The Official "Feedback Loop/Ocean Acidification" Challenge Thread

[westwall]

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".

The average pH of the oceans is 8.1. If we were able to burn everything on the planet that is capable of adding CO2 to the oceans the pH level would drop to 8.0 In other words YAWN! Add to that the fact that when scientists tried to test the theory they found that the shells actually got THICKER and the critters did very well. They suffered no negative affects that were observable.

Yet another failed prediction of the warmist cult.

 

[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.

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"

Yes, he is. AND he's a devout warmist which makes him dim too.

 

[starcraftzzz]

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?

Its basic science, two pieces of matter can't be in the same place. Therefore has the ocean gets more acidic it will begin to absorb less CO2.
Again this is all basic science.

 

[starcraftzzz]

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?

Its basic science, two pieces of matter can't be in the same place. Therefore has the ocean gets more acidic it will begin to absorb less CO2.
Again this is all basic science.

Also as the temperature rise more of the oceans evaporate meaning more greenhouse gasses entering the atmosphere

 

[Old Rocks]

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".

The average pH of the oceans is 8.1. If we were able to burn everything on the planet that is capable of adding CO2 to the oceans the pH level would drop to 8.0 In other words YAWN! Add to that the fact that when scientists tried to test the theory they found that the shells actually got THICKER and the critters did very well. They suffered no negative affects that were observable.

Yet another failed prediction of the warmist cult.

As usual, Ol' Walleyes, by telling a half truth, tells another lie.

Ocean Acidification Causing Some Shells to Grow Thicker : TreeHugger

We're familiar with the problem of ocean acidification causing crustaceans' shells to dissolve. The problem has been seen among species such as oysters, clams and mussels. However a new study shows that in several other species such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters, increased acidity can spur a thickening of shells. But having thicker shells doesn't signal that the animals are in a safer position. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists have studied the effects of exposure to ocean acidification on 18 crustacean species, and they've found that for seven of those species, exposure causes the animals to grow thicker shells, as reported by TGDaily.

Lead scientist Justin B Ries notes, "Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate...dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them," said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. "They were somehow able to manipulate CO2...to build their skeletons."

WATCH VIDEO: The effects of ocean acidification on marine life

But thicker shells don't mean that the animals are safe, since they often prey on other creatures whose shells are thinning and becoming weaker. Conversely, the animals that feed on the crustaceans growing thicker shells will have a harder time cracking through, which potentially means they'll have to find another food source.

As the research team states, "...any possible ramifications are complex. For example, the crab exhibited improved shell-building capacity, and its prey, the clams, showed reduced calcification. 'This may initially suggest that crabs could benefit from this shift in predator-pray dynamics. But without shells, clams may not be able to sustain their populations, and this could ultimately impact crabs in a negative way, as well,' Ries said

 

[Old Rocks]

When discussing a scientific subject, one should show what the scientists involved in studying that subject are saying. Quoting undegreeded ex-TV weathermen, or obese junkies on the radio only indicates that one has no case to make.

What is ocean acidification?

http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/1917/2009/bg-6-1917-2009.pdf

Abstract. About one third of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere in the past two centuries has been taken up by the ocean. As CO2 invades the surface ocean, carbonate ion concentrations and pH are lowered. Laboratory studies indicate that this reduces the calcification
rates of marine calcifying organisms, including planktic foraminifera. Such a reduction in calcification resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions has not been observed, or quantified in the field yet. Here we present the findings of a study in the Western Arabian Sea that uses shells of the
surface water dwelling planktic foraminifer Globigerinoides ruber in order to test the hypothesis that anthropogenically induced acidification has reduced shell calcification of this species. We found that light, thin-walled shells from the surface sediment are younger (based on 14C and 13C measurements)
than the heavier, thicker-walled shells. Shells in the upper, bioturbated, sediment layer were significantly lighter compared to shells found below this layer. These observations are consistent with a scenario where anthropogenically induced ocean acidification reduced the rate at which foraminifera calcify, resulting in lighter shells. On the other hand, we show that seasonal upwelling in the area also influences their calcification and the stable isotope (13C and 18O) signatures recorded by the foraminifera shells. Plankton tow and sediment trap data show that lighter shells were
produced during upwelling and heavier ones during nonupwelling periods. Seasonality alone, however, cannot explain the 14C results, or the increase in shell weight below the bioturbated sediment layer. We therefore must conclude that probably both the processes of acidification and seasonal
upwelling are responsible for the presence of light shells in the top of the sediment and the age difference between thick and thin specimens.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Its basic science, two pieces of matter can't be in the same place. Therefore has the ocean gets more acidic it will begin to absorb less CO2.
Again this is all basic science.

