Polar ice advancing, global warming is dead

@Ionus,

gee, Ionus, you were kind of selective in cherry picking that research. Somehow you managed to leave out some extremely significant facts:

Quote:

.

Previous studies have found the changing chemistry is thinning the shells of some microscopic sea creature that are key to the food chain. Other larger creatures are known to suffer this problem, too.

. For one thing, increased ocean acidification has been fingered as a culprit in killing corals.

Got that? Acidification is screwing up the bases of the ocean food chain. And you know what's at the top of that food chain, don't you? Us.

And it's also killing coral. You were really proud of one of your lengthy posts, which dealt among other things, most of which you got wrong, with coral. You mentioned that coral had been around for billions of years. But somewhow youj forgot to mention that there are two kinds of coral, one of which is sensitive to small changes in temperature and one that is not, and unfortunately the temp-sensitive ones are a large part of the ones that build the reefs that the cdreatures we eat congregate around. Research shows that the 1997-8 el Nino, the strongest on record, caused bleaching in something on the order of 16% of the coral exposed to it.

Life is, as you say, tough. Unfortunately human civilization is in pretty delicate balance. Any significant disruption in the food chain, and a couple billion people who live on the edge currently, just barely ekeing it out, could quite possibly die. You too. Do you have the knowledghe, the lands, and the seeds to grow your own food, when the supermarket shelves are bare and your country goes Mad Max on you? Yes,life WILL survive, but the organisms most likely to survive are cockroaches, not us.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Shell-shocked: Ocean acidification likely hampers tiny shell builders in Southern Ocean

Quote:

In a changing climate, the response of these organisms and the ecosystems they support is still unknown. But all signs suggest that acidification will likely place these organisms under increased pressure, threatening them in different ways, including the ability of some cocolithophores to build and maintain a shell, according to the CU-Boulder researchers.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Do you have the knowledghe, the lands, and the seeds to grow your own food, when the supermarket shelves are bare and your country goes Mad Max on you?

Typical green hysteria . Its DOOMSDAY people ! Build your fallout shelter now !

Quote:

the organisms most likely to survive are cockroaches, not us.

What a ridiculous emotional appeal...given up on science have you ? How will cockroaches survive if we are the one's feeding them now ?

Quote:

most of which you got wrong

Then tell me, dont declare from Mt Olympus, tell me .

Quote:

Research shows that the 1997-8 el Nino, the strongest on record, caused bleaching in something on the order of 16% of the coral exposed to it.

And do you know what happened ? Nothing . It grew back .

Not a single fact about proving GW, just hysterical ranting about what MIGHT happen, or it might not .

0 Replies

re Ionus:
You're wrong about climate change. Most of it isn't cyclical or periodic, so your list of cycles is meaningless. The Lesser Dryas, the likely climate change which lead to pressure from Eastern European farmers on the lands of the Germanic peoples, who invaded the Roman Empire, the climate change which precipitated the collaps of the Classic Period Mesoamerican civilizations within about twenty or thirty years of each other in the early 800s, the change which forced the Anasazi out of their cliff dwellings, the Medieval Warm Period (of unclear extent beyond Europe), the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age--none of them were periodic, so dwelling on the ice age--interlgacial cycle as you do, and saying it's the only one that counts, as you do, is completely off the wall. You're wrong about acidification of the oceans because you only look at the minor variable involved--warmer temps, and ignor the major one-- increasing partial pressure of CO2. You're wrong about coral--it's very slow growing and coralologists say a lot of it is living close to its thermal limit, and climate change is pushing a lot of it past its limits, it's bleaching, and the result is colony collapse, and rubble, and no regrowth:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral_2.html You really are blowing it repeatedly, ionus.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

You;re wrong about climate change.

Rather bland assertion from an enthusiast . If there is no GW, how are you going to feel powerful and righteous and indignant and bossy ?

Quote:

Most of it isn't cyclical or periodic, so your list of cycles is meaningless.

So...God is doing it ? Or is it the one completely random phenomena science has been looking for ?

