Wm, water temps do affect saturation levels, but aside from that our local problem does have a ph component as demonstrated by lab tests. According to the University of Washington School of Fisheries About half of the lower ph can be attributed to co2 saturation. There seems to be a threshold which has been crossed. That has been bad for our local shellfish. Those who argue that co2 is not an issue are ignoring the results of empirical tests.
Now that does not deny that the other sources of acidifcation should be ignored.

Is this a news story or can you link to a paper put out by the school? So many of these stories put out by the news have major errors in them that you have to be very carful about the source.
When I was younger acid rain was in the news as much as CO2 is today but you don't hear much about it today. The important thing is that CO2 makes a very weak acid and Sulfur makes a very powerful one. There were stories where people collected rain water in a copper bowl to wash their hair and the sulfur reacted with the copper causing their hair to turn green.
Also don't forget that the acid you talk about is in every soft drink you consume.

---

Dena, a quick reply.
1: I do not attempt to grow a calcium carbonate shell, therefore your allusion to soft drinks is irrelevant to my concern.
2: I will dig up the paper for you to peruse.

---

Nick, if you read my post it was about salt water acidifaction not temperature. according to The University of Washington School of fisheries "On the pH scale, strongly alkaline materials such as oven cleaner measure about 13. Hydrochloric acid has a pH of 1. Seawater usually measures around 8.1.

With respect betreger I make no differentiation between man made global
warming due to man made CO2 nor sea water changes in acidification due to
the same man made cause. There is a major problem when dealing with pH
measurements involving the waters of our oceans. No scientist living yet
knows how much of these changes in ocean's pH's is actually being caused
by events occurring beneath the oceans themselves.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

OK, for the CO2 disbelievers, can you deny these?


Firstly, a demonstration of the physics of what's happening with our atmosphere:


Youtube: CO2 experiment

Youtube: CO2-Ink Demonstration (And note our atmosphere is far deeper than those jars...)

Youtube: Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



It's our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

For the denialists:


We already have many examples where industrial pollution has caused damage and destruction. That is why we have wide ranging pollution controls. That is also why other countries with weaker anti-pollution controls are exploited and suffer unhealthy living conditions...

So why could CO2 pollution, on an industrial scale, be any different?

Note that we are directly measuring an increasingly rapid increase in the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. We already know that is not being caused by such as volcanoes...


All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I just wonder if there is an element of this effect for some people:


Climate change and craving a cause

The novels of Umberto Eco suggest that if people want to believe something badly enough, they will only hear what they want to hear. This is particularly true in the current debate about global warming, writes Lisa Jardine. ...

... Foucault's Pendulum, Eco's second novel, was first published in 1988. Together with two accomplices, the protagonist, Jacopo Belbo - perhaps more villain than hero - creates a complex, highly plausible set of documents purporting to come from the ancient secret association of the Order of the Templars in the Middle Ages.

In the book, this proves so convincing that it attracts a determined following of people who passionately believe in the continuity of the Templars, and their quest for the Holy Grail, down to the present day.

The situation gets badly out of hand...

... If you want to believe something badly enough, Eco's novels suggest, then by selective listening - by editing out the contrary evidence - you will hear what you want to hear. Nowhere is this more true currently than in the debate about global warming. ...

... at successive international conferences, the continued commitment of almost all the world's nations surely points to the fact that the danger to our planet of high-level carbon emissions is a real one, on which there is widespread scientific and political agreement supported now by considerable bodies of evidence.

But according to the apparently growing band of climate change sceptics, this is a pernicious illusion. Partisan science, they claim, has taken hold of politicians and the media, and their message is being transmitted so loudly that it cannot be gainsaid.

The more determinedly the scientific community stands behind its global warming predictions, the more strongly the sceptics counter that there is no longer any "balance" to the argument...



So... Real world? Or a fantastic fantasy conspiracy?

This is our only planet...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... There seems to be a threshold which has been crossed. That has been bad for our local shellfish. ...

That is true for various examples. Just a 'little bit more' and you just can't go on any more. It's a bit like just spinning the drive wheels on a vehicle trying to get up an ever steepening muddy slope.

There are some very big such thresholds, called 'tipping points', that we are starting to trip over for our climate and life for the subsequently changed environment.