You're not making any sense at all. Did OR pay you to post that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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".

The average pH of the oceans is 8.1. If we were able to burn everything on the planet that is capable of adding CO2 to the oceans the pH level would drop to 8.0 In other words YAWN! Add to that the fact that when scientists tried to test the theory they found that the shells actually got THICKER and the critters did very well. They suffered no negative affects that were observable.

Yet another failed prediction of the warmist cult.

As usual, Ol' Walleyes, by telling a half truth, tells another lie.

Ocean Acidification Causing Some Shells to Grow Thicker : TreeHugger

We're familiar with the problem of ocean acidification causing crustaceans' shells to dissolve. The problem has been seen among species such as oysters, clams and mussels. However a new study shows that in several other species such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters, increased acidity can spur a thickening of shells. But having thicker shells doesn't signal that the animals are in a safer position. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists have studied the effects of exposure to ocean acidification on 18 crustacean species, and they've found that for seven of those species, exposure causes the animals to grow thicker shells, as reported by TGDaily.

Lead scientist Justin B Ries notes, "Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate...dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them," said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. "They were somehow able to manipulate CO2...to build their skeletons."

WATCH VIDEO: The effects of ocean acidification on marine life

But thicker shells don't mean that the animals are safe, since they often prey on other creatures whose shells are thinning and becoming weaker. Conversely, the animals that feed on the crustaceans growing thicker shells will have a harder time cracking through, which potentially means they'll have to find another food source.

As the research team states, "...any possible ramifications are complex. For example, the crab exhibited improved shell-building capacity, and its prey, the clams, showed reduced calcification. 'This may initially suggest that crabs could benefit from this shift in predator-pray dynamics. But without shells, clams may not be able to sustain their populations, and this could ultimately impact crabs in a negative way, as well,' Ries said

er, what happened to CO2 leaving the oceans in a "feedback loop"? Do you ever read the articles you link to?

Q: Is CO2 in the oceans increasing or decreasing?

AGW answer: Yes

 

[Old Rocks]

Franky Boy, those are peer reviewed articles. They were not meant for you. And, since I don't do coloring books, I have nothing at your peer level.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Franky Boy, those are peer reviewed articles. They were not meant for you. And, since I don't do coloring books, I have nothing at your peer level.

That's funny, but not in a really funny way, more like a Carrottop kind of funny.

Is that how you explain how CO2 is both decreasing in the oceans in a "feedback loop" and increasing in the oceans turning them "Acidic", with stupid insults? The two concepts are mutually exclusive and you've still no posted a single article describing how that works.

I guess it's like waiting for you to post the repeatable lab experiment that shows us how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding a wisp (wisp is a vast overstatement) of CO2 causes ANY much less ALL of the things you propose

 

[westwall]

Franky Boy, those are peer reviewed articles. They were not meant for you. And, since I don't do coloring books, I have nothing at your peer level.

And clearly they were not meant for you either. Once again you neglect to READ the damned study. Are you incapable of reading? My 5 year old can actually read most of this. She won't comprehend a lot of it but she can read it. Here are the pertinent things that you seem to have missed.

First up is the Abstract. Clearly this is all you read..or did you? See the blue highlighted section? Did you miss that? They then try and cover themselves by blaming AGW but nowhere in the entire study do they present evidence that AGW can be the ONLY cause. In fact they do a fairly credible job of presenting evidence that seasonal upwelling is just as likely the cause for the thinning. they just camouflage that so that they could get published. However, anyone with a brain can read between the lines. Where oh where did you leave your brain?



