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 06:29 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
The evidence is all around us, the world didnt end, I could post studies of creatures that have been tested and survived but is that what you want?
While searching ive found it very odd that no test ive seen shows the ph of the water the fish was taken from. Almost like it wasnt significant.
Moderator Response:[PS] Statement like "the world didnt end" constitute straw man arguements unless you can point to predictions made by climate scientists that it would. Enough of this kind of rhetoric please.
And yes, pointers to studies that support your viewpoint are precisely what is useful to a constructive discussion.
-
joeygoze9259 at 06:20 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
I am referring to forecasts made in 2007, 2008 and 2009 predicting an ice free arctic in 2013. Clearly over the top and did not come true.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 06:10 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut wrote: "Well Dikran youre entitled to your opinion. Yes a permanent drop of 15 degrees would affect many creatures, I just dont think a small drop in ph will, thats all."
For which you provide no evidence whatsoever, and describe scientific studies that suggest otherwise as pointless. This is odd behaviour for someone who had previously stated today that they were "trying to learn thats all".
-
ubrew12 at 05:57 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
joeygoze @12 said: "[Disbelieving the greenhouse effect] Goes in the same bucket as fringe arguments such as forecasts of the arctic being ice free in 2013" You can't seriously believe these are in the same bucket! The former is a refutation of basic Physics now two hundred years old. The latter is a forecast consistent with the last 30 year trend. There's a one minute stretch of this video that starts at 0:50, which shows the month by month trend in Arctic ice since the 1980s. Tell me you can look at that trend and NOT expect an ice free Arctic summer in the next decade or so!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYaubXBfVqo
-
mgardner at 05:56 AM on 5 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
MA rodger and grindup baker @16,17:
I'm looking for better images to clarify these concepts because words can be ambiguous, and used to the advantage of those trying to confuse and obfuscate.
1) "deep" But there is circulation in the 700m to say 1500m range, and there is much deeper, polar thermohaline, as well as some polar thermohaline in the upper range, if I understand correctly. The mechanisms are different, as well as the magnitudes (like temp differences) and consequently time scales.2) "fallacious argument that a mass cannot warm a warmer mass" Well, that's actually not a fallacy, if you are using conventional language. Which is what the mythologizers count on. You correctly point out the result of juxtaposing such masses, but it is a matter of the cooler mass cooling the warmer mass less than a cooler cooler mass would.
So, with that bit of confusing verbiage, I renew my request: Does anyone know of or could you create some kind of illustrations/animation that show masses (water) being displaced vertically when there is e.g. Eckman pumping, and something that shows net conventional heat transfer, but applied to this particular subject?
The idea being to preclude the obfuscation about both the qualitative aspects and the magnitudes.
Moderator Response:[PW] Unnecessary white space removed.
-
Vonnegut at 05:54 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
It raises the question at ph7 will it still be sea water? Will the salt fall out and freeze more readily?
-
ubrew12 at 05:47 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Something else is when Skeptics claim that 300 parts per MILLION is just too low a concentration to have any affect on 'darkening' the atmosphere to infrared light. Why, that's "next to NOTHING"! To that, I point out this ad:
http://www.poolcenter.com/p/party-pool-swimming-pool-color-dye
Yes, a mere 8oz of this dye will turn your crystal clear 20,000 gallon swimming pool black to visible radiation, twice over!
That's (half a cup/20,000 gallons)*(1gallon/16 cups) = 1.6 ppm. Oops, "Nothing" has magically become "Something"!
-
Vonnegut at 05:33 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Yes small drop, have you looked at how much ph changes in the sea?
-
joeygoze9259 at 05:33 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
This article mischaracterizes this out of the many skeptic arguments as..."One of the most ‘out there’ is that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist..." That is a fringe argument which goes against basic physics. It is not "one of the most out there" as characterized. As you note, not even Anthony Watts accepts this argument. Goes in the same bucket as fringe arguments such as forecasts of the arctic being ice free in 2013.
-
Composer99 at 05:17 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
"Small drop"?
Vonnegut, pH is a logarithmic scale.
A 0.1 decrease in pH represents an enormous change in the acidity of ocean waters.
From Wikipedia:
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] [Emphasis mine.]
