Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
braddo said:
False? That NASA link says the the summer 2013 ice mass, despite being higher than 2012's, is still 432,000 sq miles (or 20%) LESS than the AVERAGE for the past 30 years.
That still looks like a downward trend to me.
In case people get confused by numbers and words, I think you need to use the picture... That still looks like a downward trend to me.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/673...
The yellow line is the average for the last 30 years.
Just in case its' still not clear enough for some people, the white stuff is this years minimum which is a lot less than average.
TransverseTight said:
If you haven't got anything useful to say, why bother? It just fills up the thread with white space. Some of us are trying to have a debate and learn something from people who have different opinions to us. (Although some people are probably tying to force their opinions on others too).
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+A...
I find the best way to learn is not to go and talk to people who all agree on something.
FYI it the lower life forms further down the food chain that are affected, and ultimately it does have something to do with the price of fish.
A lot of these questions have been answered earlier in this thread or the ones before. There are a few big issues with Ocean Acidification theory - 1- given ocean PH varies by magnitudes depending on the ocean flora and fauna in the area and the time of day - how accurate do you think the measurements for the ocean are and how much of the ocean has been measured?http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+A...
I find the best way to learn is not to go and talk to people who all agree on something.
FYI it the lower life forms further down the food chain that are affected, and ultimately it does have something to do with the price of fish.
2 - it is not acidification. Acid's have free H+ ions, bases have free hydroxyl ions. A liquid with neither is netural (PH 7) any movement towards a PH of 7 from either direction in called neutralisation as the free ions are being soaked up. Hence it is ocean neutralisation.
3 - the entire thoery seems to ignore that the net effect of warming the oceans is the release of CO2 and cooling oceans sequest CO2. Whilst they try to refer to partial pressures given the percentages we are talking about and the amount of CO2 sequestion oceans are capable of turns their theory into nonsense.
Jinx said:
A lot of these questions have been answered earlier in this thread or the ones before. There are a few big issues with Ocean Acidification theory - 1- given ocean PH varies by magnitudes depending on the ocean flora and fauna in the area and the time of day - how accurate do you think the measurements for the ocean are and how much of the ocean has been measured?
2 - it is not acidification. Acid's have free H+ ions, bases have free hydroxyl ions. A liquid with neither is netural (PH 7) any movement towards a PH of 7 from either direction in called neutralisation as the free ions are being soaked up. Hence it is ocean neutralisation.
3 - the entire thoery seems to ignore that the net effect of warming the oceans is the release of CO2 and cooling oceans sequest CO2. Whilst they try to refer to partial pressures given the percentages we are talking about and the amount of CO2 sequestion oceans are capable of turns their theory into nonsense.
Thanks for replying with something sensible! 2 - it is not acidification. Acid's have free H+ ions, bases have free hydroxyl ions. A liquid with neither is netural (PH 7) any movement towards a PH of 7 from either direction in called neutralisation as the free ions are being soaked up. Hence it is ocean neutralisation.
3 - the entire thoery seems to ignore that the net effect of warming the oceans is the release of CO2 and cooling oceans sequest CO2. Whilst they try to refer to partial pressures given the percentages we are talking about and the amount of CO2 sequestion oceans are capable of turns their theory into nonsense.
1) I'll have to go away and find answer myself. However I presume they are more interested in the top part which is where most of the interaction between sea and air is, and can make assumptions that what happens in one place happens elsewhere.
2) Your stating that going from pH 8.12 to 8.06 is neutralisation. I agree this isn't acidification. It's de-alkalination (or whatever the word is). I'll have to read up on how this affects plankton formation - as it's not acid dissolving them (like fish scales).
3) I think is disputed if there's a higher concentration off CO2 in the atmosphere like we have now. Although the ocean might want to off gas as it warms, if you have high concentrations of CO2 the short term effect is for the sea to act as a sponge, and then mixing effect of currents will remove some of the some CO2 down into the depths, allowing "fresh" water to take up more CO2. The thing is - this isn't a theory - it's measured pH. Even if the number of samples is not high enough to convince everyone. I guess no one else has come up with an explanation of why it's changed or they'd have a nobel prize instead.
TT as far as I'm concerned matey my white space doesn't take up any more than yours.
You have been invited to peruse the entire series of climate threads here so you can be up to speed with where some of us are with this, I can't see much evidence that you may have taken it up.
I do not wish to influence your opinion, especially as I am not clever enough to have one of my own, but you would be welcome to opine here with authority if you treated the thread with some courtesy.
In case you were unaware, I am sure the the sea is NOT an acid.
I am not convinced by the Acidified Oceans theory.
Carry on ol' chap.
You have been invited to peruse the entire series of climate threads here so you can be up to speed with where some of us are with this, I can't see much evidence that you may have taken it up.
I do not wish to influence your opinion, especially as I am not clever enough to have one of my own, but you would be welcome to opine here with authority if you treated the thread with some courtesy.
