Obama promised America that he loved coal – during the campaign.
By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, September 19, 9:29 PM WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will press ahead Friday with tough requirements for new coal-fired power plants, moving to impose for the first time strict limits on the pollution blamed for global warming.
The proposal would help reshape where Americans get electricity, away from a coal-dependent past into a future fired by cleaner sources of energy. It’s also a key step in President Barack Obama’s global warming plans, because it would help end what he called “the limitless dumping of carbon pollution” from power plants.
I’m more concerned about the limitless dumping of bovine excrement from Obama’s teleprompter.
Dims America’s future
This is quite a clear case of “High Treason”. The time has come to act accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason
I fully agree. But we are still in a “who will bell the cat” situation, because the public is not ready to get behind impeachment. Nevertheless, there are a few stray beams of light breaking through the general darkness, with the potential to win the day in just a year or two. Republicans in Congress need to stand firm against the implementation of Obamacare, and break it in the end (with the realization that inalienable individual rights are at stake); the Benghazi investigation needs to continue and grow and pierce to the heart of the lies behind it all; the global warming criminals need to be ousted from science. And above all, Obama (and all of his surrogates and enablers) needs to be seen, especially by his defenders, for what he really is: an inveterate, degenerate, anti-American/pro-Muslim liar without any true character.
High Treason and Crimes Against Humanity.
Obama… Aims His Missiles Back Towards The US… …for new coal-fired power plants … to get electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket.
“President Barack Obama on Monday announced he would waive the federal law intended to prevent the supply of arms to terrorists groups so the U.S. can provide arms and other military assistance to the Syrian rebels, the Washington Examiner’s Joel Gehrke reports.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/16/did-obama-just-waive-the-ban-on-arming-terrorist-groups/
There is now no question that Obama knowingly armed our enemies. This is treason.
I live next to Puget Sound. Oyster cultivators here, and in Willapa Bay further south, have had to take extreme measures to be able to continue cultivating oysters there and in the sound. Some are actually sending spats to Hawaii to be grown until large enough to deal with the change in CO2 content.
http://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/AreasofFocus/BiologicalResponse/Pteropods.aspx
This is not hypothetical.
So tell me, how is uncontrolled burning of more coal going to help this?
Monterey Bay, Ca shows no change in pH. Whatever is going in Puget Sounds has nothing to do with CO2. Seattle perhaps?
CO2 is essential to all life, even marine life and despite what the alarmists say, is NOT a pollutant. Oysters ate threatened by ACTUAL pollution, over harvesting and predation.
” In the southern Puget Sound region, Olympia oyster populations continue to be threatened by pollution from motorboats, pulp mills and wastewater discharge. Additionally, silt from highway construction projects has smothered a large proportion of the oyster population in the more shallow areas. Despite increases in some local oyster populations due to water quality improvements, Olympia oyster stocks in Washington have never reached pre-exploitation levels. Currently, the Puget Sound Restoration Fund is looking to re-introduce Olympia oysters in at least seven different sites throughout Puget Sound and Hood Canal. To find out more about Olympic oysters in the Pacific Northwest, check out National Wetlands Research Center at http://www.nwrc.gov/publications/specindex.html#L.”
First off, the the problems (pollution and CO2) are not mutually exclusive. Further, the population loss in oysters is far from limited to Puget Sound.
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2012/apr/hatchery-managers-osu-scientists-link-ocean-acidification-larval-oyster-failure
Next off, the taxa my original comment referenced (pteropods) are pelagic, living in the top of the water column, in a completely different ecological niche.
Lastly, ocean chemistry is far from homogenous, as is CO2 uptake.
Firstly, oceans are alkaline.
Secondly, Puget sound is not unique. Heavy metals, calcium, and aluminum are found all along both coasts, and are dangerous to pteropods.
And lastly, CO2 is only harmful when modeled.
Here’s an initial response to the list you sent.
First, the studies considered a very narrow range of species. Second, at least one of them (regarding corals in the Persian Gulf) did not address acidification at all.
Some of the results did match up nicely with some other studies I found. Acidification will have winners, and losers. Winners appear to be Echinoderms (starfish, urchins and the like) and interestingly enough, some species of mussels (guess I’ll still be able to make chowder). Losers include many other species of coral and molluscs. Here’s a paper I found during my perambulations through the net this evening:
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/12/1131.full
A precis:
“In ten of the 18 species (temperate corals, pencil urchins, hard clams, conchs, serpulid worms, periwinkles, bay scallops, oysters, whelks, soft clams; Figs. 1I–1R), net calcification decreased with increasing pCO2 (reduced CaCO3 saturation state). And in six of the ten negatively impacted species (pencil urchins, hard clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks, soft clams; Figs. 1J–1L, 1N, and 1Q–1R), we observed net dissolution of the shell in the highest pCO2 treatment, for which the experimental seawater was undersaturated with respect to aragonite and high-Mg calcite. However, in four of the 18 species (limpets, purple urchins, coralline red algae, calcareous green algae; Figs. 1D–1G), net calcification increased relative to the control under intermediate pCO2 levels (605 and 903 ppm), and then declined at the highest pCO2 level (2856 ppm). In three species (crabs, lobsters, and shrimps; Figs. 1A–1C), net calcification was greatest under the highest level of pCO2 (2856 ppm). And one species, the blue mussel (Fig. 1H), exhibited no response to elevated pCO2. “
From the parrot’s link…
” These regressions were calculated using least squares method and adjusted for clustering within tanks with generalized estimating equations, which employ the Huber-White sandwich estimator…”
Translation: We set up some tanks of water and then decided on our own alarmist estimations.
Result: “WE WERE RIGHT!!! PANIC!!!”
ROFLMAO!!!
My prediction was spot on, the ONLY way these idiots can manufacture fear is through elaborate and convoluted bullshit. 😆
Embarrass yourself again moron! 😆
You have been had, or are on the make.
So I get from your comment you consider this research immaterial?
You didn’t finish the sentence…
… employ the Huber-White sandwich estimator…
of variance in place of the standard estimator of variance to INCREASE THE RIGOR of the test for STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
If you are disinclined to agree on what establishes a reasonable agreement on what are or are not reliable sources, then it doesn’t make much sense for either of us to take this dialog further.
Who is Jeff?
If ‘Jeff’ is the idiot parrot jd who thinks ‘INCREASE THE RIGOR of the test for STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE’ means anything, I am not surprised.
I can claim to be King of Siam, but without solid documentation, my claims are empty.
Either show empirical evidence or STFU. Period.
Fish tanks and guesses are for fools and grantologists.
RE: jdallen – “This is not hypothetical.”
