Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Bull crap. The stratosphere is cooling because heat is trapped in the troposphere.

the troposphere is cooling to jack read the current data . Not the stuff from 5 years ago .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the troposphere is cooling to jack read the current data . Not the stuff from 5 years ago .

RSS / MSU Data Images / Monthly



Current data from RSS.

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

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So it is.


https://www.nature.com/news/2001/010...s010517-8.html


https://www.esa.org/tiee/vol/v1/expe...scription.html


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5928911/


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20552724


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0303111624.htm


https://www.jstor.org/stable/2997427...n_tab_contents


My appeal to authority trumps yours.

I am quite willing to agree that your links are to authoritative scientific studies (Except the 2nd link, which appears to be to a teacher's lesson plan. Do you actually read what you post??) And I agree that studying leaf stomata can be a useful tool both in understanding plant tolerance to heat, and as a proxy for estimating CO2 levels in the past.

However none of the links you provided seem to have any direct bearing on the question raised, which was whether Antarctic ice cores, or (fossil?) leaf stomata, provide the most accurate and reliable indicator of CO2 levels 10,000 to 12,000 years before present.

Based on the evidence presented thus far in this thread I think it safe to conclude that the ice cores are much more reliable than the leaf stomata.

Yet again, Skeptical Science proves to be a reliable source of information.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that's awesome news keep us informed . Do you have a build thread ?
I'm real close to cutting the lines myself . Dad passed on the 12th so now waiting go get the estates settled and I'm off .

I have some random photos on the boatdesign.net but no build thread. Thinking about putting the build photos at once on the net when it's done. Anyways 12 years so far since I started and few more 'til it's ready would been a bit boring to follow.
Sorry to hear about your father, mine passed 14 years ago. I was a propably a disappoinment for him as didn't do anything he expected (inbuild problem with authorities ) but instead I have done about everything he dreamed of doing himself
Fair winds!

[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/

[newhaul]

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/

this study is just so much Crap

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by newhaul

this study is just so much Crap

Out of the mouth of babes....

Originally Posted by newhaul

Provide empirical proof of that assertion .

Originally Posted by newhaul

facts trump feelings

Please provide evidentiary proof of your assertions.

Originally Posted by newhaul

proof from a non biased source please

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please post several names of those astrophysicists please.

Meanwhile:



Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
Sarah Ineson, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood
Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
Amanda C. Maycock
National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
Amanda C. Maycock & Lesley J. Gray
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
Lesley J. Gray
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
Jerald W. Harder
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
Mike Lockwood

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncom...or-information



Northumbria University, Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 1XE, UK
V. V. Zharkova
University of Bradford, School of Engineering, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK
S. J. Shepherd
University of Hull, Department of Physics and Mathematics, Kingston upon Hull, HU6 7RX, UK
S. I. Zharkov
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi Shamakhi Astrophysical Observatory Azerbaijan, AZ 1000, Pirqulu, Azerbaijan
E. Popova
National Research University, Higher School of Economics, 101000, Moscow, Russia
E. Popova

https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...or-information



Richard D. Schwartz - former chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Missouri–St. Louis.

https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/...73-22-1-44.htm

Do you actually read these papers???

Like this part...

" If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.

A number of studies have indicated that the decreases in global mean temperature associated with a future decline in solar activity are likely to be relatively small"

Hummm...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Do you actually read these papers???

Like this part...

" If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.

A number of studies have indicated that the decreases in global mean temperature associated with a future decline in solar activity are likely to be relatively small"

Hummm...

I doubt newhaul would read them, they contradict his assertions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

What should it (the correlating data sets) say to someone who didn't make up their minds long ago, and still do have an interest in objectivity?

I'm glad to see somebody actually ask this question. It's a challenge since so many of us have already have made up our minds by making assumptions based on whatever supports our preconceived conclusions. There seems to be little tolerance in these threads for contrary thinking, even if it is solely for the purpose of testing assumptions already firmly held. To do so earns people the "denier" or other such meaningless label, or accusations that they don't understand the science, or maybe aren't reading links which someone believes will definitively resolve all further doubt. Instead, there's an odd, but I think revealing, inverse relationship between people who are emphatic about the certainty of the mainstream science and their willingness to tolerate it being challenged. This seems contrary to healthy debate and even to the scientific process itself, and by most accounts isn't nearly the case amongst actual scientists themselves. But even the usual, standard-fare impugning of motives makes for good entertainment for some of us, especially when accompanied by ice cream.

