Anybody think this is a good idea?
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/09/24/aquatic-robots-deployed-to-fight-climate-change/
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Mark Silbert
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by AK
No. It's ridiculous. It would actually make the problem <b>worse!</b> If you don't understand why, perhaps you shouldn't be speaking up about "ocean acidification". Perhaps <b>they</b> shouldn't.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Willard
> Re Dip my toe
It’s rather Re “take some comfort” mixed with “dip my toe”.
Appealing to Alan’s senority fails to explain that mix.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by aaron
No. I suspect that our increasing CO2 emissions are feeding crops and bringing moisture and rainfall to land and keeping yields high, particarly on marginal lands.
Sounds like a waste of good CO2 to me. What happens to farms if concentration just stop increasing so fast? What happens if they fast?
I’m far more worried that we won’t be able to keep up the increase in concentration than I am that ocean life won’t adapt. When concentration growth starts fall, I suspect that’s when we’ll see famine and climate refugees.
What if sinks, natural and man made, out grow our ability to generate emission and our ever increasing yields are largely dependent on increases?
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by aaron
Argh. I phone typing into WordPress comments ain’t so great.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by aaron
Is this taking away the very resources these “fragile ” species need to build shells?
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Mark Silbert
My “question” was my form of sarcasm AK!
Just one more example of the lunacy that’s out there.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Steven Mosher
Geoff.
He has a lousy argument, REGARDLESS of what dip my toe means.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/23/ocean-acidification-discussion-thread-2/#comment-732775
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by jim2
The full court lefty press continues … from the article:
A melting Arctic: The world is skating on thin ice
…
The race for the Arctic is on in more ways than one, creating new environmental, human and geopolitical risks in one of the world’s most inhospitable environments—one in which no nation is fully prepared to operate. Consequences to the future of our planet are huge. This month researchers in Sweden published a study showing how melting sea in the Arctic is encouraging methane emissions—exacerbating climate change and the warming of the atmosphere. That’s because the ice acts like a windshield reflector to the sun’s warming rays, and without it the oceans absorb more heat.
According to a recent scientific study by Cambridge University and the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, this climate change will add an extra $43 trillion of cost to the global economy by the end of the next century.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/24/a-melting-arctic-the-world-is-skating-on-thin-ice.html
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by RiHo08
The issue of ocean acidification seems to have focused upon the flux of available Calcium and the abundance or limitation of calcite or its conjugates. What I didn’t see was an assessment of protein-C02 conjugates such as:
PlantPhysiol.(1988)87,833-840 0032-0889/88/87/0833/08/$O1.00/0
Effect of CO2 Concentration on Protein Biosynthesis and
CarbonicAnhydraseExpressioninChlamydomonasreinhardtii’
JANE BAILLY AND JOHN R. COLEMAN* CentreforPlantBiotechnology,DepartmentofBotany, UniversityofToronto, Toronto, Ontario,CanadaM5S 1AI
The biosynthesis of proteins incorporating CO2 doesn’t seem to have hit the science community let alone the media. Algae blooms seems to have been acknowledged yet the CO2 absorption by such blooms doesn’t seem to have reached the critical assessment. I am not saying that protein formation/incorportation is a vast CO2 sink. It just hasn’t been studied.
Another story not seen is that of CO2 and formation of carbohydrates other than in tree rings or wheat yields.
I believe that the CO2 story is one of many niches which are yet to be addressed or discovered and influence the ultimate survival of terrestrial and oceanic life. Elevated CO2 probably has little or not influence on the big picture. Humans have lived with 40,000 PPMv for a very long time, well before Mann inhabited the earth.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by jim2
I can’t answer that unless the Pope blesses it.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by mosomoso
Sir Joseph Banks and the Royal Society got all excited about a suddenly melty Arctic back in 1817. Then the bloody place froze up worse than Windows Vista.