The following is also not hypothetical. “One of the most surprising results is that there was no decrease in the total amount of calcium carbonate in individuals exposed to acidified water. Indeed, individuals from lowered pH treatments had a greater percentage of calcium in their regenerated arms than individuals from control treatments, indicating a greater amount of calcium carbonate (two-way ANOVA using log transformed data, table 1c).”
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1644/1767.full
When animals don’t have to work as hard, their muscles shrink. AS the ph decreases, the carbonate ion concentration increases, supplying more raw ingredients to the calcifiers. The calcifiers just won the lottery.
You took the quote out of context. If you look later, you would see that the inert brittle star arms (killed and used as controls) did lose calcium when exposed to acidic conditions. You also try to infer that other species would behave the same way. That is also wrong. Molluscs and Echinoderms are rather different.
Oceans are alkaline, your entire premise is false.
I will add to Gator, alkaline and can never become acidic, not even if we tried our very hardest to create such a condition. It is impossible
“Alkaline” vs “Acid” are not exclusive. They are qualitative descriptions applied to PH, which is the relative concentration of the H+ ion in a solution. We are also looking at very narrow ranges of PH which affect carbonate chemistry e.g. 8.17 pre-industrially vs 8.10 two decades ago. Both values are “alkaline”, but the later lower value is more acidic (higher concentration of H+). The ocean does not need to be “acid” to affect the shell building of marine species.
“Jdallen says:
September 20, 2013 at 4:38 pm
You took the quote out of context. If you look later, you would see that the inert brittle star arms (killed and used as controls) did lose calcium when exposed to acidic conditions.”
Then stop using the BS fearmongering term ‘acidic conditions’, it shows your ignorance and intent.
Empirical evidence shows there is no reason for alarmism, find a new hobby.
I respectfully disagree with you. Far from fearmongering, based on solid science, I am questioning the wisdom of introducing higher levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. In part, I am doing so by citing more comprehensively an article you introduced to the discussion. If we increase fossil fuel consumption, CO2 in the atmosphere will increase. If atmospheric CO2 increases, so will ocean uptake of it, in net, decreasing PH.
If you can present studies and arguments which suggest this is either beneficial or indifferent to sea life, I will be happy to listen.
“If you can present studies and arguments which suggest this is either beneficial or indifferent to sea life, I will be happy to listen.”
See below and learn the facts.
The ocean is a buffered system. pH is fixed by contact with limestone.
according to Jdallen, you can’t ship corals all around the world for fish aquariums, you can’t even keep them in fish aquariums in houses because CO2 is elevated in houses, sessile inverts do not elevate the CO2 levels in and around them…
…and the ocean does not work because there’s no buffers….on a still day with no wind or currents everything dies…and elevated plankton levels do not increase pH
deep upwellings do not lower pH in estuaries…and neither does runoff and pollution
It’s amazing this planet has lasted as long as it has
who exactly are these morons that have no clue how the ocean works…
…and are so stupid they thing CO2 can lower it’s pH
In order for the ocean to work at all….it produces trillions of times more acid, every second, than CO2 could ever produce…the ocean even produces CO2
Yes Lat, the breadth and depth of the oceans is nothing compared to the ignorance of your average mouth breathing CAGW believer.
All CAGW claims are based upon models and/or fudged data. The ‘acidification’ papers are all models and/or lab experiments, that used completely unrealistic conditions. But you would never know it if you do not actually read the papers.
I was involved with the experiments to lower pH with CO2…
..you can only do that in the lab
You have to bubble enough CO2 to completely use up all of the buffer first
..then, and only then, can you lower the pH with CO2
This is all political science….either that, or there is not one biologist out there doing this that understands ammonification, nitrification, denitrification, and nitrogen fixation
Puget Sound is polluted, farm runoff, septic tanks, etc…the nitrogen cycle is making it acid…..400 ppm CO2 is no where near high enough to do it
You have a reference study I could look at?
‘Ocean Acidification’ is about the last stand of the CAGW alarmists, as none of their other ghost stories came to fruition, and most people are vastly ignorant about what covers two thirds of our planet. But this fallacy too shall end, as the public tires of false predictions and needless inflation.
You have a reference study I could look at?
====
which one?
The one that was common sense?
Or the one you need to look up?
Are you interested in illumination or abuse? That will determine what you send me, if anything.
Neither…
Then I will offer you this quote from Christopher Hitchens.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12042-that-which-can-be-asserted-without-evidence-can-be-dismissed
Is there any proof? Because grown-ups should believe things for which there is solid evidence. If you don’t have proof, then you need to keep your mind open. There are countless things in the world you can scare yourself over. That’s why an evidence test is useful.
Basic seawater chemistry precludes it from ever becoming acidic.
And although different seas vary in absolute composition, there are some basics in all seas and oceans.
http://core.ecu.edu/geology/woods/SEAWATERchemistry.htm
Please note the high (metal) mineral content.
Nice link. Regarding your comment on metals, I see Sodium, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium and traces of Strontium. None of those are considered toxic in sea water, per se.
i denounce you all for racist racism!
unexpectedly, of course. 😉
I get it…you’re shocked, shocked you tell us, to find that racism is going on…only it’s Black, Muslim and Latino, not White racism, that is driving the insanity. Cindi Lauper needs to write a new song: “Minority racists just want to have fun”.
Ocean Acidification and Calcifying Clams
Reference
Range, P., Chicharo, M.A., Ben-Hamadou, R., Pilo, D., Matias, D., Joaquim, S., Oliveira, A.P. and Chicharo, L. 2011. Calcification, growth and mortality of juvenile clams Ruditapes decussatus under increased pCO2 and reduced pH: Variable responses to ocean acidification at local scales? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 396: 177-184.
Background
In introducing their study, the authors write that “whether and how ocean acidification will affect marine organisms, ecosystems and the goods and services they provide is currently a topic of great concern,” and in their specific case that concern is directed towards juvenile clams of coastal marine ecosystems, since they say these shellfish “link primary productivity with upper trophic levels” and “are also important economic resources for fisheries and aquaculture.”
What was done
In an experiment designed to test the effects of increased pCO2 and reduced pH of seawater on the calcification, growth and mortality of juvenile Ruditapes decussatus clams, Range et al. conducted a 75-day controlled CO2 perturbation experiment, where the carbonate chemistry of seawater was manipulated by diffusing pure CO2 into natural seawater to attain two reduced pH levels (by -0.4 and -0.7 pH unit compared to un-manipulated seawater), hypothesizing that under these conditions the juvenile clams would exhibit: (1) reduced net calcification, (2) reduced growth of the shell and soft tissue, and (3) increased mortality.