"These observations
are consistent with a scenario where anthropogenically
induced ocean acidification reduced the rate at which
foraminifera calcify, resulting in lighter shells. On the other
hand, we show that seasonal upwelling in the area also influences
their calcification and the stable isotope (13C and
18O) signatures recorded by the foraminifera shells. Plankton
tow and sediment trap data show that lighter shells were
produced during upwelling and heavier ones during nonupwelling
periods. Seasonality alone, however, cannot explain
the 14C results, or the increase in shell weight below
the bioturbated sediment layer.

We therefore must conclude
that probably both the processes of acidification and seasonal
upwelling are responsible for the presence of light shells in
the top of the sediment and the age difference between thick
and thin specimens."

Further down they have this.....

"The variation in shell weight and wall thickness observed in
the top sediment may also be the result of monsoonal changes
in water properties from upwelling to non-upwelling conditions.
Comparison with shells from the sediment trap for the
same size fraction (255–350μm) shows that the differences
found between shells that have calcified during the monsoon
season and the inter-monsoon season(s) are similar to the differences
found between the thick and thin shells in the core
top (Table 2). In addition, the flux corrected average of the
entire nine month series is strikingly close to shells weights
found in samples from the surface water (11.5μg, Conan,
2006) near the coring site (906, taken February 1993), and
similar to the mean shell weight from the mixed layer of
sediment core 905B (Table 2). In other words, seasonality
produces similar differences in shell weight and stable isotopes
as found between the thick and thin shells. Furthermore
recent shells from the water column and sediment trap
have weights similar to those found in the modern mixed
layer. This is in contrast with the acidification hypothesis,
which would predict recent shells from the water column to
have lower shell weights compared to those in the sediment
(which is a mixture of recent and pre-anthropogenic shells)."[/COLOR]




And further down you get this......




"Our study provides a first indication that anthropogenic
ocean acidification may have affected the calcification of
foraminifera in the surface ocean. However, a scenario with
seasonal production of thick and thin shells also explains
the observed changes in shell weight and wall thickness in
the western Arabian Sea. While the seasonality scenario
alone cannot explain the radiocarbon data (the light shells being
younger) or the higher shell weights below the sediment
mixed layer, the acidification hypothesis appears inconsistent
with some observations from the water column. It is likely
that the two processes take place simultaneously, making it
difficult to unravel one from the other at our site, which is
characterised by high seasonal variations. The radiocarbon
analysis implies that, on top of the seasonal variation, a part
of the observed differences is probably the result of anthropogenic
ocean acidification. Further work on this subject
is necessary to solve this problem and should ideally focus
on sites with less pronounced seasonality unless the seasonal
signal can be unravelled adequately.
If shell weights are indeed decreasing"


So once again olfraud doesn't read a study that he cites. And surprise surprise that study actually doesn't say ANYTHING that olfraud claims it does.

What a tool. Three years of college? Reall? Gosh, I really doubt that. I really do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Franky Boy, those are peer reviewed articles. They were not meant for you. And, since I don't do coloring books, I have nothing at your peer level.

And clearly they were not meant for you either. Once again you neglect to READ the damned study. Are you incapable of reading? My 5 year old can actually read most of this. She won't comprehend a lot of it but she can read it. Here are the pertinent things that you seem to have missed.

First up is the Abstract. Clearly this is all you read..or did you? See the blue highlighted section? Did you miss that? They then try and cover themselves by blaming AGW but nowhere in the entire study do they present evidence that AGW can be the ONLY cause. In fact they do a fairly credible job of presenting evidence that seasonal upwelling is just as likely the cause for the thinning. they just camouflage that so that they could get published. However, anyone with a brain can read between the lines. Where oh where did you leave your brain?



