#ourocean2014

[Crick]

in light of the fact that if we were to burn every rock on this planet we could only lower the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 I too am wondering!

Do you have a reference for that "fact"?

As it does not jibe well with points like:

Evidence for carbon addition
Clear evidence for massive addition of 13C-depleted carbon at the onset of the PETM comes from two observations. First, a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition (δ13C) of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous (>130) widespread locations from a range of environments.[5] Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep-sea.

The total mass of carbon injected to the ocean and atmosphere during the PETM remains the source of debate. In theory, it can be estimated from the magnitude of the negative CIE, the amount of carbonate dissolution on the seafloor, or ideally both.[4][16] However, the shift in the δ13C across the PETM depends on the location and the carbon-bearing phase analyzed. In some records of bulk carbonate, it is about 2‰; in some records of terrestrial carbonate or organic matter it exceeds 6‰.[5][17] Carbonate dissolution also varies throughout different ocean basins. It was extreme in parts of the north and central Atlantic Ocean but far less pronounced in the Pacific Ocean[16][18] .[19] With available information, estimates of the carbon addition range from about 2000 to 7000 gigatons.[16][18][19]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Do you think lowering the ocean's pH from 8.1 to 8.0 would dissolve the world's carbonate sediments? I don't. Yet that's precisely what happened during the PETM.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

in light of the fact that if we were to burn every rock on this planet we could only lower the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 I too am wondering!

Do you have a reference for that "fact"?

As it does not jibe well with points like:

Evidence for carbon addition
Clear evidence for massive addition of 13C-depleted carbon at the onset of the PETM comes from two observations. First, a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition (δ13C) of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous (>130) widespread locations from a range of environments.[5] Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep-sea.

The total mass of carbon injected to the ocean and atmosphere during the PETM remains the source of debate. In theory, it can be estimated from the magnitude of the negative CIE, the amount of carbonate dissolution on the seafloor, or ideally both.[4][16] However, the shift in the δ13C across the PETM depends on the location and the carbon-bearing phase analyzed. In some records of bulk carbonate, it is about 2‰; in some records of terrestrial carbonate or organic matter it exceeds 6‰.[5][17] Carbonate dissolution also varies throughout different ocean basins. It was extreme in parts of the north and central Atlantic Ocean but far less pronounced in the Pacific Ocean[16][18] .[19] With available information, estimates of the carbon addition range from about 2000 to 7000 gigatons.[16][18][19]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Do you think lowering the ocean's pH from 8.1 to 8.0 would dissolve the world's carbonate sediments? I don't. Yet that's precisely what happened during the PETM.

Q. How much do we have to reduce CO2 to reverse this Imaginary "Ocean Acidification"?

A. DENIER!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

#justasIthought,noonecaresabouttheplanetthatthey,ironically,dependuponforsurvival

Oh I care about the planet.. That's why I'm pissed that Kerry is giving token testimony on Ocean Science when he should be dealing with 100,000 kids arriving from C. America because they are being told Obama will keep them. Or maybe Syrian and Iraq issues. Or maybe containing Putin, or maybe 22 things that he SHOULD be doing. The conference will be fine without him.

Some of the problems you mention would be more easily dealt with has the crazy right wing in the GOP not gained traction with the crazy base and developed power, Power tends to corrupt, and when motivated by hate, fear and greed, power in the hands of crazies is absolutely dangerous.

How would you assess the Syrian and Iraq "issues". They are examples of failed governments and civil war. Are you a neo con and want to send our kids once again in harms way half-way around the world? Do you believe Kerry and Obama should rattle the sabers in the face of Putin, who seems to be another right wing crazy in the mold of other right wing crazy national leaders, whose history is replete with war and the death of millions?

Remember when Clinton got the "peace dividend"? Then we had a terrorist attack on the WTC and that dividend disappeared as we engaged in an unnecessary war with Iraq, at an off budgeted cost which has created liabilities well into this century, in fact until the last wounded vet dies.

Did you decry the actions of the Sec. of State under President Bush for sabor rattling and then supporting the invasion of Iraq? Maybe if the Bush Administration didn't have an agenda on Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001 the world today would be more stable. I believe so, I believe the act on Sept. 11 was a criminal act, one which all civilized nations who believe in the rule of war would have joined us in the prosecution of terrorists around the world for what they are - criminals; and maybe, had we spent a small percentage of the cost of war on removing the sources of alienation which create terrorists, more innocents would be alive today and the world would be a safer place.