Reminds me of:

Youtube: Blue Man Group on Global Warming


All on our one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I just wonder if there is an element of this effect for some people:


Climate change and craving a cause

The novels of Umberto Eco suggest that if people want to believe something badly enough, they will only hear what they want to hear. This is particularly true in the current debate about global warming, writes Lisa Jardine. ...

... Foucault's Pendulum, Eco's second novel, was first published in 1988. Together with two accomplices, the protagonist, Jacopo Belbo - perhaps more villain than hero - creates a complex, highly plausible set of documents purporting to come from the ancient secret association of the Order of the Templars in the Middle Ages.

In the book, this proves so convincing that it attracts a determined following of people who passionately believe in the continuity of the Templars, and their quest for the Holy Grail, down to the present day.

The situation gets badly out of hand...

... If you want to believe something badly enough, Eco's novels suggest, then by selective listening - by editing out the contrary evidence - you will hear what you want to hear. Nowhere is this more true currently than in the debate about global warming. ...

... at successive international conferences, the continued commitment of almost all the world's nations surely points to the fact that the danger to our planet of high-level carbon emissions is a real one, on which there is widespread scientific and political agreement supported now by considerable bodies of evidence.

But according to the apparently growing band of climate change sceptics, this is a pernicious illusion. Partisan science, they claim, has taken hold of politicians and the media, and their message is being transmitted so loudly that it cannot be gainsaid.

The more determinedly the scientific community stands behind its global warming predictions, the more strongly the sceptics counter that there is no longer any "balance" to the argument...



So... Real world? Or a fantastic fantasy conspiracy?

This is our only planet...
Martin

Interesting you mention Umberto Eco. I was just yesterday considering re-reading his novel 'Name of the Rose' (which is on my top 10 list of all-time favorite novels).

The statement:

... If you want to believe something badly enough, Eco's novels suggest, then by selective listening - by editing out the contrary evidence - you will hear what you want to hear. Nowhere is this more true currently than in the debate about global warming. ...

I think applies to both sides, perhaps more demonstrably to the Warmist side. The 'Climategate' emails (1 and 2) tell a tale of a group of scientists so desperate to 'prove' the conclusion they wish that they ignore some of the data and massage the rest.

It is not that 'partisan science' has taken ahold of the politicians and the media to advance the AGW agenda, it is that some politicians (and their lap-dogs, the media) have taken ahold of the scientists through bribery (grant money) to advance another agenda entirely.

A few years back, I got ahold of a document from the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- directly from their web server) written back in the early 1990s. It was about redistribution of wealth from the developed world to the developing world to equalize standard of living.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000902/090217eb.pdf

The 'AGW' flap looks tailor made for this.

As someone else said:

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster”

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

From the last section of the UNESCO document:

In order to generate maximum synergies between the national strategies and global action, the United Nations should create a forum for the periodical discussion and evaluation of these strategies and a research, monitoring and flexible planning facility to put them in a global perspective.(…). The forum should have a fair representation of all the main actors involved: governments, parliaments, citizen movements and the business world. Given its importance, it should be lifted from specialized agencies to a central place in the UN system

Sound like the IPCC, anyone?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Sound like the IPCC, anyone?

Ye Gods, don't you just wont to shoot the lot of them.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Interesting you mention Umberto Eco. I was just yesterday considering re-reading his novel 'Name of the Rose' (which is on my top 10 list of all-time favorite novels).

His development of the idea of a secret society creating their own interpretation of a Cabala (Foucault's Pendulum) makes for quite a story... Even if it can become quite heavy reading at times. However, it should make for a more interesting and meaningful film than for a certain other poorly written author...

The statement:

... If you want to believe something badly enough, Eco's novels suggest, then by selective listening - by editing out the contrary evidence - you will hear what you want to hear. Nowhere is this more true currently than in the debate about global warming. ...

I think applies to both sides, perhaps more demonstrably to the Warmist side. The 'Climategate' emails (1 and 2) tell a tale of a group of scientists so desperate to 'prove' the conclusion they wish that they ignore some of the data and massage the rest.

