It's the Sun

[orogenicman]

It's just hard for me to imagine that the 30% of surface area that is land only collects and stores less than 5% of the energy..

The oceans (i.e., water) have a much higher heat capacity than the continents (or any other landmass), or the atmosphere. It is the main reason why there is over 2,000 feet of ice on Greenland (and the Antarctic continent), and less than 10 feet on average in the Arctic ocean. I don't understand why you have a problem with this.

For instance, if 93% of the GHGas generated energy is residing in the oceans --- then the "Climate Change" argument becomes an ocean driven model for current weather events. Not a truly REGIONAL driver of weather based solely on land surface temp.. Tornadoes and malaria rates (e.g.) are not largely "ocean driven".. [[they were never really solely TEMPERATURE driven either :LOL: ]]

Except that our climate is very much ocean-driven. Tornados would be nearly non-existent in the U.S. were it not for the warm Gulf Of Mexico moisture flowing north and colliding with cold Canadian air flowing down out of the Rockies. The Eastern U.S. would not enjoy it's moderate weather and amply rainfall were it not for the existence of the Gulf of Mexico. The oceans are critical drivers of the global climate. El Nino, La Nina, the various oscillation currents, the thermohaline, hurricanes, tropical storms, etc., all are major players driving the climate on our planet. Surely you know this.

Malaria is a mosquito-borne pathogen. It thrives in marshy/wetland conditions. Where do you think all that water ultimately comes from?

As I said, tornadoes and mosquito-borne diseases were never even Temperature driven plagues.. As anyone who's tried the hike the high alpine of Yosemite in the spring knows (with snow still on the ground). One of the deadliest outbreaks on record was in Siberia.

You're moving the goalpost. Malaria certainly does require a warm climate. Whether or not other mosquito-born diseases do is irrelevant to that singular fact, which, I might add, is an issue you raised.

[

As for tornadoes, there are at least 5 REQUIRED prereqs. Including a dry air source and winds aloft. Unless you've got a mechanism for lowering the baro pressure, they will not even initiate or sustain..

Without warm moist are from the ocean/Gulf, they don't occur at all, regardless of the other parameters. Without the energy from the gulf colliding with cold air from the rockies, you don't get the wind sheer you need to drive the type of circulation that leads to rotation.

The idea that PDO, AMO produce a RELIABLE, and CONSISTENT change in intensity or number of cyclones simply is not strong.. Much for the same reasons I suggested above..
An AMO or PDO peak MIGHT have a mild additive effect, but it's not consistent. So warmer oceans have implications for melting Arctic seas and mild effects on biospheres, but it's NOT "The Day After Tomorrow" scenerio that you are HOPING for..

Moreover --- it's DIFFERENT than the garbage scenarios we've been fed for 2 decades now about OVERALL surface warming..

None of which refutes my statement that all are major players driving the climate on our planet. Do you deny that my statement is true?

 

[orogenicman]

Check the link I provided there mr. geologist. Of course the fact that the corals evolved when CO2 levels were 20 TIMES what they are today doesn't get a mention from you either.

So you don't understand why that didn't reduce ocean pH at the time?

Seek out some basic education concerning how ocean chemistry works. You don't even understand why "acidification" is the correct term, which is why it was happily used by everyone until the denialist cult decided to politicize the science.

You'd also look more consistent if you didn't use both "it doesn't happen!" and "it's good for the ocean!". Try being consistent and sticking with one conspiracy theory, instead of throwing everything at the wall in the hopes something will stick.

And your knowledge of statistics is flat out embarrassing. "... less than the instrument error of the ARGO system." Sheesh. The statistical blunder of your conspiracy there makes everyone who does understand statistics bust out laughing.

Funny thing about the statistics of instrument errors.. If you have one instrument, you can do miraculous things picking out gems of untarnished data.. However -- if you rely on 10,000 of them and they not only have their own limits of measurement but a nasty inability to agree --- THEN -- your confidence level of measurement FOR THE ARRAY OF 10K of THEM becomes your "instrument error" and DOES represent the hard limit of confidence in the data.

Right, so we can either throw them all in the waste pile because you don't believe that they have any value or we can institute standardized calibration procedures to ensure that all of the instrument read outs are accurate to within their manufactured design specifications. I'll give you one guess as to which one actually happens.