Wikipedia's sources are noted in the excerpt are:
(5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
(6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96–9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
(7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop [This is a PDF document that Wikpedia links directly to.]
-
DSL at 05:09 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
And the Honisch et al. bibliography is also a great place to go next.
-
DSL at 05:08 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut, you seem to be searching for something that allows you to say, "gotcha!" and then walk away. If you were actually trying to understand how it all works, you'd lose the "you're so dumb" attitude and read over both the entire OA is not OK series and some of the more comprehensive studies, starting with Honisch et al. 2012. You'd then say, "ok, this is how I understand it . . . am I right?"
Instead, you're saying, "Ok, this is how I understand it, and I don't really care for your amateurish opinion on my understanding. It's clear that this is not happening or is not a problem. No, I don't need evidence. Or, rather, I need only need evidence to the extent that the evidence supports my pre-existing opinion."
I'll also point out that it's fine to play devil's advocate (e.g. "but what about X?"), but it's not ok to attach subtext that argues that scientists don't know what they're talking about and/or are engaged in fraud. You can draw those conclusions once you've read the existing research and have evidence that fraud is taking place. Until then, lose the accusatory rhetoric.
-
Vonnegut at 04:54 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Well Dikran youre entitled to your opinion. Yes a permanent drop of 15 degrees would affect many creatures, I just dont think a small drop in ph will, thats all.
I thank you for your input so far.
-
Vonnegut at 04:49 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Ive been searching for info on the ph range of the Menidia beryllina to no avail (anyone?)
also wasnt the experiment rather futile as the fish may not have spawned in such low ph water?
-
Vonnegut at 04:37 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
@61 in another 400 years? its dropped 0.1 in 200
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:25 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Second thoughts, I have gone back to thinking you are just trolling. You have no basis for saying that "0.1 ph rise is nowhere near the same as a 15 degree rise in mean tem". pHs and temperatures are not directly comparable without reference to the effects they have on the environment. UK flora and fauna has no problem with a 15 degree C daily variability, fish have no problem with a daily or seasonal 0.1 change in pH. That doesn't mean that fish can cope with a permanent change of 0.1 in pH and more than UK flora and fauna can deal with a permanent change of 15 degrees C in mean temperature.
The real slice of baloney though is the comment about the inuit. Sure inuit can adapt, but you may have noticed that the flora and fauna they encounter is rather different to the flora and fauna you are likely to encounter in the U.K. Do you think that just possibly the difference in mean temperature might be the reason?
Sorry, life is too short for this sort of persiflage when genuine discussion of the science is so much more interesting.
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:24 AM on 5 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Super article, Mark. Thanks!
...there can’t be radiation coming down from the atmosphere and heating us up.
Leaving aside Mark's lovely explanation, what I've never seen fully developed by skeptics (dismissives; whatever) making claims about the destination and ultimate fate of radiation is how photons know where they're supposed to be going. If somehow radiation avoids going from a cooler body to a wamer body, that behavior would require superluminal information transfer, a mechanism for photons to sort and choose their destinations, etc. A whole pile of "somehow" is left unaddressed.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:18 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut wrote "youre suggesting that its harder to adapt over time than it is day by day?"
No, I am saying that oscillatory vairiablity is easier to adapt to than long term effectively permanent change. I would have thought that was obvious from my contrasting "diurnal and seasonal temperature changes" with "permanent change".
I notice that on this thread again you are ignoring the example I gave. Do you think that UK native flora and fauna could adapt to a permanent drop of 15 degrees C in temperature, yes or no?
-
Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
I tried to calculate the energy imbalance based on this updated graph from Levitus et al. 2012. Each data point is a 5-year average, so the last point (2011) covers the period 2009-2013. This is my result:
Period Heat accumulation Energy imbalance 1961-1971 -0.9 x 1022 J -0.06 W/m2 1971-1981 +4.3 x 1022 J +0.27 W/m2 1981-1991 +4.4 x 1022 J +0.27 W/m2 1991-2001 +5.2 x 1022 J +0.32 W/m2 2001-2011 +8.4 x 1022 J +0.52 W/m2 1961-2011 +21.4 x 1022 J +0.27 W/m2 There is of course a significant uncertainty in these numbers, but they indicate that the average energy imbalance for the last decade was about twice that of the last 50 years.
