It's the Sun

[westwall]

Now just who is stating that the sun is only responsible for 30% of the surface temperature of the Earth? Methinks you just created a strawman, noting that you did not link to any source for your statement.

Interesting proxies, although most articles I have seen on the Younger Dryas put the blame on an influx of freshwater that shut down the normal oceanic circulation.

In either case, what does this have to do with the present situation, where we have a decline in solar flux and a continueing increase in the global temperature?

I don’t believe that is the ‘current’ situation though. It appears that was the situation last decade but now…

Where has the warming gone?

That is the core problem with AGW, it cannot make predictions. I don’t disregard the data but it is really meaningless as far as making policy if the only prediction that can be made is that we will either all be dead in 50 years or we won’t notice anything has changed.

Even if you set aside AGW, the acidification of the oceans due to billions of tons per year of CO2 being released into the atmosphere will ensure that we will notice. It's already happening.

Ah yes, the final attempt by the desperate. Acidification is a non starter. If we were able to put every bit of carbon from the terrestrial region into the aquatic the pH of the oceans would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 and the last time I checked that is....oh, what the hell do they call that???>>>>>>Oh yeah..ALKALINE!. You can NEVER make the oceans acidic....it is physically impossible.

 

[westwall]

You said nothing about radiative forcing. You said solar activity, and sunspots certainly are an important measure of solar activity.

Here is what you are looking for:

And this one:

Solar activity over the past 11,000 years.

So no, the sun is not responsible for the current global warming.

Actually, yes it is. You have no empirical data to support what you say...none at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

You said nothing about radiative forcing. You said solar activity, and sunspots certainly are an important measure of solar activity.

Here is what you are looking for:

And this one:

Solar activity over the past 11,000 years.

So no, the sun is not responsible for the current global warming.

You seem like an intelligient person --- but you read and accept the most absolute SUCKIEST crap without critical thinking..

What MORONS would plot TSI --- when you're looking for a 1.8W/M2 forcing on a vertical axis graph scaled to 60W/m2?

Oh Oh.. Can I ANSWER THAT???

Morons who want to convince the gullible non-technical folks that there couldn't POSSIBLY be anything there to look at... AND PURPOSELY HIDE the real amount of solar forcing that has occurred..

Yeah -- I know where it came from.. I also know the IPCC pulls the same sunspot number shit out of their asses and LIES about the solar forcing since 1760. Those are things I'm 100% certain about.

My plot of SORCE/TIM Total Solar Insolation stands.. And so do my comments.. THIS is the change in solar forcing since 1700..
We are looking to explain about 1.8 or 2.0W/m2 INCREASE.. I think H.S. Sophomore physicists would get this..

 

[polarbear]

Did you pull that out of your own asshole or from one of the blogs that spoon feed idiots like you ?
There are now over 3000 argo float sensors that have been gathering data which clearly shows that the oceans have not been warming up :


Let me google that for you

You are citing a climategate e-mail as your evidence? REALLY? Wow, how desperate is that?

Let me help you:

Here's the deal when you are dealing with a scientist. If it can't be measured....it ain't real. Your graphs are really nice and would make excellent toilet paper because that's about how useful they are.

The reality is that in the real world you seldom get even close to a 100% efficient DESIRED energy conversion even in systems that employ the latest and best technology we have. Large bodies of water like our oceans are no exception.
It`s utter nonsense to claim that water converts whatever amount of solar energy (or CO2 IR "back radiation") it receives into heat, as in increasing temperature by the equivalent amount...(as all these climate models do, that use data that has not even even been properly verified ).
The same laws of physics apply for solar radiation and water regardless if we are talking about an ocean, a lake or a swimming pool.
My pool is 12 feet across and only 4 feet deep, because it`s for my grand kids. For that reason I also don`t chlorinate it, but prefer to drain it every 2 weeks and fill it with fresh water rather than relying on the the filtration system etc to keep it clean.
My tap water is 13 C and it always takes more than 3 days in July or August till the 13 000 liters are at 17 or 18 degrees.
According to the tables which are published here ( http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi) I should get 3 to 4 Kilowatt hours per day per m^2 .
If all of that would be converted into heat my pool should warm 3 degrees per day instead of just 4 degrees in 3 days...not even considering that the night time temperatures were not below 17 degrees which might have cooled the water.
The only time you get closer to the theoretical temperature increase per time with a given amount of watts is with an electrical immersion heater in a well insulated hot water tank...which is a far cry from open ocean water.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are citing a climategate e-mail as your evidence? REALLY? Wow, how desperate is that?

