400 ppm in our lifetimes?

[Old Rocks]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

Egad, what a dumb fuck you are. Those were peer reviewed sources. And the oceans, at present, show net absorption of CO2. That you could pick a few articles that showed there are some small bodies of water that are net emitters is not surprising. After all, some of the lakes in Siberia and Alaska are emitting huge amounts of CO2 and CH4 due to the warming.

 

[SSDD]

Volcanoes? Are you kidding? Why don't you tell us about the supernatural flatulence of Santa's reindeer? Volcanic emissions are dwarfed by human emissions - a fact I'm quite certain you already knew. But if you're really stupid enough to think otherwise, I suggest you investigate before you post and embarrass yourself. And after that you could try to explain what's making your degassing ocean more acidic each year.

So your answer is no...you don't have any idea how much CO2 underwater volcanic activity is putting into the ocean. As a matter of fact, you only have a guess as to how much above sea level volcanoes are putting into the atmosphere. Of the 150 volcanoes on land known to be active, only 33 have been sampled...and it is known that many of those thought to be inactive are still venting CO2 and they mostly have not been sampled. If the 150 or so above land known to be active are venting a quarter of a billion tons of CO2 per year, and many of those that are not active are still venting an unknown, unsampled volume of CO2, how much more CO2 is coming from undersea activity. As you like to point out, the oceans cover much more of the planet than the land and are very likely to be concealing much more volcanic activity than is seen on the land.

I know that you think the number is zero as evidenced by your cartoon, but the fact is that neither you, nor climate science, nor geoscience has any real idea. As usual, your statements are completely unsupportable.

 

[SSDD]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

Egad, what a dumb fuck you are. Those were peer reviewed sources. And the oceans, at present, show net absorption of CO2. That you could pick a few articles that showed there are some small bodies of water that are net emitters is not surprising. After all, some of the lakes in Siberia and Alaska are emitting huge amounts of CO2 and CH4 due to the warming.

I guess you are unaware of what the term net source means as well. The fact is that the oceans are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere and have been for quite some time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

Egad, what a dumb fuck you are. Those were peer reviewed sources. And the oceans, at present, show net absorption of CO2. That you could pick a few articles that showed there are some small bodies of water that are net emitters is not surprising. After all, some of the lakes in Siberia and Alaska are emitting huge amounts of CO2 and CH4 due to the warming.

I guess you are unaware of what the term net source means as well. The fact is that the oceans are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere and have been for quite some time.

One idiot making that claim on an internet discussion board hardly make that true. And, since the USGS as well as NOAA and every other valid institute engaged in real research states otherwise, that particular idiot is, well, an idiot.

 

[Abraham3]

From Chapter 3 of WG-I, AR5 of the IPCC (www.ipcc.ch)