According to figure 10 in James Hansen's Earth's energy imbalance and implications the contribution from oceans deeper than 2000 m and around Antarctica is slightly less than 0.1 Watt/m2 and from non-ocean about 0.06-0.07 W/m2. That brings the total energy imbalance for the last decade up to about 0.65-0.7 W/m2.
What I find most striking is the fact that even if the atmospheric warming in the last decade had continued at the same rate as before 2000 (0.2oC/decade), this would only add about 1 percent (!!) to the present energy imbalance.
Therefore a "hiatus" in the surface warming does not disprove AGW as long as the oceans continue to warm at their present rate!
-
grindupBaker at 04:15 AM on 5 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
MA Rodger #16 Yes, it's the fallacious argument that a mass cannot warm a warmer mass, used in both atmosphere (radiation) and ocean comments (the fallacy that heat cannot increase at depth with also increasing shallower, and this "heat gone forever" one). It ignores the underpinning of the entire topic, that the system has heat transfer dynamic near-balance on kiloyear time scales, with a warming system and a cooling system near-balanced to keep it their. If part of the cooling system is warmed (deep cold waters that well up various places) then the whole system eventually warms to a new higher near-balanced temperature. I think the skeptic position on that is actually philosophical, even if not stated, because it's really saying it'll not be our grandchildren when it's (deep heat) moved from nuisance to catastrophe so we shouldn't consider it (OT for this post so I'm not commenting).
-
Vonnegut at 04:09 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@43 youre suggesting that its harder to adapt over time than it is day by day?
0.1 ph rise is nowhere near the same as a 15 degree rise in mean temp, oddly enough using that analogy has made me think of Inuit, wonder what their average mean is?
-
Vonnegut at 03:58 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
I guess asking how the coelacanth made it to modern day is futile :)
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:54 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut wrote "the same way they adapt to changes in Ph and temp every day? bit by bit."
This is the same discussion we had on the other thread, just because X is tolerant to short term variations in Y does not imply that X is tolerant of long term changes in Y of similar magnitude. As I pointed out on the other thread, UK native fauna and flora can quite happily adapt to a diurnal and seasonal temperature changes of 15 degrees C, not much of it could adapt to a permanent change of 15 degrees C.
-
CBDunkerson at 03:50 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Vonnegut, are you really arguing that the fact some sea creatures can survive daily swings from 8.6 to 7.6 pH means that those same creatures will be able to survive daily swings from 6.6 to 7.6 pH after ocean acidification?
-
Vonnegut at 03:47 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
@41 the same way they adapt to changes in Ph and temp every day? bit by bit.
Take a fish from 58 degrees and drop in 80f water and it will die within hours if you do small increases over a few weeks they can survive.
Fair point ,noted.
-
CBDunkerson at 03:26 AM on 5 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
So, it seems like there are two separate ways of analyzing the consensus being considered here;- Studies: 'Nearly all climate scientists surveyed agree that AGW is happening.'
- Vonnegut: 'You did not ask every climate scientist so, statistical sampling be damned, there could be vast hordes of unasked climate scientists who do not agree.'
- Logic: Why haven't these vast hordes of disagreeing climate scientists come forward to contest the studies?
- Studies: 'Nearly all climate science research papers agree that AGW is happening.'
- Vonnegut: 'Not every research paper explicitly says "AGW is happening" so there could be vast hordes of papers by authors who disagree that were mis-categorized.'
- Logic: Why haven't the authors of these vast hordes of mis-categorized papers come forward to contest the studies?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:04 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
vonnegut, how could fish adapt to the change in as little as only 96 years?
The inland silverside is a fish that lives in estuaries and freshwater, this to me at least makes it surprising that OA proved to be such a problem for them. The fact that the work was published in a journal suggests that the outcome was non-obvious and the experiments were not pointless.
I should point out again that your posting style is not going to work well here, dismissing scientific research as pointless without paing attention to details (such as the natural habitat of the inland silverside) does not give confidence.
-
DSL at 03:00 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Vonnegut, even if something looks obvious, it still needs to be confirmed via the scientific method. There is a variety of information discoverable well beyond the basic confirmation or rejection of the primary hypothesis.
To me, it's obvious that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that humans are overhwlemingly responsible for the trend of the last 50 years. So why are we paying these scientists to work out the details. How pointless!
