Ocean acidification

[westwall]

gslack sez:
LOL and this is an example of dancing even after the music has stopped.....

Well if I can't use the past as a a template than neither can your side if we use your own logic....

I don't use the past as a template for the future. I use present day knowledge and facts. Where do I go past "the advent of the Industrial Revolution" in my logic? THAT'S the important time range, NOT millions of years before humans even walked the earth. Sometime in the future, due to plate tectonics, it may be possible to walk from NYC to London. It hardly bears considering it as a viable transportation mode today, however, and talking about it would be as silly as comparing today's climate to the Cambrian.

konrad,

You might want to take a geology course my friend....London is moving FARTHER away from New York at between 1 and 5 inches per year.

 

[konradv]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

 

[gslack]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

Why look its oldsocks adoring fan.....

 

[Meister]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

I sure would like to see your sources on this one.

 

[westwall]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

No konradv,

We don't know it all and we are quite happy to admit it. The warmers are the only group to have had the temerity to say "the science is settled" so who is claiming to know it all? Certainly not us. What we demand is an unpolluted scientific process that is not contaminated by people who have a massive financial interest in their brand of science being the only brand of science. Can you not see that?

 

[gslack]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

Ya know I have read that over like 4-5 times now, and I cannot for the life me get where the little idiot got that crap from or what the hell he is talking about.......

he talks in circles and says nothing.... i think he is high 90% of the time on here I really do....

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm...... Interesting site that you posted. Did you even bother to read it?

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

What the science says...
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.


Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).

In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo have little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

BLAH BLAH BLAH....Be afraid!!!!! Then end is near.....

Take your sock with ya on your way out...

It was the site that you posted, you dumb peice of shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

Ya know I have read that over like 4-5 times now, and I cannot for the life me get where the little idiot got that crap from or what the hell he is talking about.......

he talks in circles and says nothing.... i think he is high 90% of the time on here I really do....

Oh my, ol' Suckeee..... has once more demonstrated the depth and width of his abysmal ignorance.

Continents in Collision: Pangea Ultima - NASA Science

Continents in Collision: Pangea Ultima
Creeping more slowly than a human fingernail grows, Earth's massive continents are nonetheless on the move.

Listen to this story (requires RealPlayer)

October 6, 2000 -- The Earth is going to be a very different place 250 million years from now.

Africa is going to smash into Europe as Australia migrates north to merge with Asia. Meanwhile the Atlantic Ocean will probably widen for a spell before it reverses course and later disappears.

Two hundred and fifty million years ago the landmasses of Earth were clustered into one supercontinent dubbed Pangea. As Yogi Berra might say, it looks like "deja vu all over again" as the present-day continents slowly converge during the next 250 million years to form another mega-continent: Pangea Ultima.

 

[Old Rocks]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

I sure would like to see your sources on this one.

Dumb ass. A quick google would have answered that question.

 

[Meister]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

I sure would like to see your sources on this one.

Dumb ass. A quick google would have answered that question.

If he makes a statement like that HE should back it up ya dumb fuck. 250 million years we have no idea where the land masses will be, too many intangibles. So shove it up your ass ya fucking communist.

 

[gslack]

Hmmm...... Interesting site that you posted. Did you even bother to read it?

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

What the science says...
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.


Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).

In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo have little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

BLAH BLAH BLAH....Be afraid!!!!! Then end is near.....

Take your sock with ya on your way out...

It was the site that you posted, you dumb peice of shit.

I posted????? Please refresh my memory and show the link to my posting it.... I honestly don't remember it but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.. So link to my posting of it please...

And besides that.... I didn't respond about your article or link, for christs sake all of yours say pretty much the same thing... I was making fun of you doomsayer..

 

[gslack]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

Ya know I have read that over like 4-5 times now, and I cannot for the life me get where the little idiot got that crap from or what the hell he is talking about.......

he talks in circles and says nothing.... i think he is high 90% of the time on here I really do....

Oh my, ol' Suckeee..... has once more demonstrated the depth and width of his abysmal ignorance.

Continents in Collision: Pangea Ultima - NASA Science

Continents in Collision: Pangea Ultima
Creeping more slowly than a human fingernail grows, Earth's massive continents are nonetheless on the move.

Listen to this story (requires RealPlayer)

October 6, 2000 -- The Earth is going to be a very different place 250 million years from now.

Africa is going to smash into Europe as Australia migrates north to merge with Asia. Meanwhile the Atlantic Ocean will probably widen for a spell before it reverses course and later disappears.