But all of that is hindsight, today we are faced with difficult situations around the world, and sadly, the same lack of intelligent thought and debate exists. We don't learn from history, and we continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

 

[Old Rocks]

How much do we have to reduce CO2 to reverse this Imaginary "Ocean Acidification"?

That's a good question in light of the fact that if we were to burn every rock on this planet we could only lower the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 I too am wondering!

Link? Or is that another 'fact' you have pulled out of your ass?

Ocean Acidification Could Increase 170 Percent by 2100 : Environment : Nature World News

Researchers from the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP) contend that acidification in the world's oceans is poised to rise by as much as 170 percent by the end of the century.
The research group, which studies the phenomenon of global change, is under the umbrella of the International Council of Scientific Unions, a large coordinating body of national science organizations.
The IGPB reports that marine ecosystems and biodiversity are likely to change as the oceans acidify, and the consequences, many of which are economic, could ripple throughout society. Some of the impacts the research group suggests could happen are a decline in the shellfish industry and the degradation of coral reefs, which are often big draws for tourism.

 

[jc456]

in light of the fact that if we were to burn every rock on this planet we could only lower the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 I too am wondering!

Do you have a reference for that "fact"?

As it does not jibe well with points like:

Evidence for carbon addition
Clear evidence for massive addition of 13C-depleted carbon at the onset of the PETM comes from two observations. First, a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition (δ13C) of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous (>130) widespread locations from a range of environments.[5] Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep-sea.

The total mass of carbon injected to the ocean and atmosphere during the PETM remains the source of debate. In theory, it can be estimated from the magnitude of the negative CIE, the amount of carbonate dissolution on the seafloor, or ideally both.[4][16] However, the shift in the δ13C across the PETM depends on the location and the carbon-bearing phase analyzed. In some records of bulk carbonate, it is about 2‰; in some records of terrestrial carbonate or organic matter it exceeds 6‰.[5][17] Carbonate dissolution also varies throughout different ocean basins. It was extreme in parts of the north and central Atlantic Ocean but far less pronounced in the Pacific Ocean[16][18] .[19] With available information, estimates of the carbon addition range from about 2000 to 7000 gigatons.[16][18][19]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Do you think lowering the ocean's pH from 8.1 to 8.0 would dissolve the world's carbonate sediments? I don't. Yet that's precisely what happened during the PETM.

So, not being a scientist myself, I read things like this and go hmmmmmm. If there were acid issues in the ocean due to some influence by man, why wouldn't it be equal in all of the oceans? I'm just saying, this just doesn't seem to state consistancy to me. Can you explain why it isn't the same in each of the oceans if the cause is all the same? I mean water is water right?

 

[Dot Com]

Leonardo DiCaprio Loves the Oceans, Makes $7 Million Pledge

 

[Old Rocks]

in light of the fact that if we were to burn every rock on this planet we could only lower the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 I too am wondering!

Do you have a reference for that "fact"?

As it does not jibe well with points like:

Evidence for carbon addition
Clear evidence for massive addition of 13C-depleted carbon at the onset of the PETM comes from two observations. First, a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition (δ13C) of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous (>130) widespread locations from a range of environments.[5] Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep-sea.

The total mass of carbon injected to the ocean and atmosphere during the PETM remains the source of debate. In theory, it can be estimated from the magnitude of the negative CIE, the amount of carbonate dissolution on the seafloor, or ideally both.[4][16] However, the shift in the δ13C across the PETM depends on the location and the carbon-bearing phase analyzed. In some records of bulk carbonate, it is about 2‰; in some records of terrestrial carbonate or organic matter it exceeds 6‰.[5][17] Carbonate dissolution also varies throughout different ocean basins. It was extreme in parts of the north and central Atlantic Ocean but far less pronounced in the Pacific Ocean[16][18] .[19] With available information, estimates of the carbon addition range from about 2000 to 7000 gigatons.[16][18][19]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Do you think lowering the ocean's pH from 8.1 to 8.0 would dissolve the world's carbonate sediments? I don't. Yet that's precisely what happened during the PETM.

