Ocean acidifcation .

[Lake-Effect]

Ok... if adding carbonic acid to the oceans, causing a measurable decrease in the oceans' pH (aka 'less' alkaline) isn't 'acidification', what name would you prefer?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Marc1

The sad side of this global warming boogeyman is that the real environment threats are ignored in favour of this fake one because it is a source of endless money.

Nah, we figured out long ago that those most vitriolic towards climate change haven't lifted a finger for any of those other human-caused environmental problems either.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nah, we figured out long ago that those most vitriolic towards climate change haven't lifted a finger for any of those other human-caused environmental problems either.

really do tell I think thou with protest to much

[GordMay]

What is Ocean Acidification?
Ocean acidification refers to a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period of time, caused primarily by uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.
➥ https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html

Although it is unlikely that the ocean will ever become a true acid, the term ocean acidification refers to the process of the ocean becoming gradually more acidic over time.
➥ https://www.cencoos.org/learn/oa/intro

Although scientists have been tracking ocean pH for more than 30 years, biological studies really only started in 2003, when the rapid shift caught their attention and the term "ocean acidification" was first coined by Ken Caldeira & Michael E. Wickett
“The coming centuries may see more ocean acidification than the past 300 million years.”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/425365a

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

It has nothing to do with ocean water being “a strong base”. It is, however, a matter of buffering capacity which precludes acidification.

BINGO!

And this is the real reason you should be concerned about a decrease in average pH. What’s it taken to get to this already? No more capacity! Of coarse dinural pH can fluctuate between 7.8 - 8.2 within 24 hours without alarm (something for the non believers)

Seawater chemistry is all good fun but don’t forget to relate it to biology and really world consequences for our blue planet. Mangrove swamps, Seagrass beds, mud flats, lagoons, coral reefs, open ocean, seagrass, sargassum, algae blooms, jellyfish...

CHANGE!

[SailOar]

Breaching a “carbon threshold” could lead to mass extinction

....Daniel Rothman, professor of geophysics and co-director of the Lorenz Center in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, has found that when the rate at which carbon dioxide enters the oceans pushes past a certain threshold — whether as the result of a sudden burst or a slow, steady influx — the Earth may respond with a runaway cascade of chemical feedbacks, leading to extreme ocean acidification that dramatically amplifies the effects of the original trigger.

This global reflex causes huge changes in the amount of carbon contained in the Earth’s oceans, and geologists can see evidence of these changes in layers of sediments preserved over hundreds of millions of years.

Rothman looked through these geologic records and observed that over the last 540 million years, the ocean’s store of carbon changed abruptly, then recovered, dozens of times in a fashion similar to the abrupt nature of a neuron spike. This “excitation” of the carbon cycle occurred most dramatically near the time of four of the five great mass extinctions in Earth’s history.

Scientists have attributed various triggers to these events, and they have assumed that the changes in ocean carbon that followed were proportional to the initial trigger — for instance, the smaller the trigger, the smaller the environmental fallout.

But Rothman says that’s not the case. It didn’t matter what initially caused the events; for roughly half the disruptions in his database, once they were set in motion, the rate at which carbon increased was essentially the same. Their characteristic rate is likely a property of the carbon cycle itself — not the triggers, because different triggers would operate at different rates.

What does this all have to do with our modern-day climate? Today’s oceans are absorbing carbon about an order of magnitude faster than the worst case in the geologic record — the end-Permian extinction. But humans have only been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for hundreds of years, versus the tens of thousands of years or more that it took for volcanic eruptions or other disturbances to trigger the great environmental disruptions of the past. Might the modern increase of carbon be too brief to excite a major disruption?

According to Rothman, today we are “at the precipice of excitation,” and if it occurs, the resulting spike — as evidenced through ocean acidification, species die-offs, and more — is likely to be similar to past global catastrophes.....

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not according to my cursory reading of MPG papers.

ie:

“... All of humanity must participate in the fight against climate change. People and countries must cooperate with each other if they want to at least limit the consequences of the man-made impact that increases temperature ..”
➥ https://www.mpg.de/12115953/climate-change-quick-action

“... The recently diagnosed climate change over the last 150 years with its global warming trend cannot be explained simply by the changes in solar radiation or by internal variability, the human impact (CO2 emissions) must be taken into account...”
➥ https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communi...st-1200-years/

That represents one cherry picked grant study done at MP. Regurgitating it doesn’t make it true. Read the actual report and data which are not their original research but rather extracted from private grant funded reports, the conclusion of which was likely written before the research was done. Let me know after you have done that and we can discuss this intelligently.

And using that to discredit the MP Institute is disingenuous. Most of the research done there is legitimate science but that doesn’t exclude the opportunist grant project such as the one cited.

To the point of this thread, implying acidification of the world’s oceans is ludicrous evidenced by a totally misunderstood concept of buffering capacity which makes it impracticable in any scenario.

This is simply another in a series of threads perpetuated by folks with no expertise or knowledge pandering to political bias. It’s silly.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This is simply another in a series of threads perpetuated by folks with no expertise or knowledge pandering to political bias. It’s silly.

The OP linked to an article from a denier site. So I have to agree with your assessment.

You still haven't linked to the Max Planck study you've cited.

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not according to my cursory reading of MPG papers.

ie:

“... All of humanity must participate in the fight against climate change. People and countries must cooperate with each other if they want to at least limit the consequences of the man-made impact that increases temperature[/U] ..”

“... The recently diagnosed climate change over the last 150 years with its global warming trend cannot be explained simply by the changes in solar radiation or by internal variability, the human impact (CO2 emissions) must be taken into account[/U]...”

