not using years as a unit, and have asked for the units for duration (x-axis) and the origen for the x-axis expressed in terms of AD.
-
Vonnegut at 17:33 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@71 sorry Tom I cannot see any quotes in the piece you posted on 71 Just 2 links. When I press the " button it doesnt put quotes on the text It just moves the cursor..
-
Vonnegut at 17:28 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
While I agree with the thrust of your argument, its easy to forget there are many other creatures that live in the area by choice and are free swimming so maybe adaption to an environment like this is more instant. Such as when the tide goes out fish get stuck in tidal pools and have to put up with less alkaline even sometimes acidic water.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:24 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut @69, my text, where not in quotes, is original to me. I researched the facts, formed an opinion, and then expressed that opinion in my own words. You are quite welcome to look up the supplementary material of Shamberger et al (2014) which is linked above, or that of Fabricius et al (2011) to confirm that fact. You will find the only direct quote is regarding the local name of the Milne Bay site, which I clearly indicated by single inverted commas.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:19 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut @68, the corals of Palau are clearly adapted to unusually low pH. That adaption may mean they are more resistant to even very low relative pH levels, so that they can survive at a pH of 7.4 while other corals are dying of at 7.8. Alternatively, it may mean they have a narrower range of reduction in pH before they reach the limit of their adaptability. Which of these is true depends on:
1) How long they have been adapted to near their current levels of pH (selection under pressure reduces genetic variability, limiting the pace of future adaptions);
2) Whether or not there exists a hard biological limit in pH below which corals simply cannot adapt to no matter how long they have to do so; and
3) The extent to which they have experience lower pH than current in prior years (which may allow some level of pre-adaption).
Which of these is the case cannot be determined a priori, and indeed probably require very detailed and carefull studies to determine.
What can be known with high probability from the general situation is that coral health is not independant of pH levels, so that significantly decreased pH will decrease the health of a coral community (and a reduction of pH from 7.8 to 7.4 represents a 150% increase in Hydrogen ion activity). Further, it is known that elevated CO2 concentrations will decrease pH even within Palau's lagoons. Consequently OA is still a problem for Palau. It just may be less of a problem than for other coral communites, or possibly more depending on the factors described above.
On a side note, the discovery of the acidity resistance of the Palau corals is unquestionably good knews in one respect. While those corals may or may not be able to survive at Palau with future pH reductions, they will be able to survive if transplanted to other locations with, currently, higher pH. While this would not save all coral species, nor save the great barrier reefs it does mean coral phylum is less likely to go extinct. It probably wasn't going to in any event, but this provides a significant boost to the phylums chance of survival.
-
Vonnegut at 17:06 PM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
I see your text isnt in quotes like mine isnt what did I do wrong that you didnt?
-
jja at 16:59 PM on 5 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
geez, sorry
Total Energy per decade = ((TOA)/(.62))*10YEARS*1E22
-
jja at 16:57 PM on 5 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom,
The function that you are using plots the decadel energy deposition in Watts/m^2
y=.1243*x^2 - .2485*x +.2175
The values produced are
decade Energy
1 0.0933
2 0.2177
3 0.5907
4 1.2123
5 2.0825
6 3.2013
7 4.5687To reproduce the graph, take the above values and convert from annual average W/m^2 to decadel total energy deposition
use the following conversion: Total Energy per decade = ((TOA)/(.62*10))*1E22
This produces the following values for total energy added in each decade:
Decade Energy added in the Decade
1 1.50E+22
2 3.51E+22
3 9.53E+22
4 1.96E+23
5 3.36E+23
6 5.16E+23
7 7.37E+23The first data point is 1978 which began at 5.5E22joules
1978 5.5E22joules
Then add the first decades value to 1978 to get the 1988 value
1988 7E22joules Then add the next decade value to the 1988 value
1998 10.51joules and so on to produce the final values
year energy value
1978 5.5E+22
1988 7.005E+22
1998 1.052E+23
2008 2.004E+23
2018 3.96E+23
2028 7.319E+23
2038 1.248E+24
2048 1.985E+24
incidentally, I performed another test that added the 1968 value of -4E22 and found the following function that produced a higher energy deposition rate in future years. Both of these functions produce a current TOA that is within the error range estimation of Hansen and Soto for their 2008 average. What is very interesting is how rapidly this TOA is rising as the global temperature surface temperatures have stabilized.
I consider this to be a high-range estimate and the previous to be the mid-response estimate.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2z4lfkp.jpg
Prev 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 Next
