The Official "Feedback Loop/Ocean Acidification" Challenge Thread

[CrusaderFrank]

One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.

Then, without skipping a beat, we are also told that more CO2 is entering the ocean, turning it "Acidic" (don't laugh, this is settled science. They have Consensus, ya know).

How can CO2 be simultaneously exiting the ocean in a "feedback loop" and increasing its present in the ocean enough to kill coral by turning the oceans "Acidic"

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to be a scientist to see how wrong this is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ocean Acidification from CO 2 Is Happening Faster Than Thought: Scientific American

A lesser-known consequence of having a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air is the acidification of water. Oceans naturally absorb the greenhouse gas; in fact, they take in roughly one third of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activities. When CO2 dissolves in water, it forms carbonic acid, the same substance found in carbonated beverages. New research now suggests that seawater might be growing acidic more quickly than climate change models have predicted.

Marine ecologist J. Timothy Wootton of the University of Chicago and his colleagues spent eight years compiling measurements of acidity, salinity, temperature and other data from Tatoosh Island off the northwestern tip of Washington State. They found that the average acidity rose more than 10 times faster than predicted by climate simulations.

Highly acidic water can wreak havoc on marine life. For instance, it can dissolve the calcium carbonate in seashells and coral reefs [see “The Dangers of Ocean Acidification,” by Scott C. Doney; Scientific American, March 2006]. In their study, published in the December 2 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Wootton and his team discovered that the balance of ecosystems shifted: populations of large-shelled animals such as mussels and stalked barnacles dropped, whereas smaller-shelled species and noncalcareous algae (species that lack calcium-based skeletons) became more abundant. “I see it as a harbinger of the trends we might expect to occur in the future,” says oceanographer Scott C. Doney of the Woods Hole Ocean*ographic Institution, who did not participate in this study

 

[Old Rocks]

Saturation of the southern ocean CO2 sink due to rec... [Science. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

Saturation of the southern ocean CO2 sink due to recent climate change.

Le Quéré C, Rödenbeck C, Buitenhuis ET, Conway TJ, Langenfelds R, Gomez A, Labuschagne C, Ramonet M, Nakazawa T, Metzl N, Gillett N, Heimann M.


Source

Max Planck Institut für Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, D-07701 Jena, Germany. [email protected]


Abstract

Based on observed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 petagrams of carbon per year per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. We attribute this weakening to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities, which is projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction of the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (about 25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Neither of the above 2 articles address the OP but take it as fact that CO2 is increasing in the ocean.

What happened to "The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2."

BBC News - Temperature and CO2 feedback 'weaker than thought'

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also, show us how less than a rounding error of additional CO2 makes the oceans "Acidic"

 

[IanC]

the pH of coastal waters is always fluxuating. by orders of magnitude more than the claimed change caused by CO2. this is almost, but not quite, as ridiculous as the recent paper claiming increased CO2 causes obesity.

 

[IanC]

oh, and the pH of the oceans is not anywheres close to being acidic. the proper term is neutralizing when you are making a change back towards neutral pH.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

oh, and the pH of the oceans is not anywheres close to being acidic. the proper term is neutralizing when you are making a change back towards neutral pH.

That's not what OR peer-reviewed settled science Consensus articles say

"Highly acidic water can wreak havoc on marine life" The CO2 that is simultaneously entering and leaving the oceans are turning them into gastric juices

 

[konradv]

oh, and the pH of the oceans is not anywheres close to being acidic. the proper term is neutralizing when you are making a change back towards neutral pH.

That's not what OR peer-reviewed settled science Consensus articles say

"Highly acidic water can wreak havoc on marine life" The CO2 that is simultaneously entering and leaving the oceans are turning them into gastric juices

They say nothing of the sort. If water has extra CO2 causing a lowering of pH, there would also be extra to release to the atmosphere. They're NOT mutually exclusive. Carbonated beverages are the extreme, acidic and very likely to release CO2. It's just a matter of scale.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

oh, and the pH of the oceans is not anywheres close to being acidic. the proper term is neutralizing when you are making a change back towards neutral pH.

That's not what OR peer-reviewed settled science Consensus articles say

"Highly acidic water can wreak havoc on marine life" The CO2 that is simultaneously entering and leaving the oceans are turning them into gastric juices

They say nothing of the sort. If water has extra CO2 causing a lowering of pH, there would also be extra to release to the atmosphere. They're NOT mutually exclusive. Carbonated beverages are the extreme, acidic and very likely to release CO2. It's just a matter of scale.

