Report Climate change ipcc

[tablet]

12 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Which also means that the oceans will become less efficient carbon-sinks faster than had previously been thought?

the oceans are not a carbon -sink , the only way to make them absorb more carbon dioxide than they do now would be to alter the atmospheric pressure of the whole planet , like you do when you make fizzy drinks , pressurize the liquid and inject carbon dioxide , but when the pressure is released , the gas escapes , or are you inferring Henry's law is wrong ?  ( William Henry  , Chemist 1774 - 1863 )

[tablet]

12 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

I think that would be the case as it would mean more in the way of ocean acidification... as if the oceans didn't have enough problems. The carbon cycle isn't my area of research though so I probably aren't the best person to ask.

Ocean acidification ,, that's a good one , Ocean's have a PH of between 7.8 and 8.2 , they are a base not an acid , carbon dioxide mixed with seawater can produce a very small amount of Carbonic acid . Carbonic acid is very weak and when added to water it does not completely dissociate , you would need tens of  millions of gallons of it to alter the PH of the Oceans by 0.1 per cent , at which point , it would be , scientifically , Ocean Neutralization , there would still be no acid involved in the finished product , the alarmists use Acidification because it sounds scary  , Dr Peter Ridd , formally of James Cook University pointed this out about the Great Barrier Reef ,,,,so they sacked him earlier this year

Edited November 2, 2018 by tablet

[Devonian]

6 hours ago, tablet said:

the oceans are not a carbon -sink , the only way to make them absorb more carbon dioxide than they do now would be to alter the atmospheric pressure of the whole planet , like you do when you make fizzy drinks , pressurize the liquid and inject carbon dioxide , but when the pressure is released , the gas escapes , or are you inferring Henry's law is wrong ?  ( William Henry  , Chemist 1774 - 1863 )

You rekon? It's worse than I thought...

[Methuselah]

8 hours ago, tablet said:

the oceans are not a carbon -sink , the only way to make them absorb more carbon dioxide than they do now would be to alter the atmospheric pressure of the whole planet , like you do when you make fizzy drinks , pressurize the liquid and inject carbon dioxide , but when the pressure is released , the gas escapes , or are you inferring Henry's law is wrong ?  ( William Henry  , Chemist 1774 - 1863 )

It has more to do with plankton tablet, and temperature-dependent calcium-carbonate deposition - the former of which I doubt Henry knew much about...And have you ever noticed how boiling a kettle causes water to precipitate carbonate out? Basic chemical equilibrium, old bean...it's temperature dependent!

[BornFromTheVoid]

8 hours ago, tablet said:

the oceans are not a carbon -sink , the only way to make them absorb more carbon dioxide than they do now would be to alter the atmospheric pressure of the whole planet , like you do when you make fizzy drinks , pressurize the liquid and inject carbon dioxide , but when the pressure is released , the gas escapes , or are you inferring Henry's law is wrong ?  ( William Henry  , Chemist 1774 - 1863 )

You do realise this is going against all the science on the topic, right? You need to have a read back over the basics, the "partial pressure" is a phrase that might help. And try stick to some scientific sources.

 

8 hours ago, tablet said:

Ocean acidification ,, that's a good one , Ocean's have a PH of between 7.8 and 8.2 , they are a base not an acid , carbon dioxide mixed with seawater can produce a very small amount of Carbonic acid . Carbonic acid is very weak and when added to water it does not completely dissociate , you would need tens of  millions of gallons of it to alter the PH of the Oceans by 0.1 per cent , at which point , it would be , scientifically , Ocean Neutralization , there would still be no acid involved in the finished product , the alarmists use Acidification because it sounds scary  , Dr Peter Ridd , formally of James Cook University pointed this out about the Great Barrier Reef ,,,,so they sacked him earlier this year

Global pH levels have dropped from around 8.3 to 8.1, they are becoming more acidic i.e., Ocean Acidification is taking place. Saying that isn't acidification is like saying the Arctic hasn't warmed, despite the temperature increasing by several degrees over the last century, because it's still cold.

You're arguments, I'm afraid, make absolutely zero sense.

Edited November 2, 2018 by BornFromTheVoid

[Derecho]

9 hours ago, tablet said:

Ocean acidification ,, that's a good one , Ocean's have a PH of between 7.8 and 8.2 , they are a base not an acid , carbon dioxide mixed with seawater can produce a very small amount of Carbonic acid . Carbonic acid is very weak and when added to water it does not completely dissociate , you would need tens of  millions of gallons of it to alter the PH of the Oceans by 0.1 per cent , at which point , it would be , scientifically , Ocean Neutralization , there would still be no acid involved in the finished product , the alarmists use Acidification because it sounds scary  , Dr Peter Ridd , formally of James Cook University pointed this out about the Great Barrier Reef ,,,,so they sacked him earlier this year

How are we expected to believe what you say when you don't think the oceans are a carbon sink!!!??????

[tablet]

On ‎02‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 09:31, BornFromTheVoid said:

You do realise this is going against all the science on the topic, right? You need to have a read back over the basics, the "partial pressure" is a phrase that might help. And try stick to some scientific sources.

 

Global pH levels have dropped from around 8.3 to 8.1, they are becoming more acidic i.e., Ocean Acidification is taking place. Saying that isn't acidification is like saying the Arctic hasn't warmed, despite the temperature increasing by several degrees over the last century, because it's still cold.