Let me help you:

Here's the deal when you are dealing with a scientist. If it can't be measured....it ain't real. Your graphs are really nice and would make excellent toilet paper because that's about how useful they are.

The reality is that in the real world you seldom get even close to a 100% efficient DESIRED energy conversion even in systems that employ the latest and best technology we have. Large bodies of water like our oceans are no exception.
It`s utter nonsense to claim that water converts whatever amount of solar energy (or CO2 IR "back radiation") it receives into heat, as in increasing temperature by the equivalent amount...(as all these climate models do, that use data that has not even even been properly verified ).
The same laws of physics apply for solar radiation and water regardless if we are talking about an ocean, a lake or a swimming pool.
My pool is 12 feet across and only 4 feet deep, because it`s for my grand kids. For that reason I also don`t chlorinate it, but prefer to drain it every 2 weeks and fill it with fresh water rather than relying on the the filtration system etc to keep it clean.
My tap water is 13 C and it always takes more than 3 days in July or August till the 13 000 liters are at 17 or 18 degrees.
According to the tables which are published here ( http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi) I should get 3 to 4 Kilowatt hours per day per m^2 .
If all of that would be converted into heat my pool should warm 3 degrees per day instead of just 4 degrees in 3 days...not even considering that the night time temperatures were not below 17 degrees which might have cooled the water.
The only time you get closer to the theoretical temperature increase per time with a given amount of watts is with an electrical immersion heater in a well insulated hot water tank...which is a far cry from open ocean water.

Just a head's up PolarBear.. In some parts of the lower 48, tossing your grandkids into an 18degC pool is considered child abuse..

 

[FA_Q2]

You are citing a climategate e-mail as your evidence? REALLY? Wow, how desperate is that?

Let me help you:

Here's the deal when you are dealing with a scientist. If it can't be measured....it ain't real. Your graphs are really nice and would make excellent toilet paper because that's about how useful they are.

The reality is that in the real world you seldom get even close to a 100% efficient DESIRED energy conversion even in systems that employ the latest and best technology we have. Large bodies of water like our oceans are no exception.
It`s utter nonsense to claim that water converts whatever amount of solar energy (or CO2 IR "back radiation") it receives into heat, as in increasing temperature by the equivalent amount...(as all these climate models do, that use data that has not even even been properly verified ).
The same laws of physics apply for solar radiation and water regardless if we are talking about an ocean, a lake or a swimming pool.
My pool is 12 feet across and only 4 feet deep, because it`s for my grand kids. For that reason I also don`t chlorinate it, but prefer to drain it every 2 weeks and fill it with fresh water rather than relying on the the filtration system etc to keep it clean.
My tap water is 13 C and it always takes more than 3 days in July or August till the 13 000 liters are at 17 or 18 degrees.
According to the tables which are published here ( http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi) I should get 3 to 4 Kilowatt hours per day per m^2 .
If all of that would be converted into heat my pool should warm 3 degrees per day instead of just 4 degrees in 3 days...not even considering that the night time temperatures were not below 17 degrees which might have cooled the water.
The only time you get closer to the theoretical temperature increase per time with a given amount of watts is with an electrical immersion heater in a well insulated hot water tank...which is a far cry from open ocean water.

I don’t see how that really applies though considering that the earth is a closed system in that regard. Other than the heat that we radiate back to space, we lose nothing in that conversion. What you are essentially talking about with your pool is an effect of other environmental functions taking away some of that efficiency. The earth, taken as a whole, does not really have that effect.