How can water possibly have any "Extra" CO2 when it's leeching OUT of the ocean in a "Feedback Loop"?

The two concepts are mutually exclusive

 

[RollingThunder]

One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.

Then, without skipping a beat, we are also told that more CO2 is entering the ocean, turning it "Acidic" (don't laugh, this is settled science. They have Consensus, ya know).

How can CO2 be simultaneously exiting the ocean in a "feedback loop" and increasing its present in the ocean enough to kill coral by turning the oceans "Acidic"

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to be a scientist to see how wrong this is.

As usual, CrazyFrank, it is your own very limited ability to understand science that is confusing you.

This statement (and the basis of your OP) is just plain false: "One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.". And, BTW CrazyFrank, "tenant" means the guy renting your flat. The word you're searching for but are apparently too retarded to know the spelling of is 'tenet'. And no, CrazyFrank, that BS of yours is not a key tenet of global warming science because they are still trying to figure out effects in this particular area. Of course, any additional CO2 that the ocean releases when it gets warmer is completely overshadowed by the much greater amounts that mankind is adding to the atmosphere every year. Moreover the article you cite to support your braindead misinterpretation doesn't support your nonsense either.

BBC News - Temperature and CO2 feedback 'weaker than thought'
27 January 2010
(excerpts)
The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2. It says this will increase the effects of man-made warming - but much less than recent research has suggested. The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises. Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high. The research, from a team of scientists in Switzerland and Germany, attempts to settle one of the great debates in climate science about exactly how the Earth's natural carbon cycle will exacerbate any man-made warming.

"This is a valuable paper that helps to constrain certain feedback components for the past," said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "However, it is probably not suited for extrapolation into the future and it does not cover the really interesting processes like anthropogenic activation of permafrost carbon or methane clathrates." The paper will surely not be the last word in this difficult area of research, with multiple uncertainties over data sources. "I think that the magnitude of the warming amplification given by the carbon cycle is a live issue that will not suddenly be sorted by another paper trying to fit to palaeo-data," Professor Brian Hoskins, a climate expert from Imperial College London, told BBC News.

 

[skookerasbil]

One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.

Then, without skipping a beat, we are also told that more CO2 is entering the ocean, turning it "Acidic" (don't laugh, this is settled science. They have Consensus, ya know).

How can CO2 be simultaneously exiting the ocean in a "feedback loop" and increasing its present in the ocean enough to kill coral by turning the oceans "Acidic"

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to be a scientist to see how wrong this is.

As usual, CrazyFrank, it is your own very limited ability to understand science that is confusing you.

This statement (and the basis of your OP) is just plain false: "One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.". And, BTW CrazyFrank, "tenant" means the guy renting your flat. The word you're searching for but are apparently too retarded to know the spelling of is 'tenet'. And no, CrazyFrank, that BS of yours is not a key tenet of global warming science because they are still trying to figure out effects in this particular area. Of course, any additional CO2 that the ocean releases when it gets warmer is completely overshadowed by the much greater amounts that mankind is adding to the atmosphere every year. Moreover the article you cite to support your braindead misinterpretation doesn't support your nonsense either.

BBC News - Temperature and CO2 feedback 'weaker than thought'
27 January 2010
(excerpts)
The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2. It says this will increase the effects of man-made warming - but much less than recent research has suggested. The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises. Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high. The research, from a team of scientists in Switzerland and Germany, attempts to settle one of the great debates in climate science about exactly how the Earth's natural carbon cycle will exacerbate any man-made warming.

"This is a valuable paper that helps to constrain certain feedback components for the past," said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "However, it is probably not suited for extrapolation into the future and it does not cover the really interesting processes like anthropogenic activation of permafrost carbon or methane clathrates." The paper will surely not be the last word in this difficult area of research, with multiple uncertainties over data sources. "I think that the magnitude of the warming amplification given by the carbon cycle is a live issue that will not suddenly be sorted by another paper trying to fit to palaeo-data," Professor Brian Hoskins, a climate expert from Imperial College London, told BBC News.

OK..............[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tibLjnn_Nf4]Midget - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RollingThunder]

One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.

Then, without skipping a beat, we are also told that more CO2 is entering the ocean, turning it "Acidic" (don't laugh, this is settled science. They have Consensus, ya know).

How can CO2 be simultaneously exiting the ocean in a "feedback loop" and increasing its present in the ocean enough to kill coral by turning the oceans "Acidic"

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to be a scientist to see how wrong this is.

As usual, CrazyFrank, it is your own very limited ability to understand science that is confusing you.

