Where do you even have room to talk about underhanded when the content of that blog was obtained illegally?
Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online: "Sometime over the last few days, the Skeptical Science website has been hacked. The hacker has taken much or all of the Skeptical Science database, zipped various excerpts into a single file, uploaded the file onto a Russian website then linked to the zip file from various blogs. While we are still attempting to verify the authenticity of the file, initial scans seem to indicate the hacker has included the entire database of Skeptical Science users. Access to the full database (which includes private details) is restricted only to myself and I am the only one with access to all of the raw data - this fact alone indicates that this breach of privacy came in the form of an external hack rather than from within Skeptical Science itself."
Digestion in sea urchin larvae impaired under ocean acidification: "Larvae exposed to decreased seawater pH suffer from a drop in gastric pH, which directly translates into decreased digestive efficiencies and triggers compensatory feeding. These results suggest that larval digestion represents a critical process in the context of ocean acidification, which has been overlooked so far." Source.
American Meteorological Society survey of members finds consensus among experts: "Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth & Lichter 2012, Bray 2010)."
Thirdly, you raise the specter of what you bizarrely call ocean “acidification”.
The last time I looked, the oceans were pronouncedly alkaline, and even the mad IPCC says the acid-base balance has been altered by only 0.1 acid/base units in the direction of slightly reduced alkalinity. However, that estimate, like much else in the IPCC’s mad gospels, is entirely guesswork, because there is no sufficiently well-resolved global measurement program for ocean pH. However, elementary theoretical considerations would lead us to expect homoeostasis in the acid/base balance of the oceans because the buffering influence of the rock basins in which they live and move and have their being is overwhelmingly powerful. Acid/base neutrality is at a pH of 7.0. The oceans are at about 7.8-8.2 (no one knows, so that the IPCC’s alleged dealkalinization of 0.1 acid/base units is well within the measurement error, so that we cannot actually be sure that it has occurred at all; and, on the elementary ground I have described, it is unlikely to have done so). Besides, there is about 50 times as much CO2 already dissolved in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere, so that even if all of the CO2 in the atmosphere were to make its way into the oceans the pH would scarcely change even in the absence of the overwhelming buffering effect of the rocks. As for calcifying organisms, they are thriving. The calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis and came into being 550 million years ago (you are too young to remember) during the Cambrian era, when atmospheric CO2 concentration was 25 times what it is today. The more delicate aragonite corals came into being 175 million years ago, during the Jurassic, when CO2 concentration was still 15 times today’s. “Ah,” you may say, “but it is the suddenness of the abrupt increase in CO2 concentration that the fragile corals will not be able to endure.” However, consider the great floods of the Brisbane River (eight of them from 1840-1900 and three of them since). The rainwater that pours into the ocean and meets the Great Barrier Reef is pronouncedly acid, at a pH of 5.4. Yet the corals do not curl up and die. “Ah,” you may say, “but what about the effect of sudden warming on the puir wee corals?” Well, the Great el Nino of 1997/8 gives us the answer to that one. Sudden increases in ocean temperature cause the corals to bleach. There have been two previous Great el Ninos in the past 300 years, and the corals bleached on both those occasions too. It is a natural defense mechanism against natural change. The corals continue to thrive. My brother and his three sport-mad boys dive on the reef every year and, like many others from whom I have heard, find the corals thriving except where the Crown of Thorns infestation has damaged small parts of the reef. Oh, and the Great Barrier Reef Authority, which has been moaning about the effects of rising sea temperatures on the corals, publish a dataset that shows zero increase in sea temperature in the region of the reef throughout the entire period of record. Don’t hold your breath worrying about ocean “acidification”: it can’t happen, even if all the CO2 in the air goes into the ocean.
Let me conclude by reviewing the principal scientific and economic reasons why, in my submission, we should do nothing at all about global warming.