-
Vonnegut at 02:52 AM on 5 February 2014Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
I think the experiments above were pointless, who didnt know if you keep seafish in almost neutral water they would die and produce deoformed fry especially when they havent had 96 years to adapt to the change?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:37 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
The quoted paragraph seems pretty clear that the amounts involved are rather small. There is about 400ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere at the moment, so taking it all out in 3,500 year is about 0.1ppmv per year on average. The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is currently rising is about 1.5-2 ppmv IIRC, and that is about half of what anthropogenic emissions are actually contributing to the atmosphere. So without considering the effects of calcification a rough estimate might be that it accounts for 5% of anthropogenic emissions.
If we were to stop all emissions today, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall rapidly for 60 years or so until the atmosphere had equilibriated with the oceans, then more slowly as the upper layers of the ocean equilibriate with the deep ocean and but the full return to "pre-industrial" equilibrium will take tens to thousands of year to achive, largely by chemical weathering. See the work of David Archer (I've probably explained that badly and maybe have some details inaccurate, but the paper is a good one).
-
Vonnegut at 02:21 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Its in part 6 of the part 1 summary, It isnt clear how much co2 is being consumed by natural rocks.
This leads to mildly acidic rainwater (pH 5.7). Weathering consumes CO2 and means that river water contains a lot of bicarbonate. The amount of bicarbonate added to the ocean by rivers is equal to the amount of CO2 consumed and is sufficient to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere in 3500 years. Plainly this hasn't happened in the past. Something is returning CO2 to the atmosphere. That something is Eq. 1 for calcification
Moderator Response:[PW] Vonnegut, this will be your first and *last* warning, from me: your repeated violations of the Comment Policy of this blog will no longer be tolerated. do it again, and your subsequent posts will be deleted in their entirety, and no explanation will be given. You've been repeatedly warned, yet persist in sloganeering. Cease.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:07 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut, it might be best to deal with one question at a time. What "missing CO2" are you referring to and what sort of reaction with limestone do you have in mind? I suspect this might not be the most appropriate thread for this particular question.
-
Vonnegut at 02:02 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Is the missing co2 reacting with all the limestone across the globe?
Ive not seen any science where marine animals have been grown in a carbonate saturated and co2 heavy atmosphere to know if its true or not.do you?
Sorry to say it bu Palau comes close to an experiment doesnt it?
-
dana1981 at 01:58 AM on 5 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
Thanks heb0, fixed.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:55 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut, I am happy to hear that trolling was not your intention, however your behaviour on the thread so far is just what you would expect to see from someone who was trolling, so perhaps you may want to revise your posting style. Science is a search for the truth, so nobody here is going to give you a hard time if you ask specific direct questions to help you understand the arguments, and give direct answers to direct questions.
-
heb0 at 01:53 AM on 5 February 2014Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?
It looks like the "Click here to read the rest" link is broken.
-
Vonnegut at 01:42 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
I didnt know I was disagreeing with anyone. I wasnt aware the sea was in a state of saturation regarding carbonates.
Anyway I was wrong, please stop accusing me of trolling Im trying to learn thats all.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:19 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut wrote "Co2 for shell making...indirectly not directly. I saw the arguments posted on the first few pages, dont need to revisit thse do we?"
No, I didn't think you would admit you were wrong, I didn't think you would be able to prove Doug Mackie wrong either, and oddly enough you didn't. The fact that you blustered on anyway demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that you are not here for a rational discussion of the science and are just trolling. -
Vonnegut at 01:14 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Ive not seen any science where marine animals have been grown in a carbonate saturated and co2 heavy atmosphere to know if its true or not. Sorry to say it bu Palau comes close to an experiment doesnt it?.
-
Vonnegut at 01:01 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Co2 for shell making...indirectly not directly. I saw the arguments posted on the first few pages, dont need to revisit thse do we?
Is the missing co2 reacting with all the limestone across the globe?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:46 AM on 5 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut, You will note that I pointed out that you had made a statement that was factually incorrect, namely " I think most things in the ocean will be just fine, some even better for the extra co2 for shell making and food production," (emphasis mine), which is directly contradicted by the part 1 of the summary.
