Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I see. So the scientists that are measuring actual conditions around those CO2 seeps by the coral don't know how to read their instruments, or are lying? I think it more likely that ol' BiPolar is shitting us again.
Oh yah, them inertia switchs are a bitch, LOL
As the surging waters of the Mississippi pass downstream, they leave behind flooded towns and inundated lives and carry forward a brew of farm chemicals and waste that this year given record flooding is expected to result in the largest dead zone ever in the Gulf of Mexico. Dead zones have been occurring in the gulf since the 1970s, and studies show that the main culprits are nitrogen and phosphorous from crop fertilizers and animal manure in river runoff. They settle in at the mouth of the gulf and fertilize algae, which prospers and eventually starves other living things of oxygen.
Government studies have traced a majority of those chemicals in the runoff to nine farming states, and yet today, decades after the dead zones began forming, there is still little political common ground on how to abate this perennial problem. Scientists who study dead zones predict that the affected area will increase significantly this year, breaking records for size and damage.
For years, environmentalists and advocates for a cleaner gulf have been calling for federal action in the form of regulation. Since 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency has been encouraging all states to place hard and fast numerical limits on the amount of those chemicals allowed in local waterways. Yet of the nine key farm states that feed the dead zone, only two, Illinois and Indiana, have acted, and only to cover lakes, not the rivers or streams that merge into the Mississippi.
The lack of formal action upstream has long been maddening to the downstream states most affected by the pollution, and the extreme flooding this year has only increased the tensions. Considering the current circumstances, it is extremely frustrating not seeing E.P.A. take more direct action, said Matt Rota, director of science and water policy for the Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental advocacy group in New Orleans that has renewed its calls for federally enforced targets. We have tried solely voluntary mechanisms to reduce this pollution for a decade and have only seen the dead zone get bigger.
More NYT: Farm runoff rattles states on Mississippi - US news - The New York Times - msnbc.com
Where'd the Warmers go?
Can any of them explain the scientific impossibility of how a 60PPM increase in athmospheric CO2 dropped ocean Ph by .3 degrees?
Chris?
Old Rocks?
Bueller?
Konrad?
Anyone?
What kind of idiot would choose a site to monitor CO2 levels right next to a volcano which out-gasses CO2 and Sulfur dioxide, some times in the order of up to 5 metric tons per day...?...whacking the readings right out the top of the scale..:ABSTRACT. A continuous 37 year record of the quiescent CO2 outgassing of Mauna Loa volcano was derived from atmospheric measurements made 6 km downslope of the summit caldera at Mauna Loa Observatory. The volcanic plume is sometimes trapped in the temperature inversion near the ground at night and transported downslope to the observatory
Look at the El-Cheepo "scientific precision instrumentation" they use...:The identified or potential nearby, nighttime sources of CO2, in approximate order of their influence were:
1. Volcanic emissions from the Mauna Loa summit. These were the primary CO2 sources, typically producing increases of several ppm.
2. Volcanic emissions from Kilauea volcano. CO2, SO2, and other volcanic emissions came from the nearby Kilauea region [Greenland et al., 1985; Connor et al., 1988] southeast of Mauna Loa at altitudes between sea level and 1200 m. This source was active intermittently in the 1960s and 1970s, and was virtually continuous after 1982.
It`s a dog`s breakfast, nah...even a dog would puke looking at these "precision analysis" on which this climate "scientist" cluster fuck bases their idiotic assertions...The distributions were made up of the two components identified earlier; one arising from sources having only positive delta CO2, and the other arising from "noise"
2. Instrument noise. The SIO analyzer output was subject to occasional periods of excessive noise and drift primarily due to ageing and deterioration of vacuum tubes in the power supply, amplifier, and thermal regulation circuits. Locations of the analyzer and room temperature control apparatus were changed several times during the program to reduce the thermal drift of the analyzer. The decision to flag suspect periods as either an instrument malfunction or due to natural variability was made by the observer
3. Line voltage and frequency fluctuations. These caused a corresponding shift in the analyzer output that could appear as an abrupt or gradual drift, or a high frequency noise in the SIO data. Most events were presumed to be recognized by the observer
4. Radio frequency noise. In the 1960's, radio transmitters at the observatory site occasionally produced a high frequency noise on the CO2 trace.
The next step in calculating delta CO2 was to apply a correction to those periods in the NOAA 1-minute data when the analyzer signal went off-scale, as illustrated in the top trace of Fig. 2. The NOAA analyzers had a range of about 50 ppm, and a manual offset adjustment was periodically made to keep the output voltage approximately centered in this range during background CO2 conditions. A strong volcanic plume having excess CO2 greater than 25 ppm above background caused the analyzer output to saturate at a constant maximum voltage. This occurred during 72 measurements in 1984, 23 in 1985, 17 in 1986, 5 in 1987, and one each in 1976 through 1981.
...as it were.This thread has completed destroyed the Warmers credibility
Stick a fork in these EnviroMarxist Doomsday Cult Fuckers.
