Ocean Acidification Takes Another Hit

[Old Rocks]

Still waiting though. Does ANYONE out there agree that 120 ppm CO2 is statistically insignficant or that it is below the resolution of instruments used to measure it? Does anyone else out there believe we can't actually detect 120 ppm change in CO2 level? Does anyone else out there think a 40% change in CO2 is "statistically insignificant"? Anyone?

Your a moron.. Please do the math. At 26 deg C, under 1000mb pressure, and concentration of 400ppm in the near surface, How much absorption of CO2 into the water will occur in a 24 hr period?

Average salinity of the water? What microbes are present? what other factors will increase or decrease absorption?

Crick, the amount absorbed is directly correlated to air movement, ambient air temp, water temp and waves. As this is different all over the world, the rates are different. You keep trying to make CO2 something its not. IN a static experiment as I indicated above there was no measurable dissolved CO2. At 26 Deg C CO2 uptake is immeasurable and if there was CO2 in the fluid, it would expand and rise to the surface. 120 ppm is insignificant except to plants that use it to grow.

immeasurable
Syllabification: im·meas·ur·a·ble
Pronunciation: /i(m)ˈmeZH(ə)rəb(ə)l /
ADJECTIVE
large, extensive, or extreme to measure:immeasurable suffering

Now Billy Boob, you had better stick to words of no more than two syllables. For your immeasurable stupidity is surely showing.

 

[Crick]

A 40% increase in a trace gas to which the climate is not sensitive is insignificant in so far as any discussion of the climate is concerned.

It's not as if I expected you to suddenly gain basic intelligence. But listen up. All the gases in our atmosphere dissolve in the ocean. The amount that you'd find in solution when equilibrium is reached is dependent on two things: the temperature of the ocean and the partial pressure of the gas above the ocean. Increasing the ocean's temperature decreases solubility. Increasing partial pressure increases solubility. Both terms: temperature and partial pressure - are treated linearly in the van 't Hoff equation. The decreasing solubility caused by the minute increase in temperature that has taken place in the world's oceans in the last 150 years is outweighed by more than two orders of magnitude by the increase in CO2 partial pressure. And since CO2 reacts with water to form H2CO3, even larger amounts of gas than the idealized equations would indicate, can dissolve into water under any given circumstances.

The increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are causing the world's oceans to grow more acidic. Arguing otherwise is simple stupidity.

You started with point A. You've demonstrated point Z. But you still want us to take for granted B through Y.

You either don't know what you're talking about or choose to speak as if that were the case. Not particularly indicative of that superior intellect you claim.

 

[Crick]

Still waiting though. Does ANYONE out there agree that 120 ppm CO2 is statistically insignficant or that it is below the resolution of instruments used to measure it? Does anyone else out there believe we can't actually detect 120 ppm change in CO2 level? Does anyone else out there think a 40% change in CO2 is "statistically insignificant"? Anyone?

Your a moron.. Please do the math. At 26 deg C, under 1000mb pressure, and concentration of 400ppm in the near surface, How much absorption of CO2 into the water will occur in a 24 hr period?

Average salinity of the water? What microbes are present? what other factors will increase or decrease absorption?

Crick, the amount absorbed is directly correlated to air movement, ambient air temp, water temp and waves. As this is different all over the world, the rates are different. You keep trying to make CO2 something its not. IN a static experiment as I indicated above there was no measurable dissolved CO2. At 26 Deg C CO2 uptake is immeasurable and if there was CO2 in the fluid, it would expand and rise to the surface. 120 ppm is insignificant except to plants that use it to grow.

No dissolved CO2? Would you care to tell us what has decreased the ocean's pH over the last 50 years? Or, for that matter, what all the world's phytoplankton are breathing.

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, Mamooth, they have in the past lambasted the most egrerious of the people making errors. Like what they did to SSo DDumb and his one way photons.

Still waiting for someone to prove the existence of photons...much less which direction they travel.....you got any actual proof that photons exist or is the best you can do is acknowledge that they are an ad hoc construct to describe something that is suspected but not yet known.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting though. Does ANYONE out there agree that 120 ppm CO2 is statistically insignficant or that it is below the resolution of instruments used to measure it? Does anyone else out there believe we can't actually detect 120 ppm change in CO2 level? Does anyone else out there think a 40% change in CO2 is "statistically insignificant"? Anyone?

Your a moron.. Please do the math. At 26 deg C, under 1000mb pressure, and concentration of 400ppm in the near surface, How much absorption of CO2 into the water will occur in a 24 hr period?

Average salinity of the water? What microbes are present? what other factors will increase or decrease absorption?

Crick, the amount absorbed is directly correlated to air movement, ambient air temp, water temp and waves. As this is different all over the world, the rates are different. You keep trying to make CO2 something its not. IN a static experiment as I indicated above there was no measurable dissolved CO2. At 26 Deg C CO2 uptake is immeasurable and if there was CO2 in the fluid, it would expand and rise to the surface. 120 ppm is insignificant except to plants that use it to grow.

You didn't really expect any sort of actual response from them did you? They believe in magic...not science.

 

[Crick]

Okay, god are you both stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still waiting though. Does ANYONE out there agree that 120 ppm CO2 is statistically insignficant or that it is below the resolution of instruments used to measure it? Does anyone else out there believe we can't actually detect 120 ppm change in CO2 level? Does anyone else out there think a 40% change in CO2 is "statistically insignificant"? Anyone?

Your a moron.. Please do the math. At 26 deg C, under 1000mb pressure, and concentration of 400ppm in the near surface, How much absorption of CO2 into the water will occur in a 24 hr period?

