|
Post by sigurdur on May 1, 2010 0:17:38 GMT
Yes it worked. I find it amazing the fossils of leaves and etc found on Antarctica. Currently, it seems the views of the sicentists are a lot of we don't know. At least they are smart enough to say they don't know when they don't. As far as the shell fish, I think there is a lot more to the story and co2.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 1, 2010 3:38:45 GMT
Yes it worked. I find it amazing the fossils of leaves and etc found on Antarctica. Currently, it seems the views of the sicentists are a lot of we don't know. At least they are smart enough to say they don't know when they don't. As far as the shell fish, I think there is a lot more to the story and co2. It is something to study, not something to get alarmed about. We have freshwater mussels, a shell fish in our rivers that live at pH levels around 4. Considering how much more acidic the ocean has gotten "Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075)." the additional change required to get to river acidity is 13,000 times greater than all of that has occurred thus far in the industrial age. So yeah its a great thing to study what effect small changes have on our shellfish but it is so far away from anything to get alarmed about its silly until somebody can actually document some harm.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on May 7, 2010 20:20:16 GMT
“The decrease in upper ocean heat content from March to April was 1C – largest since 1979″ (from WUWT, by Pielke, Sr.) related post in EL NINO / LA NINA Forecast thread.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 7, 2010 23:16:51 GMT
Yes it worked. I find it amazing the fossils of leaves and etc found on Antarctica. Currently, it seems the views of the sicentists are a lot of we don't know. At least they are smart enough to say they don't know when they don't. As far as the shell fish, I think there is a lot more to the story and co2. At least they are smart enough to say they don't know when they don't. Oh if that were only true. There is no shortage of ocean acidification doom of the planet headlines. These "scientists" always dwell on the negative, never the positive aspects of CO2, and after one looks at all the facts, the realization sets in ocean "acidification" is just more scaremongering hype, no different than the atmospheric malarkey that hasn't worked out, and OHC which now they expect us to believe the oceans are warming from below Then you find out things like: or this On the Carbon Myopia
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 8, 2010 1:44:13 GMT
Woods Hole Research confirms that about 1/2 the crustacieans are co2 deprived. That when the ph of the oceans drops, 1/2 the crustacieans thrive much better. Lobster was one of those that reallllly thrived under lower ph conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 8, 2010 4:03:05 GMT
Woods Hole Research confirms that about 1/2 the crustacieans are co2 deprived. That when the ph of the oceans drops, 1/2 the crustacieans thrive much better. Lobster was one of those that reallllly thrived under lower ph conditions. I'm lazy .... got a reference, Sigurdur?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 8, 2010 12:41:17 GMT
Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twinWhile there's much focus on the impacts from warming temperatures, there's another more direct effect from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. More than 30% of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans is dissolved into the oceans, gradually turning ocean water more acidic. Coral reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg explains the threat of ocean acidification: "Evidence gathered by scientists around the world over the last few years suggests that ocean acidification could represent an equal – or perhaps even greater threat – to the biology of our planet than global warming". Thus a new paper Paleo-perspectives on ocean acidification (Pelejero et al 2010) labels ocean acidification the 'evil twin' of global warming.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-acidification-Global-warmings-evil-twin.htmlThe paper in question: Impacts of Ocean Acidificationwww.solas-int.org/resources/ESF__Impacts-OA.pdf
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 8, 2010 13:19:05 GMT
[/url] [/quote] The enviros like to call those Frankencrabs. If man has a hand in it. . . . . it is bad. For some its an abiding fear that like we always do we will find a way to exploit the abundance and make more people. Now that might be the only legitimate fear of them all but they don't have the nads to say that is what they are trying to prevent.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 8, 2010 14:45:17 GMT
Woods Hole Research confirms that about 1/2 the crustacieans are co2 deprived. That when the ph of the oceans drops, 1/2 the crustacieans thrive much better. Lobster was one of those that reallllly thrived under lower ph conditions. I'm lazy .... got a reference, Sigurdur? Here ya go Ratty: SoCold as well:http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 8, 2010 17:41:00 GMT
Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twinWhile there's much focus on the impacts from warming temperatures, there's another more direct effect from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. More than 30% of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans is dissolved into the oceans, gradually turning ocean water more acidic. Coral reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg explains the threat of ocean acidification: "Evidence gathered by scientists around the world over the last few years suggests that ocean acidification could represent an equal – or perhaps even greater threat – to the biology of our planet than global warming". Thus a new paper Paleo-perspectives on ocean acidification (Pelejero et al 2010) labels ocean acidification the 'evil twin' of global warming.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-acidification-Global-warmings-evil-twin.htmlThe paper in question: Impacts of Ocean Acidificationwww.solas-int.org/resources/ESF__Impacts-OA.pdf "Evidence gathered by scientists around the world over the last few years suggests that ocean acidification could represent an equal – or perhaps even greater threat – to the biology of our planet than global warming"As there would appear to be no 'threat' to the planet from Global Warming - the number of periods called 'Optimum' were all warmer than now; I agree with the statement which of course actually means that ocean acidification is NO THREAT to the 'biology of our planet'.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 8, 2010 17:54:34 GMT
Which it isn't. There are life forms that will flourish to their potential with a lower ph. Part of nature isn't it? And does this show us that these forms evolved during a period of lower ph values, and are now hanging on by a thread?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 8, 2010 23:00:10 GMT
To put the pH change in context, the ice core record shows co2 levels fluctuating between 190 and 290ppm for the past 650,000 years, in a well known pattern following the glacial and interglacial cycles. Today co2 levels have passed the upper limit of that natural cycle and are currently topping 390ppm. The pH level of the oceans tracks the atmospheric co2 level quite closely, so What this means is that ocean ecosystems have not experienced lower pH associated with co2 levels of 390pm and beyond for at least 650,000 years. In fact there's evidence that the "at least 650,000 years" could mean many millions: the current level of co2 is unprecedented for 15 million years: Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Reportwww.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htmTo put these timeframes in context of evolution, homo sapiens didn't exist at the beginning of the vostok ice core record. humans split from chimpanzees about 5 million years ago. So to expect ocean ecosystems to be adapted to conditions they haven't experienced for such a long time is a stretch. More likely ecosystems, with all their species and interactions between specieis, have adapted over millions of years to the existing high pH environment. They are probably adapted to the pH changes within a range over thousands of years as part of glacial/interglacial cycles. But there's no evidence they can tolerate pH changes outside this range, or that they can adapt to such a change in just a few hundred years. There is no reason to expect they would still be adapted to conditions 15 million years ago (a lot of the current species probably didn't even exist back then) I am sure some species will florish if pH lowers, but that's often a problem in itself. The same is true if I dump toxic waste in a lake. There's always a winner and the winner tends to help wipe out the losers. Even during mass extinction events there are species that florish. So that some species adapt is not always good for other species. It's the entire ecosystem which has to be known can adapt. Just saying, if you change something like the pH of the ocean very quickly to levels that current ecosystems are not tested against then expect trouble.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 8, 2010 23:22:03 GMT
In fact there's evidence that the "at least 650,000 years" could mean many millions: the current level of co2 is unprecedented for 15 million years: Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htmThere is evidence they were higher in the late 1800s. Why is that always ignored?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 8, 2010 23:23:36 GMT
because it's wrong
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 8, 2010 23:25:34 GMT
Direct scientific measurements are wrong?
|
|