IGBP - Ocean Acidification Summary for Policymakers 2013
Summary of outcomes The ocean continues to acidify at an unprecedented rate in Earth’s history. Latest research indicates the rate of change may be faster than at any time in the last 300 million years.
As ocean acidity increases, its capacity to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere decreases. This decreases the ocean’s role in moderating climate change. Species-specific impacts of ocean acidification have been seen in laboratory and field studies on organisms from the poles to the tropics. Many organisms show adverse effects, such as reduced ability to form and maintain shells and skeletons, as well as reduced survival, growth, abundance and larval development. Conversely, evidence indicates that some organisms tolerate ocean acidification and that others, such as some seagrasses, may even thrive.
Within decades, large parts of the polar oceans will become corrosive to the unprotected shells of calcareous marine organisms.
Changes in carbonate chemistry of the tropical ocean may hamper or prevent coral reef growth within decades.
The far-reaching effects of ocean acidification are predicted to impact food webs, biodiversity, aquaculture and hence societies.
Species differ in their potential to adapt to new environments. Ocean chemistry may be changing too rapidly for many species or populations to adapt through evolution. Multiple stressors – ocean acidification, warming, decreases in oceanic oxygen concentrations (deoxygenation), increasing UV-B irradiance due to stratospheric ozone depletion, overfishing, pollution and eutrophication – and their interactions are creating significant challenges for ocean ecosystems. We do not fully understand the biogeochemical feedbacks to the climate system that may arise from ocean acidification. Predicting how whole ecosystems will change in response to rising CO2 levels remains challenging. While we know enough to expect changes in marine ecosystems and biodiversity within our lifetimes, we are unable to make reliable, quantitative predictions of socio-economic impacts. People who rely on the ocean’s ecosystem services are especially vulnerable and may need to adapt or cope with ocean acidification impacts within decades. Shellfish fisheries and aquaculture in some areas may be able to cope by adjusting their management practices to avoid ocean acidification impacts. Tropical coral reef loss will affect tourism, food security and shoreline protection for many of the world’s poorest people. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-18-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: As usual, Flyinfieros posts partial truth, out of context statements and opinions, and very little facts.
Your post does nothing to address any of these lies.
You just ramble on and draw wrong conclusions from legitimate sources while ignoring the experts at those sources. It's no wonder you fail to include links to where you got your information when your own sources constantly disagree with you.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Another year, another gathering of the UN climate crazies, called COP 19. Let's take a look at what came out last year and this, showing us what the REAL purpose of this is...redistribution of wealth, NOT the climate.
I guess when all your 'evidence' falls flat on it's face you have to resort to conspiracy theories from biased political sources.
Also, do you really have no comment on the under handed tactics being used by a questionable 'source' you cited in your first post in this thread? Who would have guessed.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, and let's not forget the "green agenda"
Give it up fierobear. There's nothing you can post to redeem yourself. You've been branded and discredited.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-18-2013).]
Arn, there's a big difference between CO2 emissions and other pollutants such as soot, carbon, sulfur, etc etc.
CO2 emissions are (almost) directly related to the amount of fuel burned - a gallon of gasoline, for example, will always release the same amount of CO2. I say almost because a little bit becomes carbon monoxide, but this is trivial. There is a lot more fuel being burned today than in the 19th century.
Originally posted by kwagner: This got me thinking: Would there be a greater or lesser effect on the environment than today? I understand there are more people in the world today than then, but the combustion process was much less green than it is now.
Normal fireplaces and woodstoves are pretty dirty. Advances in science and technology have led to cleaner burning wood stoves. Power companies even considering mixing in wood with coal at power plants.
You asked about the threat to the environment. The largest impact from wood burning stoves is the fine particle matter left in the air. Burning biomass typically has a negative forcing impact on global warming, however it has positive forcing over snowy areas. Source. CO2 is estimated at 1.50 W/m² for comparison. The impact of forest fires and natural decay also produce CO2, but that CO2 is entirely absorbed by new growth. Source. Wood burning stoves do emit trivial amounts CO2 and it's not the biggest environmental impact.
The biggest environmental threat wood burning stoves make is the immediate one, not global. Air pollution is serious business with wood burning stoves. Developing countries still widely use wood and other biomass. It's estimated that 2.5 billion people still use biomass for heating and cooking. It's estimated that 1.3 million people die prematurely every year due to indoor air pollution from wood burning stoves. Substantial time is spent gathering fuels rather than on education or generating income. Source.