First, one has only to take a cursory glance at the exponential decay curve of 14CO2 following the last atmospheric bomb tests in 1963, 50 years ago, to realize that very nearly all of the CO2 that we add to the atmosphere will have left it within half a century. The curve provides direct and unchallengeable empirical evidence of the rate of uptake of additional CO2 by terrestrial and oceanic sinks. I have recently taken the CDIAC’s reconstructions of anthropogenic fossil-fuel emissions since 1751 and distributed the annual residual atmospheric fractions in accordance with the bomb-test curve. The result shows that the concentration of CO2 today – in the absence of any natural contribution – would have been just 324 ppmv (not the measured 394) in 2010, compared with 278 ppmv in 1750. Allowing for land use changes and taking some account of the warming caused by our small net addition to atmospheric CO2 concentration, one might imagine that about half of the 110 ppmv increase in CO2 concentration since 1750 is anthropogenic, and not all of it, as the mad IPCC would like to profit by having us believe. The first scandal of the IPCC’s mad science, then, is its attempt to pretend that the mean residence time of CO2 that we add to the atmosphere is 50-200 years, when in fact very nearly all of it will have left the atmosphere after 50 years. The implications of this for projections of future warming are self-evident: one must halve them on this ground alone.
Secondly, the mad IPCC has flagrantly exaggerated climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, in the following respects. It has incorrectly understated the cooling influence of non-radiative transports such as evaporation, which increases three times faster with temperature than its models assume, giving us our first pointer to the fact that climate sensitivity has been very substantially exaggerated. Next, it imagines that temperature feedbacks (which, in its mad analysis, account for two-thirds of all the warming that arises from adding CO2 to the atmosphere) will triple the small direct warming from the extra CO2 itself. However, this mad exaggeration is insupportable. Absolute global temperature has fluctuated by little more than 1% either side of the long-run median throughout the past 420,000 years. What that record shows is that temperature feedbacks cannot really be net-positive at all. They are more likely to be net-negative, and that would drive climate sensitivity down below 1 Celsius degree per CO2 doubling. I have already mentioned the significance of the fact that the singularity in the feedback-amplification equation has no physical meaning in the climate. It is the wrong equation. Yet it is upon that wrong equation that the mad IPCC relies in multiplying by 3 the direct warming from CO2 which is itself already overstated because the IPCC takes insufficient account of non-radiative transports. The IPCC’s implicit evolutionary curve for the climate-sensitivity parameter is tuned to suggest that the overwhelming preponderance of the effect of feedbacks will occur in the first century or two after the warming that triggered the feedbacks. However, that is contrary to common sense: the major feedbacks take a long time to occur. The key feedback – the water vapor feedback – shows no sign of occurring at all at present: at all altitudes, and particularly at the vital 300 mB pressure altitude, water vapor has if anything declined somewhat throughout the period of record. No surprise, then, that according to the RSS satellite record there has been no global warming at all for a full 204 months – i.e., 17 years. Not one of the mad models predicted that.
Thirdly, as I have shown, there is no economic case for action even if everything I have said about the science is incorrect and everything the IPCC says about the science is correct. I do understand that – for some reason – the Party Line among the hard Left in academe is that we must shut down the West for the sake of Saving The Planet. Well, The Planet was triumphantly Saved 2000 years ago and, on the scientific and economic evidence, it does not need to be Saved again.
"... there is no economic case for action even if everything I have said about the science is incorrect and everything the IPCC says about the science is correct ... The Planet was triumphantly Saved 2000 years ago and, on the scientific and economic evidence, it does not need to be Saved again."
(Sigh.) So much for "scientific" discourse.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-25-2013).]
Yep, "No warming since 1998" continues to bite the dust.
"The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless…" Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Some brief commentary and analysis on alleged acidification and other issues
Do you have any sources that are not affiliated with underhanded political lobbyist organizations?
"[Joanne Nova] is the author of a sixteen-page illustrated text called The Skeptics Handbook, which was widely distributed in the USA by the Heartland Institute." Source.
When an argument that is supposed to be scientific starts off with semantics you can stop reading:
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Thirdly, you raise the specter of what you bizarrely call ocean “acidification”. The last time I looked, the oceans were pronouncedly alkaline
The entire post is just semantics and poorly constructed anecdotal arguments. There's no real evidence presented. Just nonsense intended to spread misinformation.
No surprise that she throws Jesus into the mix at the end: "Well, The Planet was triumphantly Saved 2000 years ago and, on the scientific and economic evidence, it does not need to be Saved again."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-25-2013).]
Study finds small thaw ponds are an unaccounted source of methane in the Canadian High Arctic: "These small thaw ponds have been studied very little up until now, primarily because of their remote location and the attendant logistical constraints. However in the context of global warming, they are worth examining more closely, as they could have an increasingly significant incidence on the transfer of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the future." Source.
Thirdly, you raise the specter of what you bizarrely call ocean “acidification”.