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

Originally Posted by Exile

Someone once posted -- at least a 100 times actually -- that correlation doesn't equal causation. In this case the consensus is about 1.5 - 1.8ºC since we started burning fossil fuels in earnest in the late 19th century. Warming -- whether human or natural caused -- produces more atmospheric CO2 all on its own. Notwithstanding, we are being told not only that this amount of temperature rise over the past 150 years is aberrant & abnormal, but that it is also a contributing cause of every severe storm, flood, species extinction, sea level fluctuation, glacial retreat, unusual snowfall, and record heat. All on account of a warming trend that scientists cannot agree on how much is from natural vs. human forces.

In other words, a graph showing correlation from a single multiple temperature datasets only resolves it for those who made up their minds long ago, and have no further interest in objectivity.

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?

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?

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?

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. 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. This is partly why prominent skeptics such as Spencer et. al agree that CO2 is causing some of the warming, but disputes whether it is consequential. L-E's assumptions do nothing more than beg the foundational question.

Jack, by contrast, prefers to simply ignore such questions, cite "evidence" that only supports that portion of the science which supports his preferred answers, or provide links which deceptively imply that the opinions of 100,000 scientists are in lock-step with the official published views of the institutions that employ them. I suppose a more precise & accurate breakdown of skepticism within the science itself could be helpful, but thus far the only credible source that has been presented is from Wiki (for better or worse ).

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. 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. 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 . . . .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I doubt newhaul would read them, they contradict his assertions.

wrong again jack. You post all of this stuff that actually supports me and just hope I don't read it .

After this next grand minimum there will be another grand maximum that will peak in 2600 with an estimated 2.5℃ of natural warming from the low point that is yet to be determined.
In other words a .041℃ per decade rise from an as yet unknown cold point .

Yes I do read and understand all of it

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

wrong again jack. You post all of this stuff that actually supports me and just hope I don't read it .

After this next grand minimum there will be another grand maximum that will peak in 2600 with an estimated 2.5℃ of natural warming from the low point that is yet to be determined.
In other words a .041℃ per decade rise from an as yet unknown cold point .

Yes I do read and understand all of it

If you think they support your assertions, you are clueless.

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by newhaul

wait this thread is supposed to be about co2 going into the oceans ( by whatever means natural as well as man caused sources.)
wouldn't a warming ocean outlaws co2 to the atmosphere which would lead it further to the base side of the ph scale?
Colder water holds more co2 .
So wouldn't their " warming " cause the co2 ppm in sea water to go down ? Which would raise the co2 in the atmosphere correct?
Please explain how the inverse could be happening.

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

A number of recent studies and meta-analyses aimed at determining the impacts of “ocean acidification” on marine and estuarine organisms conclude that the likelihood of severe consequences for calcifying marine and estuarine organisms is high

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.

In many studies the responses of molluscs are measured in experiments where the duration of exposure is acute (sudden drop in pH of 0.4 units) which does not mimic well the non-acute, longer time frame expected for oceans to acidify. Results from acute experiments make it difficult to extrapolate to longer term impacts. Extrapolation is also difficult because results from the laboratory, where the majority of work has been done are not necessarily replicable in the field [14]. There have been only two studies to date which directly considered the impact of ocean acidification on the settlement of bivalves and gastropods in the field. Cigliano et al. [126] placed artificial collectors along a pH gradient, ranging from 7.08–8.15, created by CO2 vents off the coast of Ischia in the Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy. After one month, they found a significant reduction in the recruitment of a range of bivalve and gastropod species as the seawater pH decreased from normal (8.09–8.15) to low (7.08–7.79), suggesting that settlement of benthic molluscs may be highly impacted as our oceans continue to acidify. Studies on juvenile abundance and adult shell strength done at the same location further support these results. Juveniles of the gastropod snails Osilinus turbinate (Born 1778) and Patella caerulea (Linnaeus 1758) were absent from sites with very low pH (pH ≤ 7.4) but were present at the site with normal pH (pH 8.09–8.15) [46]. Further, the shell strength of adult snails Hexaplex trunculus (Linnaeus 1758) and Cerithium vulgatum (Bruguière 1774) was reduced in acidic seawater [46].