In case you were unaware, I am sure the the sea is NOT an acid.
I am not convinced by the Acidified Oceans theory.
Carry on ol' chap.
TT and others who posted some reasonable comments - if you want some reasonable answers then prob best look elsewhere. I tried to convince people a while ago to actually go and look for themselves at what the mainstream scientific view was but no one was prepared to, and I just got called an activist for trying to stand up for science. I work as a scientist in oil & gas so I have some idea of the difference between science and politics, and the IPCC report is an example of the former.
I notice that people still post that warming has stopped over the last few years, clearly without bothering to look at the numbers. Same with sea ice. Doesn't matter what you say, the majority on here have their view and will stick to it.
I notice that people still post that warming has stopped over the last few years, clearly without bothering to look at the numbers. Same with sea ice. Doesn't matter what you say, the majority on here have their view and will stick to it.
TT - there haven't been enough samples to show they are measuring what they think they are measuring. The current post normal science is to model then find some measurements that agree to that model and declare a problem. There has been nothing to show that other ph affecting events have been ruled out. Oh and the IPCC have shown today that they are Lysenkian in their approach to science.
TransverseTight said:
Thanks for replying with something sensible!
Yes, Thanks Jinx.In short, and not for the first time, where the truth is not scary sounding enough we are told a scary sounding lie. That really ought to make people suspicious as to whether it is genuine science or just the politics of fear.
Edited by grumbledoak on Friday 27th September 18:25
Just a quick question, been watching the BBC (and laughing out loud)
can somebody tell me the mechanism by which the oceans transfer heat to the depths, my limited understanding of science is that heat rises, and also what switched on this mechanism at the time the rise in temperatures "Paused" it must be easy as there is a 95% certainty its happening.
can somebody tell me the mechanism by which the oceans transfer heat to the depths, my limited understanding of science is that heat rises, and also what switched on this mechanism at the time the rise in temperatures "Paused" it must be easy as there is a 95% certainty its happening.
Mr2Mike said:
d0ntp4n1c said:
I work as a scientist in oil & gas so I have some idea of the difference between science and politics, and the IPCC report is an example of the former.
There couldn't possibly be any politics involved.
What is that supposed to be showing us?
PRTVR said:
Just a quick question, been watching the BBC (and laughing out loud)
can somebody tell me the mechanism by which the oceans transfer heat to the depths, my limited understanding of science is that heat rises, and also what switched on this mechanism at the time the rise in temperatures "Paused" it must be easy as there is a 95% certainty its happening.
Water thats been warmed at the surface in the tropics head up the gulf stream meets Arctic cold water and then sinks. For the water to move from one place to another it needs to be replaced from somewhere else as it doesn't leave a hole. So theres cold water heading from the arctic thru the deep ocean back to the tropics. Convection currents but on a massive scale. IIRC they move the equivaent of the entire heat output of our fossil powerstations every day. can somebody tell me the mechanism by which the oceans transfer heat to the depths, my limited understanding of science is that heat rises, and also what switched on this mechanism at the time the rise in temperatures "Paused" it must be easy as there is a 95% certainty its happening.
The key to your question though. .. When the cold water sinks it can take a bit more heat down than the water its replacing back in the tropics. Leading to a gradual warming of the ocean.
TransverseTight said:
PRTVR said:
Just a quick question, been watching the BBC (and laughing out loud)
can somebody tell me the mechanism by which the oceans transfer heat to the depths, my limited understanding of science is that heat rises, and also what switched on this mechanism at the time the rise in temperatures "Paused" it must be easy as there is a 95% certainty its happening.
Water thats been warmed at the surface in the tropics head up the gulf stream meets Arctic cold water and then sinks. For the water to move from one place to another it needs to be replaced from somewhere else as it doesn't leave a hole. So theres cold water heading from the arctic thru the deep ocean back to the tropics. Convection currents but on a massive scale. IIRC they move the equivaent of the entire heat output of our fossil powerstations every day. can somebody tell me the mechanism by which the oceans transfer heat to the depths, my limited understanding of science is that heat rises, and also what switched on this mechanism at the time the rise in temperatures "Paused" it must be easy as there is a 95% certainty its happening.
The key to your question though. .. When the cold water sinks it can take a bit more heat down than the water its replacing back in the tropics. Leading to a gradual warming of the ocean.
perdu said:
TT as far as I'm concerned matey my white space doesn't take up any more than yours.
You have been invited to peruse the entire series of climate threads here so you can be up to speed with where some of us are with this, I can't see much evidence that you may have taken it up.
I do not wish to influence your opinion, especially as I am not clever enough to have one of my own, but you would be welcome to opine here with authority if you treated the thread with some courtesy.
In case you were unaware, I am sure the the sea is NOT an acid.
I am not convinced by the Acidified Oceans theory.
