<a href="http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/active-ocean-acidification-calculator.html#1" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the active version.
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Nick Stokes
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Nick Stokes
<i>"Do you think that there is a single authoritative index is and that it provides useful information about the earth’s climate?"</i>
Well, there's <a href="http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#mesh" rel="nofollow">TempLS</a> :) And yes, it does.
But the fact is, there are several well-regarded indices, and they tell the <a href="http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#Drag" rel="nofollow">same story</a> for surface temperatures. We get many thousands of readings each month; good information can be extracted.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Wagathon
When you consider the ocean is infinitely buffered, ‘acidification’ makes as much sense as ‘pregnification’: you either is or you isn’t.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by hockeyschtick
“The first consequence of the solution of CO2 in seawater is the formation of carbonic acid, but this immediately dissociates to form bicarbonate.
Actually, this is a rather slow process”
Well, only if you consider 26 milliseconds to be “slow”:
New paper finds carbonic acid (blamed for ‘ocean acidification’) only lasts 26 milliseconds before forming bicarbonate buffer:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150616131621.htm
The buffering capability in comparison to the CO2 0.04% content of the atmosphere is negligible. The oceans hold 50 more times more CO2 “equivalent” than the atmosphere. Once again, the tail does not wag the dog.
The evidence that pH has decreased from 8.2 to 8.1 over the modern era is very dicey, exceeds errors, and is not truly statistically significant. Ever try to calibrate a modern pH meter to 0.1pH accuracy? it’s STILL not easy, much less a century ago. And proxies of pH are VERY inaccurate.
Worst/best of all,
“Near the surface, we expect to find the highest pH values, with progressively lower values downwards. At the surface of the Pacific, values run from pH 8.05 in the tropics to pH 7.6 in the Gulf of Alaska while, at 1000m in high latitudes and 250m at the equator, water of around pH 7.5 occurs at mid-‐depths; a similar pattern occurs in the Atlantic, where near-‐surface water in the Arctic regions reaches pH 8.2 compared with about 7.9 in the African upwelling regions in low latitudes. Near-‐surface, the pCO2 difference between gas and water phases controls gas CO2 exchange across the surface, while in the interior of the ocean pCO2 values are controlled by respiration and carbonate dissolution.”
This is essentially proving that temperature dominates Henry’s Law to stratify pH by temperature, dominating over pCO2 concentrations, proven by many many papers from lakes to the world’s oceans.
Temperature thus dominates by far over atmospheric pCO2 and is the dominant control over both oceanic/atmospheric ingassing/outgassing/pCO2s, not to mention T LEADS CO2 on all timescales short, medium, long. The cause does not follow the effect.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by dalyplanet2
Feely is the guy with a long history so you would be remiss to dismiss his opinion. Nic Stokes and another had an interesting discussion about the chemistry used in that paper.
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Roscoe Shaw
Thanks for the interesting discussion on data adjustments. I have a couple of questions for those of you who have dug deep into the data on this issue.
… What are the pluses and minuses of sat temps vs sfc thermometers ?
… Sat temps have risen more in the past 12 months but less in the last 35 years than sfc thermometers. Why are they different ? Is the difference error of measurement or can it be explained otherwise.?
… The USA started a pristine database in 2004. How does it compare to Giss, Hadcrut, Best, Uah, Rss? Have other countries set up similar surface networks?
… What is your estimate of error in our ability to est global temp index?
… If you were global climate czar with current funding levels, where would you spend more and where would you reduce funding?
Thx
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by gymnosperm
” Of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide that was emitted into the atmosphere during the 19th and 20th centuries, approximately 48% has been dissolved in the oceans, ”
Say what?
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Roscoe Shaw
The Callendar 1938 paper is a great read. I’m not sure we really know more than he did!
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by bedeverethewise
Not sure why I think this is so cool, or if is relevant to the current discussion, but, there are lakes of liquid CO2 in the deep ocean.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by gymnosperm
Current ocean uptake is net 1.6 GtC per the IPCC Carbon cycle.
This 1.6 GtC represents about 1/8 of current human emissions per year. Current human emissions are far greater than they have ever been historically. Human emissions are 3% of the Carbon cycle. We toss in our chit and it is never seen again. We have no way to trace our contribution (don’t even think about isotopes, soils produce six times human production with an identical signature).
48% of human emissions since 1850 have NOT been dissolved in the oceans!