The last time I looked, the oceans were pronouncedly alkaline, and even the mad IPCC says the acid-base balance has been altered by only 0.1 acid/base units in the direction of slightly reduced alkalinity...
I do understand that – for some reason – the Party Line among the hard Left in academe is that we must shut down the West for the sake of Saving The Planet. Well, The Planet was triumphantly Saved 2000 years ago and, on the scientific and economic evidence, it does not need to be Saved again.
I read it. the first and last sentences are enough to make the rest have absolutely no credibility.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Did anybody actually read Fierobear's last posting?
Yes, total rubbish. Examples:
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The last time I looked, the oceans were pronouncedly alkaline
Ok…
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The oceans are at about 7.8-8.2 (no one knows…)
Ok we go from "pronouncedly alkaline" to "no one knows" - nice!
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: 0.1 acid/base units is well within the measurement error, so that we cannot actually be sure that it has occurred at all
Oh, CO2 may not be dissolving into the ocean?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Besides, there is about 50 times as much CO2 already dissolved in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere
Oh CO2 is dissolving into the ocean.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: As for calcifying organisms, they are thriving.
At the rate of current CO2 emissions reef building is expected to cease by 2100. Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, and the Great Barrier Reef Authority, which has been moaning about the effects of rising sea temperatures on the corals, publish a dataset that shows zero increase in sea temperature in the region of the reef throughout the entire period of record.
Really?
"When averaged across the last 30 years, sea surface temperature in the Great Barrier Reef has increased by about 0.4C" Source. <~ Great Barrier Reef Authority
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-25-2013).]
Originally posted by fierobear: NOAA: Slow Atlantic hurricane season coming to a close No major hurricanes formed in the Atlantic basin - first time since 1994 http://www.noaanews.noaa.go...hurricaneseason.html
From your link: "The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season... had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, thanks in large part to persistent, unfavorable atmospheric conditions over the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and tropical Atlantic Ocean."
Not because 'anthropogenic global warming' isn't real like you're peddling.
All of the 'evidence' you post seems to be conjecture. You also fail to respond to glaring inaccuracies in your posts.
Avoiding criticism isn't going to build you a convincing case.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-26-2013).]
From your link: "The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season... had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, thanks in large part to persistent, unfavorable atmospheric conditions over the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and tropical Atlantic Ocean."
Not because 'anthropogenic global warming' isn't real like you're peddling.
All of the 'evidence' you post seems to be conjecture. You also fail to respond to glaring inaccuracies in your posts.
Avoiding criticism isn't going to build you a convincing case.
Conjecture? The NOAA data is historical fact.
What do you think ramps up hurricanes? It is heat. Why are there not any major hurricanes in the Atlantic basins this year? Global Cooling.
This is further evidenced by the stiking uptick in ice formation in the Arctic this fall.
While the earth has been gradually warming in the post iceage era, it is not consistent and it is not extreme. The current cooling this year in the Northern Hemisphere is entirely natural and part of the cycles.
Again, the prognostications of the IPCC and East Anglia have been proven to be false. There are no increased hurricanes, no inundated islands, the arctic ice has not disappeared, the ocean is still rising at a far lower rate than predicted by these so called "scientists"
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Conjecture? The NOAA data is historical fact.
I wasn't saying the NOAA data is conjecture. You ignore the experts at NOAA and the historical facts. Consequently, what you think about the 2013 hurricane season is simply conjecture.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: What do you think ramps up hurricanes? It is heat.
Thank you for admitting ocean warming will make tropical cyclones more intense.
Tropical cyclones take heat from the ocean and transport it to the atmosphere, warmer oceans will lead to stronger cyclones.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Why are there not any major hurricanes in the Atlantic basins this year?
Did you even read what the experts at NOAA said on fierobear's link?
Or did you you draw your own ridiculous conclusions?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Global Cooling.
Yeah, you drew your own ridiculous conclusion. Global cooling was conjecture during the 1970's. Even in the 1970's only 10% of scientists thought the world would be cooling, most predicted warming.
NOAA give a list of reasons as to why 2013 wasn't as active as predicted, global cooling isn't one of them. You just made that up like you do all the other nonsense you post.
From the link you didn't read: ”This unexpectedly low activity is linked to an unpredictable atmospheric pattern that prevented the growth of storms by producing exceptionally dry, sinking air and strong vertical wind shear in much of the main hurricane formation region, which spans the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea,” said Bell. “Also detrimental to some tropical cyclones this year were several strong outbreaks of dry and stable air that originated over Africa.” Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: This is further evidenced by the stiking uptick in ice formation in the Arctic this fall.