What was learned
At the conclusion of their experiment, the eight researchers say that they found “no differences among pH treatments in terms of net calcification, size or weight of the clams,” disproving the first two of their three hypotheses. Their third hypothesis also proved to be wrong — doubly wrong, in fact — for not only was juvenile clam mortality not increased in the low pH seawater, they say that mortality was significantly reduced in the acidified treatments, which was something they describe as a truly “unexpected result.”
What it means
The Portuguese scientists conclude their paper by noting that life is intriguingly complex and that “the generalized and intuitively attractive perception that calcification will be the critical process impacted by ocean acidification is being increasingly challenged,” citing Widdicombe and Spicer (2008) and Findlay et al. (2009) in this regard. And we note that the results of their own study further contribute to this emerging perception.
References
Findlay, H.S., Wood, H.L., Kendall, M.A., Spicer, J.I., Twitchett, R.J. and Widdicombe, S. 2009. Calcification, a physiological process to be considered in the context of the whole organism. Biogeosciences Discussions 6: 2267-2284.
Widdicombe, S. and Spicer, J.I. 2008. Predicting the impact of ocean acidification on benthic biodiversity: what can animal physiology tell us? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 366: 187-197.
Reviewed 8 June 2011
Scientists Determine Corals Are Highly Adaptive To Extreme Climate Changes, Global Warming Not A Problem
Read here. Without doing any empirical research, radical green groups (Greenpeace, etc.) claim that coral reefs will die off due to increased warming of ocean coastal waters. Actual scientists say that is wrong.
Bauman et al. published a peer-reviewed study regarding corals in the southern Persian Gulf area, which found corals to be hardy and resilient to extreme temperature fluctuations. Their research confirms what other coral studies have found:
“…three researchers report that the reproductive biology of the six coral species in the southern Persian Gulf “appears to be well adapted to extreme annual environmental fluctuations” and is “remarkably similar to conspecifics elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific (Baird et al., 2009a,b),”…say their work “confirms that corals are capable of reproductive activities under extreme environmental conditions,” as has also been found to be the case by Coles and Fadlallah (1991) and Coles and Brown (2003). Hence, they state that “coral populations can survive and proliferate in extreme conditions that are projected to occur in many other regions of the world by the end of this century,” buttressing their claim with the statement that “the recovery of these coral assemblages following mortality induced by a number of recent temperature-related bleaching events (1996, 1998 and 2002) suggests these assemblages are also resilient to extreme fluctuations in water temperature,”” [A. G. Bauman, A. H. Baird, G. H. Cavalcante 2011: Coral Reefs]
Sea Urchin Babies Unharmed By Mean Old Ocean Acidification, Peer-Reviewed Study Finds
Read here. The left/green coalition has conjured up the boogieman termed “ocean acidification” to instill fear in the hearts of liberal/progressives “elites” that marine life will be adversely affected by greater emissions of human CO2. Based on the ocean acidification fears, Yu et al. conducted research on sea urchin babies larvae immersed in water with lower values of pH to determine its impact on larvae growth and well being.
The research found that sea urchin larvae were not impacted by levels of increasing “acidification” of sea water that some have predicted will represent ocean waters 100+ years from now.
“Yu et al. state that “the observed developmental progression and survival of cultures was within the norm typically observed for this species at this temperature range.” In addition, they indicate that “a lack of developmental deformities at early stages for pCO2 ~1000 ppm has been previously reported for this species…” And they say “there are even reports that survival is increased in this species and its congener S. droebachiensis under some low pH conditions…”…conclude, that “the effects of small magnitude in these urchin larvae are indicative of a potential resilience to near-future levels of ocean acidification.”” [Pauline C. Yua, Paul G. Matsona, Todd R. Martzb, Gretchen E. Hofmanna 2011: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology]
Note: Yes, indeed we know larvae are not ‘babies’ and we also know that polar bears are not ‘cuddly’ as the greens like to portray.
Even At CO2 Levels of 3,000+ ppm, New Research Shows That Sea Life Is Safe From Ocean Acidification
Read here. As has been widely noted by the hysterical MSM, Hollywood bimbo celebrities and the IPCC’s climate change alarmists have predicted that CO2 levels higher than the current 390 ppm level will bring great harm to all ocean life, especially to the early development of calcifying invertebrates. A new peer-reviewed study, by actual non-Hollywood scientists, reveals that the predicted larval death by acidification is the usual liberal/left, anti-science hysteria on steroids.
Martin et al. analyzed the effects of incredibly high CO2 levels (low ocean pH) on Mediterranean sea urchins. Other than a slower larval growth at ~3560 ppm, the sea urchins were unaffected by the ludicrously low pH levels imposed on the test subjects.
“The authors write that “ocean acidification is predicted to have significant effects on benthic calcifying invertebrates, in particular on their early developmental states,” and they note that “echinoderm larvae could be particularly vulnerable to decreased pH, with major consequences for adult populations.”…explored the effect of a gradient of decreasing pH from 8.1 to 7.0 — corresponding to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of ~400 ppm to ~6630 ppm — on the larvae of the sea urchin…The eleven researchers found that “Paracentrotus lividus appears to be extremely resistant to low pH, with no effect on fertilization success or larval survival.”” [Sophie Martin, Sophie Richier, Maria-Luiza Pedrotti, Sam Dupont, Charlotte Castejon, Yannis Gerakis, Marie-Emmanuelle Kerros, François Oberhänsli, Jean-Louis Teyssié, 0. Ross Jeffree, Jean-Pierre Gattuso 2011: The Journal of Experimental Biology]
OSHA allow workplace CO2 levels of 5000 ppm or about 0.5%. Short term exposures of 30,000 PPM are permitted (less than 15 minutes) so long as O2 remains above 19.5%. Which means that CO2 is considered generally harmless despite the EPA (and Oh-Bomb-Ya)’s labeling of CO2 as a “dangerous” pollutant.
Brewery and fish hatchery workers get exposed to these levels all the time.
