Ocean acidifcation .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

What you think when pages like this spread over internet? https://www.filmsforaction.org/artic...9WHTk.facebook

That's a pretty disgusting website. Does anyone blame Winchester execs for gun violence? Toyota execs for road deaths? Netflix execs for creating a generation of square eyed zombies?


Ok, maybe that last one could be counter argued but in general this represents the ever increasing trend of blaming everyone and everything else for problems of your own creation.

Originally Posted by jackdale

RSS / MSU Data Images / Monthly



Current data from RSS.

http://images.remss.com/data/msu/gra..._Sea_v04_0.txt

Zero degrees Celcius shown as bright red. Nice. How cold do we want to be???

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Long-Term Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Change: A Cross-Country Analysis

National Bureau of Economic Research

Abstract:
We study the long-term impact of climate change on economic activity across countries, using a stochastic growth model where labour productivity is affected by country-specific climate variables—defined as deviations of temperature and precipitation from their historical norms. Using a panel data set of 174 countries over the years 1960 to 2014, we find that per-capita real output growth is adversely affected by persistent changes in the temperature above or below its historical norm, but we do not obtain any statistically significant effects for changes in precipitation. Our counterfactual analysis suggests that a persistent increase in average global temperature by 0.04°C per year, in the absence of mitigation policies, reduces world real GDP per capita by 7.22 percent by 2100. On the other hand, abiding by the Paris Agreement, thereby limiting the temperature increase to 0.01°C per annum, reduces the loss substantially to 1.07 percent. These effects vary significantly across countries. We also provide supplementary evidence using data on a sample of 48 U.S. states between 1963 and 2016, and show that climate change has a long-lasting adverse impact on real output in various states and economic sectors, and on labor productivity

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

see also:
Climate change could cost the U.S. up to 10.5 percent of its GDP by 2100, study finds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...y-study-finds/

Go find a real economist that will confidently predict what will happen in 10 years, let alone 80. Then get back to us.

[jackdale]

Look carefully. It simply a colour scale, no value judgements are being made.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

This might come as a surprise to you. Aside from participating in these threads that show up on a semi regular basis, I don't waste much time on this subject.

However had you bothered to follow posted links yourself you would have been able to read this opposing view.
...

The "geocraft.com" site that you are now referencing was not included among the list of sites that you gave earlier, and which I claim adds no new support for your assertions.

Furthermore, the information provided in the geocraft site appears to be the same that was questioned in the Nature article.

So rather than provide new information to support your point of view, you are just going around and around in circles.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That's a pretty disgusting website. Does anyone blame Winchester execs for gun violence? Toyota execs for road deaths? Netflix execs for creating a generation of square eyed zombies?


Ok, maybe that last one could be counter argued but in general this represents the ever increasing trend of blaming everyone and everything else for problems of your own creation.







Zero degrees Celcius shown as bright red. Nice. How cold do we want to be???

jack seems to think the optimum is 13℃
Personally I feel 14℃ is much more tolerable by humans and primarily cereal crops.
But also our meat sources.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Look carefully. It simply a colour scale, no value judgements are being made.

I just always love the obtuse way they use various colors to identify temperatures
Playing on peoples perception to make things appear worse than they really are .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

The "geocraft.com" site that you are now referencing was not included among the list of sites that you gave earlier, and which I claim adds no new support for your assertions.

Furthermore, the information provided in the geocraft site appears to be the same that was questioned in the Nature article.

So rather than provide new information to support your point of view, you are just going around and around in circles.

BTW - a critique of the Monte Hieb graph.

Can we make better graphs of global temperature history? « RealClimate

Who is Monte Hieb?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/monte-hieb-000752147/

https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Monte-Hieb/983063055

Hint - he is not a climate scientist.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I just always love the obtuse way they use various colors to identify temperatures
Playing on peoples perception to make things appear worse than they really are .

I love how RM and newhaul misperceived a chart scale .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

The "geocraft.com" site that you are now referencing was not included among the list of sites that you gave earlier, and which I claim adds no new support for your assertions.

Furthermore, the information provided in the geocraft site appears to be the same that was questioned in the Nature article.

So rather than provide new information to support your point of view, you are just going around and around in circles.

I don't believe I was arguing about the results from reading stomata. I was simply making the point that stomata is considered viable as a CO2 proxy with a side note that it has some perceived advantages compared to ice core readings. It was you trying to claim, via skeptical science, that stomata does not make a reliable proxy.


The Nature article makes no reference to ice cores.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I love how RM and newhaul misperceived a chart scale .

So red doesn't start at 270K. Do tell.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

This is why I wrote the following post the way I did, with a few edits in bold for Jack's gratification.

To follow up, I might ask the following questions if I was sincerely interested in challenging (or strenghening ) firmly held assumptions, none of which should cause anyone any angst if they are sincerely interested in a modicum of objectivity:

1. Is an approx. 1.5 - 1.8ºC temp increase since we started burning fossil fuels in earnest in the late 19th century largely uncontroverted?

Warming is uncontroverted. Recent observations in areas like the Arctic indicate significant warming - like 3+ degrees C in the US and Canadian Arctic. Less warming as you move towards the equator. And of course, the warming of the oceans. So yes - warming.

2. If so, is there a scientific consensus that considers this increase an abnormal/aberrant rate or duration compared to previous, pre-industrial long-term trends?

That's a pretty solid yes.

3. If not, they why are some scientists -- and certainly the media -- attributing the above list of physical events (storms, sea level rise, etc.) to this level of warming ("CC" in popular parlance), and ignoring natural forces based on historical records?

Let's not consider the hyperbolic reactions of media; let's confine this to science. And they haven't been ignoring natural forces (except for the unknowable ones )

L-E's response has been to simply assume one of the core issues that is hotly contested within the science itself, namely how much of the (presumably) added (40%) CO2 is responsible for the warming.

He asks what natural forces could otherwise explain it, but that reasoning relies on a further assumption that the rate & duration of the past 150 years of warming was abnormal/aberrant. This is yet another assumption that is presumably supported by some but certainly not all the science, or else there'd be far fewer skeptics within the science itself.

That's YOUR assumption speaking there.

So far, this CO2 buildup and warming ARE abnormal/aberrant, as far as several hundreds of thousands of years go. They fit well with the known consumption of fossil fuel and other large-scale human activities, AND there is not yet a "natural" phenomenon identified that is capable of having comparable influence on either CO2 or warming.

If you're truly being a dispassionate skeptic, you have to work with all the evidence, and not just with your suspicion of an unidentified "natural" force.

In any event, I don't understand how a case can be made for blaming it all on CO2 when cycles of warming & cooling have always been the planet's norm prior to the industrial era.

Such cycles and trends are understood and none are known to have ever caused such a rapid CO2 buildup or the oddly correlated warming in the recent past. This heating is dominating or overwhelming natural cycles. You and Spencer can speculate all you want about other possible causes, but without some proof it remains just that - unfounded speculation. btw, are you a Creationist too?

Don't get me wrong, and speaking only for myself, I don't fault anyone for subscribing to the mainstream party line that we've all been saturated with for so many years.

M'kay, we know who's toeing the party line, but carry on...

It's understandably hard for many to argue against the weight of the evidence, especially if that evidence supports one's world view and those of so many like-minded people.

... or simply happens to be the most logical and best-fitting conclusion, and there is no competing hypothesis that comes anywhere near to being as well-supported or agreed-upon.

But in my view anyway, the best way to try and maintain some objectivity is to challenge the evidence which supports that view, not to dismiss, ignore, or try and misrepresent it. Again, if such science is so "certain," then it should be all too easy for its advocates to dismiss, and all too easy for scientists themselves to dismiss skeptics within their ranks.

Yet here we are . . . .

We're here because the CC debate is more contagious than chlamydia at an orgy, and can reliably be predicted to break out when certain demographics congregate.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Marc1

If anyone is interested in a study on the ocean PH reduction due to increased levels of CO2, here is a serious study that appears to be deprived from political scaremongering. (I said appears to) even though it slips the word "acidification" here and there. After all they need generous grant to pay their way and string this research along for the next 100 years.
They do occasionally put the words in quotes to their credit


If you go through this study, you will find a good explanation of the mechanism molluscs use to produce their shell and how it is not a straightforward conclusion that a reduction of 0.1 or 0.2 of the PH of oceans (nota bene ... this needs doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere and no one can tell how CO2 will go if we CEASE TO EXIST TOMORROW) equates to dead sentence for marine species. This organism have an extraordinary ability to adapt to progressive changes and that such progressive changes along several generations is almost impossible to reproduce in vitro.

The URL for the above got garbled. For those who are interested, here it is again:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960890/

Notice that the date of publication is 2013.

Most of the studies I've posted are from the last year. A number of them are studies of areas in the ocean that have naturally occurring areas of higher acidity (or lower alkalinity, if you prefer), which has given the mollusks time try and adapt to that higher acidity levels. What the studies are showing is that there is poor adaptation to the higher acidity.

Furthermore, since 2013, more than one species of calcium-using organism has been studied, and many are showing/are expected to show stress due to higher acidity levels.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

The URL for the above got garbled. For those who are interested, here it is again:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960890/

Notice that the date of publication is 2013.

Most of the studies I've posted are from the last year. A number of them are studies of areas in the ocean that have naturally occurring areas of higher acidity (or lower alkalinity, if you prefer), which has given the mollusks time try and adapt to that higher acidity levels. What the studies are showing is that there is poor adaptation to the higher acidity.

Furthermore, since 2013, more than one species of calcium-using organism has been studied, and many are showing/are expected to show stress due to higher acidity levels.

As a matter of interest, are there any studies using these same species that compares the age of the species to past climatic conditions? That could be enlightening.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So red doesn't start at 270K. Do tell.

It does. But you assumed a value judgement.

BTW - 0°C = 273.15K

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I don't believe I was arguing about the results from reading stomata. I was simply making the point that stomata is considered viable as a CO2 proxy with a side note that it has some perceived advantages compared to ice core readings. It was you trying to claim, via skeptical science, that stomata does not make a reliable proxy.

I agreed with you that stomata can be used as a CO2-concentration proxy.

However, the discussion we were having was specifically about what the CO2 levels were about 10K-12K years ago, and whether ice core data was more reliable, or stomata count data. And the most rational conclusion, per the Nature article, is that the ice core data is more reliable.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The Nature article makes no reference to ice cores.

Yes it does. Starting in the second paragraph.

Wagner et al. correctly state that the CO2 record from the ice core of Taylor Dome (3,4)—to date considered the most reliable and precise reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 over the Holocene—has a low temporal resolution in the discussed time interval. There are, nevertheless, at least three overlapping data points (depending on the accuracy of the synchronization) from the Taylor Dome record that show CO2 concentrations between 260 to 270 ppmv (60 to 80 ppmv lower than those suggested by Wagner et al.) (see Fig. 1). The elevated CO2 concentrations of the SI-based CO2 record are not found in the ice core record.

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...5446/1815.full