This statement (and the basis of your OP) is just plain false: "One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.". And, BTW CrazyFrank, "tenant" means the guy renting your flat. The word you're searching for but are apparently too retarded to know the spelling of is 'tenet'. And no, CrazyFrank, that BS of yours is not a key tenet of global warming science because they are still trying to figure out effects in this particular area. Of course, any additional CO2 that the ocean releases when it gets warmer is completely overshadowed by the much greater amounts that mankind is adding to the atmosphere every year. Moreover the article you cite to support your braindead misinterpretation doesn't support your nonsense either.

BBC News - Temperature and CO2 feedback 'weaker than thought'
27 January 2010
(excerpts)
The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2. It says this will increase the effects of man-made warming - but much less than recent research has suggested. The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises. Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high. The research, from a team of scientists in Switzerland and Germany, attempts to settle one of the great debates in climate science about exactly how the Earth's natural carbon cycle will exacerbate any man-made warming.

"This is a valuable paper that helps to constrain certain feedback components for the past," said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "However, it is probably not suited for extrapolation into the future and it does not cover the really interesting processes like anthropogenic activation of permafrost carbon or methane clathrates." The paper will surely not be the last word in this difficult area of research, with multiple uncertainties over data sources. "I think that the magnitude of the warming amplification given by the carbon cycle is a live issue that will not suddenly be sorted by another paper trying to fit to palaeo-data," Professor Brian Hoskins, a climate expert from Imperial College London, told BBC News.

OK..............Midget - YouTube

It is just so cute, kookster, that you are fascinated by midgets, particularly since you are such a mental midget yourself.

 

[skookerasbil]

but still winning!!


American people offer big yawn over 'global warming' | timesfreepress.com


Reality bites s0n.

Oh.........and ps s0n. The level of misery displayed in your posts is as close to unmatched as it gets on the whole board. The fact that the country is yawning over global warming has you so fucked up, you cant see past the lampost. You're a miserable mofu far left asshole who cant fathom how he is a fringe k00k amongst the vast minority who are OCD about this AGW stuff. Its fucking great though...........stokes me to come in here at night and find the latest mental meltdown post of total angst. Ive always loved to abuse the social oddball intellectual's.


Did you always get picked last for the team? Too many cheeseburgers in your formative years? First kiss well past your teens? Moonscape acne? About as socially engaging as a as a mime at group? IT dweeb? C'mon s0n..........fess up. Nobody is this perpetually morbidly miserable.


Have a great one......................

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.

Then, without skipping a beat, we are also told that more CO2 is entering the ocean, turning it "Acidic" (don't laugh, this is settled science. They have Consensus, ya know).

How can CO2 be simultaneously exiting the ocean in a "feedback loop" and increasing its present in the ocean enough to kill coral by turning the oceans "Acidic"

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to be a scientist to see how wrong this is.

As usual, CrazyFrank, it is your own very limited ability to understand science that is confusing you.

This statement (and the basis of your OP) is just plain false: "One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.". And, BTW CrazyFrank, "tenant" means the guy renting your flat. The word you're searching for but are apparently too retarded to know the spelling of is 'tenet'. And no, CrazyFrank, that BS of yours is not a key tenet of global warming science because they are still trying to figure out effects in this particular area. Of course, any additional CO2 that the ocean releases when it gets warmer is completely overshadowed by the much greater amounts that mankind is adding to the atmosphere every year. Moreover the article you cite to support your braindead misinterpretation doesn't support your nonsense either.

BBC News - Temperature and CO2 feedback 'weaker than thought'
27 January 2010
(excerpts)
The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2. It says this will increase the effects of man-made warming - but much less than recent research has suggested. The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises. Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high. The research, from a team of scientists in Switzerland and Germany, attempts to settle one of the great debates in climate science about exactly how the Earth's natural carbon cycle will exacerbate any man-made warming.

"This is a valuable paper that helps to constrain certain feedback components for the past," said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "However, it is probably not suited for extrapolation into the future and it does not cover the really interesting processes like anthropogenic activation of permafrost carbon or methane clathrates." The paper will surely not be the last word in this difficult area of research, with multiple uncertainties over data sources. "I think that the magnitude of the warming amplification given by the carbon cycle is a live issue that will not suddenly be sorted by another paper trying to fit to palaeo-data," Professor Brian Hoskins, a climate expert from Imperial College London, told BBC News.

Do you read the articles you link to?

"The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2"

How can the oceans turn "Acidic" (did I spell that right?) if the oceans are absorbing less CO2?

Can you answer the OP?