In developed worlds it's a problem too. Populated areas in low lying areas such as valleys have problems with air pollution because the smoke can't escape easily. And the brown haze 'obscures our enjoyment of scenic vistas' - yeah that's a 'problem'. Source
Woodstoves are actually pretty bad at heating a home though. Most of the heat goes out the chimney. In order to function stoves must create a draft somewhere. This means cold air is being sucked into your house through improperly sealed doors and windows. While a lot of people like to hate on EPA related anything, EPA certified wood stoves have benefits: Saves money, fuel, time and resources. 50% more energy efficient. Uses 1/3 less wood for the same heat. Cuts creosote build-up in chimneys that helps reduce the risk of fire. Produces 70% less particle pollution indoors and out. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-18-2013).]
1. JPL admits that satellite measurement of the Earth has issues because a stable Terrestrial Reference Frame was never established for any of the satellite programs. It’s like setting out to do a terrestrial survey without having an accurate benchmark first. This puts all subsequent data derived with the stable benchmark (the stable TRF) into question.
2. The lack of a stable TRF affects most if not all satellite programs used in this new Shepherd et al paper ‘A reconciled estimate of ice sheet mass balance‘ including ICESAT and GRACE, upon which the paper heavily relies.
3. In searching both the full paper (which I purchased from AAAS) and from the extensive supplementary materials and information (SM-SI available here: Shepherd.SM-SI.pdf ) for Shepherd et al, I find no mention of TRF or “Terrestrial Reference Frame” anywhere. It appears that all 47 authors are unaware of the TRF stability issue, or if they were aware, it was never brought to bear in peer review to test the veracity of the paper and its conclusions from the satellite data. Section 3 of the Shepard et al SM-SI deals with uncertainty, but also makes no mention of the TRF issue.
4. The lack of a stable TRF puts all of the space based geodetic data into question, thus the conclusions of the Shepherd et al paper are essentially worthless at the moment, since there isn’t any good way to remove the TRF error from the data with post processing. If there were, the GRASP team at NASA JPL wouldn’t be calling for a new satellite platform and mission to solve the problem. Obviously, this isn’t an issue they take lightly.
In my opinion, the folks at NASA JPL really should get those two teams talking to one another to get a handle on their data before they make grand announcements saying :
An international team of satellite experts has produced the most accurate assessment of ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland to date, ending 20-years of uncertainty.
A good first step would be to get the GRASP mission funded and then go back and redo Shepherd et al to see if it holds up. Until then, it’s just noisy uncertain data.
UPDATE: Figure 4 in the Shepherd et al paper shows clearly how uncertain the GRACE and other data is. They used a brief bit of Laser Altimetry data, shown in green. Laser Altimetry is more accurate that the radar/microwave based data from the other satellite platforms, and is one of the keystones specified for the proposed GRASP mission to clean up the noisy radar/microwave based data.
Note that the Laser Altimetry data in green is essentially flat across the short period where it is included in all four panels, though there is a slight drop in Greenland, but the period is too short to be meaningful.
(See figures at article)
The uncertainty is quite clear in Table 1, which has error ranges larger than the data in some cases:
Give it up fierobear. There's nothing you can post to redeem yourself. You've been branded and discredited.
More of your arrogance and self-declared victories. The only ones who are buying your garbage are the types whose only contibutions to this thread are things like
Speaking of hypocrisy, flyinfieros posted his objection to the Heartland Institute's mailing of their report with evidence against global warming to educators, and the objection is that it mocks or imitates the IPCC reports. But the very website he linked to does its own mockery. Once again, we see the blatant hypocrisy of flyinfieros and his ilk...
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."
AR5 is not science fiction, it is science fact. AR5 is the overwhelming consensus of 200 lead authors synthesizing the work of 600 scientists who analysed 9000 peer-reviewed publications. AR5 is arguably the most rigorous scientific report ever written. And, the findings of the AR5 have been endorsed by 195 governments, including all of those in which you operate.
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."
A political lobbyist organization that you support and cite in this thread mailed out marketing packets intended to brainwash students. These packets were maliciously manipulated to appear as if they came from legitimate scientific sources. You have no comment for that disgusting practice, but counter with "Project Steve"?
Did you mean for that to be funny?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Wow, looks like the "consensus" of scientists at the IPCC is down to 200. It used to be 2500, or 5000, depending on whose propaganda you believe
These posts read like "If I hurry up and drown out all the legitimate evidence FlyinFieros posts with nonsense, maybe people will take me seriously."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-18-2013).]
Wattsupwiththat isn't a source for pointing out issues with papers or studies, these papers are peer reviewed. Anthony Watts has been shown time and time again to have cherry-picked and ignored the relevant data in order to further his and his contributors agenda.
These posts read like "If I hurry up and drown out all the legitimate evidence FlyinFieros posts with nonsense, maybe people will take me seriously."
That's his M.O. Ignore the science and direct questions then flood the board with Copy and Pastes from favoured websites. But hey Climate Change denial is well funded and some people want to believe whatever tells them want they want to hear. It's always easier to ignore, pretend we're not responsible and hope it goes away.
