Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

don't trust them a subset of the IPCC

OK - I am invoking Proverbs 26:4 as it directly applies to you.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You need to stop lying.

I don't lie but it appears you do stretch the truth quite often

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK - I am invoking Proverbs 26:4 as it directly applies to you.

oh no not a religious nut to boot.
Don't tell me you actually believe that stuff to.

[Marc1]

For those who still retain a vestige of interest in the topic of ocean "acidification", Keep two issues in mind.
A) Experiments are conducted on mollusc and echinoderm with concentration of CO2 wastly higher than current and unlikely to be reached ever, but in the mind of catastrophist and global warming agitators.
B) PH data without reference to temperature is nonsensical. Distilled water's PH changes with temperature, the higher the temperature, the lower PH ... but that does not mean that the water has turn acid.

Conclusion
Ultimately, we need a better understanding of the long-term consequences of elevated CO2 for a wider range of marine species to improve predictive capacity. In addition, we require more knowledge on the mechanisms responsible for positive and negative carryover transgenerational effects, the impacts that carryover effects have for subsequent life history stages and future generations, and how these carryover effects impact performance in the presence of other climate and environmental stressors. Exposure to elevated CO2 during early life history stage will have long-term carryover effects for subsequent life history stages and generations (Burton and Metcalfe, 2014). In six of the seven studies which have measured the transgenerational response of molluscs and echinoderms to elevated CO2 to date, TGP has been observed in the larval offspring. This phenotypic response mechanism provided by parents may buffer mollusc and echinoderm populations over multiple generations, long enough for genetic adaptation to occur (Shama and Wegner, 2014).

In other words, it's all an inflated alarmism and the real effect on mollusc is "bugger all" as for echinoderm, they can all go to hell.
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/art.../3/537/2459108

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK - I am invoking Proverbs 26:4 as it directly applies to you.

I reply with Matthew 7:6 thankyouverymuch

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Marc1

For those who still retain a vestige of interest in the topic of ocean "acidification", Keep two issues in mind.
A) Experiments are conducted on mollusc and echinoderm with concentration of CO2 wastly higher than current and unlikely to be reached ever, but in the mind of catastrophist and global warming agitators.
B) PH data without reference to temperature is nonsensical. Distilled water's PH changes with temperature, the higher the temperature, the lower PH ... but that does not mean that the water has turn acid.



In other words, it's all an inflated alarmism and the real effect on mollusc is "bugger all" as for echinoderm, they can all go to hell.
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/art.../3/537/2459108

thank you for posting that one

[Marc1]

You are welcome Mr Newhaul, my pleasure
And don't forget to correct your signature ... Illegitimi non carborundum.

For some reason someone has translated 'bastards' using it's literal meaning of illegitimate, yet in latin bastard has a word and it is "bastardis", that points to the person's character rather than his origin out of wedlock.

So the quote should read "bastardis non pugnes" or the bastards don't bother me, that is largely what non carborundum want's to mean ... sort of ... referring to silicon carbide a well known abrasive.
Anyway, I let you use it without quoting the author

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Marc1

You are welcome Mr Newhaul, my pleasure
And don't forget to correct your signature ... Illegitimi non carborundum.

For some reason someone has translated 'bastards' using it's literal meaning of illegitimate, yet in latin bastard has a word and it is "bastardis", that points to the person's character rather than his origin out of wedlock.

So the quote should read "bastardis non pugnes" or the bastards don't bother me, that is largely what non carborundum want's to mean ... sort of ... referring to silicon carbide a well known abrasive.
Anyway, I let you use it without quoting the author

as I stated before a more grammatical correct version would violate the forum rules this is as close as I could get .

[Marc1]

I see, makes sense.

Anyway ... Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Marc1

I see, makes sense.

Anyway ... Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

amen to that

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are profoundly intellectually lazy.

Cook database shows that 97% of the published climate scientists who take a position support that view that climate change is due to human activities.

