Oceans have acidified more in the last 200 years than they did in the previous 21000

[Old Rocks]

:: SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, UC SAN DIEGO : RESEARCH : OCEAN ACIDIFICATION :::

New Science for an Emerging Threat:
Ocean Acidification Research at Scripps Oceanography
It is well established among researchers that the uptake of increased amounts of carbon dioxide will make ocean water more acidic as the gas dissolves to create carbonic acid. Ocean chemistry is changing 100 times more rapidly than in the 650,000 years that preceded the modern industrial era and since the late 1980s, researchers at Scripps Oceanography and others have recorded an overall drop in the pH of the oceans from 8.16 to 8.05.

This increased acidity can hamper the ability of a wide variety of marine organisms ranging from coral to abalone to form calcium carbonate shells and skeletonal structures. Researchers believe that at crucial stages in the larval and juvenile stages in the lives of many marine invertebrates, ocean acidification inhibits calcification, and also appears to affect reproduction and growth in some organisms.

Scripps Oceanography is emerging as an international center of ocean acidification research. Late Scripps geochemist Charles David Keeling is best known for his famous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations known as the Keeling Curve, but he also started the first time series of ocean carbon dioxide content in 1983 near Bermuda. Scripps marine chemist Andrew Dickson established the reference standards that are used worldwide to ensure the uniform quality of carbon and alkalinity measurements in sewater. Such uniform, high-quality data has been key to helping scientists around the world recognize and understand the nature of ocean acidification.

 

[Old Rocks]

:: SCRIPPS OCEANOGRAPHY NEWS : : Comprehensive Study Makes Key Findings of Ocean pH Variations ::

FOR RELEASE ON Monday, December 19, 2011 02:00 PM PST

Monday, December 19, 2011

Comprehensive Study Makes Key Findings of Ocean pH Variations

Some organisms already experiencing ocean acidification levels not predicted to be reached until 2100

Scripps Institution of Oceanography / University of California, San Diego
A group of 19 scientists from five research organizations have conducted the broadest field study of ocean acidification to date using sensors developed at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.
The study, "High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison," is reported in today's issue of the journal PLoS One. It is an important step toward understanding how specific ecosystems are responding to the change in seawater chemistry that is being caused as the oceans take up extra carbon dioxide produced by human greenhouse gas emissions, said its authors.
"These data represent a critical step in understanding the consequences of ocean change: the linkage of present-day pH exposures to organismal tolerance and how this translates into ecological change in marine ecosystems," the authors wrote. "These pH time series create a compelling argument for the collection of more continuous data of this kind."
Ocean acidification research is a relatively new study topic as scientists have only appreciated the potential extent of acidification within the last decade. As greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated in the past century, the oceans have taken up about a third of the carbon dioxide produced by human activities. That excess beyond natural levels increases amounts of carbonic acid in seawater. Acidification also limits the amount of carbonate forms that are needed by marine invertebrates such as coral and shelled organisms to form their skeletons.
Though many lab simulations of this effect have been performed recently, including at a new acidification laboratory in development at Scripps, there have been few comparable field studies. Using sensors recently developed at Scripps, the researchers surveyed marine ecosystems ranging from coral reefs in the South Pacific Ocean to volcanic CO2 vent communities in the Mediterranean Sea.



Map depicting locations of pH sensor deployments
They found that in some places, such as Antarctica and the Line Islands of the south Pacific, the range of pH variance is much more limited than in areas of the California coast subject to large vertical movements of water known as upwellings. In some of their study areas, they found that the decrease in seawater pH being caused by greenhouse gas emissions is still within the bounds of natural pH fluctuation. Some areas already experience daily acidity levels that scientists had expected would only be reached at the end of the 21st Century.

 

[skookerasbil]

And we can expect your presentation at the annual AGU conferance this year? Or perhaps you are going to publish in the Royal Societies Philosophical Transactions? When can we expect a scholarly refutation of AGW from you, Walleyes?

Ray........they dont allow any presentations if they dont conform with the annointed view. Those people at the UN Conferences never allow any science that runs counter of what they want to convey.

In Mexico in 2010, a scientist with volumes of evidence on the growing polar bear population was not allowed to present, "You're out!!" they told him. And this is science

One of the main reasons for the demise of the AGW narrative is the highly suspicious nature of what has become a closed society of scientists........have lost much of their credibility...........100% certainty. That Al Gore refuses to debate anybody lends itself to a perception of a scam. Its the exact same thing as a car salesman not allowing you to see a CARFAX. Im reasonably sure that every single one of the AGW absolutists WOULDNT buy the car. People hate double standards.........and in the past several years, the AGW crowd has conveyed a very clear sense that they have a clear agenda. In 2012, its not even debatable anymore...........which is also why the most proveable post on these pages in recent months is mine: "Nobody cares about the science anymore". There is a massive proponderance of evidence on this front, and I have provided dozens of links in recent months...............most from non-partisan media outlets and in many cases, websites that support the AGW movement hook, line and stinker.

The AGW crowd doesnt like to acknowledge it, but perception is everything outside the science.

For such smart guys........the annointed ones ( IPCC) display the IQ of a handball. ( plus, nobody but nobody trusts the UN anymore)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Presentation to the ManMade Global Warming Society

Test of ManMande Global Warming

Flask #1 1000cc Capacity

Sea Water 100cc

Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2]
ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see volume (thermodynamics))
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface


Flask #1 1000cc Capacity

Sea Water 100cc

Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2]
ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see volume (thermodynamics))
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 490 ppmv (0.049%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

 

[RollingThunder]

And we can expect your presentation at the annual AGU conferance this year? Or perhaps you are going to publish in the Royal Societies Philosophical Transactions? When can we expect a scholarly refutation of AGW from you, Walleyes?

I submitted a paper just a few days ago to that conference.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO......

I doubt I'll get an invite.

Well, yeah, they don't usually invite half-witted high-school-dropout retards like you to their conferences.

 

[skookerasbil]

And we can expect your presentation at the annual AGU conferance this year? Or perhaps you are going to publish in the Royal Societies Philosophical Transactions? When can we expect a scholarly refutation of AGW from you, Walleyes?

I submitted a paper just a few days ago to that conference.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO......

I doubt I'll get an invite.

Well, yeah, they don't usually invite half-witted high-school-dropout retards like you to their conferences.

Half-wits still winning s0n...........and now up to almost 15 weeks since my request for a SINGLE link. Harry is making you look bad here s0n.........




Sun Down On Green Energy
Politics / Renewable EnergyFeb 01, 2012 - 12:23 PM
By: Andrew_McKillop

The message nailed high on the greasy pole of Great Causes, by small and failing politicians in the 2006-2010 period was that green energy transition is urgent because climate catastrophe is certain unless we cut CO2 emissions by huge amounts, fast. Behind the scenes and off the teleprompters, the real concern of oil at $130 a barrel (the Goldman Sachs nice price for 2012) also powerfully drove the elite stampede for cranking up green energy.

But that was already 2 years ago. Despite record-high autumn and early winter temperatures in most of the Europe and North America, public interest and concern about global warming has plunged. A steady stream of hard-to-ignore reports and studies cast ever rising doubts on the idiot-easy theory that only CO2 causes global warming, and only global warming causes climate change. At the same time, green energy has failed to produce enough energy to cause any real change in consumer society oil habits, and has been ruthlessly used as a financial gimmick for quick profits.









http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article32933.html



ANd for good measure..............."Renewables are a Scam" >>>>>>>

Renewable energy a scam whose time is passed | The Kennebec Journal, Augusta, ME




L O S I N G

 

[skookerasbil]

Whoknew???

 

[saveliberty]

Easily attributable to increased volcanic activity in the last two hundred years. I am increasingly concerned about the rate of retardation by faithers!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can anyone show us in a lab how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere "Acidifies the oceans"?

 

[Old Rocks]

Easily attributable to increased volcanic activity in the last two hundred years. I am increasingly concerned about the rate of retardation by faithers!

Links?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Easily attributable to increased volcanic activity in the last two hundred years. I am increasingly concerned about the rate of retardation by faithers!

Links?

Can anyone show us in a lab how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere "Acidifies the oceans"?

anyone?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zyjLyBp64]Bueller Bueller Bueller - YouTube[/ame]

 

[saveliberty]

Easily attributable to increased volcanic activity in the last two hundred years. I am increasingly concerned about the rate of retardation by faithers!

Links?

I got this retard right here.

 

[konradv]

Easily attributable to increased volcanic activity in the last two hundred years. I am increasingly concerned about the rate of retardation by faithers!

Links?

Can anyone show us in a lab how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere "Acidifies the oceans"?

anyone?

It's actually a 35%. To claim 0.01% is like saying the dosage of a pill includes all the inactive ingredients.

 

[konradv]

Easily attributable to increased volcanic activity in the last two hundred years. I am increasingly concerned about the rate of retardation by faithers!

We don't think so.

Global Volcanism Program | Frequently Asked Questions | Has volcanic activity been increasing?

 

[konradv]

Easily attributable to increased volcanic activity in the last two hundred years. I am increasingly concerned about the rate of retardation by faithers!

We don't think so.

Global Volcanism Program | Frequently Asked Questions | Has volcanic activity been increasing?

However, increased volcanism could explain the blunting of the rise in temps some are reporting.

 

[saveliberty]

Just ignore all those lava flows folks. lol

Methane from ice caps bad. Methane from volcaneos good. lol

 

[RollingThunder]

Easily attributable to increased volcanic activity in the last two hundred years. I am increasingly concerned about the rate of retardation by faithers!

Links?

I...retard...here.

Got that right!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Links?

Can anyone show us in a lab how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere "Acidifies the oceans"?

anyone?

It's actually a 35%. To claim 0.01% is like saying the dosage of a pill includes all the inactive ingredients.

35%? Really? Do you know what PPM Stands for?

 

[westwall]

Can anyone show us in a lab how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere "Acidifies the oceans"?

anyone?

It's actually a 35%. To claim 0.01% is like saying the dosage of a pill includes all the inactive ingredients.

35%? Really? Do you know what PPM Stands for?

No. konny doesn't "do" math.

 

[RollingThunder]

Can anyone show us in a lab how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere "Acidifies the oceans"?

anyone?

It's actually a 35%. To claim 0.01% is like saying the dosage of a pill includes all the inactive ingredients.

35%? Really? Do you know what PPM Stands for?

Do you know what "% change" means? Obviously not, you clueless retard.

CO2 levels haven't gone above 280ppm in hundreds of thousands of years and now mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 392ppm (and still rising rapidly) which is an almost 40% "change".

Because you're an ignorant brainwashed retard, you obsess over meaningless numbers. If I give you a 1 gram pill that is 99.9999% inert and only contains a slightly sub-lethal dose of a shellfish toxin (that has a lethal dose measured in micrograms) and a second pill with 40% more of that toxin, the difference may be extremely minuscule but it is still between something that will kill you and something that won't. The difference is a 40% increase in the active ingredient. In terms of the greenhouse effect, the only gases in the atmosphere that matter are the ones that absorb outgoing infrared radiation, like CO2 and water vapor. It is the "% change" in the 'active ingredients' that makes a difference, not the "% change" of the active ingredients relative to all of the inert stuff.