 

[Abraham3]

As that graph shows, the entire ocean - all strata - have been warming rapidly since about 2002. Odd that should happen just when the atmosphere's warming takes a hiatus. And IanC, there is something else that can penetrate the ocean and carry thermal energy into the deep a great deal more efficiently and go a great deal deeper than sunlight: warm seawater.

Note also the very significant knockdowns the heating trends take from El Chichon, Pinatubo and the 97-98 El Nino. Given that those data represent over 90% of the world's heating... I most certainly wouldn't be as cocky about things as you folks seem to be.

 

[polarbear]

Just a head's up PolarBear.. In some parts of the lower 48, tossing your grandkids into an 18degC pool is considered child abuse..

Is it?
I guess in California they would also fine me for dumping out all that water instead of filtering it. When 4 feet of water was over the boys heads I had a smaller pool, but even then these buggers never waited for it to warm up no matter what I said.

With the 12 foot & 4 foot deep pool it takes pretty well 1 whole week with solar and ambient heat before I want to jump in.
That`s why I`m currently building a 2 cubic meter out-door garbage incinerator with a liquid heat exchanger. It`ll heat the pool in the summer and my house during the winter...and also will be able to get rid of all that packaging material garbage that comes with each shopping trip.
I have a wood stove which managed to keep up with getting rid of all that crap during the winter and turn my whole house into a sauna at the same time.
But that was when you could still buy small items that were not encased in several square feet of plastic....as is the case now.
I pity my friends that live in town. They have to buy "garbage coupons" which entitles them to leave 2 garbage bags per week for curb side pick-up Burning garbage in town is totally "verboten"...even in Canada (!)
No wonder there are "plastic islands" the size of Greenland in the ocean.

As it stands right now, my incinerator is already totally "booked" out by the towns people that know me and I have to get cracking as soon as I finished all the welding and brick-work.
Where I live I don`t need any permits whatsoever. There was a time when (some) people got overly suspicious when Germans built ovens with man sized hatches, but times have changed. Today the shoe is on the other foot,.. and I could counter "that`s racial profiling".

 

[Abraham3]

What sort of temperatures are you shooting for?

 

[Abraham3]

Polar Bear, have you ever read the text below? It's the abstract to the work by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalllen from which that graph of ocean temperatures comes.

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the
ocean’srole in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the
time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observationalbased reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp
cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the
recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last
decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700m, contributing significantly to an
acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700m remains even when the Argo
observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments
illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical
distribution.

Up above, you showed us a pretty picture of lots and lots of ARGO buoys. What you didn't show us was their data. It would seem from the highlighted comment in the abstract, that the ARGO data shows the ocean is warming, even MORE strongly than this ORAS4 reanalysis.

 

[orogenicman]

You are citing a climategate e-mail as your evidence? REALLY? Wow, how desperate is that?

Let me help you:

Here's the deal when you are dealing with a scientist. If it can't be measured....it ain't real. Your graphs are really nice and would make excellent toilet paper because that's about how useful they are.

The reality is that in the real world you seldom get even close to a 100% efficient DESIRED energy conversion even in systems that employ the latest and best technology we have. Large bodies of water like our oceans are no exception.
It`s utter nonsense to claim that water converts whatever amount of solar energy (or CO2 IR "back radiation") it receives into heat, as in increasing temperature by the equivalent amount...(as all these climate models do, that use data that has not even even been properly verified ).
The same laws of physics apply for solar radiation and water regardless if we are talking about an ocean, a lake or a swimming pool.
My pool is 12 feet across and only 4 feet deep, because it`s for my grand kids. For that reason I also don`t chlorinate it, but prefer to drain it every 2 weeks and fill it with fresh water rather than relying on the the filtration system etc to keep it clean.
My tap water is 13 C and it always takes more than 3 days in July or August till the 13 000 liters are at 17 or 18 degrees.
According to the tables which are published here ( http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi) I should get 3 to 4 Kilowatt hours per day per m^2 .
If all of that would be converted into heat my pool should warm 3 degrees per day instead of just 4 degrees in 3 days...not even considering that the night time temperatures were not below 17 degrees which might have cooled the water.
The only time you get closer to the theoretical temperature increase per time with a given amount of watts is with an electrical immersion heater in a well insulated hot water tank...which is a far cry from open ocean water.