I wouldn't believe anything Mr. Watts has to say, given his history of manipulating and falsifying data.
Although looking at Table 1 which he discredits using the following language:
"thus the conclusions of the Shepherd et al paper are essentially worthless at the moment"
But if you look at the data, while the margins of error are large, there is still undoubtedly a very negative trend in the ice sheet mass balance:
Antarctic Peninsula and East Antarctica are relatively stable, but Greenland and West Antarctica are way in the red.
When the new GRASP measuring system comes online that is supposedly more accurate and reinforces the current data, I wonder what Watts will do? Will he throw in the towel? Of course not, he will perform a 180 and slander that as well, like he did with the BEST study.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 11-18-2013).]
"... legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive “green energy” industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPA’s climate-premised regulatory rampage."
Of course, they can now do research on how to STOP the coming Ice Age (same article).
It's a good thing we have all the "honest" scientists doing research for "free"
Why would they be working for free? Any scientist who maintains his or her integrity will have no problem doing research in another field. It's insulting to accuse the majority of them of being bought out.
There are much easier ways to make money and get rich.
Why would they be working for free? Any scientist who maintains his or her integrity will have no problem doing research in another field. It's insulting to accuse the majority of them of being bought out.
There are much easier ways to make money and get rich.
The implication was that the "deniers" are funded better than truthful (implied) scientists. Just pointing out that they also have an interest in maintaining their funding. If they "changed their tune" wouldn't their funding disappear?
About getting rich - L. Ron Hubbard always said the best way was to start a new religion. Al Gore certainly found another easy way.
Originally posted by fierosound: Just pointing out that they also have an interest in maintaining their funding. If they "changed their tune" wouldn't their funding disappear?
Yeah, there's totally more money in education than oil companies.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: I see there's no distinction between man-made climate effects and natural ones anymore. That should help clarify things.
"... legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive “green energy” industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPA’s climate-premised regulatory rampage."
Of course, they can now do research on how to STOP the coming Ice Age (same article).
Yeah I keep forgetting about the uber-rich climate researchers. hahaha. So are people going to suddenly stop studying climate depending on the reason behind the changes?
That's the awesome thing about Science no matter how much people try to politicize it you can't change the facts. Oh.... but some will try and we are seeing the same tactics used over an over.
IGBP - Ocean Acidification Summary for Policymakers 2013
Summary of outcomes The ocean continues to acidify at an unprecedented rate in Earth’s history. Latest research indicates the rate of change may be faster than at any time in the last 300 million years.
As ocean acidity increases, its capacity to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere decreases. This decreases the ocean’s role in moderating climate change. Species-specific impacts of ocean acidification have been seen in laboratory and field studies on organisms from the poles to the tropics. Many organisms show adverse effects, such as reduced ability to form and maintain shells and skeletons, as well as reduced survival, growth, abundance and larval development. Conversely, evidence indicates that some organisms tolerate ocean acidification and that others, such as some seagrasses, may even thrive.
Within decades, large parts of the polar oceans will become corrosive to the unprotected shells of calcareous marine organisms.
Changes in carbonate chemistry of the tropical ocean may hamper or prevent coral reef growth within decades.
The far-reaching effects of ocean acidification are predicted to impact food webs, biodiversity, aquaculture and hence societies.
Species differ in their potential to adapt to new environments. Ocean chemistry may be changing too rapidly for many species or populations to adapt through evolution. Multiple stressors – ocean acidification, warming, decreases in oceanic oxygen concentrations (deoxygenation), increasing UV-B irradiance due to stratospheric ozone depletion, overfishing, pollution and eutrophication – and their interactions are creating significant challenges for ocean ecosystems. We do not fully understand the biogeochemical feedbacks to the climate system that may arise from ocean acidification. Predicting how whole ecosystems will change in response to rising CO2 levels remains challenging. While we know enough to expect changes in marine ecosystems and biodiversity within our lifetimes, we are unable to make reliable, quantitative predictions of socio-economic impacts. People who rely on the ocean’s ecosystem services are especially vulnerable and may need to adapt or cope with ocean acidification impacts within decades. Shellfish fisheries and aquaculture in some areas may be able to cope by adjusting their management practices to avoid ocean acidification impacts. Tropical coral reef loss will affect tourism, food security and shoreline protection for many of the world’s poorest people. Source.
You call these people scientists? God lord man, look up the definition of PH: Solutions with a pH less than 7 are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are basic or alkaline. Pure water has a pH very close to 7.
You call these people scientists? God lord man, look up the definition of PH: Solutions with a pH less than 7 are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are basic or alkaline. Pure water has a pH very close to 7.