 

[westwall]

So you don't understand why that didn't reduce ocean pH at the time?

Seek out some basic education concerning how ocean chemistry works. You don't even understand why "acidification" is the correct term, which is why it was happily used by everyone until the denialist cult decided to politicize the science.

You'd also look more consistent if you didn't use both "it doesn't happen!" and "it's good for the ocean!". Try being consistent and sticking with one conspiracy theory, instead of throwing everything at the wall in the hopes something will stick.

And your knowledge of statistics is flat out embarrassing. "... less than the instrument error of the ARGO system." Sheesh. The statistical blunder of your conspiracy there makes everyone who does understand statistics bust out laughing.

Explain to the class how a physical process will work in one year and not in another. Be very precise...

http://www.cas.umt.edu/geosciences//faculty/stanley/stanley_files/Earth-Sci Rev Art 03-1.pdf

Scleractinians are a group of calcified anthozoan corals, many of which populate shallow-water tropical to subtropical reefs. Most of these corals calcify rapidly and their success on reefs is related to a symbiotic association with zooxanthellae. These one-celled algal symbionts live in the endodermal tissues of their coral host and are thought responsible for promoting rapid calcification. The evolutionary significance of this symbiosis and the implications it holds for explaining the success of corals is of paramount importance. Scleractinia stands out as one of the few orders of calcified metazoans that arose in Triassic time, long after a greater proliferation of calcified metazoan orders in the Paleozoic. The origin of this coral group, so important in reefs of today, has remained an unsolved problem in paleontology. The idea that Scleractinia evolved from older Paleozoic rugose corals that somehow survived the Permian mass extinction persists among some schools of thought. Paleozoic scleractiniamorphs also have been presented as possible ancestors. The paleontological record shows the first appearance of fossils currently classified within the order Scleractinia to be in the Middle Triassic. These earliest Scleractinia provide a picture of unexpectedly robust taxonomic diversity and high colony integration. Results from molecular biology support a polyphyletic evolution for living Scleractinia and the molecular clock, calibrated against the fossil record, suggests that two major groups of ancestors could extend back to late Paleozoic time. The idea that Scleractinia were derived from soft-bodied, ‘‘anemone-like’’ ancestors that survived the Permian mass extinction, has become a widely considered hypothesis. The 14-million year Mesozoic coral gap stands as a fundamental obstacle to verification of many of these ideas. However, this obstacle is not a barrier for derivation of scleractinians from anemone-like, soft-bodied ancestors. The hypothesis of the ephemeral, ‘‘naked coral’’, presents the greatest potential for solution of the enigma of the origin of scleractinians. It states that different groups of soft-bodied, unrelated ‘‘anemone-like’’ anthozoans gave rise to various calcified scleractinian-like corals through aragonitic biomineralization. Although there is evidence for this phenomenon being more universal in the mid-Triassic interval, following a lengthy Early Triassic post-extinction perturbation, it appears to have occurred at least three other times prior to this interval. This idea suggests that, because of ephemeral characteristics, the skeleton does not represent a clade of zoantharian evolution but instead represents a grade of organization. In the fossil record, skeletons may have appeared and disappeared at different times as some clades reverted to soft-bodied existence and these phenomena could account for notable gaps in the taxonomic and fossil record. A fuller understanding and possible solution to the problem of the origin of modern corals may be forthcoming. However, it will require synthesis of diverse kinds of data and an integration of findings from paleobiology, stratigraphy, molecular biology, carbonate geochemistry, biochemistry and invertebrate physiology.

What all this means is that we are uncertain of the origin of modern octacorals. They are not at all like Paleozoic hexacorals (every single species of which are extinct) that existed when the CO2 concentrations were so high. And they didn't evolve in a world with such high CO2 concentrations, because by then, the terrestrial and oceanic flora population had made a sizable dent in those concentrations. Certainly the corals that exist today do no exhibit any tolerance of anomalous water parameters. They have evolved to thrive under very specific water quality parameters, outside of which they simply cast off their symbiotic zooxanthellae and die.

And yet, when exposed to acidic water levels higher than they could ever experience in the real world that doesn't happen

 

[westwall]

The oceans (i.e., water) have a much higher heat capacity than the continents (or any other landmass), or the atmosphere. It is the main reason why there is over 2,000 feet of ice on Greenland (and the Antarctic continent), and less than 10 feet on average in the Arctic ocean. I don't understand why you have a problem with this.