Quote:

so dwelling on the ice age--interlgacial cycle as you do, and saying it's the only one that counts

Getting hard to beat me isnt it so you are making stuff up...I simply asked you to explain where we were with regards to those cycles so I would know they have been scientifically eliminated and not wished away . I listed many cycles, some of which can peak concurrently .

Quote:

You're wrong about acidification of the oceans because you only look at the minor variable involved--warmer temps

You are wrong because you only look at one variable - CO2 . What about fertilisers and pollution ? How did you scientifically eliminate those ? You didn't did you ...

Quote:

You really are blowing it repeatedly

I dont have to tell people what you are doing...its called hysterical lying and they can see that for themselves .

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Tlak about red herrings, you're really splattering them around tonight. The whole context of ocean acidification under discussion was CO2. You maintained that the oceans were outgassing CO@ because of raising temps andf you completely ignored the fact that they weree absorbing far more CO2 than they were outgassing even now with slightly raised temps, because of the much greater effect of increased partial pressurre of CO2.. And that increased CO2 reacts chemically with water and calcium compounds in biological processwes which are being changed. Pollution and fertilizer runoff are completley separate topics were not under discussion, but are of course ways we're ******* up the oceans. You were totaqlly offbase there. (And you're going to need your AC because it's not gonna cool off naturally, as you hypothesized on the basis of no evidence somewhere above "to average things out". Not happening).

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Tlak about red herrings, you're really splattering them around tonight. The whole context of ocean acidification under discussion was CO2. You maintained that the oceans were outgassing CO@ because of raising temps andf you completely ignored the fact that they weree absorbing far more CO2 than they were outgassing even now with slightly raised temps, because of the much greater effect of increased partial pressurre of CO2.. And that increased CO2 reacts chemically with water and calcium compounds in biological processwes which are being changed. Pollution and fertilizer runoff are completley separate topics were not under discussion, but are of course ways we're ******* up the oceans. You were totaqlly offbase there.

Gods not doing it. Most climate change isn't periodic. Which doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that it's not cyclic. It's happened because of geographic conditions and the way ice melted. It's happened because of minor changes in the sun's output, which doesn't happen on any period we can tell, Incidentally, calculation of the Milankovich cycles seems to indicate that the next ice age won't happen for at least 20,000 years, so we've got to figure out howto keep things together for the next couple hundred years, so our descendants if any 20,000 years from now can figure out what to do then.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

The whole context of ocean acidification under discussion was CO2.

Ahh the thread is GW ? You have assumed that less alkaline oceans are occurring due to GW, and I want to know how you eliminated any other factors like pollution and fertilisers . You did eliminate other factors, didnt you ?

Quote:

You maintained that the oceans were outgassing CO@ because of raising temps andf you completely ignored the fact that they weree absorbing far more CO2 than they were outgassing even now with slightly raised temps, because of the much greater effect of increased partial pressurre of CO2..

Really ? I did all that ? Perhaps you can show me where... what I said was as the temp rises less CO2 is absorbed and in general the higher the temp the more CO2 is released . Conversely, as the oceans cool they will take in more CO2 so hot oceans taking in more CO2 is garbage . I accept that pressure is also involved, but temp wins this one .

Quote:

Most climate change isn't periodic.

So how did you eliminate to prove it isn't normal and GW is man made ?

2 Replies

@Ionus,

When it comes to pressure vs temperature, unless you are going to argue that the earth has warmed 10ºC in the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere clearly wins this one.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01861a033?journalCode=jacsat

Quote:

You have assumed that less alkaline oceans are occurring due to GW, and I want to know how you eliminated any other factors like pollution and fertilisers . You did eliminate other factors, didnt you ?

OMG. Scientists didn't stop to check what acid was being added to the oceans over the last 100 years.

