Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK - now show us the data.

I did in the now closed nwp thread . This thread is about the ph balance of the worlds oceans not the arctic ice

Go look it up

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#5475914c5cbf


A tremendous synthesis of information took place in 2013, revealing our best value yet for the total amount of CO2 emitted from natural release events within Earth. They found:

33 measured degassing volcanoes emit a total of 60 million tons of CO2 per year.
There are a total of ~150 known degassing volcanoes, implying (based on the measured ones) that a total of 271 million tons of CO2 are released annually.
30 historically active volcanoes are measured to emit a total of 6.4 million tons of CO2 per year.
With ~550 historically active volcanoes total, they extrapolate this class of object contributes 117 million tons per year.
The global total from volcanic lakes is 94 million tons of CO2 per year.
Additional emissions from tectonic, hydrothermal and inactive volcanic areas contribute an estimated 66 million tons of CO2 per year, although the total number of emitting, tectonic areas are unknown.
And finally, emissions from mid-ocean ridges are estimated to be 97 million tons of CO2 annually.

Also from the article

Hydrothermal vents along mid-ocean ridges emit carbon and carbon dioxide in the form of 'black smokers' beneath the sea, but it is unknown whether this process results in a net increase in atmospheric CO2, or whether it's all sequestered before it enters the atmosphere. P. RONA; OAR/NATIONAL UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAM (NURP); NOAA

From your link

Add all of these up, and you get an estimate of around 645 million tons of CO2 per year. Yes, there are uncertainties; yes, there's annual variation; yes, it's easy to get led astray if you think that Mt. Etna is typical, rather than the unusually large emitter of CO2 that it is. When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2 per year – and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons of CO2 per year – compared to humanity's 29 billion tons per year, it's overwhelmingly clear what's caused the carbon dioxide increase in Earth's atmosphere since 1750.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I did in the now closed nwp thread . This thread is about the ph balance of the worlds oceans not the arctic ice

Go look it up

It is yout post, you know what it looks like. Show me.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You started with an abnormal event, a very large El Nino.

a natural event but none the less we are in the second El Nino event since and we are still cooling but I didn't cherry pick anything . I post all the relevant data and charts as warranted.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is yout post, you know what it looks like. Show me.

I honestly don't care .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

...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.

I cannot take credit; this doctrine is most commonly associated with Prof "Please provide evidentiary proof of your assertions" Newhaul.

But yes it's still a credible way to rebut, if you can name and quantify the natural forces and show how they might explain the impairment. Why is that unreasonable?

You can of course suggest that as a possibility, but it's not a rebuttal til there's something to back it up.

[newhaul]

Explain this from the 1999 ipcc report
And Dr Goddard
And yes it has a red circle on it .
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-40-years-ago/

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by newhaul

This thread is about the ph balance of the worlds oceans not the arctic ice

Care to hazard a guess what effect increased fresh water has on ocean chemistry and pH?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Care to hazard a guess what effect increased fresh water has on ocean chemistry and pH?

what is the source of said fresh water?

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by newhaul

what is the source of said fresh water?

Fish tears, what do you think?

[Puddleduck]

Not uk sea bass tears though....

BASS RULES FOR 2018. Anglers have been banned from taking bass during the whole of 2018 due to fears of a complete collapse of the species. It means you can only fish catch and release for the popular species, but there are hopes of a relaxation of the rules later in the year to allow a one fish a day bag limit.

Just think how much the uk economy looses from such a commercially valuable fish stock. I think more research will be needed!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Fish tears, what do you think?

that was actually a serious question where does the water come from ?

Are we talking about recent precipitation ( less than 10 years ) or aquifers ( can be hundreds or even thousands of years since it was in the water cycle.)
if from recent precipitation it actually would raise the ph slightly more toward the base due to minerals picked up in its return trip to the ocean from the land .
If direct precipitation into the ocean it would depend on what it picks up during the fall from the clouds to the ocean surface.

There are many variables that must be taken into account.

Does that cover it ???

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Not uk sea bass tears though....



Just think how much the uk economy looses from such a commercially valuable fish stock. I think more research will be needed!

Is it really a collapse of the species or just a matter of them not being able to smell the bait?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I honestly don't care .

Sooner or later that's where a lot of reasonably minded people wind up, whether they're ordinarily concerned about environmental issues or not. Too much proselytizing and partisanship, too little pragmatism & reality. Sure, they'll respond favorably to pollsters, but I think they've mostly moved on.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I cannot take credit; this doctrine is most commonly associated with Prof "Please provide evidentiary proof of your assertions" Newhaul.

But yes it's still a credible way to rebut, if you can name and quantify the natural forces and show how they might explain the impairment. Why is that unreasonable?

You can of course suggest that as a possibility, but it's not a rebuttal til there's something to back it up.

I'd love to be able to provide your evidentiary proof, and it's entirely reasonable as our very own in-house Socrates has made abundantly clear. As soon as the science figures it all out, let me know and I'm sure I'll be able to Google it for you.