3.8.1 Carbon
3.8.1.1 Ocean Uptake of Carbon
The air–sea flux of CO2 is computed from the observed difference in the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) across the air–water interface (∆pCO2 = pCO2,sw- pCO2,air), the solubility of CO2 in seawater, and the gas transfer velocity (Wanninkhof et al., 2009). However, the limited geo3 graphic and temporal coverage of the ∆pCO2 measurement as well as uncertainties in wind forcing and transfer velocity parameterizations mean that uncertainties in global and regional fluxes calculated from measurements of ∆pCO2 can be as larges as ±50% (Wanninkhof et al., 2013). Using ∆pCO2 data in combination with the riverine input Gruber et al. (2009) estimated a global uptake rate of 1.9 [1.2 to 2.5] PgC yr–1 for the time period 1995–2000 and Takahashi et al. (2009) found 2.0 [1.0 to 3.0] PgC yr–1 normalized to the year 2000. Uncertainties in f luxes calculated from ∆pCO2 are too large to detect trends in global ocean carbon uptake. Trends in surface ocean pCO2 are calculated from ocean time series stations and repeat hydrographic sections in the North Atlantic and North Pacific (Table 3.2). At all locations and for all time periods shown, pCO2 in both the atmosphere and ocean has increased, while pH and [CO32–] have decreased. At some sites, oceanic surface pCO2 increased faster than the atmospheric trend, implying a decreasing uptake of atmospheric CO2 at those locations. The oceanic pCO2 trend can differ from that in the atmosphere owing to changes in the intensity of biological production and changes in physical conditions, for instance between El Niño and La Niña (Keeling et al., 2004; Midorikawa et al., 2005; Yoshikawa-Inoue and Ishii, 2005; Takahashi et al., 2006, 2009; Schuster and Watson, 2007; Ishii et al., 2009; McKinley et al., 2011; Bates, 2012; Lenton et al., 2012). Although local variations of ∆pCO2 with time have little effect on the atmospheric CO2 growth rate in the short term, they provide important information on the dynamics of the ocean carbon cycle and the potential for longer-term climate feedbacks. For example, El Niño and La Niña can drive large changes in the efflux of CO2 in the Pacific. Differences in ∆pCO2 can exceed 100 µatm in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific between El Niño and La Niña; an increase in ∆pCO2 observed between 1998 and 2004 was attributed to wind and circulation changes associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Feely et al., 2006). CO2 uptake in the North Atlantic decreased by 0.24 [0.190.29] PgC yr–1 between 1994 and 2003 (Schuster and Watson, 2007) and has partially recovered since then (Watson et al., 2009). Linear trends for the North Atlantic from 1995 to 2009 reveal an increased uptake (Schuster et al., 2013). Uptake of CO2 in the Subtropical Mode Water (STMW) of the North Atlantic was enhanced during the 1990s, a predominantly positive phase of the NAO, and much reduced in the 2000s when the NAO phase was neutral or negative (Bates, 2012). Observations in the Indian and Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean were interpreted as evidence for reduced winter-time CO2 uptake as a result of increased winds, increased upwelling and outgassing of natural CO2 (Metzl, 2009; Lenton et al., 2012

 

[westwall]

USGS Release: Unprecedented Rate and Scale of Ocean Acidification Found in the Arctic (9/11/2013 5:30:00 PM)

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Acidification of the Arctic Ocean is occurring faster than projected according to new findings published in the journal PLOS ONE. The increase in rate is being blamed on rapidly melting sea ice, a process that may have important consequences for health of the Arctic ecosystem.

Ocean acidification is the process by which pH levels of seawater decrease due to greater amounts of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the oceans from the atmosphere. Currently oceans absorb about one-fourth of the greenhouse gas. Lower pH levels make water more acidic and lab studies have shown that more acidic water decrease calcification rates in many calcifying organisms, reducing their ability to build shells or skeletons. These changes, in species ranging from corals to shrimp, have the potential to impact species up and down the food web.

The team of federal and university researchers found that the decline of sea ice in the Arctic summer has important consequences for the surface layer of the Arctic Ocean. As sea ice cover recedes to record lows, as it did late in the summer of 2012, the seawater beneath is exposed to carbon dioxide, which is the main driver of ocean acidification.

Oh goody, the latest non-issue. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean's pH level would drop from 8.1 to 8. Good luck pushing the acidification lie.
Add to that the fact that the critters grow THICKER shells in acidic environments and you are left, once again, with squadoosh.



"Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world's oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate."



Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World

 

[Abraham3]

"Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world's oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate."

Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World

Impact of Coccolith Formation on the Carbon Cycle
Thomas J. Goreau
Global Coral Reef Alliance, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
The Research Article "Phytoplankton calcification in a high-CO2 world" (M. D. Iglesias-Rodriguez et al., 18 April 2008, p. 336) presents data from lab cultures showing that coccolithophorids produce more limestone skeleton under a high CO2 environment. This contradicts widespread claims that increasing CO2 in seawater will cause them to dissolve, assuming the internal milieu is the same as the external one, which is not true for any known organism.

Their results are no surprise. In the carbon balance model of coccolith formation (1), based on models of coral calcification (2, 3), photosynthesis removes CO2, increasing internal pH. This promotes calcification as a mechanism of pH homeostasis, obviating the need for metabolically-costly alkalinity efflux or proton influx. If this is the dominant mode of pH regulation, the photosynthesis to calcification ratio must be close to 1, as found in corals and calcareous algae, including coccolithophores (4). Any factor increasing photosynthesis leads to equal increases in calcification. Non-photosynthesizing deep-sea corals and mollusks (except Tridacnids), must generate alkalinity through costly proton and bicarbonate pumping, but their internal milieu is also greatly different than surrounding water. Deep sea ahermatypic corals have no problem growing skeletons in water undersaturated in skeletal solubility, and are hardly threatened by decreasing ocean pH (5), although this should increase the metabolic energy they must expend.