I do not think your mind can articulate a meaningful understanding of all the little facets to this issue. As a result, short term events and natural variation are more pronounced to you than the last 30-50 years of record. When discussing the climate, something long term in nature, it's important to have many years of data.
You're ignoring 30 years of data in favor of one year's improvement after the worst year on record. Considering the worst year on record was last year, you cannot seriously expect this year to be meaningful when discussing the overall trend. This is not just my opinion but the scientific opinion of the experts you ignore:
"Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator. The region’s sea ice extent—defined by NSIDC as the total area covered by at least 15 percent of ice—has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years."
“No single year’s turnaround can erase that,” said NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos. “Let’s not lose sight of the fact that 2013 is a very low extent year, despite the increase from last September.” Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: While the earth has been gradually warming in the post iceage era,
Not at it's current rate. Coming out of an ice age just means it's a very inconvenient time to start adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The wheels for warming are already in motion. We're giving those wheels some extra torque with greenhouse gases.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: it is not consistent and it is not extreme.
Recent warming is unprecedented and not anything that could be confused with 'natural': Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The current cooling this year in the Northern Hemisphere is entirely natural and part of the cycles.
What is the basis for this comment? Did you just make it up as well?
According to preliminary data, every single month this year tied with a top ten record, with April being the only exception (13th warmest on record). May, June, August, and September are in the top 5. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Again, the prognostications of the IPCC and East Anglia have been proven to be false. There are no increased hurricanes, no inundated islands, the arctic ice has not disappeared, the ocean is still rising at a far lower rate than predicted by these so called "scientists"
Globally temperatures are increasing. Globally 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record. Globally ocean temperatures are increasing. Globally oceans becoming more acidic. Globally the rate of sea level rise has doubled in the last 20 years. Globally glacier volume is decreasing.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Arn
You have entirely too much trouble admitting you're wrong. For a grown man and a well rated member of the community it's an eyesore.
Tell me though, why is it perfectly fine for you to be wrong but wrong for me to show you the truth? This was clearly evident in your pedophile thread. I showed you hard evidence the pictures you posted were taken out of context and used to spread misinformation. The response I got from you was itself childish - just name calling. The exact opposite of the reaction I was expecting. The reaction I was expecting was something closer to mine: I was very relieved the photos were falsely represented. You however seemed immediately upset that grown men were not marrying and sexually assaulting young girls en masse. I found your reaction really bizarre.
I see this same behavior in this thread. While I do consider these discussions at dive into your psyche, it's a little bit troubling to know you may never ever admit your mistakes. Scientifically, the things that don't work are more interesting in the things that do work. I find myself drawn to your psyche because from my perspective there's a lot that doesn't work.
You can't lie to yourself anymore than you can lie to God. As a religious man you must know this. A question I must ask flat out at this point: Why do you try so hard to save face? You must know the experts are against you. You must know the data shows global warming is real. It would be ignorant of me to assume you're living in some sort of 'denier' isolation - free from facts and scientific sources. You've posted evidence yourself that disagrees with your own post. You cling to the same debunked arguments, repeating them over and over as if repeating it makes it true. When people respond to those you just ignore them and keep repeating. It's evident you look for ways to continue believing exactly as you do- head in the sand / fingers in the ears type of thing. This thread is about discussion. You're not interested in discussion or changing your mind. So what's the purpose of continuing to lie to yourself? Would it really be such an unimaginable change in your personal life?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-26-2013).]
You really take allot of words to skirt around the facts and misinterpret the data.
You have not contradicted the fact that no islands have been inundated.
You have not contradicted the fact that the oceans have not risen 3' to20' as some estimates have prognosticated
You have not contradicted the fact that the Arctic ice field did not disappear
You have not contradicted the fact that the Antarctic ice field is growing
In short you are trying to contradict the belief that anthropologenic global warming is not proven and not evident as its supporters have proposed
You take up pages of explanation and have not any data to contradict the above
I will give you this. You are good at criticizing, berating, snowing the uninformed with bafflegab
Arn
Actually he keeps rebutting your posts with facts.