You don't get the efficiency from solar heating your pool that you would like because you pool is not a closed system. The wind is blowing across the surface, and so the evaporation is cooling the water even as the sun warms it. The same is true of the ocean with the difference that when that heat gets deeper in the ocean, there is no wind to cool it, so the heat remains trapped at depth, and recent measurements are showing that the heat is not only getting trapped, it is accumulating, so deep ocean temperatures are rising. By the way, if you place a solar cover on your pool, the water will heat up much faster because the sun is heating the cover AND the cover is mitigating evaporation from the wind blowing across the water.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don’t believe that is the ‘current’ situation though. It appears that was the situation last decade but now…

Where has the warming gone?

That is the core problem with AGW, it cannot make predictions. I don’t disregard the data but it is really meaningless as far as making policy if the only prediction that can be made is that we will either all be dead in 50 years or we won’t notice anything has changed.

Even if you set aside AGW, the acidification of the oceans due to billions of tons per year of CO2 being released into the atmosphere will ensure that we will notice. It's already happening.

From what I have read, we have an astounding 75 year time horizon before that acidification has any real impact on the ecology.

That does not justify the hysteria one iota. Further, damaging the economy to the extent that many of the alarmists calls for would not help un in that case. We need a strong economy to fund the research and the infrastructure that will be required to deal with this problem if we are ever to do so.

Another fact is that rising economies like China are not going to take this problem on and that is a fact. Sure, they pay a lot of lip service to it BUT when it comes down to actions, they are severely lacking. We cannot control the worlds CO2 emissions.

"From what I have read", then no link to anything you have read. Bullshit statement.

Damaging the economy in what way? Another bullshit statement with nothing at all to back it up.

Interesting, the rising economies are actually investing a bigger percentage of the income in alternatives than we are.

But, back to what you have read on ocean acidification. Here is what real scientists write on that subject;

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes

Abstract

Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 414–432. Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is altering the seawater chemistry of the world’s oceans with consequences for marine biota. Elevated partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is causing the calcium carbonate saturation horizon to shoal in many regions, particularly in high latitudes and regions that intersect with pronounced hypoxic zones. The ability of marine animals, most importantly pteropod molluscs, foraminifera, and some benthic invertebrates, to produce calcareous skeletal structures is directly affected by seawater CO2 chemistry. CO2 influences the physiology of marine organisms as well through acid-base imbalance and reduced oxygen transport capacity. The few studies at relevant pCO2 levels impede our ability to predict future impacts on foodweb dynamics and other ecosystem processes. Here we present new observations, review available data, and identify priorities for future research, based on regions, ecosystems, taxa, and physiological processes believed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification. We conclude that ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other anthropogenic stressors provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems.

 

[Old Rocks]

Growth in China Wind Energy Production Exceeds Coal For First Time Ever | The Energy Collective

By Li Shuo

Amid all the news about coal and pollution problems in China you might have missed this one: According to new statistics from the China Electricity Council, China’s wind power production actually increased more than coal power production for the first time ever in 2012.

Thermal power use, which is predominantly coal, grew by only about 0.3 percent in China during 2012, an addition of roughly 12 terawatt hours (TWh) more electricity. In contrast, wind power production expanded by about 26 TWh. This rapid expansion brings the total amount of wind power production in China to 100 TWh, surpassing China’s 98 TWh of nuclear power. The biggest increase, however, occurred in hydro power, where output grew by 196 TWh, bringing total hydro production to 864 TWh, due favorable conditions for hydro last year and increased hydro capacity. In addition, the growth of power consumption slowed down — in Chinese terms a modest increase of 5.5 percent — influenced by slower economic growth, and possibly the energy use targets for provinces set by the Chinese central government.