So, not being a scientist myself, I read things like this and go hmmmmmm. If there were acid issues in the ocean due to some influence by man, why wouldn't it be equal in all of the oceans? I'm just saying, this just doesn't seem to state consistancy to me. Can you explain why it isn't the same in each of the oceans if the cause is all the same? I mean water is water right?

So, not being a scientist, perhaps you should take the time to see what the scientists are really saying concerning scientfic issues. You have the greatest instrument of research ever invented sitting right in front of you. Use it.

 

[jc456]

Do you have a reference for that "fact"?

As it does not jibe well with points like:

Evidence for carbon addition
Clear evidence for massive addition of 13C-depleted carbon at the onset of the PETM comes from two observations. First, a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition (δ13C) of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous (>130) widespread locations from a range of environments.[5] Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep-sea.

The total mass of carbon injected to the ocean and atmosphere during the PETM remains the source of debate. In theory, it can be estimated from the magnitude of the negative CIE, the amount of carbonate dissolution on the seafloor, or ideally both.[4][16] However, the shift in the δ13C across the PETM depends on the location and the carbon-bearing phase analyzed. In some records of bulk carbonate, it is about 2‰; in some records of terrestrial carbonate or organic matter it exceeds 6‰.[5][17] Carbonate dissolution also varies throughout different ocean basins. It was extreme in parts of the north and central Atlantic Ocean but far less pronounced in the Pacific Ocean[16][18] .[19] With available information, estimates of the carbon addition range from about 2000 to 7000 gigatons.[16][18][19]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Do you think lowering the ocean's pH from 8.1 to 8.0 would dissolve the world's carbonate sediments? I don't. Yet that's precisely what happened during the PETM.

So, not being a scientist myself, I read things like this and go hmmmmmm. If there were acid issues in the ocean due to some influence by man, why wouldn't it be equal in all of the oceans? I'm just saying, this just doesn't seem to state consistancy to me. Can you explain why it isn't the same in each of the oceans if the cause is all the same? I mean water is water right?

So, not being a scientist, perhaps you should take the time to see what the scientists are really saying concerning scientfic issues. You have the greatest instrument of research ever invented sitting right in front of you. Use it.

I didn't say I didn't know how to think and look at things logically. I do, and I ask questions. So far there have been no answers to the question. So if there is no answer than I don't trust the data? I want proof, not just because you posted it. Naw.......

BTW, are you a scientist? If so, you should perhaps look for a different career.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, not being a scientist myself, I read things like this and go hmmmmmm. If there were acid issues in the ocean due to some influence by man, why wouldn't it be equal in all of the oceans? I'm just saying, this just doesn't seem to state consistancy to me. Can you explain why it isn't the same in each of the oceans if the cause is all the same? I mean water is water right?

So, not being a scientist, perhaps you should take the time to see what the scientists are really saying concerning scientfic issues. You have the greatest instrument of research ever invented sitting right in front of you. Use it.

I didn't say I didn't know how to think and look at things logically. I do, and I ask questions. So far there have been no answers to the question. So if there is no answer than I don't trust the data? I want proof, not just because you posted it. Naw.......

BTW, are you a scientist? If so, you should perhaps look for a different career.

I see absolutely no proof that you can think logically. No, you do not ask questions, you posit answers, and then want to know why we don't agree with you.

You have been given sites posted by the leading scientists in the world. You have been presented with the conclusions of all the Scientific Societies in the world. Yet you state that you disagree with all of these, but give no reasons, and no evidence for your opinions. In a debate, that is a sure loss.

 

[jc456]

So, not being a scientist, perhaps you should take the time to see what the scientists are really saying concerning scientfic issues. You have the greatest instrument of research ever invented sitting right in front of you. Use it.

I didn't say I didn't know how to think and look at things logically. I do, and I ask questions. So far there have been no answers to the question. So if there is no answer than I don't trust the data? I want proof, not just because you posted it. Naw.......

BTW, are you a scientist? If so, you should perhaps look for a different career.

I see absolutely no proof that you can think logically. No, you do not ask questions, you posit answers, and then want to know why we don't agree with you.