You seem to go back to some kind of false argument that climate change isn't happening because the worst case scenarios aren't happening today or claims made by celebrities aren't factual. Or was it Sun Spots?
the consensus of the scientific community in 1490 was that the earth was flat. In 1492 the reality [of Columbus' first voyage] turned that consensus on its ear
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
No. By 1490 scientific consensus strongly favored a spherical Earth. It was "common sense" ... that still clung to the idea that it was flat.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Marvin, your lack of understanding of history is showing. Most of the science community up until the 17 th century was centered in religious institutions ... and the consensus of the scientific community was that the earth was a round disk with a small group of dissidents.
I finally got around to responding to this. Arn, the posts above display your typical misinterpretation, whether by misunderstanding or misrepresentation, of the very "evidence" you invoke. From the same Wikipedia article that you quoted but failed to cite:
quote
By the 11th century Europe had learned of Islamic astronomy. The Renaissance of the 12th century from about 1070 started an intellectual revitalization of Europe with strong philosophical and scientific roots, and increased interest in natural philosophy.
Hermannus Contractus (1013–1054) was among the earliest Christian scholars to estimate the circumference of Earth with Eratosthenes' method. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the most important and widely taught theologian of the Middle Ages, believed in a spherical Earth; and he even took for granted his readers also knew the Earth is round. Lectures in the medieval universities commonly advanced evidence in favor of the idea that the Earth was a sphere. Also, "On the Sphere of the World", the most influential astronomy textbook of the 13th century and required reading by students in all Western European universities, described the world as a sphere. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote, "The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth."
The shape of the Earth was not only discussed in scholarly works written in Latin; it was also treated in works written in vernacular languages or dialects and intended for wider audiences. The Norwegian book Konungs Skuggsjá, from around 1250, states clearly that the Earth is round—and that there is night on the opposite side of the Earth when there is daytime in Norway. The author also discusses the existence of antipodes—and he notes that (if they exist) they see the Sun in the north of the middle of the day, and that they experience seasons opposite those of people in the Northern Hemisphere.
(FWIW, I am sure you appreciate the reference to "Islamic astronomy." )
That same Wikipedia article also links to another article, Myth of the Flat Earth, which begins with the following:
quote
The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. The idea seems to have been widespread during the first half of the 20th century, so that the Members of the Historical Association in 1945 stated that:
"The idea that educated men at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat, and that this belief was one of the obstacles to be overcome by Columbus before he could get his project sanctioned, remains one of the hardiest errors in teaching."
During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent ....
Note the distinction throughout these historical references between the opinion of scientists, "scholars," and "educated men" vs. popular opinion and "common sense" knowledge of the time.
I realize that the subject of flat earth vs. spherical earth is peripheral to the topic of global warming, but your repeated misinterpretation of fact (intentional or otherwise) is not. And you presume to lecture me about "lack of understanding!"
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
You also claim to be some sort of authority ... and I have yet to see your qualifications
While I freely acknowledge that credentials alone are no guarantee of competence, I think you are venturing out on very thin ice (metaphorical pun not intended) when you propose to compare "qualifications" ... technical or otherwise ... with the people you are debating here. (Hint: Some are indeed bigger than yours. ) Tell you what ... you show me yours, I'll show you mine; you go first.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-26-2013).]
Claiming I 'skirt around facts and misinterpret data' is laughable.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You have not contradicted the fact that no islands have been inundated.
You have not contradicted the fact that the oceans have not risen 3' to20' as some estimates have prognosticated
You have not contradicted the fact that the Arctic ice field did not disappear
You've never provided a source for any of these claims. Where did you get them? Provide links.
The sources that have been dug up for these claims, like the IPCC, it was found that all of these predictions are said to come true in the future. They are not supposed to have happened already like you claim. Currently, all of these predictions are coming true. Sea levels are rising and according to your own post, accelerating in the last 20 years. The Arctic ice has been trending downward for the last 30 years.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You have not contradicted the fact that the Antarctic ice field is growing [as a result of global warming not happening]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: In short you are trying to contradict the belief that anthropologenic global warming is not proven and not evident as its supporters have proposed
You cherry pick the people you want to take seriously. I prefer experts and scientists. You prefer Al Gore.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You take up pages of explanation and have not any data to contradict the above
I have addressed them. You avoid addressing my posts because, like fierobear, the more you tell us the more you look like a fool. You shrink from controversy in order to maintain a mythical argument.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: I will give you this. You are good at criticizing, berating, snowing the uninformed with bafflegab
My posts are far from "bafflegab" - your inability and unwillingness to prove otherwise shows a lot about your character.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Arn
Sad. I was hoping my last post would trigger a mature response from you. Is your denial really that deep seeded?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-26-2013).]