Except that our climate is very much ocean-driven. Tornados would be nearly non-existent in the U.S. were it not for the warm Gulf Of Mexico moisture flowing north and colliding with cold Canadian air flowing down out of the Rockies. The Eastern U.S. would not enjoy it's moderate weather and amply rainfall were it not for the existence of the Gulf of Mexico. The oceans are critical drivers of the global climate. El Nino, La Nina, the various oscillation currents, the thermohaline, hurricanes, tropical storms, etc., all are major players driving the climate on our planet. Surely you know this.

Malaria is a mosquito-borne pathogen. It thrives in marshy/wetland conditions. Where do you think all that water ultimately comes from?

As I said, tornadoes and mosquito-borne diseases were never even Temperature driven plagues.. As anyone who's tried the hike the high alpine of Yosemite in the spring knows (with snow still on the ground). One of the deadliest outbreaks on record was in Siberia.

You're moving the goalpost. Malaria certainly does require a warm climate. Whether or not other mosquito-born diseases do is irrelevant to that singular fact, which, I might add, is an issue you raised.

[

As for tornadoes, there are at least 5 REQUIRED prereqs. Including a dry air source and winds aloft. Unless you've got a mechanism for lowering the baro pressure, they will not even initiate or sustain..

Without warm moist are from the ocean/Gulf, they don't occur at all, regardless of the other parameters. Without the energy from the gulf colliding with cold air from the rockies, you don't get the wind sheer you need to drive the type of circulation that leads to rotation.

The idea that PDO, AMO produce a RELIABLE, and CONSISTENT change in intensity or number of cyclones simply is not strong.. Much for the same reasons I suggested above..
An AMO or PDO peak MIGHT have a mild additive effect, but it's not consistent. So warmer oceans have implications for melting Arctic seas and mild effects on biospheres, but it's NOT "The Day After Tomorrow" scenerio that you are HOPING for..

Moreover --- it's DIFFERENT than the garbage scenarios we've been fed for 2 decades now about OVERALL surface warming..

None of which refutes my statement that all are major players driving the climate on our planet. Do you deny that my statement is true?

No, malaria Does NOT require warm climate. The video below is from THE leading tropical disease scientist. I suggest you watch it. Archangel in Russia suffered one of the worst malaria outbreaks ever seen, in the 1920's, 30,000 cases and 10,000 deaths so your claim is absolute nonsense.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxtWEW2nKRI]The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube[/ame]

 

[flacaltenn]

The oceans (i.e., water) have a much higher heat capacity than the continents (or any other landmass), or the atmosphere. It is the main reason why there is over 2,000 feet of ice on Greenland (and the Antarctic continent), and less than 10 feet on average in the Arctic ocean. I don't understand why you have a problem with this.



Except that our climate is very much ocean-driven. Tornados would be nearly non-existent in the U.S. were it not for the warm Gulf Of Mexico moisture flowing north and colliding with cold Canadian air flowing down out of the Rockies. The Eastern U.S. would not enjoy it's moderate weather and amply rainfall were it not for the existence of the Gulf of Mexico. The oceans are critical drivers of the global climate. El Nino, La Nina, the various oscillation currents, the thermohaline, hurricanes, tropical storms, etc., all are major players driving the climate on our planet. Surely you know this.

Malaria is a mosquito-borne pathogen. It thrives in marshy/wetland conditions. Where do you think all that water ultimately comes from?

As I said, tornadoes and mosquito-borne diseases were never even Temperature driven plagues.. As anyone who's tried the hike the high alpine of Yosemite in the spring knows (with snow still on the ground). One of the deadliest outbreaks on record was in Siberia.

You're moving the goalpost. Malaria certainly does require a warm climate. Whether or not other mosquito-born diseases do is irrelevant to that singular fact, which, I might add, is an issue you raised.

[

As for tornadoes, there are at least 5 REQUIRED prereqs. Including a dry air source and winds aloft. Unless you've got a mechanism for lowering the baro pressure, they will not even initiate or sustain..

Without warm moist are from the ocean/Gulf, they don't occur at all, regardless of the other parameters. Without the energy from the gulf colliding with cold air from the rockies, you don't get the wind sheer you need to drive the type of circulation that leads to rotation.