"These observations
are consistent with a scenario where anthropogenically
induced ocean acidification reduced the rate at which
foraminifera calcify, resulting in lighter shells. On the other
hand, we show that seasonal upwelling in the area also influences
their calcification and the stable isotope (13C and
18O) signatures recorded by the foraminifera shells. Plankton
tow and sediment trap data show that lighter shells were
produced during upwelling and heavier ones during nonupwelling
periods. Seasonality alone, however, cannot explain
the 14C results, or the increase in shell weight below
the bioturbated sediment layer.

We therefore must conclude
that probably both the processes of acidification and seasonal
upwelling are responsible for the presence of light shells in
the top of the sediment and the age difference between thick
and thin specimens."

Further down they have this.....

"The variation in shell weight and wall thickness observed in
the top sediment may also be the result of monsoonal changes
in water properties from upwelling to non-upwelling conditions.
Comparison with shells from the sediment trap for the
same size fraction (255–350μm) shows that the differences
found between shells that have calcified during the monsoon
season and the inter-monsoon season(s) are similar to the differences
found between the thick and thin shells in the core
top (Table 2). In addition, the flux corrected average of the
entire nine month series is strikingly close to shells weights
found in samples from the surface water (11.5μg, Conan,
2006) near the coring site (906, taken February 1993), and
similar to the mean shell weight from the mixed layer of
sediment core 905B (Table 2). In other words, seasonality
produces similar differences in shell weight and stable isotopes
as found between the thick and thin shells. Furthermore
recent shells from the water column and sediment trap
have weights similar to those found in the modern mixed
layer. This is in contrast with the acidification hypothesis,
which would predict recent shells from the water column to
have lower shell weights compared to those in the sediment
(which is a mixture of recent and pre-anthropogenic shells)."[/COLOR]




And further down you get this......




"Our study provides a first indication that anthropogenic
ocean acidification may have affected the calcification of
foraminifera in the surface ocean. However, a scenario with
seasonal production of thick and thin shells also explains
the observed changes in shell weight and wall thickness in
the western Arabian Sea. While the seasonality scenario
alone cannot explain the radiocarbon data (the light shells being
younger) or the higher shell weights below the sediment
mixed layer, the acidification hypothesis appears inconsistent
with some observations from the water column. It is likely
that the two processes take place simultaneously, making it
difficult to unravel one from the other at our site, which is
characterised by high seasonal variations. The radiocarbon
analysis implies that, on top of the seasonal variation, a part
of the observed differences is probably the result of anthropogenic
ocean acidification. Further work on this subject
is necessary to solve this problem and should ideally focus
on sites with less pronounced seasonality unless the seasonal
signal can be unravelled adequately.
If shell weights are indeed decreasing"


So once again olfraud doesn't read a study that he cites. And surprise surprise that study actually doesn't say ANYTHING that olfraud claims it does.

What a tool. Three years of college? Reall? Gosh, I really doubt that. I really do.

Most of all it fails to address the OP

But, yes, clearly OldRocks never reads the articles he posts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6cplMM3d_Q]Steve Vai On His Audition for Frank Zappa's Band - YouTube[/ame]

Sure, it doesn't address the OP either but neither does anything OR has ever posted

 

[konradv]

Franky Boy, those are peer reviewed articles. They were not meant for you. And, since I don't do coloring books, I have nothing at your peer level.

And clearly they were not meant for you either. Once again you neglect to READ the damned study. Are you incapable of reading? My 5 year old can actually read most of this. She won't comprehend a lot of it but she can read it. Here are the pertinent things that you seem to have missed.

First up is the Abstract. Clearly this is all you read..or did you? See the blue highlighted section? Did you miss that? They then try and cover themselves by blaming AGW but nowhere in the entire study do they present evidence that AGW can be the ONLY cause. In fact they do a fairly credible job of presenting evidence that seasonal upwelling is just as likely the cause for the thinning. they just camouflage that so that they could get published. However, anyone with a brain can read between the lines. Where oh where did you leave your brain?



