Slashdot Mirror
Carnegie Researchers Say Geotech Can't Cure Ocean Acidification
CarnegieScience writes "Plans to stop global warming by 'geoengineering' the planet by putting aerosols in the atmosphere to block sunlight are controversial, to say the least. Scientists are now pointing out that even if it keeps the planet cool, it will do almost nothing to stop another major problem — ocean acidification. The ocean will keep on absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (making carbonic acid) and the water's pH will get too low for corals and other marine life to secrete skeletons. So this is another strike against a quick fix of our climate problems."
I'm still using my will to suppress your evidence that global warming is a problem.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why don't they use something to up the alkalinity of the ocean, like, crushed coral? Oh, wait...
Acidic. Volcanic ash is very high in sulfur and results in quite a bit of sulfuric acid.
http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/warming.html
http://www.carnicom.com/gwmodel.htm
A study has been done to examine the role of the aerosol operations with respect to global warming. It has long been proposed1,2,3 that the aerosol operations have the effect of aggravating the heating condition of the planet, and that they show no prospect for cooling the earth as many have claimed. This is in direct contradiction to many of the popular notions that commonly circulate regarding the operations, i.e., that these operations are somehow intended for our benefit, but it is best that their true nature remain undisclosed and closed to fair examination by the public. Whether or not such popular theories are intended to mislead the public is open to question; the facts, however, speak of an opposite end result. The aerosols are being dispersed into the lower atmosphere, and it can be shown from this fact that they will indeed heat up the lower portion of the atmosphere. Global warming itself is defined as the heating of the lower atmosphere and earth4. The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics. To cool the planet, the intentionally dispersed aerosols would have to be in the upper regions of the atmosphere or in space; readers interested in that conclusion may wish to read more closely the proposals of Edward Teller that are often cited in the claims of supposed mitigation. It will be found that any claims of aerosols cooling the planet will usually require those materials to be at the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the boundaries of space; aerosols in the lower atmosphere will usually be shown to be heating the planet. These facts must be considered by any of those individuals that continue to promulgate claims of anonymous and beneficial mitigation in conjunction with the aerosol operations.
The current model examines the effects of deliberately introducing barium particulates into the lower atmosphere, and the subsequent contribution to the global warming problem. The results are not encouraging. The results indicate that these particulates, even at rather modest concentration levels, can contribute in a real and significant way to the heating of the lower atmosphere. The magnitude appears to be quite on par with any of the more popularly discussed contributions, such as carbon dioxide increase and greenhouse gases. It is recommended that the public be willing to consider some of the more direct, visible and palpable alterations to our planet and atmosphere within the pursuit of the global warming issue, namely the aerosol operations as they have been imposed upon the public without informed consent for more than 8 years now.
The graph above shows the expected interactions from 3 variables that relate to the global warming issue; these are: aerosol concentration, time and rise in temperature. On one axis, relatively modest concentrations of barium particulates in the atmosphere are shown. The magnitudes shown are not at all unreasonable with respect to the numerous analyses that have been made by this researcher in the past, e.g., visibility studies available on this site. As a point of reference, the EPA air quality standard for particulates of less than 2.5 microns in size has been recently lowered5 to 35 ugms (micrograms) per m3 (cubic meter). It will be seen from the graph, for example, that even a 10% level of this standard (i.e., 3.5-ugms / m3) can produce a noticeable heating of the lower atmosphere. As has been stated previously, the candor and accountability of the EPA is sorely lacking over the past decade, and this agency has failed miserably in its duty to the public to maintain environmental safeguards. It can no longer be assured or assumed that minimal air quality standards are being honored in any way, and the integrity of the EPA to serve the public interest can no longer be upheld. It is quite possible, and unfortunately somewhat expected, that enforceable and accounta
Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices. This article tries to re-inject a sense of fear. Its like saying "OK so the vacuum cleaner is good at cleaning the floor. But does it paint the garage? No? Well back to cleaning the floor with a mop then"
Surely we deserve a more rational debate? Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.