The ocean is getting more acidic, meaning a reduction in pH. This isn't rocket science.
quote
IGBP =lobbyist organization.
If they are not, why do they need to prepare a "Summary for Policymakers"?
Are the center of disease control (CDC) or national ignition laboratory (NIL) lobbyist organizations because they present findings to policymakers too?
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 11-18-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: You call these people scientists? God lord man, look up the definition of PH: Solutions with a pH less than 7 are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are basic or alkaline. Pure water has a pH very close to 7.
Electric heat has zero annual pollution? Tell me another fairy tale. How do they think the electricity is generated? It may be clean at the output, but it is mostly generated from dirty sources like burning oil, coal, or garbage. I won't even mention reactor waste as that is another can of worms.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-18-2013).]
Originally posted by masospaghetti: The ocean is getting more acidic, meaning a reduction in pH. This isn't rocket science.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Carbonic acid is an acid. Increasing carbonic acid in the oceans makes them more acidic.
It's a very simple concept but you sure do love to argue meaningless semantics.
It's ONLY "meaningless semantics" when you are proven wrong.
You people are really thick - ask ANY chemist if adding a small amount of acid to a any base (enough to change the PH level from 8.1 to 8.1 makes it "acidic" as the post above implies. Is does NOT, is makes it simple less of a base - it does NOT become acidic until the PH level reaches below 7.0.
You clowns keep pointing out how something is worded incorrectly or blown out of proportion, yet when I point this out you say things like meaningless. Yes it is NOT rocket science.
If it is a reducing in PH - call it that, but calling it acidic is sensationalizing it plain and simple.
But if you want to call it that, then why say the earth is warming - isn't it simply less cool. I know, it doesn't make the same impact.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Are the center of disease control (CDC) or national ignition laboratory (NIL) lobbyist organizations because they present findings to policymakers too?
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: I'm not sure what's more sad. The fact you said the above seriously or the fact you believe you made a good point.
Hey, certain people on here keep beaking off about "political lobbyist organizations" (not my words) and how they are bad and make a BIG point about their "agenda", yet these same people like to turn a blind eye to "other" "political lobbyist organizations" and their agenda. Maybe you should try admitting that both sides have a political agenda and quit whinning about the "other side" so much.
I know, I know, without AGW people sensationalizing about the events, there is no way that they can make their point.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 11-18-2013).]
Originally posted by avengador1: It may be clean at the output
Thanks for understanding the purpose of the chart.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: It's ONLY "meaningless semantics" when you are proven wrong.
If it is a reducing in PH - call it that, but calling it acidic is sensationalizing it plain and simple.
Oh I think I got it.
So when I heat up my soup for lunch I'm not making it hot, I'm just making it less cold. When I drive my car away from a stop sign I'm not making it move, I'm making it stop less. I don't mow the grass down, I simply make it less tall. And I didn't just drink all my water, I just made my glass more empty.
Or you could stop playing silly semantic games and realize the very simple truth that it doesn't matter what you call it if you're still calling it the same thing. Becoming less alkaline is the exact same thing as becoming more acidic.
Crying over how 'sensationalist' it sounds is senseless. The description is accurate and the consequences of ocean acidification are genuinely alarming. Your concerns are indeed "meaningless semantics."
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Maybe you should try admitting that both sides have a political agenda and quit whinning about the "other side" so much.
You further explain these things as if we didn't understand you the first time. I get what you're trying to say but you're completely wrong.
On one side scientific research made discoveries that are making their way to public policy. On the other, fear of said public policy is driving false scientific research to delay implementation as long as possible. This thread has been a shining beacon of the latter. You're trying to pretend that motivation on both sides is the same. Even Ray Charles could see that it's not.
Two U.S.-based ethical investment companies — Ceres and Carbon Tracker Initiative — have written to 45 of the world’s oil companies on behalf of big pension and institutional investors to ask about how they intend to manage demands to deal with climate change.
“There is a deep concern that the industry, especially the oil and gas industry, is betting vast amounts of capital contingent on a future of ever-increasing demands for ever-more expensive fossil fuels and the companies that I work with are concerned that that future is looking increasingly less likely,” said Andrew Logan, director of oil and gas programs at Ceres."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-18-2013).]
It's ONLY "meaningless semantics" when you are proven wrong.
You people are really thick - ask ANY chemist if adding a small amount of acid to a any base (enough to change the PH level from 8.1 to 8.1 makes it "acidic" as the post above implies. Is does NOT, is makes it simple less of a base - it does NOT become acidic until the PH level reaches below 7.0.
If you are going to argue stupid semantics, you shouldn't be so sloppy (see bold).
My post said more acidic, which is the same thing as less basic.
quote
You clowns keep pointing out how something is worded incorrectly or blown out of proportion, yet when I point this out you say things like meaningless.