Fuck how much more stupid can it get...?So they`ld also never understand either that un-dissociated H2CO3 is not an acid and that only the dissociated amount H2CO3 <----> [H+] + [HCO3 -] <---> [H+] + [CO3 2-] is an acid.
Carbonic acid is an acid, disocciated or not. H+ isn't an acid, it's a hydrogen ion. HCO3-- isn't an acid either, it's a base. Seems like you're trying to BS us with faulty defintions. Doesn't bode well for the rest of your analysis. You're trying to impress us with the number of zeros, but that's not the point. It's the delta that's important, not the absolute value.
Now we have a total retard trying to re-define what an acid is...
the un-dissociated part of H2CO3 is NOT AN ACID
only the + Hydrogen Ions which the dissociated part of an "acid" is capable to deliver to a system is an acid...
Fuck You can`t even comprehend the definition of pH...even after it`s been explained to the point where any housewife can understand it
if un-dissociated H2CO3 was an acid as an imbecile like you seems to believe why don`t you do the math what the pH of Coca Cola would be then...???
Fuck there would be no container through which Coca Cola could not eat through...
I just love it when assholes like you come back @ me with your moronic statements like the one you just made here..
Go back to school and learn something before you shoot off your fucking dumb mouth off again...RETARD !!!
Well, I'm just glad I got a chance to see them before they're gone.
As an avid diver for the last 30 years, I can tell you first hand that the reefs have been getting smaller and less healthy looking with less marine life every time I go.
Where did this 60ppm question come from? CO2 has risen about 100ppm due to human activities, not 60ppm.
The pH drop has been 0.1. The expected pH drop by 2100 (assuming continued CO2 emissions) is a further 0.3:
If you want to understand the science behind ocean acidification (the term does not mean it will become acidic - problems for ocean critters occur simply due to a pH drop itself - or rather the rate of drop - it doesn't have to pass pH 7), then this website is a good primer:
Ocean Acidification Network
Coral reefs around the world could be teetering on the brink of extinction by the end of the century as the oceans become more acidic, scientists have warned.
New evidence from volcanic seeps - fissures in the ocean floor that leak gases and minerals - suggests a bleak future for the reefs that harbour the world's richest marine ecosystems.
Three natural carbon dioxide (CO2) seeps in Papua New Guinea have given scientists a snapshot of how coral reefs may look in 100 years.
Like man-made sources of carbon dioxide, the seeps are making the water around them more acidic.
The study showed reductions in reef diversity and complexity as pH values fell from 8.1 to 7.8, indicating greater acidity. At values below 7.7, reef development ceased altogether.
Climate change experts estimate that by the end of the century, ocean acidity worldwide will change in a similar way because of CO2 emissions.
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast predicts that rising concentrations of CO2 will reduce worldwide ocean pH from its present level of 8.1 to 7.8.
Authors of the new research, writing in the journal Nature, said the effect of a pH drop below 7.8 would be "catastrophic" for the coral.
Coral reefs 'on edge of extinction' - *Environment | MSN News - MSN UK
we heard this crap in the 80's and 90's,....dude, please huh?
oh wait, its the end of the century now, they said that in 1978 too....and here we are.....
Now, dumb ass Frank, the oceans ph has already dropped 0.1 ph.
http://asoc.org/storage/documents/Meetings/ATCM/XXXIV/Ocean_Acidification_and_the_Southern_Ocean.pdf
Summary
Ocean acidification, the term for the decline in pH of ocean water resulting from increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations, poses severe potential threats to marine environments, including the Southern
Ocean, not least because of the rapid rate at which it is progressing compared with anything organisms have
faced in the past. This is likely to make adaptation difficult. The unique characteristics of the Southern Ocean
suggest that ocean acidification will have its greatest initial impacts there in the waters surrounding
Antarctica if greenhouse gas emissions continue to occur at present rates.
Aragonite, a form of calcium carbonate essential to shell forming organisms such as the pteropods that are
important to the Southern Ocean food chain, will be undersaturated, or present at low levels, throughout the
Southern Ocean by 2100 under the IPCC IS92a business as usual emissions scenario. The Southern Ocean
is already relatively undersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Even under the more
conservative IPCC S650 scenario, which assumes that atmospheric CO2 will only reach 563 ppm by 2100,
the aragonite saturation horizon1 is likely to have shrunk from its present depth of 730 to 60 m by 2100, with
the entire Weddell Sea undersaturated with respect to aragonite. Under these conditions, some organisms are
likely to have difficulty forming shells, with possibly serious impacts on the food web.
It is imperative that more research programs be undertaken to fill current knowledge gaps on Southern Ocean
acidification and its impacts as soon as possible. Long-term studies of acidification for the entire lifecycle of
important species are needed, including implications for non-calcifying organisms and impacts of ocean
acidification on other biological processes besides calcification in invertebrates and vertebrates.
