Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It does not.

prove it

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

prove it

His trend line shows warming of 0.23C.

He cherry picks the 1997 start tome, the largest El Nino event of the previous 50 years.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Despite being lazy and incompetent, I'd thought I'd "follow the money" on this piece of research. It turns out that Dr Cosima Porteus is quite the working mum. Wanting to further her career after having her first child, she's not backwards in coming forwards about hunting down research grants and is quick to declare herself hard done by when rejected...



She's persistent it seems, and is reaping the benefits
Back on task, It would seem that she went looking for a problem and consequently found it...



How much did the taxpayers of the United Kingdom spring for this?

Originally Posted by SailOar

Not exactly sure what your point is.

SailOar -- If there's one "truth" that's quite clearly been "well-settled," perhaps more than any other throughout all of these long threads, it is that posting a "study" such as this proves you're not exactly sure what the point is. And here I thought you couldn't top the Miami potholes and Maldivian islands that were sinking -- right next to the ones that were rising . . . .

By contrast, Reef's post is a shining example of the virtues of incompetence & laziness, traits which a mere ignoramus & bloviator like me can only strive to accomplish one day. At long last, we have finally found the thread that just keeps on giving.

So I too am pleased to read that the legal system was used to enforce a scientist's right to avail herself of a lot of taxpayer money to research alarm people that every time they fill up their cars to get to work they are screwing up the

Physiological mechanisms behind ocean acidification-induced olfactory impairment in fish.

And to make matters worse, and thanks to Dr. Lake-Effect's brilliant "burden-shifting" doctrine, there's no longer any credible way to scientifically rebut such CO2-induced olfactory impairment by suggesting natural forces may also be in play. This eliminates a lot of time trying to figure out the olfactory capabilities of all those now long-dead fish from the glory days before the evils of fossil fuels were foisted upon us by conspiratorial oil cos.

How about a big shout-out to SailOar from all of us skeptics/doubters/deniers/dismissives out there!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

How much co2 goes into the ocean annually ?
From what sources ?

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake

that doesn't say anything about the tonnage of co2 added to the oceans and all of the various sources.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have debated Monckton a couple of times on Disqus. He gets thoroughly unpleasant when challenged.

You've been exceedingly civil lately so I'll only say . . . well, I don't want to interrupt any civility so I won't say it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You've been exceedingly civil lately so I'll only say . . . well, I don't want to interrupt any civility so I won't say it.

I have restrained myself more than once.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

His trend line shows warming of 0.23C.

He cherry picks the 1997 start tome, the largest El Nino event of the previous 50 years.

you mean like cherry picking 1979 as the start date for arctic sea ice considering it was the highest in 50 years of the climate record.!!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Why do some people choose to be trolls when they could be doing something useful with their lives?

Do tell enquiring minds want to know why you do it .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Monckton is a classic cherry picker.

Look carefully at the graph and you will notice that the trend (the dark line) ia 0.23C above the 1981-2010 mean. When a trend is warmer than the mean, it is warming.

Given a choice between Monckton and Mears, I will take the guy responsible for the data.

Unless it's the data Roy Spencer is responsible for producing that shows 5 years of cooling in the midst of our longer term warming trend?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have restrained myself more than once.

Yes, I've noticed. It's made some of your points more effective, imo.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Why do folks blindly follow a religion, like the global warming cult?

The real religion is the Cult of Ra, with its mantra "it is the Sun."

Why is that no academy of science on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC? Why is that no academy of the on the planet endorses the views of the Heartland funded NIPCC?

AGW has the overwhelming body of science to support it.

In science correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causal relationship.

250 years of correlation between CO2 and temperature.



The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.

The mechanism of CO2 as a GHG has been known for two centuries.

https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#L000

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Why do folks blindly follow a religion, like the global warming cult?

Originally Posted by SailOar

Why do some people choose to be trolls when they could be doing something useful with their lives?

In Keno's case, it's courageous humor staring down the face of the impending doom he knows befalls all of us when the fish underneath his boat no longer have the olfactories to congregate around his thru-hull during poop discharge events.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Unless it's the data Roy Spencer is responsible for producing that shows 5 years of cooling in the midst of our longer term warming trend?

RSS and UAH use the same satellite data, but employ different adjustments.

Your five year parameter is a cherry pick of a large El Nino event.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

How much co2 goes into the ocean annually ?
From what sources ?

The ocean, with around 38,000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons), contains 16 times as much carbon as the terrestrial biosphere, that is all plant and the underlying soils on our planet, and around 60 times as much as the pre-industrial atmosphere, i.e., at a time before people began to drastically alter the atmospheric CO2 content by the increased burning of coal, oil and gas.
Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually.
By absorbing increased carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the ocean reduces the warming impact of these emissions, were they to remain in the atmosphere. Nonetheless, the planet keeps warming.
However, carbon dioxide dissolved into the ocean causes seawater to acidify, threatening the ability of shellfish and corals to build their skeletons and affecting the health of other fish and marine species.

“The global carbon budget 1959–2011C” ~ by C. Le Qúeŕe et al.
➥ https://www.earth-syst-sci-data-disc...-1107-2012.pdf

“The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 from 1994 to 2007" ~ by Nicolas Gruber et al
➥ https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...b-article-info


I regret that my citations aren't more recent.