A serious caveat is that Iglesias-Rodriguez et al.'s cultures were grown under high "nutrient-replete conditions" (nitrate 100 micromolar, phosphate 6.24 micromolar). Only when nutrients are in excess can phytoplankton be CO2 limited and increase growth rates when CO2 rises. These conditions are extremely abnormal in surface waters, other than sewage plumes or the most intense upwelling events. Coccolithophores should not show such responses in most ocean waters. This is reminiscent of the "CO2 fertilization effect" that predicts plants should grow faster as CO2 rises, as found in highly fertilized greenhouse plants, but not during normal nutrient-limited plant growth. Experiments with elevated CO2 under natural nutrient levels are needed to assess the real-world carbon cycle implications.

Thomas J. Goreau

Global Coral Reef Alliance, 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

References

1. E. Paasche, Phys. Plant. Suppl. 3, 1 (1964).

2. T. F. Goreau, Biol. Bull. 116, 59 (1959).

3. T. F. Goreau, Annals New York Academy of Sciences 109, 127 (1963).

4. T. J. Goreau, Proc. 3d. Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2, 395 (1977).

5. M. Fine, D. Tchernov, Science 315, 1811 (2007).

... less
Submit response
Published 20 October 2008

 

[SSDD]

Egad, what a dumb fuck you are. Those were peer reviewed sources. And the oceans, at present, show net absorption of CO2. That you could pick a few articles that showed there are some small bodies of water that are net emitters is not surprising. After all, some of the lakes in Siberia and Alaska are emitting huge amounts of CO2 and CH4 due to the warming.

I guess you are unaware of what the term net source means as well. The fact is that the oceans are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere and have been for quite some time.

One idiot making that claim on an internet discussion board hardly make that true. And, since the USGS as well as NOAA and every other valid institute engaged in real research states otherwise, that particular idiot is, well, an idiot.

So again, can you tell me how much CO2 undersea volcanic activity is putting into the oceans?

 

[Abraham3]

Hey, dumbshit, the ocean is currently a CO2 sink. Only an idiot would think it was a source. Got it?

 

[SSDD]

Hey, dumbshit, the ocean is currently a CO2 sink. Only an idiot would think it was a source. Got it?

Sorry guy, it is a net source....only an idiot would think otherwise.

 

[westwall]

Hey, dumbshit, the ocean is currently a CO2 sink. Only an idiot would think it was a source. Got it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ocean Acidification | Learn Science at Scitable

It is important to recognise that there may be winners as well as losers as a consequence of ocean acidification, either because some species may actually ‘prefer' lower pH, or because reductions in numbers of one species will leave more resources available for another. However, changes taking place in marine resources and the species we eat may be costly — or simply unpopular — to adapt to. Proposals to neutralise the acidity in the ocean and/or extract CO2 from the atmosphere (e.g., Kheshgi 1995) are currently at the drawing-board stage and likely to be more costly still. Natural processes will eventually act to re-set the chemistry of the ocean, but these processes — dissolution of carbonate sediments lying at the bottom of the ocean and the weathering of rocks on land — require many hundreds of thousands of years to occur (Ridgwell & Schmidt 2010).

However, overall, one of the losers is most likely to be Homo Saps as we lose part of the bounty that we have been taking from the ocean.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Already here deniers: ESRL News: Carbon Dioxide at Mauna Loa reaches new milestone: Tops 400 ppm

anyone know how long ago the last time we reached 400 ppm?

Does anyone really care ?

WTF R U doing on this thread then * * *?

It LOOKS like he was mocking your unimpressive thread, dot commie. It also appears that he was thinking of a song.

 

[mamooth]

Check out these deniers. They literally don't care what the stinkin' facts show. Their cult says the ocean are outgassing CO2, hence THE ENTIRE WORLD IS WRONG!

So why is it so important to the denier cult that the oceans be a CO2 source?

It could just be that knee jerk thing of theirs where, out of pure spite, they reflexively do the exact opposite of what all the rational people do, and thus end up hilariously wrong every time.

Or maybe not. Deniers, is there some other reason your cult wants this to be true? Just what do you hope to gain by claiming something so completely contrary to all the data?

And why do all deniers misunderstand chemistry so badly? "Acidification" is the scientifically correct term, as well as the colloquially correct term. pH of 7.0? Meaningless. That is, it's only meaningful in one case -- acid/base reactions in pure water. But the ocean isn't pure water. It's 3-way buffering system of CO2, bicarbonate and carbonate ions, complicated further by the equilibrium with calcium ions and solid calcium carbonate. pH 7 has no special meaning in such a system.

 

[westwall]

Check out these deniers. They literally don't care what the stinkin' facts show. Their cult says the ocean are outgassing CO2, hence THE ENTIRE WORLD IS WRONG!

So why is it so important to the denier cult that the oceans be a CO2 source?

It could just be that knee jerk thing of theirs where, out of pure spite, they reflexively do the exact opposite of what all the rational people do, and thus end up hilariously wrong every time.

Or maybe not. Deniers, is there some other reason your cult wants this to be true? Just what do you hope to gain by claiming something so completely contrary to all the data?

And why do all deniers misunderstand chemistry so badly? "Acidification" is the scientifically correct term, as well as the colloquially correct term. pH of 7.0? Meaningless. That is, it's only meaningful in one case -- acid/base reactions in pure water. But the ocean isn't pure water. It's 3-way buffering system of CO2, bicarbonate and carbonate ions, complicated further by the equilibrium with calcium ions and solid calcium carbonate. pH 7 has no special meaning in such a system.

And the FACTS show that when you put the corals into a solution that was 3,000 times more acidic than what is happening in the real world.......wait for it.....THEY GOT STRONGER!

What level of stupidity must you suffer from to ignore THAT SIMPLE FACT!

 

[mamooth]

You're doing that cherrypicking and misrepresenting thing again, the thing which sort of defines you now.

It's fascinating, the way you now reject the actual science, an instead focus all your energy on these delusional cherrypicking expeditions. Does the emotional payoff you get from being a cult member make up for the way the whole world laughs at you now?

 

[westwall]

You're doing that cherrypicking and misrepresenting thing again, the thing which sort of defines you now.

It's fascinating, the way you now reject the actual science, an instead focus all your energy on these delusional cherrypicking expeditions. Does the emotional payoff you get from being a cult member make up for the way the whole world laughs at you now?

This is actual science mr. denier. This has been shown in repeated peer reviewed papers to be factual. Something your high priests are so terrified of that they REFUSE to release their work in defiance of the scientific method.

Screw you you scientific luddite. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you on the ass..

 

[Dot Com]

You're doing that cherrypicking and misrepresenting thing again, the thing which sort of defines you now.

It's fascinating, the way you now reject the actual science, an instead focus all your energy on these delusional cherrypicking expeditions. Does the emotional payoff you get from being a cult member make up for the way the whole world laughs at you now?

its how deniers get their jollies.

 

[Abraham3]

Hey, dumbshit, the ocean is currently a CO2 sink. Only an idiot would think it was a source. Got it?

Sorry guy, it is a net source....only an idiot would think otherwise.

From my AR5 quote, the following peer reviewed studies ALL find that the world's oceans are - NET - taking up CO2 from the atmosphere.

1) Wanninkhof et al., 2009
2) Wanninkhof et al., 2013
3) Gruber et al., 2009
4) Takahashi et al., 2009
5) Keeling et al., 2004
6) Midorikawa et al., 2005
7) Yoshikawa-Inoue and Ishii, 2005
8) Takahashi et al., 2006
9) Schuster and Watson, 2007
10) Ishii et al., 2009
11) McKinley et al., 2011
12) Bates, 2012
13) Lenton et al., 2012
14) Feely et al., 2006
15) Schuster and Watson, 2007
16) Watson et al., 2009
17) Schuster et al., 2013
18) Bates, 2012
19) Metzl, 2009;
20) Lenton et al., 2012

What have you got?

Idiot.

 

[Abraham3]

And the FACTS show that when you put the corals into a solution that was 3,000 times more acidic than what is happening in the real world.......wait for it.....THEY GOT STRONGER!

What level of stupidity must you suffer from to ignore THAT SIMPLE FACT!

The fact that you're a lot dumber than you think you are. Coccoliths, the only species your study examined, are not coral, but algae. Their reaction to increased carbonate levels is not typical of Cnidarians (corals) or molluscs.