I’ve always thought a greenhouse exchanging air and waste heat with a brewery would be an ideal business.
indoor coral farms can be over 1000ppm
CO2 Concentrations and Effects
150 ppm – the minimum concentration below which many plants may face problems to run photosynthesis and stop growing
180 ppm – the concentration during ice ages
280 ppm – the concentration during interglacials, i.e. also the pre-industrial concentration around 1750
391 ppm – the concentration today
500 ppm – the concentration around 2060-2070 (unlikely that before 2050 as they claim)
560 ppm – the concentration around 2080-2110 (the “doubled CO2” relatively to the pre-industrial values) relevant for the calculations of climate sensitivity); a concentration routinely found outdoors today
700 ppm – the concentration in an average living room
900 ppm – concentration in an average kitchen
1,270 ppm – the concentration used to double the growth of Cowpea in a famous video
1,700 ppm – the average concentration in the Cretaceous 145-65 million years ago (early mammals came, plus figs, magnolias, birds, modern sharks)
4,500 ppm – the concentration 444-416 million years ago (the Silurian dominated by corals and mosses); see other values in geological epochs
10,000 ppm – sensitive people start to feel weaker
40,000 ppm – the concentration of CO2 in the air we breath out
50,000 ppm – toxic levels at which the animals like us get weaker in hours; the value is 5 percent of the volume
180,000 ppm – the concentration of CO2 in exhausts of a healthy motor; that’s 18 percent
1,000,000 ppm – pure CO2, just to make you sure what the units are
gat….increasing CO2 levels over 350ppm shows a marked improvement in the rate of plant growth
the reverse of that has to be true….below 350ppm and plants show a marked slow down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded
I conducted my first CO2 soybean experiment in 1978, and it is always the same. More CO2 makes healthier plants that use less water, more food from less acreage and less water. EVIL!!! 😆
I love that…it’s cool!!!
Here’s some twisted science you’ll love…
…you know when something is limiting it’s unstable
They want stable weather
hike CO2 levels up to several thousand ppm where they are stable
and they will have that stable weather they want!
Actually, the discussion was about CO2 and ocean acidification or the lack thereof. OSHA rules and atmospheric concentrations are a spin off discussion.
No such thing as acidified oceans. How stupid are you?
3m of ocean contains more CO2 than all of the atmosphere above it. Average depth of our ocean’s is 4,700m !!! … Ocean’s cover more than 72% of the surface area of the planet. It is impossible for human CO2 emissions to ever alter the pH balance of our ocean’s. Period. End of discussion. Go worry about something else. You are a fool.
Elevated CO2 and Early Life Stages of Mediterranean Sea Urchins
Reference
Martin, S., Richier, S., Pedrotti, M.-L., Dupont, S., Castejon, C., Gerakis, Y., Kerros, M.-E., Oberhansli, F., Teyssie, J.-L., Jeffree, R. and Gattuso, J.-P. 2011. Early development and molecular plasticity in the Mediterranean sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus exposed to CO2-driven acidification. The Journal of Experimental Biology 214: 1357-1368.
Background
The authors write that “ocean acidification is predicted to have significant effects on benthic calcifying invertebrates, in particular on their early developmental states,” and they note that “echinoderm larvae could be particularly vulnerable to decreased pH, with major consequences for adult populations.”
What was done
Martin et al. explored the effect of a gradient of decreasing pH from 8.1 to 7.0 — corresponding to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of ~400 ppm to ~6630 ppm — on the larvae of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus, a common but economically and ecologically important species that is widely distributed throughout the Mediterranean Sea and the northeast Atlantic from Ireland to southern Morocco. This they did, as they describe it, by using “multiple methods to identify the response of P. lividus to CO2-driven ocean acidification at both physiological (fertilization, growth, survival and calcification) and molecular (expression of genes involved in calcification and development) levels.”
What was learned
The eleven researchers found that “Paracentrotus lividus appears to be extremely resistant to low pH, with no effect on fertilization success or larval survival.” They did, however, discover that “larval growth was slowed when exposed to low pH,” but they report that there was “no direct impact on relative larval morphology or calcification down to pH 7.25,” which equates to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of ~3560 ppm. In addition, they found that “genes involved in development and biomineralization were upregulated by factors of up to 26 at low pH.”
What it means
Martin et al. conclude that their results reveal “plasticity at the gene expression level” in P. lividus that “allows a normal, but delayed, development under low pH conditions.”
Thank you for the references. I shall spend some time digesting the articles, rather than shoot from the hip.
Toxic Seawater Fraud
Published March 19, 2009 Uncategorized 7 Comments
Tags: anthropogenic global warming, bicarbonate, buffers, calcium carbonate, carbonate, carbonic acid, CO2, equilibrium, global warming, ion pairing, Le Chatelier, modern science, Ocean acidification, Royal Society, seawater, toxic ocean, Toxic sea
[Note: some understanding of chemistry (approximately A-Level) is necessary to understand this post, and it will be helpful to read the background in the previous post Ocean Acidification Scam.]
The theory behind the ‘toxic ocean acidification’ scam proceeds like this: as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the concentration in the oceans also increases due to dissolution [true – all other things being equal]. CO2 dissolved in water reacts with water to form carbonic acid, making the seas acidic [a half truth – they become very slightly less alkaline]. This acidity dissolves the shells of marine life causing mass extinction [an utter falsehood].
As a matter of fact, seawater is alkaline. Dissolving the carbon dioxide from all the world’s known fossil fuel reserves would never make the sea acidic. The climate alarmists coined the phrase “ocean acidification” to make it sound alarming, whereas the process is actually what is known as neutralization. The term ‘acidification’ of course sounds more scary than talking about the oceans becoming slightly less alkaline or a little more neutral.
To put this into perspective, the pH of seawater is, on average, around pH 8.2. Pure water is pH 7.0, and clean rainwater is pH 5.6. What is more, seawater is a highly buffered solution – it can take up a huge amount of dissolved inorganic carbon without significant effect on pH. There is not the slightest possibility that the alkalinity of the oceans could approach the neutral pH of pure water even if all the fossil fuel reserves in the world were burned, so all talk of ‘acid’ oceans is utter nonsense. What sort of change are we talking about? Possibly a change of pH of 0.2 units this century, say from 8.2 to 8.0. That would mean by definition that there were still no more than 10% of the ‘acidic’ H+ ions than there are in pure water.
The so-called science behind this ‘acid ocean’ scare is complete baloney. Firstly, an increasing concentration of CO2 in the water improves the efficiency of photosynthesis in the oceans (as it does on the land), and so increases the growth of plant life in the ocean, including phytoplankton, upon which ‘graze’ zooplankton, which is food for a vast range of sea animals, including whales.
Secondly, it’s not possible through lifeless inorganic chemistry to predict what is happening with living processes. Fish pump huge quantities (hundreds of millions of tonnes annually) of available carbonate in the oceans as a byproduct of the systems that enable them to survive in high salinity. This is using the energy of life processes to buck the normal dissolved inorganic carbon equilibria. The calcium carbonate (limestone) of dead calcifying organisms dissolves naturally in seawater. What stops a sea creature’s shell from dissolving away is the living creature’s continually producing more calcium carbonate, just like a land animal continually produces skin cells to replace those that are lost to the environment.
Thirdly, an increasing concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon (e.g. dissolved carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ions, carbonate ions) makes the process of laying down calcium carbonate in shells efficient. This is because there is a far greater supply of calcium ions (441ppm) in seawater than dissolved inorganic carbon (90ppm) and any increase in dissolved carbon dioxide simply pushes the equilibrium balance towards the production of carbonate ions. The reactions are reversible and in equilibria:
CO2 + H2O H2CO3 H+ + HCO3- H+ + H+ + CO32-
Add more CO2 at the left and the equilibrium balance is driven to the right – liberating more carbonate, which can combine with the superabundant calcium ions to form calcium carbonate. Note that as the reaction is driven to the right by the dissolution of additional CO2 there is increased production of H+ ions, so acidity is increasing (= decreasing pH) but the absolute carbonate concentration is increasing as well.
Fourthly, the situation is completely different from the case where pH is artificially lowered by adding, say, hydrochloric acid, where there would be no addition of dissolved inorganic carbon. Unfortunately, many scientists have failed to understand this basic chemistry and have conducted crude experiments on shellfish by adding mineral acids to seawater. Whilst this duly lowers the pH, it drives the equilibrium reactions in the opposite direction, so is completely invalid as an experimental model. In the equilibrium equation above, introducing mineral acid (which introduces no additional dissolved inorganic carbon) adds H+ ions on the right of the equilibrium equation, which drives the equilibrium to the left, and removes carbonate. The increase in H+ ions (equivalent to lower pH), arises because the experimenter is tipping in mineral acid and is thereby forcing the reaction to reduce carbonate and to increase dissolved carbon dioxide, which will come out of solution into the atmosphere as bubbles, decarbonizing the seawater. But if increasing atmospheric CO2 is the driver, the reaction is forced the other way and the carbonates go up; if mineral acid is the driver, the pH goes down and carbonates also go down. Looking at pH tells us absolutely nothing about the concentrations of carbonates, bicarbonates, dissolved CO2, equilibria, reaction rates or reaction directions. As a matter of fact, calcium carbonate dissolves in alkaline seawater (pH 8.2) 15 times faster than in pure water (pH 7.0), so it is silly, meaningless nonsense to focus on pH.
By elementary chemistry, adding CO2 to a CO2/carbonate equilibrium will always drive the reaction towards the production of more carbonate, irrespective of any associated reduction in pH arising from the shift in equilibrium itself. So if atmospheric CO2 increases, leading to increased dissolution of CO2, we can be sure that there will be a higher concentration of carbonate available for combination with calcium – the complete opposite of what the scare mongers are telling us. It’s a no brainer. It seems that those creating the ‘ocean acidification’ scare don’t know the basics about chemical equilibria, buffer solutions and Le Chatelier’s principle. Or maybe they hope we don’t know and understand them, so that they can hoodwink us. They would like us to believe that a reduction in pH is analogous to tipping mineral acid in the oceans, which would indeed be damaging, and would liberate CO2 from the oceans, whereas the effect of increasing dissolution of CO2 is wholly beneficial both to marine plants and animals.
To see what muddled thinking and ignorance of chemistry there is, it is sufficient to examine the report by the Royal Society, Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. As usual, what comes from the Royal Society these days is special pleading and phoney science. They state
Carbonic acid is an acid because it can split up into its constituents, releasing an excess of H+ to solution and so driving pH to lower values. Carbonic acid splits up by adding one H+ ion to solution along with HCO3- (a bicarbonate ion)…This increase in H+ causes some CO32- (called carbonate ions) to react with H+ to become HCO3-…Thus the net effect of the dissolution of CO2 in seawater is to increase concentrations of H+, H2CO3 and HCO3- , while decreasing concentrations of CO32-
This is breathtakingly stupid chemistry – they have muddled up absolute and relative concentrations. What’s more, the equations given in the Royal Society paper show one-way reactions rather than two-way equilibria. They are treating the process as a titration rather than an equilibrium reaction with increasing concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon.
The faulty reasoning in the Royal Society’s paper (and many others) is that because addition of carbon dioxide causes more acidity, the increasing H+ ions will eventually force the reaction to the left. But where are the H+ ions coming from in the first place? As a result of the reaction moving to the right! The reasoning of fraudulent science is that as the reaction proceeds to the right and liberates H+ ions it must subsequently swing back to the left (which would create higher CO2 in the water as well). Equilibrium processes don’t work in this unstable, oscillatory way: the H+ ions that are generated become a brake on the reaction proceeding too far to the right, and a new equilibrium point is reached with lower pH and higher carbonate.
Whilst the relative concentration of CO32- (carbonate) with respect to the increasing concentration of HCO3- (bicarbonate) may reduce, the absolute concentration of carbonate in seawater will increase as more CO2 dissolves. We can demonstrate this principle by a simple experiment. Consider a beaker of pure water, pH 7.0. The beaker contains nothing but H2O molecules and its dissociated ions H+ and OH-. If carbon dioxide is bubbled through the water for some hours and the system left to rest and establish equilibrium the pH will go down, perhaps to pH 5. There will be now be some dissolved CO2, some bicarbonate ions and some carbonate ions in solution and many more H+ ions than there were before. Carbonate ions have thus increased because there were literally none before, yet pH has gone down and the absolute quantity of H+ ions has increased considerably. So, in absolute terms, carbonate ions increase as dissolved CO2 increases.
In fact, at pH 8, seawater is supersaturated with carbonate. Why does this excess carbonate not precipitate out as calcium carbonate, since there are so many free calcium ions in the water? This seldom happens (except when forced to do so by the calcification processes in living organisms) because of the presence of magnesium ions in seawater that preferentially ion pair with the carbonate in solution. With ion pairing, the reaction moves further to the right than would be the case without magnesium ions, yet without precipitation of magnesium and calcium carbonate salts, and this ensures there is an abundance of dissolved carbonate ions available for living organisms in spite of the low alkalinity. Moreover, phosphorus and dissolved organic compounds permit high levels of carbonate to exist without precipitation. Seawater is a truly marvelous and complex chemical system, which includes non-volatile borate, phosphate and silicate buffers.
Apart from being muddled on the chemistry, the Royal Society ’s paper has this to say:
From our understanding of ocean chemistry and available evidence, it is clear that increasing the acidity of the oceans will reduce the concentration and therefore the availability of carbonate ions. It is expected that calcifying organisms will find it more difficult to produce and maintain their shells and hard structures.
Now, here is a classic trick of the illogical argument, the non sequitur. We are being led to believe from these two sentences that the availability of carbonate ions is important to the production of shells. As a matter of fact, nearly all the literature teaches that the biological process of calcification proceeds from the reaction between calcium ions and bicarbonate ions, and there’s no shortage of either of those. Even the Royal Society says so 12 pages earlier, but you are expected to have forgotten that by now:
two ions of bicarbonate (HCO3-) react with one ion of doubly charged calcium (Ca2+) to form one molecule of CaCO3
liberating a carbon dioxide and a water molecule as well. This makes the “availability of carbonate ions” a completely moot point, but you are not supposed to pick up on this false logic. And here comes the classic:
…the lack of a clear understanding of the mechanisms of calcification and its metabolic or structural function means that it is difficult, at present, to reliably predict the full consequences of CO2-induced ocean acidification on the physiological and ecological fitness of calcifying organisms.
So, let’s consign this report to the waste bin, please, and look at papers by authors who do know what they are talking about. But in this regard, the following assertion given in the Royal Society paper is certainly false, as inspection of the sources below shows:
Published data on corals, coccolithophores and foraminifera all suggest a reduction in calcification by 5–25% in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial values (from 280 to 560 ppm CO2)
So, what’s the effect of increasing carbon dioxide in seawater on calcifying organisms? Here are some recently reported findings:
Wood, Spicer, and Widdicombe (2008) found that increasing dissolved CO2 increases calcification rates and improves the rate of regeneration of damaged body parts [Proc Biol Sci. 2008 August 7]. The following extracts are given at length because of the importance of these findings, which overturn ‘assumptions’ (read, false reasoning and bad science):
…we have investigated the effect of CO2-induced acidification on the ability of a calcifying organism (the ophiuroid brittlestar Amphiura filiformis) to regenerate calcium carbonate structures (arms).
Amphiura filiformis collected from Plymouth Sound, UK, were maintained in sediment cores (five individuals per core) supplied with filtered seawater of the allocated pH (pH modified using CO2). Each pH treatment (8.0, 7.7, 7.3 and 6.8) had four cores (20 individuals per pH)…
One of the most surprising results is that there was no decrease in the total amount of calcium carbonate in individuals exposed to acidified water. Indeed, individuals from lowered pH treatments had a greater percentage of calcium in their regenerated arms than individuals from control treatments, indicating a greater amount of calcium carbonate…In regenerated arms, calcium levels were greater in those organisms exposed to acidified seawater than in those held in untreated seawater. This was true for all three levels of acidified seawater…there was actually an increasing rate of calcification with lowered pH. Calcium carbonate in established arms was also affected by lowered pH. At pH 6.8, calcium levels increased and at pH 7.7 and pH 7.3, calcium levels were equal to the control indicating that A. filiformis actively replaced calcium carbonate lost by dissolution.
Rates of oxygen (O2) uptake (as a measure of metabolic rate), or MO2, were significantly greater at reduced pHs (7.7, 7.3 and 6.8) than in controls (pH 8); However, MO2 was not significantly different between the three lowered pH treatments. Increased rates of physiological processes that require energy are paralleled by an increase in metabolism; this relationship is seen with growth and metabolism here in our results.
Seawater acidification stimulated arm regeneration. After the 40-day exposure, the length of the regenerated arm was greater in acidified treatments than in the controls…This increased rate of growth coincided with increased metabolism. Regeneration was not affected by the number of arms removed, nor was there a significant difference in any of the physiological parameters measured as a result of having two arms regenerating instead of one. The ability to regenerate lost arms faster meant a reduction in the length of time animal function (e.g. burrow ventilation and feeding) was compromised by reduced arm length.
Interestingly, even at high levels of hypercapnia (the 6.8 pH treatment crosses the threshold into acidic water, i.e. pH)
7 George Brouxhon
October 24, 2009 at 9:38 am
Your papers are interesting. I am a geologist, now retired, but remember some studies done in Florida coast in the sixties on the effect of diurnal variations of temperature on the precipitation of carbonates in sea water;presumably from bicarbonate solutions.
If my memory does not fail me, the paper concluded that whenever the temperature of the sea rose, more calcium was precipitated; when the surface temperature cooled at night time more calcium went into solutions. Is that still true today?
Thank you for your attention to this query,
Regards
George Brouxhon
ScientistForTruth replies
Thank you for your interest. Geology is not my specialism, but I’m pleased to help if I’m able. Thermodynamically, precipitation of carbonate is favoured by higher temperature and lower pressure, but as I have mentioned, there is little or no abiotic precipitation even though seawater is supersaturated with carbonate. Precipitation of carbonate, whether in shells, ‘blooms’ (whitings) or mud appears to be due to living processes. There is indeed diurnal variation in carbonate precipitation in and around Florida. For example see
YATES Kimberly K., HALLEY Robert B, Diurnal variation in rates of calcification and carbonate sediment dissolution in Florida Bay, Estuaries and coasts, 2006, vol. 29, no1, pp. 24-39.
You can download the whole article here
You might also find the paper by Martina U. E. Merz about carbonate precipitation in the Everglades interesting: The Biology of Carbonate Precipitation by Cyanobacteria. A link to the first page is here
The summary begins
In the freshwater areas of the Everglades, Florida, U.S.A., carbonate is precipitated in dense cyanobacterial mats. Precipitation is linked with photosynthesis in the mats in a quantitative relationship.
On ground of field observations and experiments a model for precipitation in the filamentous cyanobacteria Scytonema is proposed, which links precipitation to bicarbonate use in photosynthesis and subsequent release of OH? ions.
This leads to a line of enquiry which may interest you as a geologist: the possible production of vast quantities of oil from bacteria. For a long time there was debate about the bloom of calcium carbonate precipitates known as ‘whitings’ that is found around the Bahamas and the Persian Gulf. Some researchers thought it was calcium carbonate mud disturbed by fish, but analysis of radioisotopes (beryllium 7) demonstrated that the carbonate was recently formed, and it seems now to be produced by cyanobacteria. Working on this, Christopher Kendall (Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina) proposed that whitings of the modern Arabian Gulf are the key to the origin of the vast petroleum reserves in the region, and produced a poster, Holocene Cyanobacterial Mats and Lime Muds: Links to Middle East Carbonate Source Rock Potential. The following is the summary:
Carbonate reservoirs ranging in age from Permian to Tertiary contain most of the 675 Bbbl of Arabian Gulf hydrocarbon reserves. Two major Holocene organic sources serve as probable models: whitings that turn part of the Arabian Gulf milky white; and cyanobacteria forming mats on intertidal areas. The mud and cyanobacteria is quickly sequestered into the sedimentary section in the axial trough of the Gulf and extensive tidal flats that rim it. Short-lived isotopes in the Bahama banks support the instantaneous character of whiting precipitation. Source rock analysis of the Gulf carbonate mud/cyanobacterial deposits demonstrates that these sediments are future source beds for hydrocarbons. 25% of the 1.3 million metric tons precipitated and suspended each year in the Bahamas is organic matter, dropping to 1.8% of the surface sediment. The Bahamian Bank whitings and associated organic matter covering more limited areas is swept off the bank into deep water. Cores through Neogene western platform slope sediments preserve 1% TOC up to 4%. Cyanobacteria may contribute more hydrocarbons than previously thought. Organic matter associated with whiting blooms is believed to be dispersed in the lime muds of the ancient Arabian Gulf section and may have generated large volumes of its oil. Cyanobacterial membranes liquefy at low threshold temperatures. A short time interval burst of oil generation could produce transient overpressures liberating oil by micro fracturing and in some cases long-range migration. Rapid accumulation of large volumes of oil in a short time-span would provide the collective buoyancy necessary to drive large-scale migration. We propose that whitings of the modern Arabian Gulf are the key to the origin of the vast petroleum reserves of this region.
This builds on the findings of a paper by Collister et al, Modification of the petroleum system concept:Origins of alkanes and isoprenoids in crude oils, AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Issue 5, Pages 587 – 611 (2004), which concluded that the contribution of cyanobacteria to petroleum deposits was very much higher than previously thought, and that the whole understanding of petroleum production needs to be re-examined because it can be produced very rapidly from cyanobacteria which are “volumetrically the most important contributors to the crudes”
Analysis of the alkane/acyclic isoprenoid fraction of a large number of crude oils and rock extracts from the Timan-Pechora basin (Russia) suggest that this fraction, the main constituent of most crude oils, is a direct product of liquefaction of biological debris that was preserved essentially unaltered to the point of oil generation. Therefore, the primary biological provenance of this fraction is preserved in the oil fraction…If the precursors of most oils are the products of a small set of chemically simple biopolymers, then many of our assumptions concerning the importance of total organic carbon and the nature of the oil window must be reexamined.
More Sea Acidification Studies Debunk Fantasy Fears: Sea Urchins Even Thrive With 5,000 PPM CO2 Levels
Read here. The green organizations that rely on donations from those individuals frightened by “ocean acidification” may have to get a new gig or find new gullible patsies. Study after study keeps being produced showing the impact of CO2 on marine life to range from minimal to nada.
The green-fanatic groups that conduct this type of money-raising via orchestrated scaremongering should lose their tax-exempt status or at least be investigated by the FTC for outright fraud.
“In studies of sea urchins, for example, statistically significant reductions in egg fertilization rates did not occur in Echinometra mathaei until the atmospheric CO2 concentration was raised a full 5,000 ppm above that of the ambient air; and in Hemicentrotus pulcherrimus, even a 10,000 ppm increase in the air’s CO2 concentration was insufficient to elicit a statistically significant decline in egg fertilization rate…..In doing so, they say that over the ranges of seawater pH and temperature they studied, there was “no effect of pH” and “no interaction between temperature and pH” on sea urchin egg fertilization…..the five Australian researchers found that “across all treatments there was a highly significant effect of sperm density, but no significant effect of temperature or interaction between factors.” In fact, they state that “low pH did not reduce the percentage of fertilization even at the lowest sperm densities used, and increased temperature did not enhance fertilization at any sperm density.” In addition, they remark that “a number of ecotoxicology and climate change studies, where pH was manipulated with CO2 gas, show that sea urchin fertilization is robust to a broad pH range with impairment only at extreme levels well below projections for ocean acidification by 2100.”
Those should be good start on your education. Now quit hyperventilating, you have been had by alarmists.
I have been “had” by no one. I have asked questions. You have provided information. You do not like the questions, and choose to denigrate me. If you want to be persuasive, I suggest avoiding that.
If you have not been had, then where is your proof and why would you call alkaline oceans acidic? 😆
Actually, here you are putting words in my mouth. I did not call the oceans acid.
Bullshit.
Do you have links to some of the specific papers I can run down? Some appear to be missing.
Google the titles and you will find them, I’m busy.
Just so. I’ve been digging a bit, and should be able to produce a list. I was just wondering if you had them immediately at hand, rather than buried in secondary sources.
Nothing is buried except your head up your ass.
good grief child…no wonder you believe this crap….
highlight, copy, paste in Google
..you can’t even do this!
*Some* of the references are not apparent. It doesn’t hurt to ask, and there is utterly no need to be rude.
Then quit being such a fool
He either cannot help it, or is being paid.
All of these critters evolved when CO2 was much, much higher…orders of magnitude higher
We are in the middle of an Ice Age for crying out loud….CO2 is lower than it has been for millions of years, and dangerously close to the minimum to support life.
NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program appears to be diversification in alarmist grant-sucking opportunities. Any port in a storm …
Welcome to the NOAA Ocean Acidification Program! Ocean acidification is emerging as an urgent environmental and economic issue on our nation’s east and west coasts and in many areas of the world.
Yes, we can see NOAA pushing their alarmism in their BS ‘acid’ language.
Grantologists.
Actually, it *is* a serious economic issue where I live. Oysters are over a $100 million industry in Washington and Oregon. Don’t take my word for it. I suggest you speak with some Oystermen. You could reach out here: http://pcsga.org/
So to save some local money, based on totally unproven claims, we should deny the most vulnerable human beings affordable food and energy? You are an idiot, and an asshole.
I ask again, on what do you base these alarmist claims? You have been shown empirical evidence they you are wrong, and you have nothing to back your bullshit.
Forgive me for making you so angry, gator69, but I’m afraid you’ve missed my intent entirely. Quite to the contrary, I’m not a “leftist” nor a “facist”, and in fact am raising questions regarding the welfare of billions of people. I do in fact share your concern for human welfare, and am very worried about whether or not people across the spectrum – developed countries or undeveloped – will be able to achieve greater wealth and health over both the short and long term.
I have raised questions regarding the effect of CO2 on ocean ecology, citing in particular, some observed impacts, not just on my “local economy” as you narrowly put it, but on pelagic species which are key to the support of ocean ecology. The loss of those species could very easily prompt a crash in fisheries on which well over a billion people depend on for their protein. Creating conditions which asymmetrically favor other species can be similarly difficult; consider the explosion of jellyfish (Cnidaria) off of Japan:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0119_060119_jellyfish.html
It is far from a simple problem, I absolutely grant, and I’m not trying to offer a simple solution. What I do hope people will do is consider consequences of one sided choices. Simply walking away from Coal would break an industry, and put billions of people in the dark; that’s not an option. However I don’t think expanding Coal is a viable option either, and there are many directions we could follow by which we could fill that gap which are practical and positive. A transition can be made which serves human welfare. I think it is irresponsible to embrace either extreme… immediately walk away from fossil fuel, or ignore the consequences of developing more of it. There is a middle path. We really need to find it.
It is only a serious economic issue for those rent seeking tax payer dollars you idiot. Have you noticed that it is only after someone came up with the brilliant idea of “ocean acidification” that the rent seeking worms began to crawl out of the woodwork? A new scam for the rent seekers to latch on to.
@Jeff,
You you truly believe and feel as you suggest, and so adamantly so, then you should be one of the first to be denouncing these scams. You should be concerned that we are in a CO2 drought. In order to support proper bio-diversity and a flourishing biosphere, we need to emit more CO2, not less! If you really wanted to feed the children of the world, if you really wanted a healthy planet, low CO2 would be your first concern! It is proven, I said proven, that high CO2 concentrations are beneficial to our biosphere. Now, either you honestly don’t understand any of the empirical data that has been presented to you, or you are a lying sack of shit when you tell us how concerned you are. The scam that is AGW, the scam that is “ocean acidification” and all the other related scams are HURTING what you say you are concerned about. Continued, these scams will absolutely, without question, obliterate all of those things you say you are concerned about. So, Mr/Ms. bleeding heart, put up or shut up. If you are truly concerned about our health, and not your leftist ideology, then start consuming the real empirical data, and stop with the bullshit “we’re all gonna die” propaganda crap!
Personally, I say you are a lying sack of shit. Personally, I say you don’t actually give rats ass about any of what you just spouted about. Personally I believe you are a leftist turd that is more concerned about your ideology and socialist agenda than anything else. Prove me wrong!
@Jeff
“Another theory suggests that seas heated by global warming are better suited for breeding, turning the Nomura’s otherwise modest numbers into an armada.”
Another theory is that this is a natural fluctuation of breeding. So what? I prefer facts over theory. We know that human lives are improved by cheap and abundant energy. Why sacrifice your own brothers and sisters over our speculation?
Sorry, but human sacrifice angers me. And you?
Jeff
Reference your jellyfish, studies have found that overfishing of jellyfish predator is the major cause of their population explosion.
http://scienceheathen.com/2013/05/16/overfishing-causing-jellyfish-population-boom-research-finds/
Brilliant! I’m bookmarking this page. 😀
I am fed up with leftist assholes denying science, denying natural variability, denying empirical evidence over model driven drivel,and denying suffering humans the right to life.
jdalllen is a perfect illustration of why our world is going in the wrong direction. Instead of accepting the facts, fascists put their heads down (in the sand) and sacrifice innocent humans for their ‘agenda’.
Thanks jd, for showing everyone present, that you care not for science or humanity.
Here Here! I too have had more than enough of the alarmist, liberal, progressive, socialist, communist bullshit. These asshats don’t give a rats ass who suffers, what animals suffer (I point you towards the bird beaters in this instance)… they only care about their bullshit agenda to enslave the entire world. Equal suffering for all!
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Proof again that Hitchens is irrelevant. I have given empirical evidence that counters alarmist claims, which are based upon fantasy.
Models are tools, at best. Labs are not oceans.
Alarmists are mentally deficient, dishonest, or both.
” 8.17 pre-industrially vs 8.10 two decades ago. Both values are “alkaline”, but the later lower value is more acidic”
No, it’s more neutral. Dumbass.
Exactly. Before something can be ‘more’ of a certain characteristic, it must first BE that characteristic. Oceans MAY be in jeopardy of becoming LESS ALKALINE, but they are by no means in jeopardy of becoming more acidic.
Alarmists cannot even speak their native tongue, and are beyond stupid. No wonder there are more and more skeptics with each passing nonwarming year. 😆
“The oceans are becoming more neutral” doesn’t roll off the tongue if you’re a scaremonger. I guess they could say, “the oceans are moving towards acidity.”
We’ll have to stop the sale of sparkling (carbonated) water. Well it’s just so acidic. Think of you children’s teeth! 🙂
Sorry for messing up my tag, it was unintentional. Its been a charming discussion. While asking questions and presenting information, here’s how you all have labeled me:
scaremonger
beyond stupid.
lying sack of shit
leftist turd
idiot
asshat
mentally deficient
dishonest
fool
parrot
stupid
head up your ass
leftist asshole
bullshit(er)
moron
child
Quite a list of appellations. I have managed to be civil with all of you. I hope you don’t treat people in person how you treat people on line.
Mr. Goddard, this is quite an interesting group of creatures you have collected here.
I guess they are tired of decades of endless global warming lies and nonsense.
Well, thank you for your time. This has been a marvelous experiment.
You pretended to be interested in science, which is the typical dishonest bullshit we have come to expect from team Gleick.
You just came here to waste everybody’s time, and then run back to your infantile friends.
“You pretended to be interested in science, which is the typical dishonest bullshit we have come to expect from team Gleick.
You just came here to waste everybody’s time, and then run back to your infantile friends.”
Mr. Goddard, with respect, I have absolutely no idea what “team Gleick” is. As to my conclusions and interest in science, they are based on 40+ years of adult experience and direct observation both as a professional (Geology, briefly, now currently a systems analyst) and a self-admitted amateur in other areas. Of course, without meeting me directly, something in fact I am open to, you have no way to determine that and see who I am, and why I approach the questions we are faced in the way that I do. You have my email address. You are welcome to contact me privately.
I have posted questions and links raising questions about some of the conclusions made on this blog. The science in them has the same foundation as many other articles posted in response to my own.
You are very passionate in your concerns about the world; that is obvious and commendable.
I apologize for my snark – “marvelous experiment” – but I think that is rather mild compared to the abuse which has been leveled at me, even by you.
In my frustration it escaped me, because in fact, I *did* come here for a dialog. I *am* persuadable. I am disappointed that I was instead met with derision and insult.
If you are serious about understanding what this debate is about, please start with this link.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
All of the data I present documenting climate fraud is derived from official sources. This is a big money industry, and is as corrupt as it gets.
I think you left off ‘dumbass’. 🙂
Thanks for the unsubstantiated claims, fish tanks and wild ass guesses. Maybe if you would have let go of your agendas and opened your mind, you would have learned something, and earned the respect you desire.
Better luck next time parrot (you forgot one). 😉
I’ll toss in gullible, perhaps even incredibly gullible .
Or, if you are looking for vile insults: you believer of all of O-Bomb-Ya’s campaign promises!!
“Mr. Goddard, with respect, I have absolutely no idea what “team Gleick” is. As to my conclusions and interest in science, they are based on 40+ years of adult experience and direct observation both as a professional (Geology, briefly, now currently a systems analyst) and a self-admitted amateur in other areas.”
Professional geologists no longer know how to read scientific papers? They are not familiar with erosion and sedimentation, drainage ditch runoff, heavy metals? Geologists don’t know about paleo CO2 levels? But they are marine biology experts, fascinating! Professional scientists do not know the difference between empirical and modeled data? So much has changed since I was a geology/climatology student. 😆
You don’t give yourself enough credit, you are an amateur in many more areas than you think. 😉