Two hundred and fifty million years ago the landmasses of Earth were clustered into one supercontinent dubbed Pangea. As Yogi Berra might say, it looks like "deja vu all over again" as the present-day continents slowly converge during the next 250 million years to form another mega-continent: Pangea Ultima.

Oh tool... I understand the idea just fine... I'm talking about the way he put it and his choice to use it here.. The topic is ocean acidification, plate tectonics and continents moving aren't helping you guys make your case....Got it?

Oh thats right.... yall don't think, you just post....

 

[RollingThunder]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

No konradv,

We don't know it all and we are quite happy to admit it. The warmers are the only group to have had the temerity to say "the science is settled" so who is claiming to know it all? Certainly not us. What we demand is an unpolluted scientific process that is not contaminated by people who have a massive financial interest in their brand of science being the only brand of science. Can you not see that?

LOLOLOLOL. You're entitled to your own delusions, walleyedclown, but you can't have your own facts or your own "brand of science", you flaming retard. Science is science and the observed evidence is the observed evidence. The only "polluted science" here is the pseudo-science of denial pumped out by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign and they are the ones who have a "massive financial interest" in confusing people about the real science. They certainly duped you rightwingretard denier cultists but that is because you're all anti-science, 'faith-based', uneducated, simple-minded cretins who couldn't find your own asses with a road map and a GPS.

 

[gslack]

For now. Isn't that the problem with the deniers? They think they know it all, but don't realize that in this case the movement apart will eventually reverse and the earth's landmasses will coalesce to form Pangea Ultima.

No konradv,

We don't know it all and we are quite happy to admit it. The warmers are the only group to have had the temerity to say "the science is settled" so who is claiming to know it all? Certainly not us. What we demand is an unpolluted scientific process that is not contaminated by people who have a massive financial interest in their brand of science being the only brand of science. Can you not see that?

LOLOLOLOL. You're entitled to your own delusions, walleyedclown, but you can't have your own facts or your own "brand of science", you flaming retard. Science is science and the observed evidence is the observed evidence. The only "polluted science" here is the pseudo-science of denial pumped out by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign and they are the ones who have a "massive financial interest" in confusing people about the real science. They certainly duped you rightwingretard denier cultists but that is because you're all anti-science, 'faith-based', uneducated, simple-minded cretins who couldn't find your own asses with a road map and a GPS.

Why look its the tool back...

Got something else to say about my mother today douchebag? You gonna throw another fit???

LOL

 

[RollingThunder]

No konradv,

We don't know it all and we are quite happy to admit it. The warmers are the only group to have had the temerity to say "the science is settled" so who is claiming to know it all? Certainly not us. What we demand is an unpolluted scientific process that is not contaminated by people who have a massive financial interest in their brand of science being the only brand of science. Can you not see that?

LOLOLOLOL. You're entitled to your own delusions, walleyedclown, but you can't have your own facts or your own "brand of science", you flaming retard. Science is science and the observed evidence is the observed evidence. The only "polluted science" here is the pseudo-science of denial pumped out by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign and they are the ones who have a "massive financial interest" in confusing people about the real science. They certainly duped you rightwingretard denier cultists but that is because you're all anti-science, 'faith-based', uneducated, simple-minded cretins who couldn't find your own asses with both hands, a road map and a GPS.

Why look its the tool back...

Got something else to say about my mother today douchebag? You gonna throw another fit???

You had a mother, g'tard? I thought you were raised by wolves. Retarded wolves.

 

[gslack]

LOLOLOLOL. You're entitled to your own delusions, walleyedclown, but you can't have your own facts or your own "brand of science", you flaming retard. Science is science and the observed evidence is the observed evidence. The only "polluted science" here is the pseudo-science of denial pumped out by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign and they are the ones who have a "massive financial interest" in confusing people about the real science. They certainly duped you rightwingretard denier cultists but that is because you're all anti-science, 'faith-based', uneducated, simple-minded cretins who couldn't find your own asses with both hands, a road map and a GPS.

Why look its the tool back...

Got something else to say about my mother today douchebag? You gonna throw another fit???

You had a mother, g'tard? I thought you were raised by wolves. Retarded wolves.

Only a tool would be proud of insulting someones dead mother.... I didn't go to the mods on that because I know the damage you will do to yourself in here is far greater.... We see how you respond when your called on your bullshit tool...