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Willard
I think I found the real W15:
Ocean acidification results in co-varying inorganic carbon system variables. Of these, an explicit focus on pH and organismal acid–base regulation has failed to distinguish the mechanism of failure in highly sensitive bivalve larvae. With unique chemical manipulations of seawater we show definitively that larval shell development and growth are dependent on seawater saturation state, and not on carbon dioxide partial pressure or pH. Although other physiological processes are affected by pH, mineral saturation state thresholds will be crossed decades to centuries ahead of pH thresholds owing to nonlinear changes in the carbonate system variables as carbon dioxide is added.Our findings were repeatable for two species of bivalve larvae[,] could resolve discrepancies in experimental results, are consistent with a previous model of ocean acidification impacts due to rapid calcification in bivalve larvae, and suggest a fundamental ocean acidification bottleneck at early life-history for some marine keystone species.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2479.html
The first article has been found by putting the string of note 577 in my search bar. However, the page number and the first author did not coincide. I found the correct article by browsing using the carousel functionality of the website, i.e. the arrow at the right of the page. Searching otherwise gave nothing.
A working URL or a DOI would have saved some man-minutes here. OTOH, it may have prevented me from finding the Science article with the “corrosive” word.
***
Note that the authors conclude that this bottleneck idea is repeated at the end of the analysis of their experiment results:
[A]lthough seawater pH effects on organismal acidosis may also be at work during this early larval stage, we have experimentally shown that any pH effect is overwhelmed by the impact of saturation state during initial shell formation. The likelihood of organisms experiencing such low pH conditions without coinciding low-Ω conditions is also very unlikely (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1). Therefore, the conclusions from this study do not contradict the importance of pH on marine bivalve larvae, but rather highlight the overwhelming significance of saturation state at this critical bottleneck for bivalve larvae.
As I only dipped my toe, this conclusion brings me comfort.
***
I note that “erod” does not seem to appear in the real W15, so I’m not sure how the Author can use W15 as an authority to claim about adult shells. Neither does the word “undersaturation” appears. Finally, it’s quite clear that the authors of W15 do not minimize the importance of pH on marine bivalve larvae.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by dalyplanet2
Here is Stokes with his winning argument Willard, this little interesting interactive chart was the result of that particular discussion. I thank you Nick, for that chart.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Willard
> Feely is the guy with a long history so you would be remiss to dismiss his opinion.
Since Feely’s the guy who wrote an article in Science with the word “corrosive” in the title, Planet, I may not be the one to whom your remark should be directed.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by oldfossil
Although Mike Wallace didn’t post this story on his own site http://www.abeqas.com here are his comments, though at a site considered to be a dirty word by some: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/23/touchy-feely-science-one-chart-suggests-theres-a-phraud-in-omitting-ocean-acidification-data-in-congressional-testimony/
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Willard
> Here is Stokes with his winning argument Willard […]
That’s great news, Planet. Please refer to the text:
The water that lies below 140m in the California Current has pH values <7.7 (compared with oceanic surface water of pH 8.0) and has an aragonite saturation state of <1.0 so that, after each upwelling episode such values may be found on the narrow shelf and even near shore. Accordingly, the title of a Science paper evoked the upwelling of “corrosive” seawater at this coast and it was accompanied by a NOAA press release that can only be described as alarmist. Of course, in the strictest sense this term is correct, because there is evidence that seawater of pH as low as this may erode the carbonate shells of some molluscs and other marine invertebrates, so the word can be justified.
The (uncited) NOAA press release has been transformed into “alarming reports” three paragraphs later. The Science paper has not been identified. Here’s the title of a candidate:
Evidence for upwelling of corrosive “acidified” water onto the Continental Shelf
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel3087/feel3087.shtml
The authors are Richard A. Feely, Christopher L. Sabine, J. Martin Hernandez-Ayon, Debby Ianson, and Burke Hales.
I’ve heard good words about Feely recently.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Roscoe Shaw
We statistical types certainly believe a reliable estimate of a global temp index can constructed. It’s really not that hard… It just has error bars.
I am concerned, however, that all the adjustments I have seen have made the overall warming trend greater. Can anyone cite a major revamp of a sfc temp data set that made the temp trend lower? Could be… I am a casual observer.
I would prefer to see error corrections that fall more randomly in a normal distribution around the mean. Every time you flip the coin, it comes up heads. After a while, you begin to doubt the coin.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by dalyplanet2
Well Golly we agree Willard. If we keep dumping CO2 into the ocean and the biota does not process, why then we are in trouble.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by dalyplanet2
Well Golly we agree Willard. If we keep dumping CO2 into the ocean and the biota does not process, why then we are in trouble.
Placed out of place earlier.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by dalyplanet2
No need to be corrosive Willard, I stopped by to help you out, not that you need help. Depends on the meaning of help I suppose.
↧
Comment on RICO! by Punksta
It reflects an attitude that fossil fuels would inevitably be phased out for alternatives because of what CO2 was doing. The path needed was very obvious already 33 years ago.
So obvious that 33 years and untold $billions later, we still don’t know.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