1000s Warcraft Gold while you sleep
We're all hollering about global warming, but I don't see anyone, even the ones hollering about global warming, ceasing transportation activities that involve burning stuff and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. People keep driving to work, getting on cloud-belching diesel busses, hopping onto their 80cc motor scooters, etc etc. It's going to take a mass shift to telecommuting by any company that has people sitting in chairs most of the time, but that shift isn't happening. It hasn't even begun to happen.
the ocean is a sort of buffer solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_solution
what is major component of this buffer? us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2
http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/
which means the oceans will maintain their pH over a wide range of abuse and this notion of ocean acidification is hysteria
You're probably right. I'm sure what you remember from high school is a good reason to dismiss the Carnegie Melon research team's results.
Good thing you thought of that - you should probably send them an email right away! You discovered the missing forcing that will keep our planet cool and our oceans pH balanced! Turns out that in all this freaking out about climate change, nobody who was even somewhat competent got involved at all.
And miss out on the Brazilian ice wine?
The Army reading list
Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time, spewings tons of ash into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, and thereby cools the earth?
Yes. And it's not the ash that primarily reflects the sunlight; it's the SOx. And the cooling is only temporary. And volcanoes also emit CO2. But a small fraction as much as humans release.
And yes, volcanic ash is acidic.
Present day. Present time.
... a few hundred billion metric tons of calcium hydroxide would be a really nice thing to have right about now.
http://image52.webshots.com/152/1/14/3/518111403JQgFmi_ph.jpg
Get rid of (a whole lot of) humans, and most of the problems will solve themselves.
random trolls on slashdot always trump learned academics ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Clearly you don't remember well from high school chemistry. Le Chatelier's principle only reduces the effect of a perturbation to an equilibrium, it does not remove it. Buffering will only slow down acidification, not stop it.
Prior to the industrial revolution, volcanoes were the main source of acid rain.
Ok, the whole solution of Geo-engineering is a WTF moment.
We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state. Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.
It is like we have are playing russian roulette here and we don't know how many chambers are loaded.
Look at most attempts to "fix" environmental problems by introducing others. The bio-sphere is just way more interconnected than we can account for.
The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can. And make sure it stays that way.
not stop it"
which i already knew and doesn't refute anything i said
durrrr
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...So volcanos are terrorists? Or is the Earth trying to Carradine itself?
The amount of material eject by volcanoes is minuscule compared to what we put in the air, year after year.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Prior to the agricultural revolution asteriods were the leading cause of mass extinction.
Humans! The leader in every field of industry!
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Hmm. Carbion dioxide levels were higher some 130 thousand years ago if you believe in ice core data. What happened back then? Did all the sea life die? Obviously not since there's fish in the lakes and oceans (and in my frying pan).
Perhaps I have this incorrectly and someone can fix it for me, but now that I've got my tin hat on, please answer this:
IF the earth gets warmer, then that would create more water vapor - becoming clouds - and clouds prevent reflect IR (heat), thus cooling the earth back down?
In my other life, I eat cats.
Couldn't we just then drop a bunch of limestone into the ocean to mitigate the acidification?
what is major component of this buffer? us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2
Wow! Amazing that all of those egghead boffins living in their ivory towers with their hoity-toity "science" missed that one! Thank you so much for pointing it out!
Except for the fact that most ocean life is not primarily constrained by CO2, but nutrients, especially iron. Whoops.
I never ceased to be amazed at people who insist that something must be wrong with the science on a subject when they haven't done even the most rudimentary amount to educate themselves on what the science of the subject actually is. You could at least start by reading the relevant sections of the IPCC technical reports to see what actually has been studied and how. I guarantee you, it's way, way more than you ever expected.
There's a reason why people go to college for years to get a degree in these fields. This isn't high school baking-soda-and-vinegar-volcanoes here. It's an incredibly complex science that you need a solid background in. At least spend a week reading peer-reviewed papers on the subject before you put fingers to keyboard. You're coming across like if someone who had never used a computer started talking about how programmers should make every piece of software be run by voice commands in spoken English sentences like "Could you open up the letter to my grandmother and edit out the part where I told her about my chihuahua?", and have the software figure out what you want it to do. You're broadcasting ignorance on the topic like a beacon.
Present day. Present time.
We could dump a bunch of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) into the ocean. It'll neutralize the acid and release... carbon dioxide. Crap! We're doomed.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
Aerosols at best delay the rising temperatures. Perhaps we can come up with a temporary fix for the oceans, to tide us over until we can come up with a solution.
If this report is correct, we'll need some quick hacks, because sustainable energy production has no chance to solve the problem on time.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
at least conceptually.