Us "clowns" say its meaningless because you've added literally useless information. Whether the ocean is becoming more acidic, or less basic, the outcome is the same, and its not good news.
quote
Hey, certain people on here keep beaking off about "political lobbyist organizations" (not my words) and how they are bad and make a BIG point about their "agenda", yet these same people like to turn a blind eye to "other" "political lobbyist organizations" and their agenda. Maybe you should try admitting that both sides have a political agenda and quit whinning about the "other side" so much.
What is "beaking off" mean?
Both sides do have political agendas for sure, but there is no comparison between the Heartland Institute and virtually any scientific body.
You really had me going for a second or two, until I remembered that scientists have access to data from ice cores, marine sediments, and other organic and inorganic artifacts to reconstruct global temperatures and atmospheres over thousands of years of history. So they know how much CO2 and smoke was in the air during these earlier times.
Bwahaha..
First off the ice cores being analysed are not from Central Europe and Central Asia. The ice cores are from glaciers which are at a much higher elevation than the prevailing wind currents flowing across Europe. In addition the ice cores from Antarctica will not be relevent as will ice cores from Greenland due to prevailing wind currents.
Marine sediments are pretty much the same story. Who is doing marine sediment studies in Eastern Europe? And, in North America, the prevailing winds blow the effluent from the American industrial northeast out to sea.
Essentially the tree ring studies show long and short growing seasons, inferring colder or warmer periods, but not emissions.
Now here is more to the point. Flyinfieros makes the point
The 19th century was run on wood a coal as fuel. Look at the huge difference in emissions. You just have to run your lawnmower for an hour and then light a wood stove for an hour and you'll get a nice demonstration.
quote
The biggest environmental threat wood burning stoves make is the immediate one, not global. Air pollution is serious business with wood burning stoves. Developing countries still widely use wood and other biomass. It's estimated that 2.5 billion people still use biomass for heating and cooking. It's estimated that 1.3 million people die prematurely every year due to indoor air pollution from wood burning stoves. Substantial time is spent gathering fuels rather than on education or generating income.
There is no permanent record of the horrendous carbon pollution of the 19th Century. The earth absorbed it. It is still absorbing it. It is called photosynthesis and plankton.
quote
In developed worlds it's a problem too. Populated areas in low lying areas such as valleys have problems with air pollution because the smoke can't escape easily. And the brown haze 'obscures our enjoyment of scenic vistas' - yeah that's a 'problem'.
And that is precisely why the ice core records of the glaciers and polar ice regions is of no help in analysis
Now Flyinfieros is down to quoting a study from the Democrat Energy and Commerce committee and you can trust that poll?
But Mickey_Moose pointed out this
quote
Solutions with a pH less than 7 are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are basic or alkaline. Pure water has a pH very close to 7.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Crying over how 'sensationalist' it sounds is senseless. The description is accurate and the consequences of ocean acidification are genuinely alarming. Your concerns are indeed "meaningless semantics."
Would you like me to dig up all the posts you made crying over sensationalizing and political agendas? One only has to look through this thread to see them...
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
You further explain these things as if we didn't understand you the first time. I get what you're trying to say but you're completely wrong.
On one side scientific research made discoveries that are making their way to public policy. On the other, fear of said public policy is driving false scientific research to delay implementation as long as possible. This thread has been a shining beacon of the latter. You're trying to pretend that motivation on both sides is the same. Even Ray Charles could see that it's not.
Two U.S.-based ethical investment companies — Ceres and Carbon Tracker Initiative — have written to 45 of the world’s oil companies on behalf of big pension and institutional investors to ask about how they intend to manage demands to deal with climate change.
“There is a deep concern that the industry, especially the oil and gas industry, is betting vast amounts of capital contingent on a future of ever-increasing demands for ever-more expensive fossil fuels and the companies that I work with are concerned that that future is looking increasingly less likely,” said Andrew Logan, director of oil and gas programs at Ceres."
Oh excuse me, FlyinFieros has spoken and we are all wrong.
The IPCC has alrady admitted several times that their models were wrong and have been 'adjusted' (in fact they even changed it from "global warming" to "climate change"). First is was the temp is rising, then all of sudden it comes out that the last 15 years have been somewhat 'stagnate'. So what happens, they now say that the oceans are adsorbing this heat...
But according to you we should have not done any more research (since the science was settled some time ago) and dump ass loads of money into doing what? Carbon capture? To what end result? What are they delaying? What are the answers to fix this? You really think that there are no scientists out there that are trying to solve this and that they are all working on trying to prove that man is to blame?