The idea that PDO, AMO produce a RELIABLE, and CONSISTENT change in intensity or number of cyclones simply is not strong.. Much for the same reasons I suggested above..
An AMO or PDO peak MIGHT have a mild additive effect, but it's not consistent. So warmer oceans have implications for melting Arctic seas and mild effects on biospheres, but it's NOT "The Day After Tomorrow" scenerio that you are HOPING for..

Moreover --- it's DIFFERENT than the garbage scenarios we've been fed for 2 decades now about OVERALL surface warming..

None of which refutes my statement that all are major players driving the climate on our planet. Do you deny that my statement is true?

So many misconceptions.

1) Malaria doesn't NEED a warm to spread. It's simply a matter of civilized areas being able to eradicate the mosquitos.. Can't eradicate a JUNGLE of mosquitoes. But you could in Turkey where they are seeing some cases now.

10,000,000 MALARIA CASES IN RUSSIA - Large Numbers of Petrograd Factories Closed-Many of OthersWork for Army. - View Article - NYTimes.com

Petrograd is downright tropical right??

2) Tornadoes do not need tropical warmth. It ENCOURAGES formation, but you can get tornadoes in the Pac NW down to N. Calif.
Only tornado I've ever been in was in a KOA campground in Walla Walla Wash.. I was in the shower and holding onto the plumbing while trees came thru the windows.. Sad day -- a brand new 'Vette was flattened by a tree..

3) No I don't deny that PDO, AMO, and all those otther cyclical NATURAL cycles contribute.. But like I said --- there is no statistical evidence of increased formation/power of hurricanes for example.. IN FACT, I think they are underrated because we dont analyze the CONVERGENCE of several of those coinciding..

IMPORTANT POINT of this --- before we got sidetracked --- You tossed out that ORAS4 OceanHeating study........

Here's the deal -- I take back what I said about that study changing the "Climate Change" argument from GLobal Surface warming to Ocean driven climate.. After further considered thought and review --- FlaCalTenn doesn't think that a fractional degree of heating found at 700m depth is gonna matter one IOTA to the "Climate Change" hysteria..

ANY contribution to Climate Change weather disasters (the current modus operandi) from DEEP ocean heating is non-existant. It's Ocean SURFACE temp that matters. And THAT measurement is ALREADY INCLUDED in that Global Mean Surf. Temp number. All those Joules do at depth --- is to charge the thermal battery of the ocean so that capacity is almost imperceptively elevated.

I think it's noble that Trenberth is learning science as he goes. But rolling that "new found heating" at 700m into the SURFACE temp analysis is a misguided and desparate to drive the media and the public into accepting an excuse for the failure of their 1st 2 theories..

Tell me how that "hidden heat" is gonna have ANY effect on weather unless you can measure a diff at the SURFACE...

 

[mamooth]

Funny thing about the statistics of instrument errors.. If you have one instrument, you can do miraculous things picking out gems of untarnished data.. However -- if you rely on 10,000 of them and they not only have their own limits of measurement but a nasty inability to agree --- THEN -- your confidence level of measurement FOR THE ARRAY OF 10K of THEM becomes your "instrument error" and DOES represent the hard limit of confidence in the data.

That's not right. It's not even "wrong". It would have to improve a lot before it reached the level of "wrong".

 

[mamooth]

Explain to the class how a physical process will work in one year and not in another. Be very precise...

The mechanism at play is called "CaCO3 compensation".

Carbonates weather from the land and run into the ocean, buffering and maintaining a stable pH. However, this process takes somewhere on the scale of 10k years to have an effect.

In the past, the CO2 rise happened more slowly than over 10k years, so the ocean maintained a stable pH, even when CO2 levels were much higher.

Currently, we are spiking CO2 in a span of decades instead of 10k years. The ocean can't compensate fast enough, so pH drops.

 

[flacaltenn]

Funny thing about the statistics of instrument errors.. If you have one instrument, you can do miraculous things picking out gems of untarnished data.. However -- if you rely on 10,000 of them and they not only have their own limits of measurement but a nasty inability to agree --- THEN -- your confidence level of measurement FOR THE ARRAY OF 10K of THEM becomes your "instrument error" and DOES represent the hard limit of confidence in the data.

That's not right. It's not even "wrong". It would have to improve a lot before it reached the level of "wrong".