"These observations
are consistent with a scenario where anthropogenically
induced ocean acidification reduced the rate at which
foraminifera calcify, resulting in lighter shells. On the other
hand, we show that seasonal upwelling in the area also influences
their calcification and the stable isotope (13C and
18O) signatures recorded by the foraminifera shells. Plankton
tow and sediment trap data show that lighter shells were
produced during upwelling and heavier ones during nonupwelling
periods. Seasonality alone, however, cannot explain
the 14C results, or the increase in shell weight below
the bioturbated sediment layer.

We therefore must conclude
that probably both the processes of acidification and seasonal
upwelling are responsible for the presence of light shells in
the top of the sediment and the age difference between thick
and thin specimens."

Further down they have this.....

"The variation in shell weight and wall thickness observed in
the top sediment may also be the result of monsoonal changes
in water properties from upwelling to non-upwelling conditions.
Comparison with shells from the sediment trap for the
same size fraction (255–350μm) shows that the differences
found between shells that have calcified during the monsoon
season and the inter-monsoon season(s) are similar to the differences
found between the thick and thin shells in the core
top (Table 2). In addition, the flux corrected average of the
entire nine month series is strikingly close to shells weights
found in samples from the surface water (11.5μg, Conan,
2006) near the coring site (906, taken February 1993), and
similar to the mean shell weight from the mixed layer of
sediment core 905B (Table 2). In other words, seasonality
produces similar differences in shell weight and stable isotopes
as found between the thick and thin shells. Furthermore
recent shells from the water column and sediment trap
have weights similar to those found in the modern mixed
layer. This is in contrast with the acidification hypothesis,
which would predict recent shells from the water column to
have lower shell weights compared to those in the sediment
(which is a mixture of recent and pre-anthropogenic shells)."[/COLOR]

And further down you get this......

"Our study provides a first indication that anthropogenic
ocean acidification may have affected the calcification of
foraminifera in the surface ocean. However, a scenario with
seasonal production of thick and thin shells also explains
the observed changes in shell weight and wall thickness in
the western Arabian Sea. While the seasonality scenario
alone cannot explain the radiocarbon data (the light shells being
younger) or the higher shell weights below the sediment
mixed layer, the acidification hypothesis appears inconsistent
with some observations from the water column. It is likely
that the two processes take place simultaneously, making it
difficult to unravel one from the other at our site, which is
characterised by high seasonal variations. The radiocarbon
analysis implies that, on top of the seasonal variation, a part
of the observed differences is probably the result of anthropogenic
ocean acidification. Further work on this subject
is necessary to solve this problem and should ideally focus
on sites with less pronounced seasonality unless the seasonal
signal can be unravelled adequately.
If shell weights are indeed decreasing"

So once again olfraud doesn't read a study that he cites. And surprise surprise that study actually doesn't say ANYTHING that olfraud claims it does.

What a tool. Three years of college? Reall? Gosh, I really doubt that. I really do.

Tool? What do you call selective highlighting?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Franky Boy, those are peer reviewed articles. They were not meant for you. And, since I don't do coloring books, I have nothing at your peer level.

And clearly they were not meant for you either. Once again you neglect to READ the damned study. Are you incapable of reading? My 5 year old can actually read most of this. She won't comprehend a lot of it but she can read it. Here are the pertinent things that you seem to have missed.

First up is the Abstract. Clearly this is all you read..or did you? See the blue highlighted section? Did you miss that? They then try and cover themselves by blaming AGW but nowhere in the entire study do they present evidence that AGW can be the ONLY cause. In fact they do a fairly credible job of presenting evidence that seasonal upwelling is just as likely the cause for the thinning. they just camouflage that so that they could get published. However, anyone with a brain can read between the lines. Where oh where did you leave your brain?



"These observations
are consistent with a scenario where anthropogenically
induced ocean acidification reduced the rate at which
foraminifera calcify, resulting in lighter shells. On the other
hand, we show that seasonal upwelling in the area also influences
their calcification and the stable isotope (13C and
18O) signatures recorded by the foraminifera shells. Plankton
tow and sediment trap data show that lighter shells were
produced during upwelling and heavier ones during nonupwelling
periods. Seasonality alone, however, cannot explain
the 14C results, or the increase in shell weight below
the bioturbated sediment layer.