There is no point in discussing science with someone that can't admit when they are wrong, so I shall leave it at that unless:
(i) you can show that Doug Mackie's chemistry is incorrect and that OA will make more CO2 available for shell making (and that of the many other researchers who have published papers on OA)
or
(ii) you admit that you were incorrect and that the additional CO2 won't be useful for shell making.
There is nothing wrong with making incorrect statements, but there is everything wrong with not being able to admit it.
-
Vonnegut at 23:49 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
(1) so whats going to happen to those creatures in Palau being that theyre creating a more acidic environment? Surely the extra co2 pressure is imparted on their piece of ocean too? They must run out of carbonates soon?
(2)you can grow algae in abundance in a bucket of clean water and sunlight, and get it to flourish with co2 injected without knowing what else it needs.
(3)It wasnt intended to do anything except highlight the way 'may' can be used to demonstrate doubt and could be substituted with 'may not'.and still demonstrate doubt.
Saying Palau is deeply unrepresentative is a surprise, testing creatures in a lab is unrepresentative sometimes. I dont know for sure but I guess that the species in there are the same as other species locally that dont live in that particular reef, being that the creatures themselves are making the water more acid means its happening very fast? apart from the fact that its a great place to study the effects of OA even if they are created by the creatures within.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:50 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut@48
so we are back to where we started with unsupported assertions.
(1) Had you read part 1 of the summary on OA is not OK, you would know that although there is additional carbon in the oceans, it is not in the form that can be used for shell making (so I do have reason to think that OA is not OK, your opinion that most things in the ocean will be just fine on the other hand is unsupported opinion):
"Another effect of ocean acidification is to reduce the amount of carbonate that is available to marine organisms, such as shellfish, for making their calcium carbonate shells."
(2) Try living for a year on as much refined sugar and water as you can eat and drink (which will supply all of the carbon, oxygen and hydrogen you can use) and see how you feel afterwards. If you don't have suitable supplies of nitrogen and phosphorus you will not grow or flourish. The algae will only make use of the "free meal if one passes" if carbon is the rate limiting factor.
"Youre fixated on algae", this is a well known rehtorical technique of trying to wind your opponent up and irritate him. Sorry won't work on me, been discussing climate online long enough that this sort of nonense doesn't bother me. It does however demonstrate that your main interest is rehtorical rather than scientific. It was you that brought up the subject of algae, I am just asking you to justify your assertions on that subject.
(3) I did read it, and as I demonstrated it didn't support uour contention. Blustering about it doesn't change that. Again your tone seems intended to irritate, again it failed. If you have evidence, give a specific quote from the paper (and to show that you are not quote mining, mention any quotes from the paper that would not support your contention).
@47 no, I am saying that it doesn't support your assertion because it is a discussion of one reef that is deeply unrepresentative of the worlds reefs in general.
"I think youre confusing extra co2 with pollution we have plenty of pollution problems more damaging to reefs than co2."
This is a transparent attempt to divert the discussion away from OA. No, I am not talking about pollution, I am talking about OA.
-
Vonnegut at 22:36 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
(1) I think most things in the ocean will be just fine, some even better for the extra co2 for shell making and food production, you dont .
(2) Youre fixated on algae im sure they wont pass up a free meal if one passes.
(3) you didnt read 3 did you? theres a clue in it ;)
@47 you are saying OA will destroy reefs Palau is a prime example of how it wont.
I think youre confusing extra co2 with pollution we have plenty of pollution problems more damaging to reefs than co2.
-
MA Rodger at 22:20 PM on 4 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
grindupBaker @14.
Your -15ºC figure sounds about right for fresh water, so is probably okay for salt water as well. Ice changes its structure at about 200 bar so fresh water freezing would be coldest at about 2,000m, something below -20ºC.Such values for freezing remain entirely academic outside an 'ice cube' earth which would be when the ocean waters become a part of geology.
chriskoz @13.
I hope you agree that it is quite simple to establish that the deep ocean is cold because of the cold polar winter atmospheres. Once people know this reason for cold oceans they should be less inclined to say:-
"Ha, ha. Idiot! If AGW causes deep ocean warming, so what? It's too cold down there. It can't come back and warm anything once its mixed in. Don't you know anything? Haven't you ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?"
This becomes silly because, evidently, the warmer deep ocean water is not too cold to provide warming in a polar winter, an environment that doesn't just cool water down, it freezes it solid.