 

[orogenicman]

Growth in China Wind Energy Production Exceeds Coal For First Time Ever | The Energy Collective

By Li Shuo

Amid all the news about coal and pollution problems in China you might have missed this one: According to new statistics from the China Electricity Council, China’s wind power production actually increased more than coal power production for the first time ever in 2012.

Thermal power use, which is predominantly coal, grew by only about 0.3 percent in China during 2012, an addition of roughly 12 terawatt hours (TWh) more electricity. In contrast, wind power production expanded by about 26 TWh. This rapid expansion brings the total amount of wind power production in China to 100 TWh, surpassing China’s 98 TWh of nuclear power. The biggest increase, however, occurred in hydro power, where output grew by 196 TWh, bringing total hydro production to 864 TWh, due favorable conditions for hydro last year and increased hydro capacity. In addition, the growth of power consumption slowed down — in Chinese terms a modest increase of 5.5 percent — influenced by slower economic growth, and possibly the energy use targets for provinces set by the Chinese central government.

What's more, China last year installed ten times the amount of solar power production than the U.S. did. We are following in this field, not leading it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Growth in China Wind Energy Production Exceeds Coal For First Time Ever | The Energy Collective

By Li Shuo

Amid all the news about coal and pollution problems in China you might have missed this one: According to new statistics from the China Electricity Council, China’s wind power production actually increased more than coal power production for the first time ever in 2012.

Thermal power use, which is predominantly coal, grew by only about 0.3 percent in China during 2012, an addition of roughly 12 terawatt hours (TWh) more electricity. In contrast, wind power production expanded by about 26 TWh. This rapid expansion brings the total amount of wind power production in China to 100 TWh, surpassing China’s 98 TWh of nuclear power. The biggest increase, however, occurred in hydro power, where output grew by 196 TWh, bringing total hydro production to 864 TWh, due favorable conditions for hydro last year and increased hydro capacity. In addition, the growth of power consumption slowed down — in Chinese terms a modest increase of 5.5 percent — influenced by slower economic growth, and possibly the energy use targets for provinces set by the Chinese central government.

You windmill happy folks miss an important point on this China story.. CHINA is willing to build out a GW of coal or something else BEFORE they install the wind generation.. The wind generation is merely a SUPPLEMENT. You NEED a primary generation capacity increase to JUSTIFY even toying with wind power..

See the problem is China is BUILDING an economy.. Our Dirt People in charge of our shriveling economy are trying to LOWER our energy generation profile..

 

[flacaltenn]

Even if you set aside AGW, the acidification of the oceans due to billions of tons per year of CO2 being released into the atmosphere will ensure that we will notice. It's already happening.

From what I have read, we have an astounding 75 year time horizon before that acidification has any real impact on the ecology.

That does not justify the hysteria one iota. Further, damaging the economy to the extent that many of the alarmists calls for would not help un in that case. We need a strong economy to fund the research and the infrastructure that will be required to deal with this problem if we are ever to do so.

Another fact is that rising economies like China are not going to take this problem on and that is a fact. Sure, they pay a lot of lip service to it BUT when it comes down to actions, they are severely lacking. We cannot control the worlds CO2 emissions.

"From what I have read", then no link to anything you have read. Bullshit statement.

Damaging the economy in what way? Another bullshit statement with nothing at all to back it up.

Interesting, the rising economies are actually investing a bigger percentage of the income in alternatives than we are.

But, back to what you have read on ocean acidification. Here is what real scientists write on that subject;

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes

Abstract

Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 414–432. Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is altering the seawater chemistry of the world’s oceans with consequences for marine biota. Elevated partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is causing the calcium carbonate saturation horizon to shoal in many regions, particularly in high latitudes and regions that intersect with pronounced hypoxic zones. The ability of marine animals, most importantly pteropod molluscs, foraminifera, and some benthic invertebrates, to produce calcareous skeletal structures is directly affected by seawater CO2 chemistry. CO2 influences the physiology of marine organisms as well through acid-base imbalance and reduced oxygen transport capacity. The few studies at relevant pCO2 levels impede our ability to predict future impacts on foodweb dynamics and other ecosystem processes. Here we present new observations, review available data, and identify priorities for future research, based on regions, ecosystems, taxa, and physiological processes believed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification. We conclude that ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other anthropogenic stressors provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems.