The chart you posted clearly shows that moving from 8.2 to 8.1 follows that arrow labeled "increasing acidity".
Carbonic acid is increasing in the ocean. Pure water is not increasing in the ocean.
Why is this so hard for you?
Hard for me??? Grow up.
Fact number 1: a PH level of 8.1 is NOT acidic - period, read that again or ask any scientist - I know, it is hard for you to accept this...
Fact number 2: where the hell did I say "pure water" is increasing in the ocean? Again, probably hard for you to accept, but I said it was become "more neutral" (look it up) - you are the one inferring "pure water".
What about all the PH levels in between absolute basic and absolute acidic? Oh wait, I get it (finally) - it does not make as good of a headline for the alarmists press releases unless they can take it to the absolute extreme.
With that out of the way - I am sure there is proof (and not some "political blog" either) that the PH level change is global (very large sample area) and not sampled from a small area, not only that, is there proof that this change is the result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and maybe it is a possible result of all the crap that we are dumping into the ocean and that atmospheric CO2 isn't the ONLY cause?
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Fact number 1: a PH level of 8.1 is NOT acidic - period, read that again or ask any scientist - I know, it is hard for you to accept this...
I have never claimed a pH of 8 is an acid. Carbonic acid is an acid.
When adding an acid to a solution it becomes more acidic. There's more acid. I don't know how to explain this any more simple.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Fact number 2: where the hell did I say "pure water" is increasing in the ocean? Again, probably hard for you to accept, but I said it was become "more neutral" (look it up) - you are the one inferring "pure water".
You don't even understand your own argument.
You claimed that the oceans were not becoming more acidic as a result of carbonic acid being added. You claimed the oceans were becoming more neutral as a result of carbonic acid being added.
If pure water with a pH of exactly 7 was increasing in the ocean it could be said the oceans are becoming more neutral. Since 'neutral' is increasing in the ocean. You could not say the oceans are becoming more acidic despite 7 being lower than 8 on the scale. Relevant context is important.
Carbonic acid is increasing in the ocean. Oceans are becoming more acidic.
Regardless of what it's called, the pH of the oceans is decreasing because an acid is being added. This process is a threat to life there.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: With that out of the way - I am sure there is proof (and not some "political blog" either) that the PH level change is global
How about you do some research and come back with an organized argument.
Any moron can raise questions until the end of time.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-26-2013).]
edit - never mind, I decide not not bother responding to someone that will never admit wrong and will pick apart and twist anything a person says along with name calling to make them look like a god.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 11-26-2013).]
edit - never mind, I decide not not bother responding to someone that will never admit wrong and will pick apart and twist anything a person says along with name calling to make them look like a god.
How did he twist your words? You are stuck on meaningless semantics. How is adding an acid to a solution NOT make it more acidic?? Besides, you threw the first personal jabs, not him:
quote
You people are really thick...you clowns...
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Fact number 1: a PH level of 8.1 is NOT acidic - period, read that again or ask any scientist - I know, it is hard for you to accept this...
No scientist would endorse the irrelevant, meaningless argument you're trying to make.
Originally posted by masospaghetti: How did he twist your words? You are stuck on meaningless semantics. How is adding an acid to a solution NOT make it more acidic?? Besides, you threw the first personal jabs, not him:
I don't think he did twist his words he just embarrassed him by showing him the truth.
fierobear and the cited blog fails to provide any information as to the context that this study should be applied to. Given that it's on a blog dedicated to misrepresenting authentic scientific work in order spread doubt about human caused global warming - we'll have to guess it means something in that regard.
This study proves absolutely nothing useful to those who doubt the human hand in global warming.
Here's the graph from the paper fierobear cited that shows reconstructed interplanetary magnetic field activity. Notice the sharp decline in recent years:
This is completely divergent from surface temperatures: Source.
Also completely divergent from ocean temperatures: Source.
Interplanetary Magnetic Field activity is not Solar Irradiance. I feel they're representing IMF as SI. Source.
Even solar irradiance is have negligible impact on surface temperatures: Source.
Also worth mentioning, the blog slogan is "If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause..."
The pause has been explained - it never even existed: "The new paper suggests that the global average warming trend from 1997 to 2012 could be up to 2.5 times greater than the trend using HadCRUT4 alone." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-06-2013).]