The solution? Plant trees and cut carbon emissions by a fraction such that old trees + new trees absorb and stabilize carbon levels. The problem? Major polluters are not taking bold steps; they are like the United Nations-- speak a lot, and hope speeches will accomplish something.
Why are we looking for esoteric ways to "heal the planet"? We have the answer, it is just a matter of someone with a lot of balls standing up and saying "listen, fuckers, we are going to cap the carbon emissions and every human family will plant a tree. If we don't do it we will be fucked, and I will not fucking allow that to fucking happen" (notice than my stereotype of "person with a lot of balls" uses the word "fuck" a lot).
Aeroespacio.org
Pardon me sir/madam, your facts are not welcome here. You must take your hysteria-free reasoning and go call a right-wing talk show or something.
Thank you for so hilariously summing up the deniers in one simple post. ;)
Present day. Present time.
Micheal Crichton, whose best-selling techno-thriller disproved global warming hysteria with copious footnotes . . . or so called "scientists" working for a "university" producing "peer reviewed research?"
I tell you, these "facts" and "evidence" are trouble.
Actually it's not. In 1850s (exact year evades me) a volcanic eruption caused a prolonged winter that caused Europe and North America to see snow in summer. No crops grew that year, there was famine... But again, this is temporary. What we are putting into the atmosphere causes long term damage.
In the short term, volcanic eruptions do indeed cool the earth, however, that effect is only temporary. In the long run, they actually help to warm the Earth because of the the CO2 that they release. They are actually cited as the reason that Earth was able to break out of/avoid becoming Snowball Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
Stop: * Driving * Eating * Breathing * Consuming Water * Consuming anything
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
it often follows dire preconceptions and focuses on hysterical predictions in spite of obvious mitigating factors, most notably time scale, that dull real implications. if you sound the alarm bell, you get press and you get funding. if you say something like "more CO2 will increase the pH of the ocean, but at such a tiny amount over such a giant span of time, it doesn't make any sense to worry about it right now" then you won't make the slashdot front page. its "the emperor's new clothes" writ large. good science and good education is being done by climate researchers all over the globe... and also a pretty heavy dose of indoctrination and mythology making
i believe global warming is a real force and we need to do something about it. but i'm hard pressed to worry about corals disappearing in an acid ocean on any time scale that is supposed to mean something
if we are going to mitigate mankind's effects, we need to lose the hysteria
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
When you say Carnegie Melon you make me think of an industrialist sitting down to eat a cantaloupe.
I'm in oceanography research, and I've seen a number of talks now talking about changing pH in the oceans.
pH doesn't only change due to increased partial pressures of atmospheric CO2. Nutrient loading to suface waters can cause pH in bottom waters to drop as well.
Whether or not the overall average ocean pH is changing - we cannot say yet.
But there are some regions, the Gulf of St. Lawrence for example, where pH has had clear downward trends over the last 50 years or so.
This effect, in combination with dropping levels of dissolved O2 is displacing a growing number of biota. In this case, much (but not all) of these changes can be linked to changes in ocean currents. I'll have to read the papers over, but for now I seem to remember that fertilizer runoff in the St. Lawrence river is another significant contributing factor.
the ocean is a sort of buffer solution
If there's one thing I've learned about buffers, it's that they have limits and will not keep the pH the same if you dump in too much acid.
If you'll excuse me, the stumps where my hands used to be are needing new bandages after all this typing.
I'm sure what you remember from high school is a good reason to dismiss the Carnegie Melon research team's results.
I think the important thing to ask is, "Who paid for the study?"
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
And with a vague memory from high school you managed to disprove hundreds of scientists who spend all of their time studying the ocean as an ecosystem. Bravo.
In all seriousness, some of the media reports are over-hyped, but the concern of ocean acidification has been around for at least a decade and you'd think that someone would have raised your objection during that time. Are some proponents hysterical? Yes. Is their concern valid? Yes.
Regardless, are you willing to gamble that what we do now has no real impact on the planet? Furthermore, are you willing to gamble that if we don't begin to limit our footprint on the planet our descendants will do so?