Yeah Yeah.. That was written 5 yrs BEFORE NOAA attempted to kill baby oysters with 20X the pCO2 projected for 2100 and failed miserably.. Actually made stronger oysters.

 

[flacaltenn]

Polar Bear, have you ever read the text below? It's the abstract to the work by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalllen from which that graph of ocean temperatures comes.

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the
ocean’srole in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the
time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observationalbased reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp
cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the
recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last
decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700m, contributing significantly to an
acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700m remains even when the Argo
observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments
illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical
distribution.

Up above, you showed us a pretty picture of lots and lots of ARGO buoys. What you didn't show us was their data. It would seem from the highlighted comment in the abstract, that the ARGO data shows the ocean is warming, even MORE strongly than this ORAS4 reanalysis.

I think it's a good sign that Trenberth is suddenly using the RIGHT UNITS for an energy diagram. His famous 1st whack at the problem showing us a POWER -- and not an ENERGY diagram illustrates just how much the science wasn't settled. Now that he's using Joules instead of watt/m2 (someone in the engineering dept probably mocked him for that) --- we have a quandry with his NEW results..

1) The agreed power anomaly from CO2 heating is the backradiation given by 1.6W/M2 of additional radiative forcing that's been added to that component of the energy diagram.

2) The silly original Trenberth diagram doesn't know if it's day or night or summer or winter or water or forest or asphalt. So there is NO STATEMENT of the relative ability to actually store energy.. (Want to know why I became a skeptic?)

3) Now that climate jockeys are learning enough science, we have to use the assumption that EVERY meter2 of the surface GETS the 1.6W/m2 of additional CO2 forcing equally. (actually this forcing could just as well be solar or any other -- but these jerks are fixated.

4) So his NEW revelation is that the ocean ends up STORING 93% of this additional energy over time. Leaving only 7% for land and atmos.. I serious doubt that divide..

WHY? Because according the ORIGINAL Trenberth (power not energy) diagram, there was something like 320W/m2 coming down from back radiation and the NET SUM flow UP was something like 70W/m2 escaping the atmos. The oceans ARE 70% of the earth's surface, but to retain 93% of the heat from backradiation makes the heat retention capabilities of the land and atmos miniscule in comparision.. (haven't done the math -- but I intend to)

So of the 70W/M2 that escaping --- most all of that must be radiating from land and atmos --- not the seas. My math intuition says that the 93% fails miserably because of the relative heat sinking and storage abilities. OR --- the atmos is leakier than the original Trenberth diagram shows..

Keep it up -- in 20 years ---- Climate Science COULD BECOME a hard science..

 

[orogenicman]

From what I have read, we have an astounding 75 year time horizon before that acidification has any real impact on the ecology.

That does not justify the hysteria one iota. Further, damaging the economy to the extent that many of the alarmists calls for would not help un in that case. We need a strong economy to fund the research and the infrastructure that will be required to deal with this problem if we are ever to do so.

Another fact is that rising economies like China are not going to take this problem on and that is a fact. Sure, they pay a lot of lip service to it BUT when it comes down to actions, they are severely lacking. We cannot control the worlds CO2 emissions.

"From what I have read", then no link to anything you have read. Bullshit statement.

Damaging the economy in what way? Another bullshit statement with nothing at all to back it up.

Interesting, the rising economies are actually investing a bigger percentage of the income in alternatives than we are.

But, back to what you have read on ocean acidification. Here is what real scientists write on that subject;

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes

Abstract

Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 414–432. Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is altering the seawater chemistry of the world’s oceans with consequences for marine biota. Elevated partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is causing the calcium carbonate saturation horizon to shoal in many regions, particularly in high latitudes and regions that intersect with pronounced hypoxic zones. The ability of marine animals, most importantly pteropod molluscs, foraminifera, and some benthic invertebrates, to produce calcareous skeletal structures is directly affected by seawater CO2 chemistry. CO2 influences the physiology of marine organisms as well through acid-base imbalance and reduced oxygen transport capacity. The few studies at relevant pCO2 levels impede our ability to predict future impacts on foodweb dynamics and other ecosystem processes. Here we present new observations, review available data, and identify priorities for future research, based on regions, ecosystems, taxa, and physiological processes believed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification. We conclude that ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other anthropogenic stressors provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems.