When countries assess a course of action to rectify or ameliorate a problem, the process is to quantify the effort and expenditure required to achieve a measurable result.
If the proposal and it's alleged results can not be measured, if no one can say that one trillion of taxpayers money will equate to 1/2 degree of average temperature reduction, or something on that line, the proposal is labeled snake oil, wishful thinking or simply, not viable. The cost does not justify the alleged result.

With global warming, because it is geared towards virtuosity and "beliefs", making it akin to a religion, we have a handful of billionaires spruiking the use of so called renewables to produce less CO2 that they themselves have personal interest in selling, no one calls it conflict of interest.

And in practical terms. Who decides what is the "right" temperature? Who will have the hand on the thermostat if we can build one? What are the consequences of 1/2C of temperature rise? We had temperatures higher and lower during human history and we are still here. If anything we should worry about a REDUCTION in temperature, not a rise.
But of course rational has no place in global warming debates.

And no one tells the fact that the amount of CO2 produced to make, for example wind turbines, will take 20 years of this wind turbine working non stop to offset. Piti the turbin will be obsolete in 10 to 15 years and we have no plans to dispose of this monstrosities same with solar panels.

This is a gargantuan fake problem to mask other problems we are not supposed to find out or forget in favour of this pitiful crusade that satisfies those in search of a cause to defend. And make a small group of people richer. Check those attending the Google camp. Those are the beneficiaries of your tax money not the environment.

Humanity had it's share of "crusades" along our short history, all of them had a hidden agenda behind them, that benefited a small group at the detriment of the majority.
But we will never learn.
The lure of the lights calling for "virtue" and the common good, the podium to cry look at me, look at me, are too much for many. Far too many.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

To the point of this thread, implying acidification of the world’s oceans is ludicrous evidenced by a totally misunderstood concept of buffering capacity which makes it impracticable in any scenario.

And don’t forget to include biology into you’re water chemistry hypothesis... trees have an effect on Atmospheric chemistry right?

Let’s conveniently leave these factors out of water chemistry

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Marc1

... no one tells the fact that the amount of CO2 produced to make, for example wind turbines, will take 20 years of this wind turbine working non stop to offset. Piti the turbin will be obsolete in 10 to 15 years and we have no plans to dispose of this monstrosities same with solar panels.

Think so?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wi...bon-footprint/
https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine

This is a gargantuan fake problem to mask other problems we are not supposed to find out or forget in favour of this pitiful crusade that satisfies those in search of a cause to defend. And make a small group of people richer. Check those attending the Google camp. Those are the beneficiaries of your tax money not the environment.

What other problems? List'em. The same idiots who deny CC have done squat on those problems too. CC's just the favourite target.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Think so?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wi...bon-footprint/
https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine




What other problems? List'em. The same idiots who deny CC have done squat on those problems too. CC's just the favourite target.

for the record I do not deny climate change it is always changing . I just don't feel that man has any significant effect in the modern era .
We all know what my carbon footprint is .
The real interesting takeaway in my opinion ion is that those of us that feel man is not responsible for the changes are also the ones that have the smallest carbon footprints . We are also the ones that are out here and removing plastics , abandoned crab pots and derelict fishing nets out of the water . It starts with a single rain drop .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The real interesting takeaway in my opinion ion is that those of us that feel man is not responsible for the changes are also the ones that have the smallest carbon footprints. We are also the ones that are out here and removing plastics , abandoned crab pots and derelict fishing nets out of the water . It starts with a single rain drop .

Nah, most deniers have the usual footprint. Often worse, because they have the most to lose if the reign of fossil fuels is ended.


You know what's nice about rain drops? They do good without having to say so every 5 minutes.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nah, most deniers have the usual footprint. Often worse, because they have the most to lose if the reign of fossil fuels is ended.


You know what's nice about rain drops? They do good without having to say so every 5 minutes.

rather uncalled for implied slite there LE

[Marc1]

Mr Lake, your so called fact check is conveniently massaging the facts. You can as easily find the opposite facts. 20 years to offset ALL the CO2 produced in the life of the turbine.

However, and in reply to your attempt at personalising this, I don't move a finger to "reduce my carbon footprint" to begin with because I am made with carbon, I am a carbon based organism, I know so, and I can only hope you are too.

However I can overlook this ignorant expression of "carbon pollution" and the even more unintelligent "carbon footprint" in the knowledge you imply this to refer to CO2, a gas that exists in the atmosphere at a rate of 0.04%, that is at an historical low, and that makes life on earth possible. No CO2, no photosynthesis. No Photosynthesis no life. Simple.

So what is all the fuss about? What should I do that I am not doing? SHould I switch my electricity provider to a renewable source so that I pay 20% more and pay for Leonardo's new jet? Or perhaps a better yacht for someone else?

If temperatures go up a tad for a few years, they will go down again in the next few more years like they have always done. If anything you should worry about cooling, since that equates to lower crop yields, more human deaths (although i hear grenies would like to cull humanity by 2/3 ... only not telling us how they plan to do it, so perhaps they are cheering this possibility) and more fuel usage for heating.

All in all this is an old debate where fake data and fake and biased and prejudiced concept are exchange from both sides. I am surprised that this still goes on after 30 years of NOT warming despite an ever increasing CO2. The FAKE overlapping of CO2 and temperatures by saint Al gore is noted but debunked as fake long ago.
What is left?
Not much, sit back and relax. I caught a jew fish last week of gargantuan proportion.
All is good here, the sea is not rising, the temperatures are steady and I have plenty of firewood to finish the winter.

And to be honest I don't really want a medal that depicts three naked men with their hands on each other’s shoulders. If the communist organisation dishing that one out gave me one, I probably used it as sinker for fishing.