A researcher in a completely unrelated industry (telecom). I do however practice the scientific method. Maybe you start doing the same, instead of posting random garbage, ad hominems and insinuations when you could've looked up the facts (which I told you about from the beginning) yourself.
Ocean acidification is a non issue. The global ocean pH levels vary by orders of magnitude more than the weak signal we think we see over the last few hundred years.
If I remember correctly, you're the one that claimed the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for "thousands of years". Please support that claim with peer reviewed research.
Please let us know how outgoing radiation is affected by CO2 dissolved in seawater. I'm eagerly awaiting your fascinating research on the subject.
(The discussion started by someone claiming that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. I don't see you correcting that poster - why not?)
Why do you believe "I" have numbers, and why are you under the false impressions that "every" ocean scientist claims the oceans are getting more acidic? Why do you think "I" have a thesis?
Have you looked up what the global pH levels and the variance is yet? If not, you have no idea what you're talking about.
This is when you, many many posts ago, should've looked up the relevant papers yourself instead of posting in public.
The impacts of increases in atmospheric CO2 since the midst of the 18th century on average seawater salinity and acidity are evaluated. Assuming that the rise in the planetary mean surface temperature continues unabated, and that it eventually causes the melting of terrestrial ice and permanent snow, it is calculated that the average seawater salinity would be lowered not more than 0.61 from its current 35. It is also calculated –using an equilibrium model of aqueous carbonate species in seawater open to the atmosphere- that the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppmv (representative of 18th-century conditions) to 380 ppmv (representative of current conditions) raises the average seawater acidity approximately 0.09 pH units across the range of seawater temperature considered (0 to 30C). A doubling of CO2 from 380 ppmv to 760 ppmv (the 2 × CO2 scenario) increases the seawater acidity approximately 0.19 pH units across the same range of seawater temperature. In the latter case, the predicted increase in acidity results in a pH within the water-quality limits for seawater of 6.5 and 8.5 and a change in pH less than 0.20 pH units. This paper's results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
I have already answered the question. Either include the data and raise the error bars, or leave it out. The conclusions do change if you leave it out - but leaving it in (as has been done) is not good science.
The claimed data sparsity is btw not a valid reason, if so you would through out all of Briffa's work as well. That was covered in the link I gave.
Of course I've looked at the numbers. Why do you think I already know that the claimed change (and don't ask how we could measure pH with three digit accuracy hundreds of years ago) is orders of magnitudes smaller than the global oceanic variance.
If you were really interested, you would've verified that yourself before you answered me.
As far as I know, we don't know the data is _bad_. We only know that the proxy has a low level of correlation and that any series including that proxy will have huge error bars. That's fine and completely natural when dealing with proxies.
I also don't understand your focus on post 1950. The fact that earlier data is deleted as well is what makes it an obvious picked cherry, and there are plenty of more examples (bristle cones, the single tree in Siberia, the upside down Tiljander set etc) to invalidate dendrochronology completely, at least in trying to create a hockey stick.
Enlarge the error bars and we're back to science. It's also what the professional statisticians propose, but Mann (and others) refuse. That's fraudulent.
And for that to realize you don't need any scientific numbers about the ocean
Yes you do. Again: What's the pH level of the oceans and what's the global variance.
The oceans are big. Really big. CO2 ppm levels in the atmosphere going from 280ppm to 380ppm doesn't make a dent in any fictive "ocean acidification".
(We've had CO2 at 8000ppm in the atmosphere without the oceans being any more "acidic" than they already are at various places today - completely naturally)
The scientific method is a good thing. You should try it - and observations always trump models.
Of course not. Nor is that what is happening. Proxies are discarded when they disagree with known, better data... in this case thermometer data, and satellite data. Or are you suggesting knowingly using bad data? In order to get to a conclusion you'd prefer?
That is exactly what's happened - like using a proxy upside down since that's how the algorithm automatically made the data fit the "known, better data" (which is another name for "only when they agree with your foregone conclusion")
Would you honestly accept this in any other scientific discipline?
I'm sorry, but cherry picking from proxies _only when they agree with your foregone conclusion_ is not science. In any way.
If I am allowed to do that, and also allowed to select from any proxy I'd like, I can create a graph to show anything. It becomes a simple etch-a-sketch.
How long a particular CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere is not the issue
Of course it is. That's the whole reason for the increased heat trapping. If the CO2 molecule is slumbering on the bottom of the ocean it doesn't affect outgoing radiation at all.
