Ocean acidifcation .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

As for yet another one of your [JD's] specious "1-in-a-million" citations, all I can figure is you post so often across so many different sites & blogs you must forget how thoroughly & severely debunked this comment wound up only a week or so ago in the last CF thread. But it's all good, readers can decide for themselves once again.

Oh please. NOTHING but NOTHING re climate science has ever been established or debunked on CF. Nothing sticks, nothing becomes part of an amended understanding, the discussion never progresses. Regardless of how factual and well-sourced, posts are fanned away, discounted by some made-up non-scientific qualifier, or simply ignored. The same falsehoods come up over and over. ffs, the many times rebutted Mann "hockey stick" thing still comes up regularly. That was 1999, children...

Nobody's deciding anything, it's just another political bunfight, this time wearing a fake labcoat.

[ptards]

I am currently reading J.Cornell's 200,000 miles and early on in his quest to head East to West thru the Northwest Passage he talks about how Greenland was settled 2500 BC by indigenous N.Americans, later to be conquered by the Vikings approx 1,000 years ago, when Greenland was much warmer and more favorable to human habitation. Is the sea level rising, sure but way before we were here most of the east coast was under water and due to cooling the ocean receded and for the time being its rising, its sad that scare tactics are being used for a political purpose. Snake Island separated from Brazil over 11,000 years ago due to rising.... SEA LEVELS, Tuckers Island, NJ slid into the ocean in the 1940's. Tucker's Island had School Coast Guard life saving station, pretty much way before the Global Warming Craze.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by ptards

I am currently reading J.Cornell's 200,000 miles and early on in his quest to head East to West thru the Northwest Passage he talks about how Greenland was settled 2500 BC by indigenous N.Americans, later to be conquered by the Vikings approx 1,000 years ago, when Greenland was much warmer and more favorable to human habitation. Is the sea level rising, sure but way before we were here most of the east coast was under water and due to cooling the ocean receded and for the time being its rising, its sad that scare tactics are being used for a political purpose. Snake Island separated from Brazil over 11,000 years ago due to rising.... SEA LEVELS, Tuckers Island, NJ slid into the ocean in the 1940's. Tucker's Island had School Coast Guard life saving station, pretty much way before the Global Warming Craze.

Most of Greenland has been covered in ice for 100,000s of years. It is thought that naming Greenland was a marketing ploy to get others to come. It was also a short lived warming period that was mostly confined to the North Atlantic, unlike today's warming which is global.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh please. NOTHING but NOTHING re climate science has ever been established or debunked on CF. Nothing sticks, nothing becomes part of an amended understanding, the discussion never progresses. Regardless of how factual and well-sourced, posts are fanned away, discounted by some made-up non-scientific qualifier, or simply ignored. The same falsehoods come up over and over. ffs, the many times rebutted Mann "hockey stick" thing still comes up regularly. That was 1999, children...

Nobody's deciding anything, it's just another political bunfight, this time wearing a fake labcoat.

Nothing established nor debunked on CF re: climate science perhaps, but Jack's 1-in-a-million article has little to do with climate science. But then neither do his or your attempts to debunk the Ft. Denison 100-year dataset that purports to show sea level decline. At least nothing that either of you have presented as of yet.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh please. NOTHING but NOTHING re climate science has ever been established or debunked on CF. Nothing sticks, nothing becomes part of an amended understanding, the discussion never progresses. Regardless of how factual and well-sourced, posts are fanned away, discounted by some made-up non-scientific qualifier, or simply ignored. The same falsehoods come up over and over. ffs, the many times rebutted Mann "hockey stick" thing still comes up regularly. That was 1999, children...

Nobody's deciding anything, it's just another political bunfight, this time wearing a fake labcoat.

Exactly. This thread is suppose to be about ocean acidifcation [sic], yet the closest the deniers skeptics come to actually discussing the topic is a big smoke-blowing scuffle over whether the term "acidification" can be applied to a solution that is becoming less basic.

Two of us (here and here) have reported a recent scientific study on ocean acidification. What do the deniers skeptics have to say? Crickets.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Dr Spencer was getting lonely on your pedestel; it's nice that he'll have some company now.

Well, you either missed or ignored the Wiki cite to the rather lengthy list of skeptics in the science world I first posted a couple of years ago, so I'm not surprised you missed or ignored it again just recently in the last thread. I can repost if you'd like (or for anyone else). Easy to look up.

Well, yay. This wasn't supposed to be a one-time thing; the idea was to get emissions down and then keep them down...

As the economy cycles into a period of slower growth, the emissions will follow suit. The lethargic economy during the Obama years was good for the atmosphere but bad for many people trying to make a living. Welcome to the real world.

Any luck finding those unquantifiable "natural forces"? You might get some useful tips from astrologers or maybe an alchemist.

Still not sure what your disconnect is here, unless I'm way off on the science (possible) or you're just trolling (more likely). It is axiomatic that natural forces play a role in climate temperature, and most of the science believes it, along with human CO2, obviously plays "a" role in warming, with "how much" subject to a wide range of scientific opinion. There is no dispute I'm aware of that the amount of warming, however, from natural and human sources of CO2 is NOT quantifiable. Only the total amount of CO2 is measurable, with the ability to distinguish between CO2 derived from fossil fuel emissions vs. other sources subject to some controversy. BUT EITHER WAY, how much additional CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere is generally NOT DISPUTED, but how much additional warming has been created as a direct or indirect result IS IN DISPUTE.