I have stated before that there is nothing wrong with cleaning up our act, but one just has to look at all the failed start-up companies/programs that many governments had dumped money into. The return has been far from coming remotely close to breaking even. But that is ok, according to you - the government (or should I say, the tax payer) should just go on spending like drunk sailors trying any suggestion that comes along with no hope actually doing any real good or perhaps causing more harm then good?
There is no permanent record of the horrendous carbon pollution of the 19th Century. The earth absorbed it. It is still absorbing it. It is called photosynthesis and plankton.
No permanent record..? Here's a couple of recent reports about that:
Arctic climate study reveals impact of industrial soot
quote
Black carbon, or soot, is created primarily by either natural sources such as forest fires, or man-made sources, such as industrial pollution caused by burning fossil fuels like coal. Ice core samples taken from Greenland show that between 1880 and the 1950s, the amount of [black carbon that was deposited] on Greenland's glaciers and ice sheets dramatically increased. During this time, the amount of soot from industrial pollution was seven times greater than the amount of soot from forest fires. New research shows that most of this industrial soot came from North America, and was moved by wind patterns into Greenland. When soot gathers on snow and ice, it reduces the amount of sunlight the frozen surfaces can reflect, causing them to absorb more of the energy from the sun. This causes ice and snow to melt faster, which exposes rocks, dirt and sea ice that absorbs even more sunlight. New research shows this process lead to increased temperatures in Greenland during this time of increased man-made soot.
Comparison of Spheroidal Carbonaceous Particle Data with Modelled Atmospheric Black Carbon Concentration and Deposition and Air Mass Sources in Northern Europe, 1850–2010 http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2013/393926/
This is a long and very technical report, but my takeaway (from browsing all the way through it) is that there is a permanent record of the black carbon (soot) that has been spewed into the atmosphere by humans, going back at least as far as 1850. The data that went into this report was recovered from analyzing sediments deposited at the bottom of various lakes (six, in all) in northern Europe. This set of plots illustrates how these lakebed sediments were analyzed to reveal how the amount of black carbon in the atmosphere varied from decade to decade.
You can spin this however you want, as far as how it "disproves" current and projected MMGW caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but your basic premise, that preindustrial and earlier industrial age emissions of smoke from homes, factories and farms, and from combustion-powered ships and trains and even earlier road vehicles, created "no permanent record" is just [pun intended] "blowing smoke" (on your part).
You also said this:
quote
A pH level of 8.1 is hardly acidic...
Here you are grasping at straws, in your attempt to dismiss legitimate concerns about ocean acidification being accelerated by human CO2 emissions.
quote
Scientists estimate that surface ocean pH has fallen by about 0.1 pH unit from preindustrial times to today. Because pH is a measure of hydrogen ion concentration and the pH scale is logarithmic — for every drop of 1 pH unit, hydrogen ion levels increase by a factor of 10 — a 0.1-unit pH drop is equivalent to about a 26% increase in the ocean hydrogen ion concentration. If we continue on the expected trajectory for fossil-fuel use and rising atmospheric CO2, pH is likely to drop by 0.3-0.4 units by the end of the 21st century and increase ocean hydrogen ion concentration (or acidity) by 100-150% above what it was in preindustrial times.
"FAQs about ocean acidification", from the European Project on Ocean Acidification, which brings together more than 160 researchers from 32 institutes and 10 European countries.
You can't build a credible case against current and projected MMGW by stacking up false or misleading assertions, one after the other. A few pages back, I posted a media report that came out under the heading "Pacific Ocean now warming 15 times faster than in past 10,000 years" and fierobear responded with a blog entry from WUWT that opened that assertion up for some serious reexamination. No one should claim immunity from the reminder that "we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-19-2013).]
This is interesting stuff, and it sort of proves the point that the records back to the 19th Century show black sot deposits. I'd like to see the levels in the 19th Century if they can be posted.
If the air currents pull the smoke from the continental US to Greenland, all the coal fired electrical plants will show up. Also, in the past, all the wood and coal fired homes and industry, particularly after the Civil War, will show too.
Thanks for posting this
quote
Comparison of Spheroidal Carbonaceous Particle Data with Modelled Atmospheric Black Carbon Concentration and Deposition and Air Mass Sources in Northern Europe, 1850–2010 http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2013/393926/This is a long and very technical report, but my takeaway (from browsing all the way through it) is that there is a permanent record of the black carbon (soot) that has been spewed into the atmosphere by humans, going back at least as far as 1850. The data that went into this report was recovered from analyzing sediments deposited at the bottom of various lakes (six, in all) in northern Europe. This set of plots illustrates how these lakebed sediments were analyzed to reveal how the amount of black carbon in the atmosphere varied from decade to decade.