(Do you include rock weathering in your carbon cycle? If so, on what timescales? There's no basis for a steady carbon cycle of a specific ppm lower than what we've seen during the last 150 years if so)
As I thought, you've never looked at the actual numbers. The truth is, there's no ocean acidification happening. The scientific argument is that we have no data points to show that there is, the variance is of orders of magnitude larger than any signal we think should be visible.
Which "science" are you claiming I think is "wrong"?
So, if I can find someone else - besides the so _random_ example of someone who was in the news just days ago, would that change anything?
(The Socratic Method is to point out an instance where your argument doesn't hold. I already know I can do that - I'm just waiting to see whether you would ever recognize it)
Science is never, and has never been done, by consensus.
You do know what variance vs measurement meant in that context, I hope? Just to verify - what ARE the pH levels of the global oceans and by how much do they change for... a doubling of CO2.
The post I replied to said "stays in the air", which is wrong.
The oceans are big enough to absorb our CO2 output with no ill effect. (Please, no unscientific crap about acidification now. The variance is orders of magnitude higher than any measurements we have).
The scientific community is rarely wrong about a major conclusion that many thousands of scientists agree with high confidence over many years of research
Our latest chemistry Nobel Prize winner disagrees.
If it's expensive other technologies will be used instead. It seems it is currently the cheapest option.
(PS: I live in a country where we produce a lot of our energy using hydro. A technology responsible for the loss of many human lives, sadly, but that's still not a reason for us to stop using it)
Slashdot Mirror
A researcher in a completely unrelated industry (telecom). I do however practice the scientific method. Maybe you start doing the same, instead of posting random garbage, ad hominems and insinuations when you could've looked up the facts (which I told you about from the beginning) yourself.
Ocean acidification is a non issue. The global ocean pH levels vary by orders of magnitude more than the weak signal we think we see over the last few hundred years.
If I remember correctly, you're the one that claimed the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for "thousands of years". Please support that claim with peer reviewed research.
I'm a researcher - that's why you see me citing papers in discussions. I don't see the point in debating if you don't have supporting data.
Please let us know how outgoing radiation is affected by CO2 dissolved in seawater. I'm eagerly awaiting your fascinating research on the subject.
(The discussion started by someone claiming that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. I don't see you correcting that poster - why not?)
Why do you believe "I" have numbers, and why are you under the false impressions that "every" ocean scientist claims the oceans are getting more acidic? Why do you think "I" have a thesis?
Have you looked up what the global pH levels and the variance is yet? If not, you have no idea what you're talking about.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL026305.shtml
This is when you, many many posts ago, should've looked up the relevant papers yourself instead of posting in public.
The impacts of increases in atmospheric CO2 since the midst of the 18th century on average seawater salinity and acidity are evaluated. Assuming that the rise in the planetary mean surface temperature continues unabated, and that it eventually causes the melting of terrestrial ice and permanent snow, it is calculated that the average seawater salinity would be lowered not more than 0.61 from its current 35. It is also calculated –using an equilibrium model of aqueous carbonate species in seawater open to the atmosphere- that the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppmv (representative of 18th-century conditions) to 380 ppmv (representative of current conditions) raises the average seawater acidity approximately 0.09 pH units across the range of seawater temperature considered (0 to 30C). A doubling of CO2 from 380 ppmv to 760 ppmv (the 2 × CO2 scenario) increases the seawater acidity approximately 0.19 pH units across the same range of seawater temperature. In the latter case, the predicted increase in acidity results in a pH within the water-quality limits for seawater of 6.5 and 8.5 and a change in pH less than 0.20 pH units. This paper's results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL026305.shtml
See, I don't do "politics". I do science. You should try it.
I have already answered the question. Either include the data and raise the error bars, or leave it out. The conclusions do change if you leave it out - but leaving it in (as has been done) is not good science.
The claimed data sparsity is btw not a valid reason, if so you would through out all of Briffa's work as well. That was covered in the link I gave.
Why don't you want to do proper science?
Of course I've looked at the numbers. Why do you think I already know that the claimed change (and don't ask how we could measure pH with three digit accuracy hundreds of years ago) is orders of magnitudes smaller than the global oceanic variance.
If you were really interested, you would've verified that yourself before you answered me.
I know the numbers well. They don't support the conclusions you post.
I can only postulate that you're more interested in the message than the actual science.