Average salinity of the water? What microbes are present? what other factors will increase or decrease absorption?

Crick, the amount absorbed is directly correlated to air movement, ambient air temp, water temp and waves. As this is different all over the world, the rates are different. You keep trying to make CO2 something its not. IN a static experiment as I indicated above there was no measurable dissolved CO2. At 26 Deg C CO2 uptake is immeasurable and if there was CO2 in the fluid, it would expand and rise to the surface. 120 ppm is insignificant except to plants that use it to grow.

No dissolved CO2? Would you care to tell us what has decreased the ocean's pH over the last 50 years? Or, for that matter, what all the world's phytoplankton are breathing.

God are you stupid.

Absent any easily reproduced lab work, we conclude that your bogus measurements are the cause of the decrease

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

Easily reproduced lab work? Drop a bolt into a bottle of coke and let us know what happens to it.

[url="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880"]BBC News - Science chief warns on acid oceans[/rl]

Sir Mark Walport warns that the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 25% since the industrial revolution, mainly thanks to manmade emissions.

He said the current rate of acidification is believed to be unprecedented within the last 65 million years - and may threaten fisheries in future.

Until now studies have identified species with calcium-based shells as most in danger from changing chemistry.

But researchers in Exeter have found that other creatures will also be affected because as acidity increases it creates conditions for animals to take up more coastal pollutants like copper.

The lugworm study was published in Environmental Science and Technology. Another study from Dr Lewis not yet peer-reviewed suggests that sea urchins are also harmed by uptake of copper. This adds to the damage they will suffer from increasing acidity as it takes them more and more energy to calcify their shells and spines.

This is significant because sea urchins, which can live up to 100 years, are a keystone species - grazing algae off rocks that would otherwise be covered in green slime.

Sir Mark Jeremy Walport, FRS, FRCP, FRCPath, FMedSci (born 25 January 1953[1][6]), is a medical scientist and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser in the United Kingdom.[4][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

He was educated at St Paul's School, London,[1] studied medicine at the University of Cambridge (Clare College) and completed his clinical training at Hammersmith, Guy's and Brompton Hospitals in London.[6][14] He was awarded a PhD for research into complement receptors under the supervision of Peter Lachmann in 1986 at the University of Cambridge.[15]

So, you guys know your chemistry and physics better than the British government's Chief Scientific Advisor?[/URL]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Easily reproduced lab work? Drop a bolt into a bottle of coke and let us know what happens to it.

BBC News - Science chief warns on acid oceans[/rl]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']Sir Mark Walport warns that the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 25% since the industrial revolution, mainly thanks to manmade emissions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']He said the current rate of acidification is believed to be unprecedented within the last 65 million years - and may threaten fisheries in future.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']Until now studies have identified species with calcium-based shells as most in danger from changing chemistry.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']But researchers in Exeter have found that other creatures will also be affected because as acidity increases it creates conditions for animals to take up more coastal pollutants like copper.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']The lugworm study was published in Environmental Science and Technology. Another study from Dr Lewis not yet peer-reviewed suggests that sea urchins are also harmed by uptake of copper. This adds to the damage they will suffer from increasing acidity as it takes them more and more energy to calcify their shells and spines.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']This is significant because sea urchins, which can live up to 100 years, are a keystone species - grazing algae off rocks that would otherwise be covered in green slime.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']Sir Mark Jeremy Walport, FRS, FRCP, FRCPath, FMedSci (born 25 January 1953[1][6]), is a medical scientist and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser in the United Kingdom.[4][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']He was educated at St Paul's School, London,[1] studied medicine at the University of Cambridge (Clare College) and completed his clinical training at Hammersmith, Guy's and Brompton Hospitals in London.[6][14] He was awarded a PhD for research into complement receptors under the supervision of Peter Lachmann in 1986 at the University of Cambridge.[15]
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29746880']So, you guys know your chemistry and physics better than the British government's Chief Scientific Advisor?

And the paper was shredded by about 500 different scientists and scientific disciplines. A lot has changed since 1988 in the understanding of the oceans and how the carbon cycle works in them. BUT this particular article reenforces the CAGW myth and is why you chose to post it rather than prove your assertion.

The acid rain from years ago has already been cycled back into the earth and vegetation recovered.

 

[Old Rocks]

Billy Boob, you claim 500, and show not one. You are a liar. Period. As well as really stupid. In fact, you are either an adolescent, or somewhat retarded, judging by your missuse of words and lack of understanding of the most basic of science.

 

[Crick]

And the paper was shredded by about 500 different scientists and scientific disciplines.

What paper? This was the UK governnment's chief science advisor talking to the press. So, pretty obviously it wasn't "shredded" by anyone. So, where'd you get the idea that it had been "shredded by about 500 different scientists and scientific disciplines"? ! ? ! Did you just make that up? You did. You lie more than anyone here. I think you lie more than anyone I've ever met. Proud?

A lot has changed since 1988 in the understanding of the oceans and how the carbon cycle works in them.

What are you babbling about? The date on Walport's comments is 24 October 2014. So, where the fuck do you get 1988?

BUT this particular article reenforces the CAGW myth and is why you chose to post it rather than prove your assertion.

No one proves anything in the natural sciences. Your demand that I do so just tells us that you're fucking clueless. And what we've been discussing here isn't my assertion, it's the well established understanding of mainstream science: of thousands of scientists every one of which has more brains in their little toe than you could summon in your entire being.

The acid rain from years ago has already been cycled back into the earth and vegetation recovered.

Acid rain? ! ? !

My god, your stupidity beggars the imagination.