Oh wait. They did bother to check and have even given us the chemical reactions involved.
https://theotherco2problem.wordpress.com/what-happens-chemically/

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Wow, Ionus, really big of you to finally admit that partial pressure plays a role in the amount of gas that will dissolve in a liquid. William Henry told us that more than 200 years ago. You obviously haven't run the numbers yet, though. Because in the case we have at hand, where partial pressure of CO2 has increased by around 40% since pre-industrial levels, and Henry's Constant which tell us how much of thast gas will outgas when temp rises above pre-industrial levels has increased 2-3 % or so over that same period, partial pressure IS the main driver here, not temp change. nPlug the values into Henry's Law and see what happens. The equilibrium point is still way far away, where the same amount of gas is absorbed as is outgassed. Parados's 10degrees C sounds about right. And remember partial pressure is a moving target, because we're continually adding more CO2 every year, so it keeps rising (rising faster than Henry's Constant). You've never done the math, why do you keep avoiding it? You;re wrong.

1 Reply

I mean, really, just take a look at Henry's Law, look at P and k-sub-h, think about how they're increasing, and you should see just how inevitably wrong you are. Here's a little kick in the ass to get you off your seat and do the numbers: page 1204, variation with temp of Henry's constant for CO2
http://www.nist.gov/srd/upload/jpcrd427.pdf

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

really big of you to finally admit that partial pressure plays a role in the amount of gas that will dissolve in a liquid

Really stupid of you to finally realise that was never the argument .

Quote:

You've never done the math, why do you keep avoiding it?

Look dopey, you can tell the other dwarfs, my argument has always been temp increases will decrease CO2 dissolving . There are also other factors such as storms and general weather that play a role . In general, an increase in temp will expel CO2 from water .

Carbonic acid is weak and can dissociate to bicarbonate or carbonate; hydrogen is produced from these reactions, which gives carbonated water a slightly acidic pH . We do not have an acidic ocean, it is alkaline .

Quote:

Amsterdam University led the experimental work, which involved raising coral larvae to the point where they settle on the reef, placing them in tanks and then exposing them to air bubbles with levels of CO2 of 750-1000 parts per million. This is projected to be the world’s atmospheric CO2 content by the end of this century, if humanity fails to cut its carbon emissions....Much to our surprise we found the rising acidity had little effect on the production of ion transport proteins that are responsible for circulating and depositing the calcium carbonate within the coral cells to form its skeleton. These seemed largely unaffected under high CO2.

That's right, 3 times as much CO2 TOTAL as now and they couldnt effect the calcium carbonate circulation to form a skeleton . That total assumes that the current ratio of approx 1/12 of man made to natural increase in Co2 [U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000)], if the natural stops, then man will contribute 100 times more CO2 by the end of this century . Anyone for hysterical laughing ? The absolute worse case unimaginable, and they were surprised at the little effect it had .

Shell fish, molluscs and corals need CO2, the oceans processes make CaCO2 out of it and that forms the shell .

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

When it comes to pressure vs temperature, unless you are going to argue that the earth has warmed 10ºC in the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere clearly wins this one.

From the title of your ref :

Quote:

The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in Water at Various Temperatures from 12 to 40° and at Pressures to 500 Atmospheres.

500 atmospheres ??? Seriously ???

Quote:

OMG. Scientists didn't stop to check what acid was being added to the oceans over the last 100 years.

That's right Paradum, they didn't . Fertiliser and insecticide run off was the major factor for the Barrier Reef damage, and now that has been fixed, are we having any trouble with coral loss ? No . Do you know why that was ? The coral reefs are very close to land and feel the full effect before it spreads to the ocean and thins out .

0 Replies

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Carbon dioxide exists in the Earth's atmosphere as a trace gas at a concentration of about 0.04 percent (400 ppm) by volume and has a density about 1.67 times that of air.

Dalton's law of partial pressures: For a mixture of gases in any container, the total pressure exerted is the sum of the pressures that each gas would exert if it were alone.

This law can be expressed in equation form as: p = p1 + p2 + p3 + ...

where p is the total or measured pressure and p1, p2, ... are the partial pressures of the individual gases. For air, an appropriate form of Dalton's law would be: p(air) = p(N2) + p(O2) + p(CO2) + ...