I'd rather be intellectually lazy than not have enough aptitude to understand -- or credibility to acknowledge -- that the Cook database does not provide "evidence" that 97-99% of ALL climate scientists support this theory. But at least you're now accurately stating what it DOES say, even though you've been misrepresenting it for years and will likely continue to do so. You do no service to yourself nor to the science with your amateurish approach to these issues, to say nothing of your juvenile responses to those who challenge it. Having a database full of "evidence" to cryptically cite on a sailing forum is a pathetic substitute for in-depth knowledge of a subject matter as complex and uncertain as climate science.

[stevensuf]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

With good reason...


And thanks for the lesson in temperature conversation. Is "- 0" actually a number???

Strange july 19 is marked is much warmer than average where i live, yet actual measurements show the complete opposite.




I live in the algarve in portugal. here is a link to the actual temps


https://www.accuweather.com/en/pt/po...monyr=7/1/2019

[ImaginaryNumber]

How sponges undermine coral reefs from within

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-sponge...ral-reefs.html

Coral reefs are demolished from within by bio-eroding sponges. Seeking refuge from predators, these sponges bore tunnels into the carbonate coral structures, thus weakening the reefs. Scientists from the Royal NIOZ Netherlands Institute for Sea Research have uncovered how the sponges hollow out and take over reef skeletons. This finding, published in Scientific Reports on Thursday January 24th, helps to explain why sponges erode reefs faster as atmospheric CO2 levels rise.

[Lake-Effect]

I'm shocked that the thread is still alive. Mods night off?

Originally Posted by Exile

And Spencer agrees CO2 plays a role, but the role is likely inconsequential. You can parse it any way you want, but the bottom line is that it does NOT represent the opinions of 97-99% of climate scientists. ONLY those who have published papers who take a position, i.e. predominantly those who agree with the basic tenets of AGW.

Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer....

the bottom line is that [Cook's survey] does NOT represent the opinions of 97-99% of climate scientists. ONLY those who have published papers who take a position, i.e. predominantly those who agree with the basic tenets of AGW.

You are on solid ground right up to the i.e. . You don't have any basis for saying that only (or mainly) those who agree with AGW are publishing their positions. Is it not more likely that of those who have studied aspects of the issue and published on it, 97% have found further proof or confirmation of AGW?

But it's churlish of me to take away your shiny thing so quickly. Let's admire it for a bit.

For C being all "climate scientists", and c being the "climate scientists" who have published work that has expressed a conclusion re AGW, we can say with certainty that c < C. According to Cook's survey 97% of c have published conciusions that support the hypothesis of AGW. And yes, of course, 0.97c != 0.97C. It is certainly a mistake to take Cook's study as "97% of all climate scientists agree that...".

So - what about the rest (C-c)? This is where I just know you have some primo social/behavioural rationalization to impart.

But let's have a brief reality check. "climate scientist" is our construct, for the convenience of our uninformed arguments. Climate is a pretty big area of study. Yes there are "climatologists", but also many others whose specialty is required - physicists, chemists, biologists etc. And even these are over-broad. So, who are we counting as "climate scientists"?

Secondly, being a big field, they do actually have people who don't study climate change. Hard to believe I know. If a "climate scientist" hasn't been studying CC or CO2 buildup or recent warming, do we count them? What if they don't have an informed opinion one way or the other?

I'm sure there are other distinctions to be made as well. Considering all this... maybe Cook's methodology isn't that unreasonable? Short of contacting every single "climate scientist" with a simple question, can you suggest a better metric than conclusions in published papers?

But have at it. Perhaps you will be the first to show that agreement is only...90%? 85%? Whew. Game-changer.

Stuff like this must be where scientists become most exasperated with the great unwashed (us). Playing with them like toy soldiers, going off on mad speculative tangents to conjure up scenarios where scientists are by turns lazy, deceitful, conformists, commies. Except of course the few brave skeptics...

Imagine if we were putting the same effort into discussing the actual science, and not these little fugues on anything but...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

that the Cook database does not provide "evidence" that 97-99% of ALL climate scientists support this theory. But at least you're now accurately stating what it DOES say, even though you've been misrepresenting it for years and will likely continue to do so.

Neither Cook nor I made that claim.