You can spin this however you want, as far as how it "disproves" current and projected MMGW caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but your basic premise, that preindustrial and earlier industrial age emissions of smoke from homes, factories and farms, and from combustion-powered ships and trains and even earlier road vehicles, created "no permanent record" is just [pun intended] "blowing smoke" (on your part).
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-19-2013).]
This is interesting stuff, and it sort of proves the point that the records back to the 19th Century show black sot deposits. I'd like to see the levels in the 19th Century if they can be posted.
If the air currents pull the smoke from the continental US to Greenland, all the coal fired electrical plants will show up. Also, in the past, all the wood and coal fired homes and industry, particularly after the Civil War, will show too.
On the acid level of the ocean, and the point raised about 8.1 level acidic, here is the information on the tap water in my city
No, many water systems in Ontario and elsewhere deliver water with a pH of 8.0 or higher. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment recommends that municipalities provide drinking with a pH between 6.5 and 8.5. The water that the Grand Bend treatment plant draws from Lake Huron has a pH of 8.2. The treatment processes used to ensure that the water is safe to drink cause the pH to decrease to approximately 7.1. Raising the pH before the water leaves the treatment plant will restore the water to the natural pH level of the lake water.
This is interesting stuff, and it sort of proves the point that the records back to the 19th Century show black sot deposits. I'd like to see the levels in the 19th Century if they can be posted.
If the air currents pull the smoke from the continental US to Greenland, all the coal fired electrical plants will show up. Also, in the past, all the wood and coal fired homes and industry, particularly after the Civil War, will show too.
Thanks for posting this.
My pleasure.
There are several figures in the report that will expand (if you click on them).
Five (of the six) sites are represented with different colors.
The one curve (yellow) that stands far above the other data is from a site that is close to a longstanding industrial complex with mines and metallic ore processing facilities. The other sites were selected because they were remote from any obvious sources of smoke, over the years.
I don't know where you got this chart, but the increase in emissions appear to be directly related to the number of people. The UN figures shown are part of their Global Warming projections designed to guilt Western countries into giving money to the 3rd world.
Considering your post about the pH range of your tap water (couple of posts back): You only drink and cook with tap water, and bathe and shower with it. And water your lawn and wash your clothes and your vehicles...etc. Marine organisms live in sea water, freshwater organisms in rivers and lakes, and brackish water organisms in coastal marshlands and river deltas.
I don't know where you got this chart, but the increase in emissions appear to be directly related to the number of people. The UN figures shown are part of their Global Warming projections designed to guilt Western countries into giving money to the 3rd world.
You don't believe the UN projections on the chart? It's quite a large range....oh, and please explain how either would guilt Western countries into giving money to the "3rd World".
I guess it's time to get government to shut down all these coal-fired electric plants...
Getting rid of coal electricity would save a lot of lives every year. Coal-related pollution deaths are not trivial, and neither are coal-mining related deaths.
They should be phased out in favor of natural gas, nuclear, and solar, IMO.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 11-19-2013).]
You don't believe the UN projections on the chart? It's quite a large range....oh, and please explain how either would guilt Western countries into giving money to the "3rd World".
Like this
Typhoon Fuels Call for Global Warming Compensation Funds
The typhoon that killed thousands of people in the Philippines has energized debate about whether rich nations should compensate poor ones for climate-related losses, a proposal the U.S. and European Union are resisting. Environmental activists march demanding more climate saving actions during the United Nations Climate Change COP19 conference in Warsaw on Nov. 16, 2013. Photographer: Wojtek Radwanski/AFP/Getty Images Some 130 countries, including islands concerned they’ll disappear with rising sea levels, are pushing for reparations as part of a “loss and damage” mechanism at United Nations climate talks in Warsaw this week. They blame countries that industrialized 200 years ago for damaging the atmosphere. “Many countries around the world are already incurring losses and damages from the impacts of climate change,” Yeb Sano, the Philippine lead negotiator whose hometown was flattened by the storm, said in an interview in Warsaw. “We’d like to make clear the difference between humanitarian aid and climate change compensation in the context of historical responsibility.” The push reflects alarm about the havoc wreaked by the typhoon’s 195 mile-per-hour winds and anger that rich nations seem to be scaling back their ambitions for reducing greenhouse gases. For the first time since the UN started its annual climate talks in 1992, countries such as Japan, Australia and Canada are paring back measures to mitigate fossil-fuel emissions. For developing countries, the push for compensation is a result of the failure of their wealthy counterparts to cut emissions quickly enough. Loss and damage is an essential piece in the talks involving about 190 nations, which are working on a treaty limiting emission in all nations that could be adopted in 2015 and brought into force in 2020. Red Lines All nations agreed a year ago that they would set up a mechanism to deal with loss and damage at the Warsaw meeting. For industrial nations, including the U.S. and European Union, any