I have had some really heated debates on here with all kinds of people, you are the very first who went and sunk that low.... Attacking a persons family over a political debate no matter how heated is the kind of thing I would expect from a total POS coward with no game... Glad you didn't disappoint.. And the fact you can remain so smug after doing it shows your moral and ethical code. Or lack there of....

So from now on, you can expect no rest from me on this... I will make it my business to make sure everyone knows what kind of person they are dealing with on here.... Going to be fun being you from now on...

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's some of the latest research on ocean acidification showing some of biologically destructive effects. A decline in natural Dimethylsulfide may have an effect on cloud formation and thus cause an increase in global warming.

Ecosystems Under Threat from Ocean Acidification

ScienceDaily (Mar. 31, 2010) — Acidification of the oceans as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have significant effects on marine ecosystems, according to Michael Maguire presenting at the Society for General Microbiology's spring meeting in Edinburgh.

Postgraduate researcher Mr Maguire, together with colleagues at Newcastle University, performed experiments in which they simulated ocean acidification as predicted by current trends of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The group found that the decrease in ocean pH (increased acidity) resulted in a sharp decline of a biogeochemically important group of bacteria known as the Marine Roseobacter clade. "This is the first time that a highly important bacterial group has been observed to decline in significant numbers with only a modest decrease in pH," said Mr Maguire.

The Marine Roseobacter clade is responsible for breaking down a sulphur compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) that is produced by photosynthesising plankton. This end product is taken up and used by numerous bacteria as an important source of sulphur. A fraction of DMSP is turned into Dimethylsulfide (DMS) -- a naturally occurring gas that influences the Earth's climate. DMS encourages the formation of clouds which reflect solar radiation back into space leading to a cooling of the earth's surface.

Mr Maguire's group hypothesizes that the decline of the Marine Roseobacter clade through ocean acidification may alter the release of DMS into the atmosphere and affect the amount of available sulphur. He believes this will have a significant impact on the ocean's productivity and the overall global climate system. "Ocean acidification will not only have large scale consequences for marine ecosystems but also socio-economical consequences due to changes in fish stocks and erosion of coral reefs," he explained.


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Society for General Microbiology, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Copyright © 1995-2010 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[westwall]

Here's some of the latest research on ocean acidification showing some of biologically destructive effects. A decline in natural Dimethylsulfide may have an effect on cloud formation and thus cause an increase in global warming.

Ecosystems Under Threat from Ocean Acidification

ScienceDaily (Mar. 31, 2010) — Acidification of the oceans as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have significant effects on marine ecosystems, according to Michael Maguire presenting at the Society for General Microbiology's spring meeting in Edinburgh.

Postgraduate researcher Mr Maguire, together with colleagues at Newcastle University, performed experiments in which they simulated ocean acidification as predicted by current trends of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The group found that the decrease in ocean pH (increased acidity) resulted in a sharp decline of a biogeochemically important group of bacteria known as the Marine Roseobacter clade. "This is the first time that a highly important bacterial group has been observed to decline in significant numbers with only a modest decrease in pH," said Mr Maguire.

The Marine Roseobacter clade is responsible for breaking down a sulphur compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) that is produced by photosynthesising plankton. This end product is taken up and used by numerous bacteria as an important source of sulphur. A fraction of DMSP is turned into Dimethylsulfide (DMS) -- a naturally occurring gas that influences the Earth's climate. DMS encourages the formation of clouds which reflect solar radiation back into space leading to a cooling of the earth's surface.

Mr Maguire's group hypothesizes that the decline of the Marine Roseobacter clade through ocean acidification may alter the release of DMS into the atmosphere and affect the amount of available sulphur. He believes this will have a significant impact on the ocean's productivity and the overall global climate system. "Ocean acidification will not only have large scale consequences for marine ecosystems but also socio-economical consequences due to changes in fish stocks and erosion of coral reefs," he explained.


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Society for General Microbiology, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Copyright © 1995-2010 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Hate to tell you trolling blunder but this is a warmist centric site so you may not use it. And I have to agree with gslack, you are probably the lowest form of life I've ever seen on a forum. You owe gslack a heartfelt apology for sinking that low. You won't give it because of the type of creature you are, but you owe it nonetheless.

 

[gslack]

Like my new sig? Nice huh..... Yeah its a link too so click and see it for yourself people.....Best to know aht kind pf person you're dealing with before you bother being decent....

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, dingleberries, peer reviewed journals.

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms : Abstract : Nature

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.