When the total pressure of air is 100 kPa or one bar, the partial pressures of each of its components (in kPa) are numerically equal to the mole per cent of that component (Table). Thus the partial pressures of the major components of dry air at 1 atmosphere (sea level, also as 100 kPa) are : nitrogen, 78 kPa; oxygen, 21 kPa; argon, 0.9 kPa; and carbon dioxide, 0.03 kPa.

Component Mole Per Cent Molar Mass
N2 78.084 28.013
O2 20.948 31.998
Ar 0.934 29.948
CO2 0.0314 44.010
Ne 0.001818 20.183
He 0.000524 4.003
CH4 0.002 16.043
Kr 0.000114 83.80
H2 0.00005 2.016
N2O 0.00005 44.013
Xe 0.0000087 131.30

mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
mass of hydrosphere: 1400 x 10^18 kg
The oceans absorb roughly twice as much CO2 as there is in the atmosphere .
1/12 of CO2 increase is man made . The total increase in CO2 is 0.00000211 % per annum . This means 0.00000017583 increase in CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere is due to man .

Henry's law states: "At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid."

Henry's law can be put into mathematical terms (at constant temperature) as p = k(h) c
where p is the partial pressure of the gaseous solute above the solution, c is the concentration of the dissolved gas and kH is a constant with the dimensions of pressure divided by concentration. The constant, known as the Henry's law constant, depends on the solute, the solvent and the temperature. For a dilute solution, the concentration of the solute is approximately proportional to its mole fraction x . Rewriting Henry's Law, we have c = p/k(h) .
The Henry's Law constant at 15 deg C is 1220, giving a pressure of 2.92 atm or 28 psig assuming salt water is the same as pure water . Solubility goes down as salinity goes up .

Now here's the clincher...I have been unable to find Henry's constant for 15 degree C sea water with 80% humidity air . If you can tell me where you got your constant from ....and you must have one as you say you have already worked this out....I would appreciate it .

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

There are so many factors and things we are doing that it is not clear cut what exactly the results will be.

I always wondered over things no one ever seems to consider. Like in large cities, if you think about it, the more buildings you put up, it actually increases the surface area of that area. So when the sun is shining it's actually heating up more area than it would have if it were covered by trees or grass land. That has to have some kind of impact on local weather. A hundred story building baking in the sun warming up the air around it, where if that building wasn't there it would be a tree or field. If that is difficult to imagine what I am talking about, it would be like adding miles of heating elements all over the ground and expecting it not to have an impact on the local temperature.

There is a cost for everything we do. We don't even know what the long term impacts of removing oil from the ground let alone consuming it. We have no idea what the impacts are by doing heavy deforestation and turning fields into housing developments and laying down thousands of miles of asphalt roads everywhere.

There is a price to be paid for everything we do and the standard of living we wish to have. When we have to pay that price, I'm not sure and how expensive it will be is uncertain.

I don't see things slowing down any time soon. And I think it's silly that it's only very minor things that we adjust thinking it's actually going to have an impact. I always get a laugh any time I see a "green" company requesting that a job applicant needs to have reliable transportation (ie. a car) as a requirement. You'll never see a company say if you own a car you can't work here.

0 Replies

I wonder how this map can prove the shrinking of the polar ice. But I'm sure, the one or even the other will explain it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2015/08/05/atlasgif.ngsversion.839176c388ff4330133df7955f73315d.gif

Source: National Geographic Yes, Mr. President, We Remade Our Atlas to Reflect Shrinking Ice
(National Geographic appears to concur with the president. It noted that the shrinking of the Arctic ice sheet, illustrated in the 10th edition of its atlas, "is one of the most striking changes in the publication's history".)

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Ice caps are sea (surface) ice which melts and reforms annually. Land ice is what's melting and raising sea levels. That doesn't grow back.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

What period of time should be considered before making a statement like the ice is shrinking ?

1 Reply

@HesDeltanCaptain,

Quote:

Land ice is what's melting and raising sea levels.

How do you know this ?

0 Replies

Polar ice advancing, global warming is dead

Quick Links

My Account

able2know