What exactly is hanging you up here, or did I misstate/misunderstand something?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Exactly. This thread is suppose to be about ocean acidifcation [sic], yet the closest the deniers skeptics come to actually discussing the topic is a big smoke-blowing scuffle over whether the term "acidification" can be applied to a solution that is becoming less basic.

Two of us (here and here) have reported a recent scientific study on ocean acidification. What do the deniers skeptics have to say? Crickets.

You (conveniently?) forgot the one that started the thread here.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Nothing established nor debunked on CF re: climate science perhaps, but Jack's 1-in-a-million article has little to do with climate science. But then neither do his or your attempts to debunk the Ft. Denison 100-year dataset that purports to show sea level decline. At least nothing that either of you have presented as of yet.

So let me get this straight: we need to debunk a miniscule table of readings, cribbed from the comments section of another website, without any citations or links to a credible source. And the NOAA graph presented twice won't do the job.

You a funny guy!


Maybe the Spence-meister will vouch for this data. Have you asked him?

As the economy cycles into a period of slower growth, the emissions will follow suit. The lethargic economy during the Obama years was good for the atmosphere but bad for many people trying to make a living. Welcome to the real world.

Huh. I see this and my brain says "just about straight line from 2008", but you see "lethargic" to 2016, and MAGA after that... ok .

... how much additional CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere is generally NOT DISPUTED, but how much additional warming has been created as a direct or indirect result IS IN DISPUTE.

What exactly is hanging you up here, or did I misstate/misunderstand something?

We observe warming which correlates pretty closely to the increase in CO2, we have a pretty good idea how CO2 causes warming, we can show where the additional CO2 came from... if you are going to assert that this abnormal warming hasn't been caused mainly by the CO2 from human activity, then you pretty much have to be able to point to the something else that caused the warming.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That data set has no citation, but appears to be a email that circulating.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/07...comment-652298

Originally Posted by jackdale

That data set has no citation, but appears to be a email that circulating.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/07...comment-652298

Originally Posted by jackdale

Another set of Fort Dension data.



https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/65.php

1914 looks a lot like a cherry pick. The data base goes back further than 1914.

Fitzhenry's letter: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/...sea-levels.pdf

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So let me get this straight: we need to debunk a miniscule table of readings, cribbed from the comments section of another website, without any citations or links to a credible source. And the NOAA graph presented twice won't do the job.

You a funny guy!

Straight from the horse's mouth...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mjOmsqIibk

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Exactly. This thread is suppose to be about ocean acidifcation [sic], yet the closest the deniers skeptics come to actually discussing the topic is a big smoke-blowing scuffle over whether the term "acidification" can be applied to a solution that is becoming less basic.

Two of us (here and here) have reported a recent scientific study on ocean acidification. What do the deniers skeptics have to say? Crickets.

you do realize that all of the studies done to show the effects of the change to the Ph of the ocean were done in controlled circumstances and the researchers invariably used hydrochloric acid to speed the process for the sake of " science " however carbonic acid which is what we are actually talking about has a completely different effect on the calcium bond. So all of the results using muratic acid ( low concentration hydrochloric)
will give Squed and incorrect results .

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you do realize that all of the studies done to show the effects of the change to the Ph of the ocean were done in controlled circumstances and the researchers invariably used hydrochloric acid to speed the process for the same of " science " however carbonic acid which is what we are actually talking about has a completely different effect on the calcium bond. So all of the results using muratic acid ( low concentration hydrochloric)
will give Squed and incorrect results .

Per usual, no citation

[SailOar]

Corals can survive in acidified ocean conditions, but have lower density skeletons

...The study took advantage of the unusual seawater chemistry found naturally at sites along the Caribbean coastline of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, where water discharging from submarine springs has lower pH than the surrounding seawater, with reduced availability of the carbonate ions corals need to build their calcium carbonate skeletons.

In a two-year field experiment, the international team of researchers transplanted genetically identical fragments of three species of corals to a site affected by the springs and to a nearby control site not influenced by the springs, and then monitored the survival, growth rates, and other physiological traits of the transplants. They reported their findings in a paper published June 26 in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

"The good news is the corals can survive and deposit calcium carbonate, but the density of their skeletons is reduced, which means the framework of the reef would be less robust and might be more susceptible to storm damage and bioerosion," said Adina Paytan, a research professor at UCSC's Institute of Marine Sciences and corresponding author of the paper....

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Per usual, no citation

per usual you ignored it
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2945078
Plenty of citations in the article have fun.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

.



We observe warming which correlates pretty closely to the increase in CO2, we have a pretty good idea how CO2 causes warming, we can show where the additional CO2 came from... if you are going to assert that this abnormal warming hasn't been caused mainly by the CO2 from human activity, then you pretty much have to be able to point to the something else that caused the warming.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

Lamp post statistics. I assume you are aware of the connotation.

If all one correlates are temperature and CO2 variation, the result is meaningless. The climate and the variabilities which affect it is far more complex than the alarmists want you to think. Or more correctly stated, want to prevent you from thinking.

Somebody throws a pretty, multi-colored graphical representation on some obscure web forum as proof of their perception completely devoid of any context, basis, content or methods and others who know virtually nothing about the issue are supposed to be convinced - are people so easily mislead? (Rhetorical question).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Corals can survive in acidified ocean conditions, but have lower density skeletons

how many centuries have those corals been growing in the reduced ph that is naturally there where the river enters the ocean?

They seem to be doing just fine storms and all .