We therefore must conclude
that probably both the processes of acidification and seasonal
upwelling are responsible for the presence of light shells in
the top of the sediment and the age difference between thick
and thin specimens."

Further down they have this.....

"The variation in shell weight and wall thickness observed in
the top sediment may also be the result of monsoonal changes
in water properties from upwelling to non-upwelling conditions.
Comparison with shells from the sediment trap for the
same size fraction (255–350μm) shows that the differences
found between shells that have calcified during the monsoon
season and the inter-monsoon season(s) are similar to the differences
found between the thick and thin shells in the core
top (Table 2). In addition, the flux corrected average of the
entire nine month series is strikingly close to shells weights
found in samples from the surface water (11.5μg, Conan,
2006) near the coring site (906, taken February 1993), and
similar to the mean shell weight from the mixed layer of
sediment core 905B (Table 2). In other words, seasonality
produces similar differences in shell weight and stable isotopes
as found between the thick and thin shells. Furthermore
recent shells from the water column and sediment trap
have weights similar to those found in the modern mixed
layer. This is in contrast with the acidification hypothesis,
which would predict recent shells from the water column to
have lower shell weights compared to those in the sediment
(which is a mixture of recent and pre-anthropogenic shells)."[/COLOR]

And further down you get this......

"Our study provides a first indication that anthropogenic
ocean acidification may have affected the calcification of
foraminifera in the surface ocean. However, a scenario with
seasonal production of thick and thin shells also explains
the observed changes in shell weight and wall thickness in
the western Arabian Sea. While the seasonality scenario
alone cannot explain the radiocarbon data (the light shells being
younger) or the higher shell weights below the sediment
mixed layer, the acidification hypothesis appears inconsistent
with some observations from the water column. It is likely
that the two processes take place simultaneously, making it
difficult to unravel one from the other at our site, which is
characterised by high seasonal variations. The radiocarbon
analysis implies that, on top of the seasonal variation, a part
of the observed differences is probably the result of anthropogenic
ocean acidification. Further work on this subject
is necessary to solve this problem and should ideally focus
on sites with less pronounced seasonality unless the seasonal
signal can be unravelled adequately.
If shell weights are indeed decreasing"

So once again olfraud doesn't read a study that he cites. And surprise surprise that study actually doesn't say ANYTHING that olfraud claims it does.

What a tool. Three years of college? Reall? Gosh, I really doubt that. I really do.

Tool? What do you call selective highlighting?

Have you found a single article that addresses the OP?

 

[starcraftzzz]

That's funny, but not in a really funny way, more like a Carrottop kind of funny.
Is that how you explain how CO2 is both decreasing in the oceans in a "feedback loop" and increasing in the oceans turning them "Acidic", with stupid insults? The two concepts are mutually exclusive and you've still no posted a single article describing how that works.

I guess it's like waiting for you to post the repeatable lab experiment that shows us how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding a wisp (wisp is a vast overstatement) of CO2 causes ANY much less ALL of the things you propose

God learn to read plz. CO2 isn't increasing in the oceans Carbonic acid is, which is a direct result of more CO2 int he atmosphere, further more as water gets more acidic and temperatures rise the oceans will begin absorbing less CO2, resulting in even higher CO2 levels. Further more the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activities has increased by almost 100% which is a significant amount but given that you cant do basic math I doubt youd realize that

 

[westwall]

Franky Boy, those are peer reviewed articles. They were not meant for you. And, since I don't do coloring books, I have nothing at your peer level.

And clearly they were not meant for you either. Once again you neglect to READ the damned study. Are you incapable of reading? My 5 year old can actually read most of this. She won't comprehend a lot of it but she can read it. Here are the pertinent things that you seem to have missed.