A PH level of 8.1 of sea water is in the normal range (range highlighted in a excerpt below from the above linked paper) - anyone claiming that a level of 8.1 and the oceans becoming acidic are simply fear mongering and going for the big headline, but are probably cherry picking data.
quote
3. Environmental ranges for pH
Below we will discuss several measurement and modeling approaches for estimating pH. A critical factor in interpreting how useful different approaches are will be environmental limits. For example, the IUPAC (Buck et al., 2002) ranges for estimating pH with primary standards are ionic strengths (I) ≤ 0.1 mol kg− 1, temperatures from 0 to 50 °C, and the pH range from 3 to 10 (Guiomar et al., 2005). While this approach may have defined the state-of-the-art for determining dilute solution pH, it would not work, as presently structured, for seawater where I = 0.72 mol kg− 1 (at SP = 35), which is substantially above the IUPAC limit of I ≤ 0.1 mol kg− 1. On the other hand, pH limits for seawater are for salinities of 5 (I = 0.10 mol kg− 1) to 45 (I = 0.93 mol kg− 1), temperatures of 0 to 50 °C, and pH ranges of 7.4 to 9.6 (Millero, 1986, UNESCO, 1987, Millero and Roy, 1997, Millero and Pierrot, 1998 and Caldeira and Wickett, 2003). Such ranges cover most seawater on Earth. Another factor not mentioned above is pressure, which is especially important for deep seawater applications. The effect of pressure on pH in seawater is estimated using experimentally measured and molal volume estimates of how pressure affects the dissociation of carbonic acid, boric acid, water, H2S, HF, HSO4, etc. (Millero, 2001). Is there any approach that can optimize the accuracy of pH determinations across broad ranges of environmental factors? Is there even any method that can accurately determine pH at all? We will address these questions next.
[snip]
The main conclusions of this study are:
1) pH definitions and conventions are highly variable, which leads to highly variable estimates of pH. For example, for seawater at SA = 35.165 g/(kg soln), t = 25 °C, P = 1.0 atm, and fCO2 = 3.33E-4 atm, calculated pH values for the different definitions Eqs. (1), (2), (3) and (4) varied from 8.08 to 8.33 (Fig. 2).
2) An acceptable nomenclature is needed to keep pH variability less ambiguous, due to alternative definitions and conventions. A nomenclature example is given in this paper. It is the (still unsolved) task of international bodies such as IUPAC or IOC to develop and promote such widely recognized conventions.
3) pH can be accurately estimated based on measurement (potentiometric, spectrophotometric) and modeling approaches. Accuracy via different definitions and conventions clearly requires consistency with respect to experimental measurements, equilibrium constants, activity coefficients, and buffer solutions that are used for specific approaches.
4) “Total” pH accuracy that includes the Bates–Guggenheim convention is ± 0.01 pH units. Removing the Bates–Guggenheim convention from the accuracy calculation can lead to “conventional” accuracies of ± 0.004 pH units (Buck et al., 2002).
5) Extensions to high solution concentrations are capable using the Pitzer modeling approach. Modeling can, in principle, lead to pH estimates that are more accurate than measurements (Fig. 2; Dickson, 1984, Herczeg et al., 1985 and Buck et al., 2002). But this principle still needs to be proven.
6) It is recommended that ocean scientists use the free concentration or activity of the proton to examine the effect of pH on processes in the oceans.
For for the issue of coral reefs dying because of CO2, another fear mongering tactic. Coral reefs are dying at the hands of man, but CO2 absorption and sea water turning to acid has nothing to do with it. Has more to do with sediments and algae growth blocking out sunlight. This is what they found when real study was done on the cause and not simply jumping to the conclusion that "Global Warming" was to blame.
You can read about it here - there was a paper published that I read a couple months ago, I will post a link to it as soon as I find it.
"On the other hand, pH limits for seawater are for salinities of 5 (I = 0.10 mol kg− 1) to 45 (I = 0.93 mol kg− 1), temperatures of 0 to 50 °C, and pH ranges of 7.4 to 9.6 (Millero, 1986, UNESCO, 1987, Millero and Roy, 1997, Millero and Pierrot, 1998 and Caldeira and Wickett, 2003)." [emphasis apparently added by Mickey_Moose]
Better read that again. The sentence above, which you quoted, does not claim that 7.4 to 9.6 is the range of pH found in seawater, but rather that the IUPAC measurement method is generally accurate over that pH range. Certainly, you want any measurement method to be accurate over a wider range than the expected range of data samples.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-27-2013).]