For instance, the widespread pollution of rivers by industrial chemical plants occurred rampantly throughout the US. Then we realized, "Hey! We have an impact on the environment!" It was a hard-earned and costly lesson, which fortunately we managed to clean up, for the most part. It could be argued that we didn't know any better at the time. But I think we know better now, and to argue that we don't have an effect on our environment is negligent. To argue that there's nothing we can do and we'll let future generations sort it out (in the meantime the situation worsens and the population continues to increase, compounding the damage) is downright evil.
By the way, it's already been published that even if the earth doesn't warm from human CO2, ocean acidification will still be a problem.
The average quantity of material ejected by volcanoes is small compared to human production, particularly when talking about greenhouse gases, which are long-term agents. Ash is a short-term agent, and volcanoes are well-known to produce their materials in short bursts. They can certainly cause dramatic short-term problems. In terms of greenhouse gas production, though, they are not a large force.
Hey, why not go back and re-examine your textbooks from high school chemistry? It seems you slept through the second part of that lecture.
Remember the lab where you had to determine the concentration of a buffer in solution that had pH-sensitive dyes in it?
And how you could pipette huge amounts of an acid (or base) into the solution without a notable change in pH? But then you add one more drop and *presto* your solution was now purple (or orange, etc)? And with each drop added after that, there was no buffering effect?
Buffer systems in the ocean are like that, though more complex.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
No, that's an Ad Hominem. The important thing to ask is, "Is the research scientifically sound?"
eutrophication seems to be a much more worrisome human-created force than rising CO2 levels, at least when it comes to the health of ocean ecosystems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication
but since its been known about for awhile, you can't generate headlines and hysteria and funding with dire predictions. the effects are real and sobering with eutrophication, and deserve far more study and mitigation than the notion of rising CO2 levels in the oceans on the timescales involved, that's for sure
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Oh, the ocean is very well buffered. There's no shortage of carbonate.
But the timescale of the buffering is way, way, way slower than the timescale with which the extra CO2 is going into the ocean.
So, over a couple million years, no big deal.
But over 100-500 years? Kind of a big deal.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Please.
CMU does not received grant money for this type of research if there is not a problem
There aren't any numbers in TFA.
CO2 is 370 ppm now. Pretty much an all time low over the last 500 million years.
Is CMU saying the more recent increase of 20-30 ppm over the average will acidify the oceans?
You think that small change could affect anything?
Whatever, it is all worth bankrupting our economy, right? Taxing air.
Good one.
that saying the obvious
1. is somehow educational
2. modifies my point in any way
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's volcanoes fault is a classic rationalize. There have been far worse volcanic episodes in the last flew million years without causing the spike we have seen in CO2. The increase in CO2 mirrors the onset of industrialization. Deal with it. In the short term acidification is probably a far worse problem than actual warming and ironically in the long run it's the most frightening. Also simply blocking sunlight seems like an extreme solution when we depend on the sun for food. The extreme end of that scale is called night. Which is easier in the end, behaving responsibly or spending trillions of dollars on unproven techniques for undoing the damage we are doing? If we'd simply spend the money spent on avoiding the issues on actual solutions we could fix the problem. I recently heard that it will likely cost an additional trillion dollars for carbon sequestering so we can keep burning coal, a trillion dollars! And that's just an estimate since it's also unproven technology. Is it smarter to keep spending trillions of dollars on the status quo or to fix the problem once and for all?
let nature take it's course!!!
1. i am a troll
logical conclusions:
2. i am trolling when i say trolls trump academics on slashdot
3. therefore, the actual truth must be that academics trump trolls on slashdot
4. therefore, i must be offering the opinion of a learned academic when i say trolls trump academics
5. therefore, i must be a learned academic, and you must be a troll
6. therefore... i really should get back to work now
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think if we just leave it all alone it will take care of itself. All this science is just a best guess anyways. If mankind is able to destroy the world it would have died a long time ago. It seems the more we try to fix things the worse they get. Give the environment some credit and let it fix itself.
Don't be a fool. There are obvious things that everyone can do to reduce pollution at a personal level.
40% of all car trips go less than 2 miles. Get a bike and use it when it makes sense.
Turn up your AC a few degrees. You'll use less energy.
Get a reusable shopping bag and stop using plastic ones.
It's not perfect, but it's much better than doing nothing. If I can do it, so can nearly everyone. If everyone did, we'd be in less trouble than we are now.
That will raise the PH level, wouldn't it? What can possibly go wrong?!
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
No, that's an Ad Hominem. The important thing to ask is, "Is the research scientifically sound?"
Is water from a poisoned well drinkable? Whenever a study has money involved, the first thing the scientists will buy is a Jump to Conclusions Mat. They've shown that increased temperatures causes a release of CO2, but they have NOT shown that CO2 increases temperatures, rather they can map almost direct correlations between CO2 levels and temperature levels. What does this data really tell you? If you're not brainwashed, working for the "green" industry, or running for office?
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
No, that's an Ad Hominem. The important thing to ask is, "Is the research scientifically sound?"
You're right, my reply was kind of ad hominem-ish.
But I think the notion of ad hominem is overly simplistic. I agree that the correctness of an argument is generally independent of who advances it. But most of us have limited time to consider a given issue, and we need to use our best judgment to decide whose arguments to consider, simply due to time constraints.
When given two arguments, one presented by a research team from a respected univeristy, and another from a guy who admits that he might be mis-remembering his high school chemistry, I'm going to invest much more time in the latter, because it's more likely to be a good use of my time.
Wow, I'm glad I misunderstood that title. I thought that all those fish in the ocean would get spaced out, and then start eating each other at an alarming rate. Then when they had depleted their own reserves, they would evolve and climb out onto land, looking for alternative food sources, like us!
I was also concerned that I'd better not enjoy a FishMac on my way back from work on my bicycle in Basel, Switzerland. The ride might have turned out to look like something out of "Yellow Submarine," being that FishMac ingredients are all acidificated, and all.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
And yet someone has to fund the research. Climate change studies are expensive, since they usually require copious data-collection and analyzing a myriad factors. Those that fund the research always have a vested interest. Otherwise, why would they fund it? You simply can't use the source of funding as a yardstick for the validity of the research. It is best to analyze the science based on its merits. If it is poisoned, as you say, it will be easy to discredit.
It has been shown, scientifically, that C02 contributes to the greenhouse affect, that C02 levels have been rising due to industrialization, and that global temperature is positively correlated with that C02 level. That you consider me brainwashed for looking at the science says more about you than me.
TROLL=1 ./do_smart_science_stuff.sh
alias sudo='pseudo'
sudo
-bash: pseudo: command not found.
read SUBJECT_LINE
I was actually replying to the following idea:
I think the important thing to ask is, "Who paid for the study?"
This sort of reasoning is typically used to throw away useful results without properly analyzing the research. If the source of funding is affecting the results, then a peer-review of that research should turn up discrepancies.
On the other hand, believing an argument based on the authority of the person giving the argument isn't valid logic per se, but for everyday life, and general cases, its usually an effective short-cut. There are not enough hours in the day to properly validate every single claim we come across in every-day lives. However, these sorts of logical short-cuts should not be applied by scientists and policy-makers. These are the exact same people that are often asked to ignore the scientific evidence and give weight to emotional arguments.
For instance, it is one thing for you and I to disregard an oil company's research as "probably invalid." It is altogether entirely different for the scientific community and politicians to do so. They should not disregard the research because of the source.
Until the current study, which used a computer model of the Earth's climate system and biosphere to simulate the effect of geoengineering on climate and the ocean's chemistry, the potential impact of such a scheme on ocean acidification had never been calculated.
This is a computer model. The people who wrote it may very well be correct, but they are the ones that wrote the variables and input the numbers. This should not be thought of on the same level as experimentation or direct observations in the real world. This is not evidence, and there are no new concrete findings.
I believe this guy says it pretty well in the beginning of his video:
I have built computer models, dynamic systems, and other complex processes for over 20 years, and I can tell you that it is extraordinarily easy to create computer models that spew out meaningless results. And the more complex the model, the easier it is to get such a mess.
Everything on Earth (and much in space) affects the oceans which cover 70% of it. The complexity is enormous.
Computer models (when done well) can be useful tools to guide us to where we should be doing the actual research. Ocean acidification is a real issue, and I applaud the people at Carnegie Melon's Dept. of Ecology for attempting to tackle this. But we should stop giving computer models the same emphasis as findings in the real world.
Coral evolved during the Cambrian period, when CO2 was over 4,000ppm (over ten times the current level).
CO2 didn't drop below 3,000ppm until the Devonian period, didn't get below 1,000ppm until the Carboniferous Period,
went back above 1,000ppm during the mid Permian, didn't get back below 1,000pm until the late Cretaceous. Coral isn't
going to go extinct because the CO2 levels go up a little bit, they've been through much higher. They might very well
do better if the CO2 level wasn't so low.
And the global average temperature outside of ice ages hasn't gotten much above 22 degrees C, regardless of the
CO2 level. Greenhouse runaway is a delusion.
The McCarthy era is over, get over it. You can't win arguments by associating labeling everyone against you as a liberal commie, maybe in Alabama..
Head over to Fox news' website for some like minded hick rednecks and good 'ole fashioned commit bashing.
By consuming copious amounts of beef, much to the consternation of my Dr.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The CO2 rises after the temperature. It is a lagging indicator.
It has been shown, scientifically, that C02 contributes to the greenhouse affect, that C02 levels have been rising due to industrialization, and that global temperature is positively correlated with that C02 level. That you consider me brainwashed for looking at the science says more about you than me.
Only because you look at the scientist more than the science. I found myself in association with some of climate change's most vigorous proponents (on a science level, not political) and no -- they have not shown that CO2 affects temperatures outside of correlation. Methane? Yes. CO2, no. When I read up on the disputations of the "you got it backward" argument that I suggest, there is a lot of fiddlefaddle that says "Ice coverage of the earth was more reflective, so when I make a new calculation, it fits!" and doublehelix models... but no scientific method. Perhaps if I wait for another 10 years, I'll see some data that fits the models before someone has to spin it into place.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
In the southern hemisphere, a great many. Why do you ask?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
If that is the case, then you are arguing against the research on scientific terms, which does not conflict with my original statement that the science is what matters, not the source of funding.
Carnegie 'Melon'? It's not CMU. It's the Carnegie Institution of Washington / Carnegie Institution for Science.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're broadcasting ignorance... like a beacon.
Of course he is. It's kinda his "thing".
CMU doesn't receive any grant money for this research because it wasn't done at CMU. This is a Carnegie Institution for Science project, not a CMU one.
Woooo! Jelly corals!
mmmm...forbidden donut
I KNEW Sarbanes Oxley does something good for the environment. Take that, deregulation advocates!
I say we put a bunch of highly acidic sea water into an old dormant volcano and then fly over it with a thousand helicopters filled to the brim with Baking Soda and then we dump it all into the dormant volcano that was filled with carbonic acid!!!
It would make Krakatoa look like a firecracker and maybe we would win 1st prize in the Intergalactic Middle School science fair!
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I'm in oceanography research, and I've seen a number of talks now talking about changing pH in the oceans.
Maybe you can answer a question for me then.
According to wikipedia, the Great Barrier Reef of Australia dates back maybe 600,000 years.
During the last 600,000 years there has been some significant climate change, way more radical than what we have been experiencing with the whole 'global warming' thing. There was an ice age, what? 20,000 years ago?
So my question is, do we have any evidence of historical ocean acidification and if so what impact did it have on the reefs at the time? Because OBVIOUSLY they have survived and thrived in recent millennia.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
It's volcanoes fault is a classic rationalize. There have been far worse volcanic episodes in the last flew million years without causing the spike we have seen in CO2. The increase in CO2 mirrors the onset of industrialization. Deal with it. In the short term acidification is probably a far worse problem than actual warming and ironically in the long run it's the most frightening. Also simply blocking sunlight seems like an extreme solution when we depend on the sun for food. The extreme end of that scale is called night. Which is easier in the end, behaving responsibly or spending trillions of dollars on unproven techniques for undoing the damage we are doing? If we'd simply spend the money spent on avoiding the issues on actual solutions we could fix the problem. I recently heard that it will likely cost an additional trillion dollars for carbon sequestering so we can keep burning coal, a trillion dollars! And that's just an estimate since it's also unproven technology. Is it smarter to keep spending trillions of dollars on the status quo or to fix the problem once and for all?
That's a good argument, until you consider the fact that stopping the use of fossil fuels (and insisting that everybody live like serfs in the dark ages - except for the Lords like Al Gore, of course, who need jets) has no guarantee of actually fixing anything. All you're saying is that we should stop putting out CO2 (should we stop breathing, too?), because this might mitigate some possible effects of global climate change in the long run.
Frankly, rather than reducing the output of CO2 (which makes plants grow), I'd rather concentrate on stopping other truly harmful pollution, like agricultural run-off of phosphorous, which we know for sure is harmful and can guarantee to have benefits if we stop it.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
It occurs to me that throughout earth's entire life, there's been a process of the ocean absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. Some living thing in the ocean must extract that carbon and fixate it somehow? Is there any reason that whatever is responsible for that process won't continue to do so?
From my high school and college freshman biology classes, I seem to recall a principle of equilibrium - that whenever something, like a particular nutrient or food source becomes more abundant, it will cause whatever 'feeds' off that nutrient or food source to thrive, which will then cause a reduction in the nutrient or food source, and so equilibrium will be maintained.
Is there some reason that won't happen here, where as the carbon in the ocean becomes more abundant, whatever 'feeds' off of it won't become more abundant too?
"When given two arguments, one presented by a research team from a respected univeristy, and another from a guy who admits that he might be mis-remembering his high school chemistry, I'm going to invest much more time in the latter, because it's more likely to be a good use of my time."
You mean the former right? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you consider a good use of your time.
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us-climate-report-assailed/
"The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters."
So what they are saying is that more CO2 would be absorbed in the water, oka,y but did they factor in that algea can counteract the reaction? Simply like this 6H2O+6CO2 -> C6H12O6+6O2 the process would only need a source of energy(the sun) to commence.
They've been spraying the sky with reflective particles for years now. Just look up in the sky and watch the chemtrails. I've been to 25+ states in the last few years and the planes are definitely blanketing the sky with a sun obscuring material. If you watch for long enough you can see it completely cover an entire city within a few hours effectively blocking out lots of sunshine. Spray days make me feel bad inside even when I haven't looked up.
While the GPs post answers what effect volcanos have on acidity, yours doesn't actually answer that for asteroids. Please come back to us after you found out, and do a report, or a show and tell if you want.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
This study is neither surprising nor controversial. They refer to "geoengineering" multiple times in the article, but it is clear that the study refers only to the specific geoengineering in which the albedo of the earth is changed with atmospheric particulates. They concluded that it would stop global warming, but not stop CO2 accumulation/acidification of the oceans. Well, that hardly makes it a bad idea--it just isn't a complete solution.
It only means that we need to have a separate project to counter the acidification of the oceans--perhaps genetically engineered algae or something.
Geotech is slang for Geotechnical Engineering, having to do with soil mechanics and such things as foundation bearing capacity and settlement parameters, not reversing global warming. Stop taking our words!
Ash and other dark matters do not reflect sunlight. They block it from entering the earth, but the warmth is kept in the atmosphere (in the heated matter first, and by diffusion in the atmosphere), making this kind of pollution a part of the warming.
I was getting tired of explaining to hotel guards why I was spending my weekends on the roof with caseloads of Lysol and Raid.
I kept getting "Why don't you go home and save the world?", like that. Stupid people.
Nonsense. Kids in grade 5 are performing experiments which confirm this effect. Here, you can try this one at home:
1. Obtain 2 glass jars, 2 thermometers, and a lamp.
2. Place thermometers inside jars, and place jars under the lamp (either with lid on, or upside-down).
3. After 20 minutes, check the temperature. Both readings should be identical.
4. Fill one jar with C02. After 20 minutes, check the temperature. Compare to initial readings.
I'm sure your children could have shown this to you if you had asked them, but, just on the off-chance that they haven't seen it, you might want to talk to them about it. It could be a fun science-based activity for the whole family!
"Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time"
YES. Look carefully and you will find that models usually assume one large eruption per decade. The predicted cooling from the models assumptions was remarkably acurate in the case of observations from Mt Pinatubo, furthermore those predictions came from a model created 20yrs ago!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
They're obviously acidic, just look at the holes they burn in the Earth's crust. /jk
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
No wonder you posted AC, the funding argument is the biggest lie of all. The scientists who write the IPCC reports do not get paid for their work wich is basically agonisingly tedious peer-reviews of the previous 4yrs of publications. The annual budget for the IPCC is a piddling $5-6 million which is sourced from ~300 politically diverse nations, most of which is spent transporting "greedy scientists" to their workplace.
Unlike the heartland institute and other eternal fountains of this type of bullshit the IPCC post their financial reports on the web.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Oh dear, so I take it you didn't end up with a career in chemistry?