Carry on ol' chap.
I'm reluctant to spend a lot of time reading old forum posts as its a bit like reading old newspapers. My time is limited and the debate has probably moved on. I'm more interested in asking questions to find new questions I don't know the answer to. You have been invited to peruse the entire series of climate threads here so you can be up to speed with where some of us are with this, I can't see much evidence that you may have taken it up.
I do not wish to influence your opinion, especially as I am not clever enough to have one of my own, but you would be welcome to opine here with authority if you treated the thread with some courtesy.
In case you were unaware, I am sure the the sea is NOT an acid.
I am not convinced by the Acidified Oceans theory.
Carry on ol' chap.
Likewise if someone replies with an answer, like jinx has done, it gets me to understand peoples thinking behind their beliefs rather than just reading some facts or opinions. Yes some people have posted here lots but I haven't. Imagine going into a bar and saying "whos gonna win the premiership" and being told by 2 old blokes in the corner "we already talked about that yesterday, so don't need to hear what you think".
To
rovermorris999 said:
Unfortunately the IPCC is now more about politics than it is about science.
It always was. It's mandate was to study Man Made Climate Change.Not much wiggle room there.
ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=Wr...
TransverseTight said:
Thanks for replying with something sensible!
1) I'll have to go away and find answer myself. However I presume they are more interested in the top part which is where most of the interaction between sea and air is, and can make assumptions that what happens in one place happens elsewhere.
2) Your stating that going from pH 8.12 to 8.06 is neutralisation. I agree this isn't acidification. It's de-alkalination (or whatever the word is). I'll have to read up on how this affects plankton formation - as it's not acid dissolving them (like fish scales).
3) I think is disputed if there's a higher concentration off CO2 in the atmosphere like we have now. Although the ocean might want to off gas as it warms, if you have high concentrations of CO2 the short term effect is for the sea to act as a sponge, and then mixing effect of currents will remove some of the some CO2 down into the depths, allowing "fresh" water to take up more CO2. The thing is - this isn't a theory - it's measured pH. Even if the number of samples is not high enough to convince everyone. I guess no one else has come up with an explanation of why it's changed or they'd have a nobel prize instead.
The answer is you can do this with science. Reading the abstracts of a few papers there are 2 main methods. Field based sampling and lab based experiments. I particularly like the lab as you can control temperature, pressure, salinity acidity CO2 and see what the absorption rates are & therefore rate of pH change.1) I'll have to go away and find answer myself. However I presume they are more interested in the top part which is where most of the interaction between sea and air is, and can make assumptions that what happens in one place happens elsewhere.
2) Your stating that going from pH 8.12 to 8.06 is neutralisation. I agree this isn't acidification. It's de-alkalination (or whatever the word is). I'll have to read up on how this affects plankton formation - as it's not acid dissolving them (like fish scales).
3) I think is disputed if there's a higher concentration off CO2 in the atmosphere like we have now. Although the ocean might want to off gas as it warms, if you have high concentrations of CO2 the short term effect is for the sea to act as a sponge, and then mixing effect of currents will remove some of the some CO2 down into the depths, allowing "fresh" water to take up more CO2. The thing is - this isn't a theory - it's measured pH. Even if the number of samples is not high enough to convince everyone. I guess no one else has come up with an explanation of why it's changed or they'd have a nobel prize instead.
Interestingly they also do this to see the effects on the ecosystem. Block off part of a lagoon and artificially raise the temperature or acidity and see if species can cope. Some can, some cant.
I'm now quite happy I could win a pub debate (not a scientific one) on whether the scientific method of establishing the pH of oceans is done via sound methods.
Have I missed sonething?
braddo said:
dickymint said:
braddo said:
grumbledoak said:
braddo said:
That still looks like a downward trend to me.
It isn't supposed to be there at all. If the predictions (and thus, the theory) were correct.http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p...
If Bob Carter is the most senior scientific voice of that organisation I see no reason to listen to a word they say.
TransverseTight said:
The answer is you can do this with science. Reading the abstracts of a few papers there are 2 main methods. Field based sampling and lab based experiments. I particularly like the lab as you can control temperature, pressure, salinity acidity CO2 and see what the absorption rates are & therefore rate of pH change.
Interestingly they also do this to see the effects on the ecosystem. Block off part of a lagoon and artificially raise the temperature or acidity and see if species can cope. Some can, some cant.
I'm now quite happy I could win a pub debate (not a scientific one) on whether the scientific method of establishing the pH of oceans is done via sound methods.
Have I missed sonething?
So much. But never mind.Interestingly they also do this to see the effects on the ecosystem. Block off part of a lagoon and artificially raise the temperature or acidity and see if species can cope. Some can, some cant.
I'm now quite happy I could win a pub debate (not a scientific one) on whether the scientific method of establishing the pH of oceans is done via sound methods.
Have I missed sonething?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff