Ocean acidifcation .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The lack of an answer was far more thought provoking than an actual answer.

I really don't want to reopen what was a pointless argument in Reef's "experiment"

1. If it produced results it would not shed any light on what would happen with the earth because it is all the effects not included in the "experiment" are generate the unknowns tmin how much warming.

2. Reef acknowledged that a bottle with a high concentration in the lab will warm. He refused to accept that result informs us that a small sample in a lab will be very difficult to measure but that a sample with a much longer tube will have similar results as the high concentration. This comes from the Beer–Lambert law from more than 200 years ago which states that the absorbtion is directly related to the number of molecules in the path, NOT the concentration of nonasorbing gases.

It is not rocket science to know how much energy is bring absorbed by the atmosphere with additional CO2. What is much more difficult is to translate that into an EXACT amount of warming for each new gigaton of CO2. However, there is a good handle on the range. And most scientists agree even the low end is scary.

If Reef wants to read the paper I pointed Exile to and explain what he doesn't understand that would be a good start, but putting any weight on the "experiment" is pointless because the physics of CO2 absorbtion is very well known.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

More of a candid observation than a slight, but of all the CF posters to take advice from on how to think for oneself, you'd have to be my unqualified last choice (sorry SailOar but you were a close runner-up ). The only pretense of originality I've read from your posts is in the nature of childish put-downs, stereotyping, and silly cliches. And of course walking straight down the more extreme ends of the party line when it comes to your overt partisanship.

As I've said many times before, I really could care less about your blindly conformist politics or your opinions on CC, but it's obvious you REALLY care about mine and anyone else's which don't conform to yours. But as unseemly as your intolerance is, I'm not sure I even blame you. As s/v Illusion just noted, "you won’t hear [skeptical views] on TV, read that in print media or from most politicians." Blind, partisan-fueled conformity can only lead to ignorance, regardless of how one comes down on an issue as convoluted as AGW. Did you ever think why it took a CF thread to get you to understand why your preconceived views on No-Discharge Zones were ill-informed, if not outright wrong? My views on CC may be admittedly biased and I have no doubt I could be better schooled on the science, but at least I'm still interested in testing my views through some modicum of debate. Why are you so unwilling to question anything beyond what you've been told to think?

Heck, I bet even Leonardo even questioned whether he might actually be the one occasionally deceived by his own opinions. Given his accomplishments, how could he not?

You like to think that your are skeptic. You are not. You are a cynic.

I am far more skeptical than you. I check the links posted by others. I think critically. I do read other perspectives. That is how I knew that newhaul's claim on his recent temperature adjustment post was BS. I had seen Tony Heller's post on both his web site and Facebook.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The graphics you posted are from Tony Heller's blog.





https://realclimatescience.com/2019/...icas-hot-past/

The NASA graphics are not animated and they do not have the red labels.



Wayback Machine

Tony Heller's Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/clim...2482833811938/

how do you then explain the actual NASA addresses that the charts I posted came from are possible if it is off of tony's blog?

[newhaul]

https://www.outsideonline.com/240049...k-loop-climate

Natural or man made ?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

how do you then explain the actual NASA addresses that the charts I posted came from are possible if it is off of tony's blog?

NASA URLs do not match your graphics. Explain that.



https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...ture/graph.png

versus



http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...p;d=1565047098

and



https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...1-1024x792.png

Not coped from Tony, but not NASA either.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I really don't want to reopen what was a pointless argument in Reef's "experiment"

1. If it produced results it would not shed any light on what would happen with the earth because it is all the effects not included in the "experiment" are generate the unknowns tmin how much warming.

2. Reef acknowledged that a bottle with a high concentration in the lab will warm. He refused to accept that result informs us that a small sample in a lab will be very difficult to measure but that a sample with a much longer tube will have similar results as the high concentration. This comes from the Beer–Lambert law from more than 200 years ago which states that the absorbtion is directly related to the number of molecules in the path, NOT the concentration of nonasorbing gases.

It is not rocket science to know how much energy is bring absorbed by the atmosphere with additional CO2. What is much more difficult is to translate that into an EXACT amount of warming for each new gigaton of CO2. However, there is a good handle on the range. And most scientists agree even the low end is scary.

If Reef wants to read the paper I pointed Exile to and explain what he doesn't understand that would be a good start, but putting any weight on the "experiment" is pointless because the physics of CO2 absorbtion is very well known.