You're going to be waiting for awhile... My problem with the climate change fearmongering is that there isn't enough data to predict the climate, and there won't be for a long time. 10 years proves nothing on a climate scale. Heck the maybe 1000 years of good temperature data isn't worth much either.
I hate to tell the climate scientists, but the earth's climate changes... It did long before humans lived, and it likely will continue now that humans are here. That's the key. The climate changes. Whether we are affecting it is moot because someday, it's going to get colder or warmer without our help. Quite frankly, if we are causing the world to get warmer, I sleep a lot better at night.
Global warming might cause some additional severe weather, maybe some flooding along the coastlines, heaven forbid some polar bears die. But if global cooling occurs, most of us here in the northern US are going to be under 500 feet of ice... The moral of the story is, warm weather on earth is much more life supporting than cold. The earth won't get as hot as Venus, it will only get about as hot as the cretaceous period, which supported more life than any other time we know of.
To sum this up, I'd rather be farming in Siberia with New Orleans under water, than have to live in Mexico because a large portion of every continent is under glaciers.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Bottomless Depths Defense still costs you 1 aggrivated health level
It doesn't seem nearly as surprising that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are being raised significantly as a result of man made emmissions of the gas, as that the carbolic acid levels of the ocean would be significantly changed.
The atmosphere seems so light and airy compared with the dense and vast oceans. A gallon of air weighs almost nothing, whereas a gallon of water is frikken heavy!
What would the atmospheric pressure be at what is now sea level if the oceans were boiled into steam? It's probably many many times 14 lbs/sq inch. ( Actually I have no idea but that's the feeling my intuition gives me. )
I guess the numbers have been run, and the CO2 in the air is enough to account for the acidification, ( gotta give em the benefit of the doubt unless you're willing to do better ) but wow man.
...
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
As predicted, the dissenting option was modded -1, Troll, Flamebait!
Except that Venus' temperature is caused by ~92 atmosphere of pressure.
Derivation:
The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.
T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z).
The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT).
Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
= T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))
So the only things that cause the Greenhouse Effect (on Venus, water makes the calculation more complex for Earth) are specific heat capacity, and pressure. By the time CO2 reaches levels enough to affect the climate, we'd be dead from poisoning.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
That's a nice experiment that I assume proves that CO2 absorbs IR better than air (and, like a greenhouse, heats up because of stopping convection, unlike the atmosphere).
It also completely ignores the dynamics of a CO2 based atmosphere like, say, Venus. From just the adiabatic lapse rate and barometric equation, you can easily see that Venus is hot because of 92 atmospheres of pressure, and a pure CO2 atmosphere would be slightly cooler than N2/O2 because of its lower specific heat capacity.
T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) Derivation here
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Which seems to me to be the first easy retort to this ... as there are geoengineering solutions which are all about taking limestone, baking it using "stranded" energy to slaked lime, then dumping it into the ocean. See Cquestrate.com. Fixing acidification is the mechanism for those geotech solutions - how can they not help with it? Very strange.
Hey does anyone know what the ocean PH actually is? Well it's 8.1 and with 7 bieng nuetral that means the oceans are getting less alkaline, that's right you heard it LESS ALKALINE.
Since the industrial revolution happened ocean PHs have dropped by an estimated 0.075, since 1700. Even by 2100 it is predicted that they will drop by another 0.28. leaving ph at around 7.8.
Now if you fools keep on insisting to come up with imaginative new theories that make out that "the world is ending and it's all our fault," your all going to be left with less credibility at then end of this as compared to when you entered it (after you are all proven wrong)
What in the world ....
How do you go from "absorbs IR" to "heats up because of stopping convection"? You've made two contradictory guesses in one sentence. If you expect a response, you need to clarify what you meant.
FYI, the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with convection; the name is somewhat misleading.
The jars are essentially in thermal equilibrium because of their size, they are sealed, therefore, hot air doesn't expand and rise, no convection. Simple thermodynamics.
As for the greenhouse effect and convection, assuming CO2 has the warming power attributed to it, Venus would probably be a good place for some clear effects to show. However, the adiabatic lapse rate (convective heat transport in the atmosphere) = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km. Note that this only depends on molar mass, gravitational acceleration, gas constant, and specific heat capacity, so we may safely conclude that the greenhouse effect is caused by pressure. HTH HAND
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.