It is not that 'partisan science' has taken ahold of the politicians and the media to advance the AGW agenda, it is that some politicians (and their lap-dogs, the media) have taken ahold of the scientists through bribery (grant money) to advance another agenda entirely. ...

Unfortunately, "politics" is always a fight spanning many aspects...


From the parallel thread, what do you comment on this example?

... "The greatest deception in the history of science"...


The real sting in that tail is the "why"...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

OK, for the CO2 disbelievers, can you deny these?


Firstly, a demonstration of the physics of what's happening with our atmosphere:


Youtube: CO2 experiment

Youtube: CO2-Ink Demonstration (And note our atmosphere is far deeper than those jars...)

Youtube: Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



It's our only planet,
Martin

Ok, Martin, once again.

Video 1: Nobody disputes that CO2 absorbs some IR at certain well defined wavelengths (as do a GREAT MANY other chemicals, and the characteristic absorption isn't limited to IR). It is, after all, the basis of (IR) spectroscopy. This proves nothing.

Video 2: Ink and CO2 are not the same thing. You are not comparing apples to apples, not even apples to oranges. Its closer to comparing apples to pig testicles. Proves nothing.

Video 3: There are a heck of a lot of possible variables in this experiment. It is hardly conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, and there are numerous instances of bad design. Furthermore, the experiment is on a small, confined volume of 'air'. Lots of other effects are possible when one considers the atmosphere around the Earth (huge volume and only gravitationally confined). The small volume can be considered a homogenous system. The atmosphere definitely isn't. Proves nothing.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Interesting you mention Umberto Eco. I was just yesterday considering re-reading his novel 'Name of the Rose' (which is on my top 10 list of all-time favorite novels).

His development of the idea of a secret society creating their own interpretation of a Cabala (Foucault's Pendulum) makes for quite a story... Even if it can become quite heavy reading at times. However, it should make for a more interesting and meaningful film than for a certain other poorly written author...

The statement:

... If you want to believe something badly enough, Eco's novels suggest, then by selective listening - by editing out the contrary evidence - you will hear what you want to hear. Nowhere is this more true currently than in the debate about global warming. ...

I think applies to both sides, perhaps more demonstrably to the Warmist side. The 'Climategate' emails (1 and 2) tell a tale of a group of scientists so desperate to 'prove' the conclusion they wish that they ignore some of the data and massage the rest.

It is not that 'partisan science' has taken ahold of the politicians and the media to advance the AGW agenda, it is that some politicians (and their lap-dogs, the media) have taken ahold of the scientists through bribery (grant money) to advance another agenda entirely. ...

Unfortunately, "politics" is always a fight spanning many aspects...


From the parallel thread, what do you comment on this example?

... "The greatest deception in the history of science"...


The real sting in that tail is the "why"...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

I will have to give that video a watch when I get some time. I am a tad busy at the moment. I hope to get to it tonight.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

... Ok, Martin, once again.

Fascinating response!

Video 1: Nobody disputes that CO2 absorbs some IR at certain well defined wavelengths (as do a GREAT MANY other chemicals, and the characteristic absorption isn't limited to IR). It is, after all, the basis of (IR) spectroscopy. This proves nothing.

Yes indeed, a "GREAT MANY other chemicals" preferentially absorb some wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, which is indeed why we can use spectroscopy to identify chemicals/materials by their spectroscopic signature. A bit like the old Star Trek "Tricorder". This going to be used on NASA's Curiosity Mars Space Lab using a laser and also ambient light. CO2 is similarly one of the many 'chemicals' that has a variable absorption that depends upon the wavelength of light. Visible light from the sun is not absorbed and so passes through undimmed, longer wavelength light such as heat from the planet surface is absorbed (and so is collected/trapped) in the atmosphere.

The significant thing about the spectroscopic signature for CO2 is that it is significant for controlling how our atmosphere keeps our planet warm. There is also water vapour and methane and a few other gases. However, it is CO2 that is the variable and significant controlling effect.

Video 2: Ink and CO2 are not the same thing. You are not comparing apples to apples, not even apples to oranges. Its closer to comparing apples to pig testicles. Proves nothing.

