Enough people here are “skeptical” re AGW but how about ocean acidificaction?
I “believe”!
New@ this Tapa. Can someone provide
a link?
Enough people here are “skeptical” re AGW but how about ocean acidificaction?
I “believe”!
New@ this Tapa. Can someone provide
a link?
Do you have data that you’d care to present?
Sorry must get to a librRy first. What does Encyclopedia.com say?
Wiki, ENCARTA, GOOLVL,e, Brittanica?
I …now understand mobile frustration . Will be back within hour.
Well, just because you are a Charter Member, lets check NOAA:
(vamos al Noa Noa, Noa noa, noa noa… (old silly Spanish song))
pfft -scientists that study stuff for a long time. What do they know?
10 Q very much!
Yeah! I walked into the ocean on my last vacation and my feet didn’t melt off so it can’t be that acidic.
Carbon dioxide has something of a chemical reaction with water, so it’s more than just all the extra CO[sub]2[/sub] dissolving in the ocean water. A part of this becomes carboxylic acid which releases one H[sup]+[/sup] ion, driving down pH.
I’m back online in the usual way, at a community center.
It may seem that I jumped on a sort of bandwagon just because there is literature out there, but I “believe” all such claims are subject to double-edge research and meaningful debate.
In case anyone is wondering about my convictions re AGW, I “believe” it to be true in essentiais, and the only recent tweaking in my mind is that maybe FXMastermind (with others here) has a point about the Earth not responding as predicted.
Who was that skeptcal maverick who wondered aloud about sufficient compunction in “everyone” else’s research so he did his own? He concluded that Climate Change. involving overal warming, was indeed caused principally by human indusrty involving tremendous fossil fuel burning.
That’s the main reason I “believe” in AGW.
As predicted by whom? The evidence is that the contrarian papers that many deniers use have a few things in common:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/26/3695477/climate-scientists-cant-recreate-bad-science/
That was Richard Muller.
That is good, now keep in mind that there are many more reasons, and they do not depend on computer models and a lot of this was discussed for more than a century.
As for the earth not warming as predicted:
Next time some denier tries to claim that global warming stopped 16 or 18 or 19 or 23 years ago, you can now point them to these two papers
Or you could tell them that last year was the hottest on record, and this year is shaping up to come close - maybe even beat it.
Data source: GISS NASA
There’s not been any “hiatus” in surface temperature. There have probably been some interesting things happening around the world. That’s only to be expected as we enter unchartered territory by rapidly heating up the planet.
An entire debate in one post …
It would be foolish to proceed with fossil fuels without safeguards. These “contrarians” GIGO speaks of are seemingly unaware of the profit potential that would come with installing these safeguards. I can’t tell you how pleased I am with how cheap this wind energy is even without government subsidies. AGW or not, ditching this fossil fuel crap is the way to go.
Okay, GIGO. I’ve been wrong on things so many times over the decades that mayhaps I’ve developed the bad habit of “bending over backwards” to be some extreme version of “open-minded.”
And as Thurber concluded his short story about the recovered alcoholic, you can hurt yourself as much by falling over backward as by falling on your face! *
BTW, thanks for the answer re the formerly skeptcal researcher.
from “The Bear Who Let it Alone”
"You might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backward."
As I’ve mentioned before, ocean acidification may end up as a more serious problem than AGW. This is because there may be a relatively inexpensive way to reduce global warming – inject coolants, e.g. sulfate aerosols, into the atmosphere – but there is no easy way to increase ocean pH.
As I’ve mentioned before, ocean acidification may end up as a more serious problem than AGW. This is because there may be a relatively inexpensive way to reduce global warming – inject coolants, e.g. sulfate aerosols, into the atmosphere – but there is no easy way to increase ocean pH.
For once I must respectfully disagree with you. The idea of geo-engineering the climate is in the realm of pure speculation and, in my view, dangerous speculation at that – dangerous because it provides the illusion that there may be an easy fix to an urgent problem, and because in the unlikely event that any such schemes were tried, the unintended consequences could be disastrous. You mention sulfate aerosols. To take that example, that would indeed contribute to mitigation of warming, but its also the primary cause of acid rain, something we worked long and hard to clean up. It’s not going to help either ocean acidity or anything else in our environment to have sulphuric acid raining down on us.
There is simply no such scheme that is viable, non-polluting, and free of potentially huge unintended consequences. Nor is it clear that such a scheme would solve one of the big problems of unbalanced forcings, climate destabilization.
As I see it, ocean acidification is just one symptom of a broad range of problems caused by AGW, and we need to address all of them. The oceans are a large part of our ecosystem, but AGW affects the entirety of our ecosystem. It affects atmosphere and ocean circulation, regional climates, climate stability, food crop viability, biodiversity, extreme weather and damaging storms, pests and disease – it affects everything that life itself depends on, and there’s not much we can do about outside the realm of science fiction except to reduce the greenhouse gases that are the root cause.
The idea of geo-engineering the climate is in the realm of pure speculation and, in my view, dangerous speculation at that – dangerous because it provides the illusion that there may be an easy fix to an urgent problem, and because in the unlikely event that any such schemes were tried, the unintended consequences could be disastrous. You mention sulfate aerosols. To take that example, that would indeed contribute to mitigation of warming, but its also the primary cause of acid rain, something we worked long and hard to clean up. It’s not going to help either ocean acidity or anything else in our environment to have sulphuric acid raining down on us.
There is simply no such scheme that is viable, non-polluting, and free of potentially huge unintended consequences. Nor is it clear that such a scheme would solve one of the big problems of unbalanced forcings, climate destabilization.
As I see it, ocean acidification is just one symptom of a broad range of problems caused by AGW, and we need to address all of them. The oceans are a large part of our ecosystem, but AGW affects the entirety of our ecosystem. It affects atmosphere and ocean circulation, regional climates, climate stability, food crop viability, biodiversity, extreme weather and damaging storms, pests and disease – it affects everything that life itself depends on, and there’s not much we can do about outside the realm of science fiction except to reduce the greenhouse gases that are the root cause.
I mentioned sulfate aerosols just for an “exisence proof.” I’ll guess there are cost-effective cooling agents with much less chemical effects.
But on the whole I’m sure your views are correct. Treat my post as a predictive warning. A few decades from now, when the adverse effects of climate change are undeniable, the same group pimping the deniers today, allied with insurance companies who foresee that millions of houses will need to be replaced, will propose aerosol coolants as a way to reduce temperatures while still continuing the carbon-burning party.
I think scientists should be ready to answer them.
Here’s an authoritative source:
The ocean currently absorbs about a quarter of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, leading to ocean acidification that will alter marine ecosystems in dramatic yet uncertain ways.
I mentioned sulfate aerosols just for an “exisence proof.” I’ll guess there are cost-effective cooling agents with much less chemical effects.
But on the whole I’m sure your views are correct. Treat my post as a predictive warning. A few decades from now, when the adverse effects of climate change are undeniable, the same group pimping the deniers today, allied with insurance companies who foresee that millions of houses will need to be replaced, will propose aerosol coolants as a way to reduce temperatures while still continuing the carbon-burning party.
I think scientists should be ready to answer them.
As I pointed in past threads the saddest thing regarding the deniers is that to reliably calculate the amounts needed to do effective geoengineering means that we do have to then consult the experts that work with computer models.
A big contradictory item from many deniers is that at the same time they continue to disparage computer modeling when applied to climate projections they seem to think that the same climate scientists that work with models are the beesnees when the time comes to add aerosol particles on purpose if we let the problem fester.