 

[konradv]

One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.

Then, without skipping a beat, we are also told that more CO2 is entering the ocean, turning it "Acidic" (don't laugh, this is settled science. They have Consensus, ya know).

How can CO2 be simultaneously exiting the ocean in a "feedback loop" and increasing its present in the ocean enough to kill coral by turning the oceans "Acidic"

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to be a scientist to see how wrong this is.

They are not mutually exclusive and, if you don't see that, you have no business posting.

 

[konradv]

oh, and the pH of the oceans is not anywheres close to being acidic. the proper term is neutralizing when you are making a change back towards neutral pH.

Nobody has said the oceans would turn "acidic", as in below pH 7. They've said oceans would be "more acidic", i.e. lower than previous measurements. Regardless of the fact that all oceans pHs are in the alkaline range, lowering the ph would in fact make the water "more acidic".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.

Then, without skipping a beat, we are also told that more CO2 is entering the ocean, turning it "Acidic" (don't laugh, this is settled science. They have Consensus, ya know).

How can CO2 be simultaneously exiting the ocean in a "feedback loop" and increasing its present in the ocean enough to kill coral by turning the oceans "Acidic"

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to be a scientist to see how wrong this is.

They are not mutually exclusive and, if you don't see that, you have no business posting.

CO2 is both leaving and entering the oceans decreasing to cause a "Feedback Loop" and increasing to turn them "acidic" and you say the two concepts are not mutually exclusive?

Are you insane?

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth"

 

[westwall]

One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.

Then, without skipping a beat, we are also told that more CO2 is entering the ocean, turning it "Acidic" (don't laugh, this is settled science. They have Consensus, ya know).

How can CO2 be simultaneously exiting the ocean in a "feedback loop" and increasing its present in the ocean enough to kill coral by turning the oceans "Acidic"

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to be a scientist to see how wrong this is.

As usual, CrazyFrank, it is your own very limited ability to understand science that is confusing you.

This statement (and the basis of your OP) is just plain false: "One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.". And, BTW CrazyFrank, "tenant" means the guy renting your flat. The word you're searching for but are apparently too retarded to know the spelling of is 'tenet'. And no, CrazyFrank, that BS of yours is not a key tenet of global warming science because they are still trying to figure out effects in this particular area. Of course, any additional CO2 that the ocean releases when it gets warmer is completely overshadowed by the much greater amounts that mankind is adding to the atmosphere every year. Moreover the article you cite to support your braindead misinterpretation doesn't support your nonsense either.

BBC News - Temperature and CO2 feedback 'weaker than thought'
27 January 2010
(excerpts)
The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2. It says this will increase the effects of man-made warming - but much less than recent research has suggested. The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises. Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high. The research, from a team of scientists in Switzerland and Germany, attempts to settle one of the great debates in climate science about exactly how the Earth's natural carbon cycle will exacerbate any man-made warming.

"This is a valuable paper that helps to constrain certain feedback components for the past," said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "However, it is probably not suited for extrapolation into the future and it does not cover the really interesting processes like anthropogenic activation of permafrost carbon or methane clathrates." The paper will surely not be the last word in this difficult area of research, with multiple uncertainties over data sources. "I think that the magnitude of the warming amplification given by the carbon cycle is a live issue that will not suddenly be sorted by another paper trying to fit to palaeo-data," Professor Brian Hoskins, a climate expert from Imperial College London, told BBC News.

Do you read the articles you link to?

"The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2"

How can the oceans turn "Acidic" (did I spell that right?) if the oceans are absorbing less CO2?

Can you answer the OP?

No. Also, if the icecaps are melting like they say the overall volume of water is increasing. That too would negate any increase in CO2 increase. But that's logic and real science. Something these clowns don't understand.

 

[westwall]

One of the key tenants of cult of "manmade Global Warming" is that mankind's increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning "fossil fuels" causes a "feedback loop" where warmer temperatures cause the oceans to absorb less CO2, thereby adding it to the atmosphere, thereby making it warmer, thereby causing more CO2 to exit the ocean.

Then, without skipping a beat, we are also told that more CO2 is entering the ocean, turning it "Acidic" (don't laugh, this is settled science. They have Consensus, ya know).

How can CO2 be simultaneously exiting the ocean in a "feedback loop" and increasing its present in the ocean enough to kill coral by turning the oceans "Acidic"

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to be a scientist to see how wrong this is.

They are not mutually exclusive and, if you don't see that, you have no business posting.

If you can't back that up right now with some hard science then I suggest you go play on a highway somewhere!