You have been given sites posted by the leading scientists in the world. You have been presented with the conclusions of all the Scientific Societies in the world. Yet you state that you disagree with all of these, but give no reasons, and no evidence for your opinions. In a debate, that is a sure loss.

dude........dude.....the question I asked is do you have proof that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperature. It's simple mr. rocket scientist. To date, no answer> Dead air.......................................LoSiNg

 

[Crick]

You've become exactly like Kosh with his (answered) demand for data and source code, with which, of course, he hasn't the fainted idea what to do.

 

[flacaltenn]

in light of the fact that if we were to burn every rock on this planet we could only lower the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 I too am wondering!

Do you have a reference for that "fact"?

As it does not jibe well with points like:

Evidence for carbon addition
Clear evidence for massive addition of 13C-depleted carbon at the onset of the PETM comes from two observations. First, a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition (δ13C) of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous (>130) widespread locations from a range of environments.[5] Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep-sea.

The total mass of carbon injected to the ocean and atmosphere during the PETM remains the source of debate. In theory, it can be estimated from the magnitude of the negative CIE, the amount of carbonate dissolution on the seafloor, or ideally both.[4][16] However, the shift in the δ13C across the PETM depends on the location and the carbon-bearing phase analyzed. In some records of bulk carbonate, it is about 2‰; in some records of terrestrial carbonate or organic matter it exceeds 6‰.[5][17] Carbonate dissolution also varies throughout different ocean basins. It was extreme in parts of the north and central Atlantic Ocean but far less pronounced in the Pacific Ocean[16][18] .[19] With available information, estimates of the carbon addition range from about 2000 to 7000 gigatons.[16][18][19]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Do you think lowering the ocean's pH from 8.1 to 8.0 would dissolve the world's carbonate sediments? I don't. Yet that's precisely what happened during the PETM.

So, not being a scientist myself, I read things like this and go hmmmmmm. If there were acid issues in the ocean due to some influence by man, why wouldn't it be equal in all of the oceans? I'm just saying, this just doesn't seem to state consistancy to me. Can you explain why it isn't the same in each of the oceans if the cause is all the same? I mean water is water right?

Instead of the trash talk that you got from GoldiRocks, let's ponder this a bit. The AMOUNT of CO2 that an ocean surface can absorb is dictated by the TEMPERATURE and mixing potential. So colder oceans can perform more CO2 uptake. And since OceanAcidif. is primarily a SURFACE effect, the mixing is also an important diff. In fact, where there is a lot of upwelling of colder waters to the surface -- you will find more CO2 RELEASE back to the atmos. One of BIG reasons why OA is overestimated as a positive GW feedback. Because you cant have warming ocean surfaces and GREATER acidification at the same time..

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you have a reference for that "fact"?

As it does not jibe well with points like:

Evidence for carbon addition
Clear evidence for massive addition of 13C-depleted carbon at the onset of the PETM comes from two observations. First, a prominent negative excursion in the carbon isotope composition (δ13C) of carbon-bearing phases characterizes the PETM in numerous (>130) widespread locations from a range of environments.[5] Second, carbonate dissolution marks the PETM in sections from the deep-sea.

The total mass of carbon injected to the ocean and atmosphere during the PETM remains the source of debate. In theory, it can be estimated from the magnitude of the negative CIE, the amount of carbonate dissolution on the seafloor, or ideally both.[4][16] However, the shift in the δ13C across the PETM depends on the location and the carbon-bearing phase analyzed. In some records of bulk carbonate, it is about 2‰; in some records of terrestrial carbonate or organic matter it exceeds 6‰.[5][17] Carbonate dissolution also varies throughout different ocean basins. It was extreme in parts of the north and central Atlantic Ocean but far less pronounced in the Pacific Ocean[16][18] .[19] With available information, estimates of the carbon addition range from about 2000 to 7000 gigatons.[16][18][19]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Do you think lowering the ocean's pH from 8.1 to 8.0 would dissolve the world's carbonate sediments? I don't. Yet that's precisely what happened during the PETM.

So, not being a scientist myself, I read things like this and go hmmmmmm. If there were acid issues in the ocean due to some influence by man, why wouldn't it be equal in all of the oceans? I'm just saying, this just doesn't seem to state consistancy to me. Can you explain why it isn't the same in each of the oceans if the cause is all the same? I mean water is water right?