Yeah Yeah.. That was written 5 yrs BEFORE NOAA attempted to kill baby oysters with 20X the pCO2 projected for 2100 and failed miserably.. Actually made stronger oysters.

Since that would mean they did that this year (2008 + 5 years), do you have their published paper on hand, because I certainly would like to see how they managed that and not turn the shells into mush? (this should be interesting).

 

[orogenicman]

Growth in China Wind Energy Production Exceeds Coal For First Time Ever | The Energy Collective

By Li Shuo

Amid all the news about coal and pollution problems in China you might have missed this one: According to new statistics from the China Electricity Council, China’s wind power production actually increased more than coal power production for the first time ever in 2012.

Thermal power use, which is predominantly coal, grew by only about 0.3 percent in China during 2012, an addition of roughly 12 terawatt hours (TWh) more electricity. In contrast, wind power production expanded by about 26 TWh. This rapid expansion brings the total amount of wind power production in China to 100 TWh, surpassing China’s 98 TWh of nuclear power. The biggest increase, however, occurred in hydro power, where output grew by 196 TWh, bringing total hydro production to 864 TWh, due favorable conditions for hydro last year and increased hydro capacity. In addition, the growth of power consumption slowed down — in Chinese terms a modest increase of 5.5 percent — influenced by slower economic growth, and possibly the energy use targets for provinces set by the Chinese central government.

You windmill happy folks miss an important point on this China story.. CHINA is willing to build out a GW of coal or something else BEFORE they install the wind generation.. The wind generation is merely a SUPPLEMENT. You NEED a primary generation capacity increase to JUSTIFY even toying with wind power..

See the problem is China is BUILDING an economy.. Our Dirt People in charge of our shriveling economy are trying to LOWER our energy generation profile..

Given that China has enough money to play around with alternate energy sources, and are actually doing so, I'd say your argument is a lot of manure.

 

[flacaltenn]

"From what I have read", then no link to anything you have read. Bullshit statement.

Damaging the economy in what way? Another bullshit statement with nothing at all to back it up.

Interesting, the rising economies are actually investing a bigger percentage of the income in alternatives than we are.

But, back to what you have read on ocean acidification. Here is what real scientists write on that subject;

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes

Abstract

Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 414–432. Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is altering the seawater chemistry of the world’s oceans with consequences for marine biota. Elevated partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is causing the calcium carbonate saturation horizon to shoal in many regions, particularly in high latitudes and regions that intersect with pronounced hypoxic zones. The ability of marine animals, most importantly pteropod molluscs, foraminifera, and some benthic invertebrates, to produce calcareous skeletal structures is directly affected by seawater CO2 chemistry. CO2 influences the physiology of marine organisms as well through acid-base imbalance and reduced oxygen transport capacity. The few studies at relevant pCO2 levels impede our ability to predict future impacts on foodweb dynamics and other ecosystem processes. Here we present new observations, review available data, and identify priorities for future research, based on regions, ecosystems, taxa, and physiological processes believed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification. We conclude that ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other anthropogenic stressors provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems.

Yeah Yeah.. That was written 5 yrs BEFORE NOAA attempted to kill baby oysters with 20X the pCO2 projected for 2100 and failed miserably.. Actually made stronger oysters.

Since that would mean they did that this year (2008 + 5 years), do you have their published paper on hand, because I certainly would like to see how they managed that and not turn the shells into mush? (this should be interesting).

Here's the thread ----- http://www.usmessageboard.com/5592008-post1.html

Hope you find this as hysterically funny as I did.. Up to 2000ppm mind you --- and no mushy shells.... (I was off a year)

PLEASE --- bump THAT thread --- if you want to argue about it.. Let's not do Oysters here..