When you can show how the sensor error bar does NOT go up on a massive spatially distributed array of individual sensors (not redundantly placed) when you are reducing that data set by several different parameters (like depth and time) in the presence of differential sensor aging, fluidic laminar effects on temperature measurement and over the entire range of measurement --- we can chat.

 

[flacaltenn]

Explain to the class how a physical process will work in one year and not in another. Be very precise...

The mechanism at play is called "CaCO3 compensation".

Carbonates weather from the land and run into the ocean, buffering and maintaining a stable pH. However, this process takes somewhere on the scale of 10k years to have an effect.

In the past, the CO2 rise happened more slowly than over 10k years, so the ocean maintained a stable pH, even when CO2 levels were much higher.

Currently, we are spiking CO2 in a span of decades instead of 10k years. The ocean can't compensate fast enough, so pH drops.

And that HUMONGEOUS Co2 spiking they you and I are causing now --- IS IT MORE SEVERE than releasing fresh glacial and Arctic ice water at a PH of 7.0 causing the oceans to rise 100 feet in a relatively short period? (back THEN, of course)

COULD THAT be CAUSE for an extinction party?? Maybe somewhere in that is one of those ocean-based extinctions... The FRESH water did it......


Remember -- by the scary standards of AGW science we've raised the ocean's acidity by 30%.. But fortunately for the log scale --- pure fresh IceBergs are something like 7000% more acidic than typical ocean water..

 

[orogenicman]

Explain to the class how a physical process will work in one year and not in another. Be very precise...

http://www.cas.umt.edu/geosciences//faculty/stanley/stanley_files/Earth-Sci Rev Art 03-1.pdf

Scleractinians are a group of calcified anthozoan corals, many of which populate shallow-water tropical to subtropical reefs. Most of these corals calcify rapidly and their success on reefs is related to a symbiotic association with zooxanthellae. These one-celled algal symbionts live in the endodermal tissues of their coral host and are thought responsible for promoting rapid calcification. The evolutionary significance of this symbiosis and the implications it holds for explaining the success of corals is of paramount importance. Scleractinia stands out as one of the few orders of calcified metazoans that arose in Triassic time, long after a greater proliferation of calcified metazoan orders in the Paleozoic. The origin of this coral group, so important in reefs of today, has remained an unsolved problem in paleontology. The idea that Scleractinia evolved from older Paleozoic rugose corals that somehow survived the Permian mass extinction persists among some schools of thought. Paleozoic scleractiniamorphs also have been presented as possible ancestors. The paleontological record shows the first appearance of fossils currently classified within the order Scleractinia to be in the Middle Triassic. These earliest Scleractinia provide a picture of unexpectedly robust taxonomic diversity and high colony integration. Results from molecular biology support a polyphyletic evolution for living Scleractinia and the molecular clock, calibrated against the fossil record, suggests that two major groups of ancestors could extend back to late Paleozoic time. The idea that Scleractinia were derived from soft-bodied, ‘‘anemone-like’’ ancestors that survived the Permian mass extinction, has become a widely considered hypothesis. The 14-million year Mesozoic coral gap stands as a fundamental obstacle to verification of many of these ideas. However, this obstacle is not a barrier for derivation of scleractinians from anemone-like, soft-bodied ancestors. The hypothesis of the ephemeral, ‘‘naked coral’’, presents the greatest potential for solution of the enigma of the origin of scleractinians. It states that different groups of soft-bodied, unrelated ‘‘anemone-like’’ anthozoans gave rise to various calcified scleractinian-like corals through aragonitic biomineralization. Although there is evidence for this phenomenon being more universal in the mid-Triassic interval, following a lengthy Early Triassic post-extinction perturbation, it appears to have occurred at least three other times prior to this interval. This idea suggests that, because of ephemeral characteristics, the skeleton does not represent a clade of zoantharian evolution but instead represents a grade of organization. In the fossil record, skeletons may have appeared and disappeared at different times as some clades reverted to soft-bodied existence and these phenomena could account for notable gaps in the taxonomic and fossil record. A fuller understanding and possible solution to the problem of the origin of modern corals may be forthcoming. However, it will require synthesis of diverse kinds of data and an integration of findings from paleobiology, stratigraphy, molecular biology, carbonate geochemistry, biochemistry and invertebrate physiology.