Instead of the trash talk that you got from GoldiRocks, let's ponder this a bit. The AMOUNT of CO2 that an ocean surface can absorb is dictated by the TEMPERATURE and mixing potential. So colder oceans can perform more CO2 uptake. And since OceanAcidif. is primarily a SURFACE effect, the mixing is also an important diff. In fact, where there is a lot of upwelling of colder waters to the surface -- you will find more CO2 RELEASE back to the atmos. One of BIG reasons why OA is overestimated as a positive GW feedback. Because you cant have warming ocean surfaces and GREATER acidification at the same time..

And what do real scientists have to say?

Climate change: Ocean acidification amplifies global warming -- ScienceDaily

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), Dr. Katharina Six, Dr. Silvia Kloster, Dr. Tatiana Ilyina, the late Dr. Ernst Maier-Reimer and two co-authors from the US, demonstrate that ocean acidification may amplify global warming through the biogenic production of the marine sulfur component dimethylsulphide (DMS).


It is common knowledge that fossil fuel emissions of CO2 lead to global warming. The ocean, by taking up significant amounts of CO2, lessens the effect of this anthropogenic disturbance. The "price" for storing CO2 is an ongoing decrease of seawater pH (ocean acidification1), a process that is likely to have diverse and harmful impacts on marine biota, food webs, and ecosystems. Until now, however, climate change and ocean acidification have been widely considered as uncoupled consequences of the anthropogenic CO2 perturbation2.
Recently, ocean biologists measured in experiments using seawater enclosures (mesocosms)3 that DMS concentrations were markedly lower in a low-pH environment. When DMS is emitted to the atmosphere it oxidizes to gas phase sulfuric acid, which can form new aerosol particles that impact cloud albedo and, hence, cool Earth's surface. As marine DMS emissions are the largest natural source for atmospheric sulfur, changes in their strength have the potential to notably alter Earth's radiation budget

The oceans are not saturated with CO2 at their present temperatures. Therefore, even as the warm, they can absorb more CO2. And as the absorb more CO2, they become more acidic. Just as the scientists above noted, which leads to many differant consequences.

 

[jc456]

You've become exactly like Kosh with his (answered) demand for data and source code, with which, of course, he hasn't the fainted idea what to do.

You are correct sir.. He and I have questioned to the void and to date you have never aswered the questions.

And, unless I have missed those answers you can simply provide them here. What is the temperature associated wih 120 PPM of CO2? Where is an expirement that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 causes any temperature increase.

Are you a scientist?

 

[flacaltenn]

So, not being a scientist myself, I read things like this and go hmmmmmm. If there were acid issues in the ocean due to some influence by man, why wouldn't it be equal in all of the oceans? I'm just saying, this just doesn't seem to state consistancy to me. Can you explain why it isn't the same in each of the oceans if the cause is all the same? I mean water is water right?

Instead of the trash talk that you got from GoldiRocks, let's ponder this a bit. The AMOUNT of CO2 that an ocean surface can absorb is dictated by the TEMPERATURE and mixing potential. So colder oceans can perform more CO2 uptake. And since OceanAcidif. is primarily a SURFACE effect, the mixing is also an important diff. In fact, where there is a lot of upwelling of colder waters to the surface -- you will find more CO2 RELEASE back to the atmos. One of BIG reasons why OA is overestimated as a positive GW feedback. Because you cant have warming ocean surfaces and GREATER acidification at the same time..

And what do real scientists have to say?

Climate change: Ocean acidification amplifies global warming -- ScienceDaily

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), Dr. Katharina Six, Dr. Silvia Kloster, Dr. Tatiana Ilyina, the late Dr. Ernst Maier-Reimer and two co-authors from the US, demonstrate that ocean acidification may amplify global warming through the biogenic production of the marine sulfur component dimethylsulphide (DMS).