notion of it dealing with compensation is a red-line issue. “Compensation for what?” Juergen Lefevere, deputy delegation chief for the European Commission, said in an interview. “We’re turning a discussion on a challenge that we have ahead of us into a blame-game of who’s responsible for what and when.” The scale of what the cost of the mechanism could be is the first things giving rich nations reason for pause. Annual economic losses from natural disasters have almost quadrupled in the past three decades, the World Bank said in a report. Losses Quantified The average reported losses rose from around $50 billion a year in the 1980s to almost $200 billion a year in the past decade, totaling $3.8 trillion from 1980 to 2012, according to the report released today, which used data by Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer. Three-quarters of the total was due to extreme weather, it said. The issue was too thorny for lower-level delegates at the talks to resolve last week. They punted the issue to ministers and other high-ranking officials who arrive this week to grapple with the tougher political decisions. They include U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, EU Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, and his counterpart from the Pacific island nation of Nauru, Baron Divavesi Waqa. “Lectures about compensation, reparations and the like will produce nothing but antipathy among developed country policy makers,” Stern said in a speech last month at Chatham House, a research group in London. Lack of Trust Developing countries say the need for loss and damage is the result of not cutting emissions fast enough and the failure of donors to provide sufficient aid for poor nations to adapt their infrastructure. Those concerns gained ground last week when Japan watered down its plan to cut fossil-fuel emissions, citing damage the earthquake and tsunami in 2011 did to its nuclear power program. In December 2012, Canada said it wouldn’t sign up to a new round of greenhouse gas cuts under the Kyoto Protocol. And Australia last week introduced legislation to abolish carbon pricing, the centerpiece of its effort to reduce emissions. “This is the atmosphere in which we are negotiating,” Indian envoy T.S. Tirumurti told delegates two days ago. He called this year’s conference, the 19th, “historic” because it’ll be the first time ambition to cut emissions is lower at the end of the two weeks than at the beginning. Developing nations are looking for other avenues where they can assign blame for global warming. Last week, China and a group of 130 nations known as the G77 backed a Brazilian proposal to examine historical emissions since 1850. The results would be one basis for working out future emissions reductions, a plan also rejected by the U.S. and EU. Aid Pledge Also being discussed is how industrialized nations will deliver on a promise they made in 2009 to boost annual climate-related aid to $100 billion in 2020 from $10 billion a year for the period from 2010 to 2012. For Brazilian envoy Ambassador Jose Antonio Marcondes de Carvalho, it’s time for rich nations to “put your money where your mouth is.” China’s lead negotiator, Su Wei, joined him, saying, “We want to know what the confirmed financial support is starting from 2013.” Island nations fear that rising sea-levels could swallow up their territory, leading to losses that should be compensated. Those including loss of sovereignty, culture and the need to migrate, said Malia Talakai, who negotiates for the 44-country Alliance of Small Island States. “This is for what we cannot adapt to,” she said. Work Plan The mechanism should help coordinate research into slow-onset changes such as sea level rise, melting glaciers and ocean acidification, according to Juan Hoffmaister, a Bolivian envoy who negotiates for the G77 and China. He said developing nations don’t see the mechanism as a “cash machine,” and envoys shouldn’t get hung up over compensation. “It’s important we don’t trivialize this issue just to that word,” Hoffmaister said. “The focus is on addressing loss and damage through multiple approaches.” Sano, the Philippine delegate who hails from Tacloban, started fasting a week ago until he sees “meaningful progress” at the talks. He has been joined in fasting by at least 100 environmental activists at the Warsaw meeting. “I am still fasting,” Sano said. “We have not seen any substantial movement here.”
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-19-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Would you like me to dig up all the posts you made crying over sensationalizing and political agendas? One only has to look through this thread to see them...
Personally I would like to see you do anything that even closely resembled research before posting.
If it will make you feel better about your "it's not more acidic it's less alkaline" argument that just fell apart - go for it. You'll find my criticism is more sophisticated than your petty semantics.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Oh excuse me, FlyinFieros has spoken and we are all wrong.
Perhaps you should find meaningful ways to disagree with people before posting. It seems like you get so excited to argue you don't realize it's just anecdotal instead of something meaningful.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Flyinfieros… Flyinfieros… Flyinfieros… Flyinfieros…
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Now Flyinfieros is down to quoting a study from the Democrat Energy and Commerce committee
Wrong.
The source of the study is Standford Geospatial Center.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: and you can trust that poll?
Why wouldn't you? Because the word "Democrat" is on the webpage I linked to? Thanks for letting us know how simple minded your decision making process is.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: On the acid level of the ocean, and the point raised about 8.1 level acidic, here is the information on the tap water in my city
Are you really comparing the pH of your drinking water to the pH of the oceans?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-19-2013).]