What all this means is that we are uncertain of the origin of modern octacorals. They are not at all like Paleozoic hexacorals (every single species of which are extinct) that existed when the CO2 concentrations were so high. And they didn't evolve in a world with such high CO2 concentrations, because by then, the terrestrial and oceanic flora population had made a sizable dent in those concentrations. Certainly the corals that exist today do no exhibit any tolerance of anomalous water parameters. They have evolved to thrive under very specific water quality parameters, outside of which they simply cast off their symbiotic zooxanthellae and die.

And yet, when exposed to acidic water levels higher than they could ever experience in the real world that doesn't happen

I don't know where you get the idea that that is true, but I raised corals in reef aquariums for over 20 years, and studied them for even longer, and it is unmistakably true that hard corals do not survive in water outside the very narrow pH and other parameters, as I said previously. There is no question that you don't know what you are talking about. This is an issue about which I am intimately familiar, first hand, as is everyone else who has ever studied these organisms in detail and raised them.

That said, some soft corals and anemone are slightly more forgiving of conditions, but NOT hard corals.

Coral Reefs: Acidification Impacts

Ocean Acidification Network

Effects of Ocean Acidification on Corals

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf

 

[orogenicman]

Explain to the class how a physical process will work in one year and not in another. Be very precise...

The mechanism at play is called "CaCO3 compensation".

Carbonates weather from the land and run into the ocean, buffering and maintaining a stable pH. However, this process takes somewhere on the scale of 10k years to have an effect.

In the past, the CO2 rise happened more slowly than over 10k years, so the ocean maintained a stable pH, even when CO2 levels were much higher.

Currently, we are spiking CO2 in a span of decades instead of 10k years. The ocean can't compensate fast enough, so pH drops.

And that HUMONGEOUS Co2 spiking they you and I are causing now --- IS IT MORE SEVERE than releasing fresh glacial and Arctic ice water at a PH of 7.0 causing the oceans to rise 100 feet in a relatively short period? (back THEN, of course)

COULD THAT be CAUSE for an extinction party?? Maybe somewhere in that is one of those ocean-based extinctions... The FRESH water did it......


Remember -- by the scary standards of AGW science we've raised the ocean's acidity by 30%.. But fortunately for the log scale --- pure fresh IceBergs are something like 7000% more acidic than typical ocean water..

There are no coral reefs in the arctic, (coral reefs only occur 20 degrees north and south of the equator) so the melting of glaciers and arctic sea ice cannot affect them.

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.cas.umt.edu/geosciences//faculty/stanley/stanley_files/Earth-Sci Rev Art 03-1.pdf



What all this means is that we are uncertain of the origin of modern octacorals. They are not at all like Paleozoic hexacorals (every single species of which are extinct) that existed when the CO2 concentrations were so high. And they didn't evolve in a world with such high CO2 concentrations, because by then, the terrestrial and oceanic flora population had made a sizable dent in those concentrations. Certainly the corals that exist today do no exhibit any tolerance of anomalous water parameters. They have evolved to thrive under very specific water quality parameters, outside of which they simply cast off their symbiotic zooxanthellae and die.

And yet, when exposed to acidic water levels higher than they could ever experience in the real world that doesn't happen

I don't know where you get the idea that that is true, but I raised corals in reef aquariums for over 20 years, and studied them for even longer, and it is unmistakably true that hard corals do not survive in water outside the very narrow pH and other parameters, as I said previously. There is no question that you don't know what you are talking about. This is an issue about which I am intimately familiar, first hand, as is everyone else who has ever studied these organisms in detail and raised them.

That said, some soft corals and anemone are slightly more forgiving of conditions, but NOT hard corals.

Coral Reefs: Acidification Impacts

Ocean Acidification Network

Effects of Ocean Acidification on Corals

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf

What is the daily and seasonal RANGE of PH on a shallow tropical reef? And now -- WHAT is the current change in "average" ocean PH due our massive poisoning??

 

[flacaltenn]

The mechanism at play is called "CaCO3 compensation".

Carbonates weather from the land and run into the ocean, buffering and maintaining a stable pH. However, this process takes somewhere on the scale of 10k years to have an effect.

In the past, the CO2 rise happened more slowly than over 10k years, so the ocean maintained a stable pH, even when CO2 levels were much higher.

Currently, we are spiking CO2 in a span of decades instead of 10k years. The ocean can't compensate fast enough, so pH drops.