First up is the Abstract. Clearly this is all you read..or did you? See the blue highlighted section? Did you miss that? They then try and cover themselves by blaming AGW but nowhere in the entire study do they present evidence that AGW can be the ONLY cause. In fact they do a fairly credible job of presenting evidence that seasonal upwelling is just as likely the cause for the thinning. they just camouflage that so that they could get published. However, anyone with a brain can read between the lines. Where oh where did you leave your brain?



"These observations
are consistent with a scenario where anthropogenically
induced ocean acidification reduced the rate at which
foraminifera calcify, resulting in lighter shells. On the other
hand, we show that seasonal upwelling in the area also influences
their calcification and the stable isotope (13C and
18O) signatures recorded by the foraminifera shells. Plankton
tow and sediment trap data show that lighter shells were
produced during upwelling and heavier ones during nonupwelling
periods. Seasonality alone, however, cannot explain
the 14C results, or the increase in shell weight below
the bioturbated sediment layer.

We therefore must conclude
that probably both the processes of acidification and seasonal
upwelling are responsible for the presence of light shells in
the top of the sediment and the age difference between thick
and thin specimens."

Further down they have this.....

"The variation in shell weight and wall thickness observed in
the top sediment may also be the result of monsoonal changes
in water properties from upwelling to non-upwelling conditions.
Comparison with shells from the sediment trap for the
same size fraction (255–350μm) shows that the differences
found between shells that have calcified during the monsoon
season and the inter-monsoon season(s) are similar to the differences
found between the thick and thin shells in the core
top (Table 2). In addition, the flux corrected average of the
entire nine month series is strikingly close to shells weights
found in samples from the surface water (11.5μg, Conan,
2006) near the coring site (906, taken February 1993), and
similar to the mean shell weight from the mixed layer of
sediment core 905B (Table 2). In other words, seasonality
produces similar differences in shell weight and stable isotopes
as found between the thick and thin shells. Furthermore
recent shells from the water column and sediment trap
have weights similar to those found in the modern mixed
layer. This is in contrast with the acidification hypothesis,
which would predict recent shells from the water column to
have lower shell weights compared to those in the sediment
(which is a mixture of recent and pre-anthropogenic shells)."[/COLOR]

And further down you get this......

"Our study provides a first indication that anthropogenic
ocean acidification may have affected the calcification of
foraminifera in the surface ocean. However, a scenario with
seasonal production of thick and thin shells also explains
the observed changes in shell weight and wall thickness in
the western Arabian Sea. While the seasonality scenario
alone cannot explain the radiocarbon data (the light shells being
younger) or the higher shell weights below the sediment
mixed layer, the acidification hypothesis appears inconsistent
with some observations from the water column. It is likely
that the two processes take place simultaneously, making it
difficult to unravel one from the other at our site, which is
characterised by high seasonal variations. The radiocarbon
analysis implies that, on top of the seasonal variation, a part
of the observed differences is probably the result of anthropogenic
ocean acidification. Further work on this subject
is necessary to solve this problem and should ideally focus
on sites with less pronounced seasonality unless the seasonal
signal can be unravelled adequately.
If shell weights are indeed decreasing"

So once again olfraud doesn't read a study that he cites. And surprise surprise that study actually doesn't say ANYTHING that olfraud claims it does.

What a tool. Three years of college? Reall? Gosh, I really doubt that. I really do.

Tool? What do you call selective highlighting?

I highlighted that which addressed the issue. At least I POSTED THE WHOLE quote unlike you and your fools who try and hide anything that doesn't support your view. Nice attempt but as usual your insult only highlights your perfidy.

 

[uscitizen]

Many freshwater lakes far from humans influence on the ground have become acidic to the point of nothing living in them.

 

[westwall]

Many freshwater lakes far from humans influence on the ground have become acidic to the point of nothing living in them.

Really? Do tell. More importantly please provide us links for the reports. I am very interested. So far the only places I have found like that were in former socialist countries and they were lifeless do to just straight pollution.

 

[bripat9643]

Tool? What do you call selective highlighting?

How do you do non-selective highlighting? Highlight everything? Do you understand the purpose of highlighting?

You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?