Indeed, ink and CO2 are not the same thing. That demonstration is just to give a visual example of how an extremely small concentration of something optically absorbing can block your view, and so demonstrate how light (and infrared heat) is similarly blocked.

Is this example also "not the same thing"?

... a simple experiment that shows that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation...

Video 3: There are a heck of a lot of possible variables in this experiment. It is hardly conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, and there are numerous instances of bad design. Furthermore, the experiment is on a small, confined volume of 'air'. Lots of other effects are possible when one considers the atmosphere around the Earth (huge volume and only gravitationally confined. The small volume can be considered a homogenous system. The atmosphere definitely isn't. Proves nothing.

The Mythbusters example is hardly rigorous but does show the difference for just ONE parameter being changed: That of the concentration of CO2.

There's a significant 'short-cut' for the Mythbuster's example that is easily missed. Their example of a "sun" has a different spectrum to that of the real sun. So why does their experiment still work?


Still our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Dena, a quick reply.
1: I do not attempt to grow a calcium carbonate shell, therefore your allusion to soft drinks is irrelevant to my concern.
2: I will dig up the paper for you to peruse.

Dena, Here are 2 addresses. the first is a paper from the University of Idaho, quite technical and the other is an article from the Seattle Times newspaper, an easy read.



http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Feely%20et%20al.%202010.pdf


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012338264_acidification13m.html

---

... Unfortunately, "politics" is always a fight spanning many aspects...


From the parallel thread, what do you comment on this example?

... "The greatest deception in the history of science"...


The real sting in that tail is the "why"...

I will have to give that video a watch when I get some time. I am a tad busy at the moment. I hope to get to it tonight.

Let us know what you think. The lecture is long but well presented and compelling viewing. There's a brief introduction and a few bits of name dropping to then list a few polls of what the public opinion was for that time. There's then a chunk setting the scientific and political context to then move onto the killer section of what just one 'sceptical' institute has done and where it has come from. For me, the big surprise was in 'why'.


Extreme?

Or too fantastic to be believed?

All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Dena, a quick reply.
1: I do not attempt to grow a calcium carbonate shell, therefore your allusion to soft drinks is irrelevant to my concern.
2: I will dig up the paper for you to peruse.

Dena, Here are 2 addresses. the first is a paper from the University of Idaho, quite technical and the other is an article from the Seattle Times newspaper, an easy read.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Feely%20et%20al.%202010.pdf


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012338264_acidification13m.html

Similar articles, but from some time ago, were what started off these series of threads. Except now, the articles show what is happening as opposed to what was soon to happen...


All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

ML1, what I do not understand is the motivation of the deniers. Bad news does not get better with age.

---

Dena, a quick reply.
1: I do not attempt to grow a calcium carbonate shell, therefore your allusion to soft drinks is irrelevant to my concern.
2: I will dig up the paper for you to peruse.

Dena, Here are 2 addresses. the first is a paper from the University of Idaho, quite technical and the other is an article from the Seattle Times newspaper, an easy read.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Feely%20et%20al.%202010.pdf


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012338264_acidification13m.html

Similar articles, but from some time ago, were what started off these series of threads. Except now, the articles show what is happening as opposed to what was soon to happen...


All on our only planet,
Martin

If that's what passes for a research paper today we are in deep trouble. The only mention of sulfur or it's compound was in the foot notes. Even today there is way to many man made sulfur compounds in the air. Next, nitrogen was mention once in the text and once in the foot notes. Nitrogen comes from fertilizer and incorrectly contained animal waste. Next there is decomposing organic compounds that exist naturally but you might see more of when the ground is worked by farming. No test were run on the content of the water feeding the bay, only it's PH was measured so while the water could be harmful I would not lay any money on what is causing the damage.
This is an example of what happen when you pay scientist to write papers on the harmful effects of CO2 and they don't receive money for the opposite. In no way could I conclude from this paper that CO2 is causing the damage.

---

I have to agree with Dena. When the second sentence of the introduction reads the same as the conclusion ... it is circular logic for the sole purpose of getting additional grant money. Not any different that Russian science back in the USSR days.

---

Dena, I do not think that co2 is the only component, however it is a component and a threshold has been reached. Asking which straw broke the camels back is beside the point. The camels back was broken, is that what you want?

---