Jim, I like it that the cost is going to be an extra $43 trillion by the end of next century. Odd numbers like 43 or 97 are so much more convincing. Clearly this has been a study by experts. Now, we just need a survey on how people feel about all this. My guess is that 93.7% of respondents will think it’s time to tackle melty ice. And they’ll be the nice empathic ones with emotional literacy.
Gawd…don’t you just yearn for an adult now and then? It’s like we’re stuck in some creche with brats showing us their colouring-in and Lego models non-stop. And they’re the ones getting paid.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by ordvic
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by ticketstopper
@Mosher
The problem with your comment is that the real situation isn’t between competing uncertainties, it is between the thesis of ocean acidification vs. the null hypothesis.
In this particular case, the null hypothesis is that the small – even in the 100 year time frames – of theoretical back of the napkin estimates of ocean pH changes is so small as to be meaningless. That this is far lower than daily, monthly, or even seasonal variations just reinforces the null hypothesis.
It is *not* a don’t worry attitude. It is an “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” attitude.
It is the ongoing attempts by alarmists to reframe the null hypothesis which is most worrisome because that is marketing, not science.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by jim2
What does the Pope say?
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by ristvan
Willard, you try to hard. i chronicled the issue of the Netarts Bay Whisky Creek Miyagi oyster hatchery in detail. To sum, Netarts Baynis not an estuary, but Miyagi oysters are estuarine. Estuaries change pH from ( in that region-Oregon Wahington by a full pH plus between winter and summer. Miyagi spawn when water is warm-summer. Whiskey Creek was taking in upwelling low pH water, warming to to induce spawn, without also raising pH. Stupid mismanagement.
As for the paper Feely published on this, then his PMEL website discussion, and the Seattle Times report, there is no excuse. He knew, or should have known, about estuarine species habits. His OA conclusion was and is just a shell game. He bordered on scientific misconduct.
You provide no refutation of those facts, because you cannot. Facts just are.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by jim2
A pearl of wisdom from Rud, tossed before swine.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by ristvan
You are quite right. All these organisms secrete shell from an outer organic membrane, inside which is much more complicated biochemistry at lower pH. How those processes interact with ‘exterior’ water pH and carbonate saturations has been studied in the lab, with winners and losers. But a recent paper called most of the lab test conditions into question.
Is there an issue with acidification? Probably, depending on rate of change. Is it catastrophic? Probably not. The biological uncertainty is great. Plus, there has been some provable chicanery overstating the downsides. My essay Shell Games exposes two. The guest post here was only the second of the two.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Willard
> [Y]ou try to[o] hard.
Copy-pasting is quite easy, Sir. A bit less easier would be to synthesize Michael’s arguments. Let’s do that:
(a) No direct evidence of a shell game, just lots of “alarming”. The same word Alan used, incidentally.
(b) No evidence that the “smoking gun” quote is the smokin’ gun you hold it to be.
(c) A failure to establish the relevance of the study with the topics covered by the public outreach, a failure which would have been parried by reading the article’s title alone.
(d) A mansplanation of some tidbits of the science using the tidbits from your own target, without attribution to boot.
(e) A failure to acknowledge that the study’s conclusions were tentative, as it should be.
(f) The omission of the fact that Hales et al already confirmed the problem underlined by the study.
(g) The injection of your faith in adaptability, which mix two genres (H/T Alan), i.e. the science detective story and the messianic futurology.
(h) A small typo that resembles the one Alan made himself in the text.
***
> You provide no refutation of those facts, because you cannot.
These facts are irrelevant to the points Michael made.
***
> Facts just are.
… what they are, and nothing else, like would perhaps repeat the good ol’ Bishop Butler.
However, inferences are not facts, and irrelevant facts are just that: irrelevant facts.
***
Next time, Sir Rud, you can be sure I will try harder.
Shell games. Billions upon billions of shell games.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by mosomoso
Pope Junta wants equal poverty for all…and the Falklands back.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