Better read that again. The sentence above, which you quoted, does not claim that 7.4 to 9.6 is the range of pH found in seawater, but rather that the measurement method is generally accurate over that pH range. Certainly, you want any measurement method to be accurate over a wider range than the expected range of data samples.
...seriously?? ...I take it you didn't read the sentence that was following what you quoted? Here I will help:
quote
pH ranges of 7.4 to 9.6 (Millero, 1986, UNESCO, 1987, Millero and Roy, 1997, Millero and Pierrot, 1998 and Caldeira and Wickett, 2003). Such ranges cover most seawater on Earth.
Notice that it also says "most", so that range can be even larger.
BTW: the PH for ultra pure water is 6.998, so yes water can be corrosive.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 11-27-2013).]
"pH ranges of 7.4 to 9.6 (Millero, 1986, UNESCO, 1987, Millero and Roy, 1997, Millero and Pierrot, 1998 and Caldeira and Wickett, 2003). Such ranges cover most seawater on Earth." [emphasis added by Mickey_Moose]
Notice that it also says "most", so that range can be even larger.
I see that you cleverly edited the first quoted sentence to eliminate the other two variables, salinity and temperature. You also shortened "ranges" to "range" in your comment, which I assume was also intentional. Here are the original two sentences in their entirety:
quote
[Discussing the IUPAC measurement method] "On the other hand, pH limits for seawater are for salinities of 5 (I = 0.10 mol kg− 1) to 45 (I = 0.93 mol kg− 1), temperatures of 0 to 50 °C, and pH ranges of 7.4 to 9.6 (Millero, 1986, UNESCO, 1987, Millero and Roy, 1997, Millero and Pierrot, 1998 and Caldeira and Wickett, 2003). Such ranges cover most seawater on earth."
The "ranges" (plural) cited for valid measurement using the IUPAC method are:
Salinity: 5 to 45 Temperature: 0° C to 50° C pH: 7.4 to 9.6
quote
Notice that it also says "most", so that range can be even larger.
In the same spirit, I could accurately state that a pH "range" of 0 to 14 is guaranteed to cover all seawater on Earth, but that would be both misleading and dishonest. The quoted sentence is talking about the limits (plural!) of the measurement method, not the ranges (plural!) actually observed in seawater.
quote
BTW: the PH for ultra pure water is 6.998, so yes water can be corrosive.
That topic has been addressed previously in another thread, but it's irrelevant to the present discussion. IOW, it's a red herring.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-27-2013).]
...no place in the entire paper does he say it [water] is turning to acid...
Nobody on this forum is claiming that "water is turning to acid". The difference in "acidic" and "more acidic" has already been explained at least three times by three different people.
I see that you cleverly edited the first quoted sentence to eliminate the other two variables, salinity and temperature. You also shortened "ranges" to "range" in your comment, which I assume was also intentional.
Good catch. Pretty underhanded to edit a quote to purposely distort the meaning, then use it as proof.
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I see that you cleverly edited the first quoted sentence to eliminate the other two variables, salinity and temperature. You also shortened "ranges" to "range" in your comment, which I assume was also intentional. Here are the original two sentences in their entirety:
Now - who is arguing semantics - I didn't purposely do anything (other than high light the PH range), the original quote from the article is in my first post (go and compare it to the actual paper). I simply shortened the selection in reply to your editing (shorting) of my quote to make my point, just as you did - you purposely left out the part about the ranges covering most sea water and then attack me telling me that is not what the sea water was measuring (even though I never said it was - read the post I said 8.1 fall into the range in the article - of course this does not include any of the "other ranges". As for your comment of increasing the range to include "all seawater" sure you could, but I am sure you know that when you increase the range you increase the error.
edit - ok I see were some people are crying about my use of range vs ranges - so I didn't type the "s" my mistake and being lazy, not trying to change the meaning - the original text is sill in my first post. And yes the ranges of 7.4 to 9.6 cover most sea water for for salinities of 5 (I = 0.10 mol kg− 1) to 45 (I = 0.93 mol kg− 1), temperatures of 0 to 50 °.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 11-27-2013).]
Originally posted by masospaghetti: The difference in "acidic" and "more acidic" has already been explained at least three times by three different people.
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. It really makes no difference whatsoever. Just shows the petty levels 'they' have to sink to in order to disagree.
)