And that warmer deep ocean water doesn't even have to get back up to the Arctic/Antarctic to do so. If deep waters are warmer, they will be less dense than before. To cool the oceans, the cold polar waters drop into the depths because they are more dense. An increase in that relative density can only strengthen that ocan cooling process. By thus creating cooler oceans, the atmsphere will experience a warming. Or haven't you head of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, ha ha.Of course this is ridiculously simplisitic. But it is being aimed at simpletons.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:17 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
voneggut wrote "It isnt 'resistant' to OA it creates its own and its still connected to the ocean so whatever the mean ph is , its going to be on the receiving end."
this is pathetic quibbling, if the Palau reef creates its own OA it must also be resistant to OA as otherwise it would be poisoning itself. You are just trying to evade the fact that the reference you provided (again) did not actually support your argument. If you had more sense you would have just let it drop, rather than draw attention to that fact once more.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:15 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
vonnegut
(1) You claimedthat the diurnal range of pH from 8.6 to 7.6 at Lady Elliot Island reef flat (Great Barrier Reef, Australia) answered by challenge " If you want to argue that this is not a problem, it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence that changes in pH will not result in ecologial change.". That coral reef us unquestionably adapted to that range of DIURNAL pH, just as UK fauna and flora is well adapted to a 15 degree change in DIURNAL temperature. So the 15 degrees is not a big change in diurnal temperatures, for the U.K it isn't at all unusual. It would however be a big change in MEAN temperatures. You STILL have not established that OA that would result in large long-term changes in MEAN ocean pH would be tolerable for ocean flora and fauna that are adapted to the mean pH in their current environment, so the Lady Elliot island reef figures do not answer the challenge.
(2) You still have not addressed the point that CO2 may not be the rate limiting factor for growth of algae in coral reefs. If you want to find out what causes algal blooms, you could try looking it up on the WWW using google (e.g. Wikipedia - hint nitrogen is also needed to make proteins as well as carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and notrogen and phosphorus to make DNA).
(3) It is your responsibility to be able to provide support for your position, not mine.
-
Vonnegut at 22:02 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
.In other words, the reef at Palau is resistant to OA because of its geology and if you took the corals to some other location where the acidity was due to other factors they may not survive.
It isnt 'resistant' to OA it creates its own and its still connected to the ocean so whatever the mean ph is , its going to be on the receiving end.
-
Vonnegut at 21:55 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
(1) You misunderstood my reference, I know they describe the ph drop as becoming more acidic. It was reference the huge disparity between 15c mean temp change being the same as water going from alkaline past neutral to acid.
Its not about a particular reef and Im not suggesting all creatures can cope with changes such as those living around the barrier reef can, The ocean is an immense place with much variability in so many aspects. A whiting fish for instance would experience a change in ph from 8 to 6 and saltwater to esturine youre telling me that a change in mean ph of 0.1 will matter to him?
(2)we are discussing the effects of more co2 not a lack of nutrients for algae , Im guessing algal blooms happen because there is an excess of something. Im guessing its co2, it could be something else.
(3)You may know where to find the Annual mean ph you may not, does this mean you will find them or you wont?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:47 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
To give another example of vonnegut's quote mining, (s)he uses the web page here to support the claim "extremes of ph will have more effect on life than a change in mean". However the sub-title of the article is "Corals living in more acidic waters are healthy, but is the situation one-of-a-kind?" and later in the article it says:
Palau is the exception to other places scientists have studied.
Through analysis of the water chemistry in Palau, the scientists found that the acidification is primarily caused by the shell-building done by organisms living in the water, called calcification, which removes carbonate ions from seawater.
A second reason is the organisms' respiration, which adds carbon dioxide to the water when they breathe.
"These things are all happening at every reef," said Cohen. "What's critical is the residence time of the seawater."
"In Palau's Rock Islands, the water sits in the bays for a long time before being flushed out," said Shamberger. "This is a big area that's a maze with lots of channels and inlets for the water to wind around.
.In other words, the reef at Palau is resistant to OA because of its geology and if you took the corals to some other location where the acidity was due to other factors they may not survive.
"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."
Thus the article provides no real support for the contention made, whatsoever. Voneggut should be ashamed of him/herself for stooping to that sort of behaviour.
Prev 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 Next