As far as I know, we don't know the data is _bad_. We only know that the proxy has a low level of correlation and that any series including that proxy will have huge error bars. That's fine and completely natural when dealing with proxies.
I also don't understand your focus on post 1950. The fact that earlier data is deleted as well is what makes it an obvious picked cherry, and there are plenty of more examples (bristle cones, the single tree in Siberia, the upside down Tiljander set etc) to invalidate dendrochronology completely, at least in trying to create a hockey stick.
Enlarge the error bars and we're back to science. It's also what the professional statisticians propose, but Mann (and others) refuse. That's fraudulent.
And for that to realize you don't need any scientific numbers about the ocean
Yes you do. Again: What's the pH level of the oceans and what's the global variance.
The oceans are big. Really big. CO2 ppm levels in the atmosphere going from 280ppm to 380ppm doesn't make a dent in any fictive "ocean acidification".
(We've had CO2 at 8000ppm in the atmosphere without the oceans being any more "acidic" than they already are at various places today - completely naturally)
The scientific method is a good thing. You should try it - and observations always trump models.
Of course not. Nor is that what is happening. Proxies are discarded when they disagree with known, better data... in this case thermometer data, and satellite data. Or are you suggesting knowingly using bad data? In order to get to a conclusion you'd prefer?
That is exactly what's happened - like using a proxy upside down since that's how the algorithm automatically made the data fit the "known, better data" (which is another name for "only when they agree with your foregone conclusion")
Would you honestly accept this in any other scientific discipline?
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/
I'm sorry, but cherry picking from proxies _only when they agree with your foregone conclusion_ is not science. In any way.
If I am allowed to do that, and also allowed to select from any proxy I'd like, I can create a graph to show anything. It becomes a simple etch-a-sketch.
How long a particular CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere is not the issue
Of course it is. That's the whole reason for the increased heat trapping. If the CO2 molecule is slumbering on the bottom of the ocean it doesn't affect outgoing radiation at all.
(Do you include rock weathering in your carbon cycle? If so, on what timescales? There's no basis for a steady carbon cycle of a specific ppm lower than what we've seen during the last 150 years if so)
As I thought, you've never looked at the actual numbers. The truth is, there's no ocean acidification happening. The scientific argument is that we have no data points to show that there is, the variance is of orders of magnitude larger than any signal we think should be visible.
Which "science" are you claiming I think is "wrong"?
So, if I can find someone else - besides the so _random_ example of someone who was in the news just days ago, would that change anything?
(The Socratic Method is to point out an instance where your argument doesn't hold. I already know I can do that - I'm just waiting to see whether you would ever recognize it)
Science is never, and has never been done, by consensus.
You do know what variance vs measurement meant in that context, I hope? Just to verify - what ARE the pH levels of the global oceans and by how much do they change for ... a doubling of CO2.
Please.
(The discussion technique I used is Socrate's btw)
Do you think there are other such examples? Might your "rarely" be the word that needs modification perhaps?
The post I replied to said "stays in the air", which is wrong.
The oceans are big enough to absorb our CO2 output with no ill effect. (Please, no unscientific crap about acidification now. The variance is orders of magnitude higher than any measurements we have).
just look at the economic chaos that strikes every time oil prices hike
Yes, you'd see something as horrible as ... the 70s.
We'll adapt. There's no shortage of solutions, they're just not currently economically vaiable. When they're needed they'll step in.
(And even if no shocks happen, they'll replace the old technologies anyway due to normal technical devolopment)
(PS: Don't bring up the Norse settlements. A lot of people here still believe there was no MWP)
The scientific community is rarely wrong about a major conclusion that many thousands of scientists agree with high confidence over many years of research
Our latest chemistry Nobel Prize winner disagrees.
http://news.yahoo.com/vindicated-ridiculed-israeli-scientist-wins-nobel-183256852.html
"1000s" of years? Really?
This paper (linked from the blog post with the abstract) says 5-15: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/04/carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-5-15-years-only/
No, there aren't. Please use the scientific method when evaluating claims - no matter which side you hope to be "right".
Deforestation has nothing to do with your claim. On the contrary, rather, we're cutting down forests to increase the amount of arable land.
(Sadly some of it has been due to misguided "green" initiatives - ethanol production)
If it's expensive other technologies will be used instead. It seems it is currently the cheapest option.
(PS: I live in a country where we produce a lot of our energy using hydro. A technology responsible for the loss of many human lives, sadly, but that's still not a reason for us to stop using it)
We're reducing what? Please stop posting random unsourced claims.