As many of our conclusions to date are based on the results of single species, single factor studies, our current understanding of the biological consequences of an acidifying ocean are dominated by large uncertainties. In order to fully understand the consequences of ocean acidification at the population and ecosystem level, multi-generational and multi-stressor experiments on species from different geographic locations are needed to assess the adaptive capacity of mollusc species and the potential winners and losers in an acidifying ocean over the next century. Future research needs to move away from single-species responses on one stage in the lifecycle and consider the synergistic effects of multiple stressors (i.e., temperature, hypoxia, food concentration) on different life-history stages and the potential for species to acclimate or adapt. The measurement of the underlying mechanisms responsible for adaptation or acclimation is essential if we are to fill the gaps in our understanding and maintain the ecological and economic services provided by this diverse phylum.

One important issue to consider when talking about PH, is that PH is depending of temperature. A PH value without temperature value is nonsense.
PH reduces with increase of temperature, but that does not mean that the water is more "acidic"

*pH decreases with increase in temperature. But this does not mean that water becomes more acidic at higher temperatures. A solution is considered as acidic if there is an excess of hydrogen ions over hydroxide ions. In the case of pure water, there are always the same concentration of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions and hence, the water is still neutral (even if its pH changes). At 100°C, a pH value of 6.14 is the New neutral point on the pH scale at this higher temperature.

https://www.westlab.com/blog/2017/11/15/how-does-temperature-affect-phurl]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960890/[/url]

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

If you think they support your assertions, you are clueless.

you obviously don't actually read and or understand the studies .
Try again

And we are cooling

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

I am quite willing to agree that your links are to authoritative scientific studies (Except the 2nd link, which appears to be to a teacher's lesson plan. Do you actually read what you post??) And I agree that studying leaf stomata can be a useful tool both in understanding plant tolerance to heat, and as a proxy for estimating CO2 levels in the past.

However none of the links you provided seem to have any direct bearing on the question raised, which was whether Antarctic ice cores, or (fossil?) leaf stomata, provide the most accurate and reliable indicator of CO2 levels 10,000 to 12,000 years before present.

Based on the evidence presented thus far in this thread I think it safe to conclude that the ice cores are much more reliable than the leaf stomata.

Yet again, Skeptical Science proves to be a reliable source of information.

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.

Ice cores obtained by drilling into permantent ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland have been the most important way to determine past levels of carbon dioxide-- however, recent stomata studies show that the ice core record may be misleading in several important respects.
For example, when ice cores are crushed to extract the gases from trapped air bubbles to determine CO2 content, there is an assumption made that ice bubbles preserve an accurate record of the Earths CO2 history. However, the chemical composition of ice bubbles undergo changes that may distort this record.

Accumulating ice layers can take a century or more to become buried deep enough to be isolated from the atmosphere, which at the South Pole occurs at a depth of approximately 120 m. The resulting heat and pressure causes gas exchange between ice layers, which modifies the chemistry of ice air bubbles. At burial depths of between 900 and 1200 meters the pressure is so great that air bubbles in ice disappear and the gases recombine with liquids and ice crystals. Such processes tend to smooth away variability in the ice record and may also make CO2 levels appear lower than they really were, obscuring much of the resolution pertaining to CO2 variability (1-4).

I figured that this is from the skeptic site with the missing chart that Jackdale referred to a few days ago, but since he never responded in the affirmative I don't know for sure. Perhaps he was referring to Christoper Scotese on whose research data the chart is based. Here's that chart for reference.






It possibly was the latter, because this chart in it's initial form was superseded by later data, and therefore "disappeared", re-emerging in this format.