It is common knowledge that fossil fuel emissions of CO2 lead to global warming. The ocean, by taking up significant amounts of CO2, lessens the effect of this anthropogenic disturbance. The "price" for storing CO2 is an ongoing decrease of seawater pH (ocean acidification1), a process that is likely to have diverse and harmful impacts on marine biota, food webs, and ecosystems. Until now, however, climate change and ocean acidification have been widely considered as uncoupled consequences of the anthropogenic CO2 perturbation2.
Recently, ocean biologists measured in experiments using seawater enclosures (mesocosms)3 that DMS concentrations were markedly lower in a low-pH environment. When DMS is emitted to the atmosphere it oxidizes to gas phase sulfuric acid, which can form new aerosol particles that impact cloud albedo and, hence, cool Earth's surface. As marine DMS emissions are the largest natural source for atmospheric sulfur, changes in their strength have the potential to notably alter Earth's radiation budget

The oceans are not saturated with CO2 at their present temperatures. Therefore, even as the warm, they can absorb more CO2. And as the absorb more CO2, they become more acidic. Just as the scientists above noted, which leads to many differant consequences.

If the ocean's are not yet close to saturated, then one of the LARGEST AGW positive feedback mechanisms simply does not exist and the projections BASED on land/ocean saturation are pure comic book material.. Take your choice -- I don't care..

But you can't have UNLIMITED ocean uptake of CO2, increasing surface temperatures and wildly exaggerated surface acidification AND rate ocean saturation as an unlikely major feedback for accelerated warming. UNLESS --- you've got an AGW grant and a sponsor that doesn't give a shit about the big inconsistencies in all those conclusions..

 

[Old Rocks]

First evidence of ocean acidification affecting live marine creatures in the Southern Ocean -- ScienceDaily

The shells of marine snails -- known as pteropods -- living in the seas around Antarctica are being dissolved by ocean acidification according to a new study published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. These tiny animals are a valuable food source for fish and birds and play an important role in the oceanic carbon cycle.


During a science cruise in 2008, researchers from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the University of East Anglia (UEA), in collaboration with colleagues from the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), discovered severe dissolution of the shells of living pteropods in Southern Ocean waters.
The team examined an area of upwelling, where winds cause cold water to be pushed upwards from the deep to the surface of the ocean. Upwelled water is usually more corrosive to a particular type of calcium carbonate (aragonite) that pteropods use to build their shells. The team found that as a result of the additional influence of ocean acidification, this corrosive water severely dissolved the shells of pteropods.

Observations by real scientists, instead of blathering by posters on a board.

 

[Old Rocks]

Searching for the Ocean Acidification Signal | Smithsonian Ocean Portal

It’s not an easy question to answer. In the lab, scientists can set up a series of seawater tanks with a variety of pH levels to figure out how different species react to more acidic water, observing the structure of their shells, their metabolism, or their behavior. Or researchers can go to areas with naturally high carbon dioxide and acid levels, such as natural carbon dioxide seeps, to study how those ecosystems are faring. But learning from these experiments is not enough: to really understand how acidification will affect organisms, scientists need to observe it in the field.

There are two main ways to go about this: zoom-in on individual species and see how they are affected by rising acidity, or zoom-out and look at how entire ecosystems are changing. However, neither is particularly easy. The ocean is undergoing so many changes at once—warming water, acidification, nutrient pollution, overfishing, and habitat destruction, to name a few—that it can be difficult to tease out the exact impacts of each.

There was great excitement, and worry, when the first physical evidence of ocean acidification was reported: the shells of sea butterflies in Antarctic waters are dissolving. Sea butterflies (Limacina helicina) are delicate animals. Instead of dragging their bodies around with a muscled foot like snails on land, these mollusks flap their feet like a pair of wings, propelling them and their light aragonite (a semi-stable form of calcium carbonate) shells through the surface waters of the ocean

So here is the reality being discovered by scientists. You can flap-yap all you want and pull silly 'facts' out of your ass all you want, doesn't change reality one whit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oceans warm faster, and may hold the key to climate change | TIME.com

The experts at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had a particularly pressing challenge as they prepared the newest assessment on global warming science, the first chapter of which was released in September. The problem was that the climate wasn’t acting the way they’d expected. In recent years, global greenhouse gas emissions had kept rising—hitting an all-time record in 2012. Yet even though the carbon concentration in the atmosphere gradually increased, passing the 400 parts per million threshold earlier this year, the planet’s average surface temperatures have remained pretty much the same over the past 15 years. The Earth hasn’t cooled—this past decade has still been the hottest on record—but temperatures haven’t risen as climate models predicted. Call it a “pause,” call it a “hiatus,” but the question is clear: where’s the heat?