And that HUMONGEOUS Co2 spiking they you and I are causing now --- IS IT MORE SEVERE than releasing fresh glacial and Arctic ice water at a PH of 7.0 causing the oceans to rise 100 feet in a relatively short period? (back THEN, of course)

COULD THAT be CAUSE for an extinction party?? Maybe somewhere in that is one of those ocean-based extinctions... The FRESH water did it......


Remember -- by the scary standards of AGW science we've raised the ocean's acidity by 30%.. But fortunately for the log scale --- pure fresh IceBergs are something like 7000% more acidic than typical ocean water..

There are no coral reefs in the arctic, (coral reefs only occur 20 degrees north and south of the equator) so the melting of glaciers and arctic sea ice cannot affect them.

I don't care about JUST coral reefs.. All that HIGHLY acidic fresh water is raising the freakin sea level according to AGW hype.. Assume it homogenizes.. PH = 7.0

7000% more acidic than sea water.. You telling me that's not contributing?

GIGATONS of ice melting --- compare the effects.

 

[westwall]

Explain to the class how a physical process will work in one year and not in another. Be very precise...

The mechanism at play is called "CaCO3 compensation".

Carbonates weather from the land and run into the ocean, buffering and maintaining a stable pH. However, this process takes somewhere on the scale of 10k years to have an effect.

In the past, the CO2 rise happened more slowly than over 10k years, so the ocean maintained a stable pH, even when CO2 levels were much higher.

Currently, we are spiking CO2 in a span of decades instead of 10k years. The ocean can't compensate fast enough, so pH drops.

The rate of increase in CO2 has no bearing in the creation of CaCO3. It either is created or not created, it doesn't take a set amount of time to occur.

 

[westwall]

And that HUMONGEOUS Co2 spiking they you and I are causing now --- IS IT MORE SEVERE than releasing fresh glacial and Arctic ice water at a PH of 7.0 causing the oceans to rise 100 feet in a relatively short period? (back THEN, of course)

COULD THAT be CAUSE for an extinction party?? Maybe somewhere in that is one of those ocean-based extinctions... The FRESH water did it......


Remember -- by the scary standards of AGW science we've raised the ocean's acidity by 30%.. But fortunately for the log scale --- pure fresh IceBergs are something like 7000% more acidic than typical ocean water..

There are no coral reefs in the arctic, (coral reefs only occur 20 degrees north and south of the equator) so the melting of glaciers and arctic sea ice cannot affect them.

I don't care about JUST coral reefs.. All that HIGHLY acidic fresh water is raising the freakin sea level according to AGW hype.. Assume it homogenizes.. PH = 7.0

7000% more acidic than sea water.. You telling me that's not contributing?

GIGATONS of ice melting --- compare the effects.

Notice how he's avoiding the malaria nonsense?

 

[orogenicman]

There are no coral reefs in the arctic, (coral reefs only occur 20 degrees north and south of the equator) so the melting of glaciers and arctic sea ice cannot affect them.

I don't care about JUST coral reefs.. All that HIGHLY acidic fresh water is raising the freakin sea level according to AGW hype.. Assume it homogenizes.. PH = 7.0

7000% more acidic than sea water.. You telling me that's not contributing?

GIGATONS of ice melting --- compare the effects.

Notice how he's avoiding the malaria nonsense?

I'm still waiting for you to explain what it has to do with coral reefs, the acidification of the ocean, or the fact of global climate change.

 

[orogenicman]

Explain to the class how a physical process will work in one year and not in another. Be very precise...

The mechanism at play is called "CaCO3 compensation".

Carbonates weather from the land and run into the ocean, buffering and maintaining a stable pH. However, this process takes somewhere on the scale of 10k years to have an effect.

In the past, the CO2 rise happened more slowly than over 10k years, so the ocean maintained a stable pH, even when CO2 levels were much higher.

Currently, we are spiking CO2 in a span of decades instead of 10k years. The ocean can't compensate fast enough, so pH drops.

The rate of increase in CO2 has no bearing in the creation of CaCO3. It either is created or not created, it doesn't take a set amount of time to occur.

Actually, it has everything to do with the generation of CaCO3 (calcium carbonate). Moreover, it is critical for whether or not calcareous organisms can survive in a lowered pH environment.

 

[orogenicman]

Ocean Acidification - Ischia on Vimeo