But you did reopen it.

The heat energy in a soda bottle @ 100% dispersed over a column of air of "molecular equivalent" at 1 bar means the distribution of that energy extends along a 700 metres tall column based on your molecular theory. Of course the top of that column in a real atmosphere would be closer to 1000 metres due to reduction of pressure and the temperature would also be 9C cooler at the top then the bottom.

What was that delta T again?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://www.outsideonline.com/240049...k-loop-climate

Natural or man made ?

Maybe you should read it and tell us.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

NASA URLs do not match your graphics. Explain that.

here ya go again just because I don't feel like going back all those pages to find it .

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...ture/graph.png

Wayback Machine

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

More of a candid observation than a slight, but of all the CF posters to take advice from on how to think for oneself, you'd have to be my unqualified last choice (sorry SailOar but you were a close runner-up )......

I try to play to my strengths, however weak they may be.

If you are playing to your strengths, I pity you.

[SailOar]

Ocean Acidification is Reshaping Marine Food Webs

...Ocean acidification also has to be disentangled from other co-occurring climate change stressors such as warming water and deoxygenation. Each effect is worrying on its own; combined, these multiple stressors are greater than the sum of their parts....

Shellfish are most vulnerable to acidity as tiny, newly hatched larvae, when they have to exert a tremendous amount of energy to build their first shell. The scarcity of carbonate can either prove fatal, or the shellfish “end up with very deformed shells and thinner shells, and become more susceptible to predators,” says Spalding.

The same threat applies to urchins, snails, seastars, and corals, although the exact chemical process can vary. In a study conducted near a volcanic seep which emulated future CO2 levels, “triton shell” sea snails were found to have their shell thickness halved, and in some cases so dissolved their body tissue was exposed....

Field observations have recently confirmed that pteropod shells in an area of increased acidity in the Gulf of Alaska are dissolving. “If the ocean continues to have its chemistry change … we could have a rippling effect where the food resource for other animals in the ocean, and up the food chain, has a rippling collapse,” says Spalding....

Research published in Nature in 2018 suggests ocean acidification could threaten diatom populations – but not by hindering shell formation. Increased acidity, for an unknown reason, prevents the uptake of iron that diatoms need to proliferate. Diatom numbers are already in decline, and rising surface ocean temperatures are suspected. A crash in diatom populations could cripple the ocean’s ability to cycle carbon dioxide, accelerating further climate change....

Tests conducted in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries research lab showed salmon exposed to future pH levels were less responsive to the smell of salmon skin extract, which would normally warn the fish of a predator attack and prompt them to hide or flee. Testing of the salmons’ nose and brain tissue indicated that the fish could still detect the scent, but were not interpreting and acting on the trigger.....

Some species are predicted to benefit from ocean acidification, but this isn’t necessarily a good thing. Research from the Canary Islands suggests the algae Vicicitus globosus, found from temperate regions to the tropics, will thrive in rising CO2 levels. Toxic blooms of V.globosus are already known to cause fish kills, and now, researchers say, “may pose an emergent threat to coastal communities, aquaculture and fisheries.”....

Other organisms may shrug off ocean acidification altogether. Krill are small crustaceans found in all oceans, and an essential food source for marine mammals and seabirds in the Southern Ocean. In a 2018 study published in Communications Biology, adult Antarctic krill, in acidity simulating near-future conditions, were able to go about their business undisturbed. The krill’s resilience is attributed to a special structure in their gills able to balance body fluid pH. Krill eggs and embryos, however, don’t have this ability, so the results are not definitive.....

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Maybe you should read it and tell us.

I did read it but I want your opinion on the article
Is it natural or man made

https://www.outsideonline.com/240049...k-loop-climate

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I did read it but I want your opinion on the article
Is it natural or man made

https://www.outsideonline.com/240049...k-loop-climate

The CO2 being released is natural the cause can probably be traced to AGW.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here ya go again just because I don't feel like going back all those pages to find it .

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...ture/graph.png

Wayback Machine

does not match.

The second has been editorialized.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The CO2 being released is natural the cause can probably be traced to AGW.

natural lightening just like what has been causing fires in the arctic during the summers for eaons

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here ya go again just because I don't feel like going back all those pages to find it .

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...ture/graph.png

Wayback Machine

And

original NASA graph



Your post



The second is editorialized.