Try the ocean. That’s one takeaway from a new paper published in Science today, one of a number of studies suggesting that the oceans depths seem to be soaking up the excess heat energy created by the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Researchers led by Yair Rosenthal at Rutgers University reconstructed temperatures in one part of the Pacific Ocean and found that its middle depths have been warming some 15 times faster over the past 60 years than at any other time over the past 10,000 years. It’s as if the oceans have been acting as a battery, absorbing the excess charge created by the greenhouse effect, which leaves less to warm the surface of the planet, where we’d notice it.

Yes, the oceans are warming. Every study shows that.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://home.earthlink.net/~drdrapp/ocean.heating.v3.pdf

Abstract
Climate models indicate that when the CO2 concentration increases above the pre‐industrial level of
about 280 ppm, there is a consequent increase in back IR radiation impinging on the surfaces of the world
oceans. A doubling of the CO2 concentration results in a downward forcing of about 1 W/m2. Over the
past half century the forcing averaged about 0.4 W/m2. Questions arise as to whether, how, and how
much does this heat the oceans? A number of websites claim that since this IR is absorbed in the top few
microns of the ocean surface, it does not heat the oceans, but merely increases evaporation. In this paper
I show, that contrary to these claims, this back radiation does indeed heat the oceans. The surface of the
ocean is warmed slightly by IR absorption and this reduces the rate of heat loss from the mixed layer of
the ocean to the surface; thus the mixed layer does not cool as fast (i.e. it warms). A simple model is
developed to estimate the rate of heat gain by the oceans due to an increase in back IR radiation.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to estimate quantitatively the rate of heat gain by the oceans for any given
level of increased back radiation, because (i) the calculation is extremely sensitive to how the air above
the ocean reacts as the ocean warms, and (ii) it is very difficult to estimate how the air above the ocean
reacts to a warming ocean. If one assumes a moderate wind speed of 3 m/s and assumes that the air
temperature above the ocean tracks the surface temperature, and the relative humidity stays constant at
75%, it is found that a forcing of 1 W/m2 heats the oceans by about 0.6°C, and a forcing of 0.4 W/m2
(corresponding to average forcing over the past half century) heats the oceans by about 0.25°C. Other
assumptions lead to widely disparate results. The experimental data on ocean warming have considerable
variance from investigator to investigator, but the results suggest the oceans have received about 0.5
W/m2 of warming over the past half century.

For a review of the paper and it's implications;

Mechanisms for Warming of the Oceans | Climate Etc.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Goldi -- Let's see the evidence on your (Limacina helicina) doo-dads.. How about we read together, the SUM TOTAL of all laboratory testing on the topic --- which can ONLY BE DONE for about 8 hours of growth, before the animals are useless and expire..

PLOS ONE: Response of the Arctic Pteropod Limacina helicina to Projected Future Environmental Conditions


The response of pteropods to ocean acidification under controlled experimental conditions has been investigated in a single study [28] at two pCO2 levels. They exhibited a 28% decrease of calcification when exposed to a pH value predicted in 2100. But their response to separate and combined effects of temperature and pH has not yet been studied. However, Reynaud et al. [9] and Rodolfo-Metalpa et al. [29] have shown that the rate of calcification of corals and bryozoans is not affected by elevated pCO2 alone but can be affected by elevated temperature alone or by a combined increase of pCO2 and temperature. In the present study, the individual and combined effects of two temperatures (control ~0°C and high ~4°C) and five pCO2 levels (280, 380, 550, 760 and 1120 µatm) are investigated in Limacina helicina. The pCO2 levels were chosen in order to cover a range from the preindustrial values to the 2100 worst-case projection (A1FI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The calcium carbonate precipitation rate was estimated as the incorporation of 45Ca, and the respiration and gut clearance rates were also measured under these conditions to characterize their physiological status.

Studying EIGHT HOURS of growth with CO2 levels pegged to 1120ppm (we are currently at 400ppm) does nothing of significance to the organism except retard shell growth at the HIGHEST concentrations of CO2 -- whilst they are cooked in a small beaker..

Think we'll be hitting 1120 ppm CO2 by 2100? Think a couple studies is definitive? You are more of a LIBRARIAN than a functioning scientist with all your undigested citation pulls..