You're arguments, I'm afraid, make absolutely zero sense.

in what science book is a PH of 8.1 or 8.4 an acid ?

anything towards 7 would be neutralization , not acidification , because at anything above 7 , it's not an acid , even just taking it to 7 would be neutralization

[Yarmy]

10 minutes ago, tablet said:

in what science book is a PH of 8.1 or 8.4 an acid ?

anything towards 7 would be neutralization , not acidification , because at anything above 7 , it's not an acid , even just taking it to 7 would be neutralization

So you object to the name given to the process of decreasing PH levels in the oceans, but you accept that it is happening?

[tablet]

15 minutes ago, Yarmy said:

So you object to the name given to the process of decreasing PH levels in the oceans, but you accept that it is happening?

no , I don't accept that it is  possible ,, here's why ( below )

Edited November 4, 2018 by tablet

[tablet]

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/74/4/926/2669543

The ocean acidification (OA) literature is replete with laboratory studies that report species sensitivity to seawater carbonate chemistry in experimental treatments as an “effect of OA”. I argue that this is unintentionally misleading, since these studies do not actually demonstrate an effect of OA but rather show sensitivity to CO₂. Documenting an effect of OA involves showing a change in a species (e.g. population abundance or distribution) as a consequence of anthropogenic changes in marine carbonate chemistry. To date, there have been no unambiguous demonstrations of a population level effect of anthropogenic OA, as that term is defined by the IPCC.

[tablet]

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192496

There were no significant differences in average temperature among the incubation buckets during the incubation period (Table 1; 1-factor PERMANOVA: Pseudo-F_5,71 = 0.18, P = 0.98). pH_T differed significantly between high and low pH treatments and there were no significant difference among buckets within treatments (1-factor PERMANOVA pair-wise tests: P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in diatom food concentration among buckets (1-factor PERMANOVA: Pseud-F_5,59 = 0.29, P = 0.91).

[tablet]

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-64666-4_6

“Strong physiological controls, but of a different character, are found in corals grown in a Free Ocean Carbon Enrichment Experiment (FOCE) conducted in situ within the Heron Island lagoon (GBR). These corals exhibit near constant pHcf values regardless of external changes in temperature and seawater pH. This pattern of strong physiologically controlled ‘pH-homeostasis’, with elevated but constant pHcf has been found despite large natural seasonal variations in the pH (±0.15 pH units) of the lagoon waters, as well as the even larger super-imposed decreases in seawater pH (~0.25 pH units) designed to simulate year 2100 conditions.”

“In natural reef environments we thus find that the processes influencing the up-regulation of pHcf in symbiont-bearing corals are subject to strong physiological controls, behaviour that is not well simulated in the current generation of aquaria-based experiments with fixed seawater pH and temperature.”

[tablet]

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191947

“Over a period of 32 days, larval survival, growth in size and weight, and instantaneous growth rate were assessed in a crossed experimental design of two temperatures (10°C and 12°C) with two CO2 levels (400 μatm and 900 μatm CO2) at food levels mimicking natural levels using natural prey. Elevated temperature alone led to increased swimming activity, as well as decreased survival and instantaneous growth rate (Gi). The comparatively high sensitivity to elevated temperature in this study may have been influenced by low food levels offered to the larvae.”

“Larval size, Gi and swimming activity were not affected by CO2, indicating tolerance of this species to projected “end of the century” CO2 levels. A synergistic effect of elevated temperature and CO2 was found for larval weight, where no effect of elevated CO2 concentrations was detected in the 12°C treatment, but a negative CO2 effect was found in the 10°C treatment. Contrasting CO2 effects were found for survival between the two temperatures. Under ambient CO2 conditions survival was increased at 12°C compared to 10°C.” [Survival rates increased with warmer water temperatures]

 

 

[tablet]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283946141_Decadal_variability_in_seawater_pH_in_the_West_Pacific_Evidence_from_coral_d_11_B_records

 Ocean acidification is predicted to reduce the saturation state of carbonate minerals in seawater and potentially threaten the existence and development of many marine calcareous organisms, such as calcareous microorganisms and corals. Model calculations have indicated an overall decrease in global seawater pH of 0.1 relative to the preIndustrial era value, and a further pH reduction of 0.2–0.3 over the next century.

We here estimate the OA rates from the two long (>150 years) annually resolved pH records from the northern SCS (this study) and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], and the results indicate annual rates of -0.00039 +/- 0.00025 yr and -0.00034 +/- 0.00022 yr for the northern SCS [South China Sea] and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], respectively. … [T]hese two time-series do not show significant decreasing trend for pH.  Despite such large errors, estimated from these rates, the seawater pH has decreased by about 0.07–0.08 U over the past 200 years in these regions.   …  The average calculated seawater pH over the past 159 years was 8.04 [with a] a seawater pH variation range of 7.66–8.40.

[Devonian]

8 hours ago, tablet said:

no , I don't accept that it is  possible ,, here's why ( below )

You say ocean acidification isn't possible and to 'prove' that you supply a load of references showing ocean acidification isn't happening? No, you supply a load of references that talk about the various effects of ocean acidification.

Colour me deeply unconvinced.

Further, your words 'I don't accept that it's possible' indicate your mind is closed. Not that you 'think' it's not possible you refuse to even consider the possibility!

Edited November 4, 2018 by Devonian

[Midlands Ice Age]

8 hours ago, tablet said:

in what science book is a PH of 8.1 or 8.4 an acid ?

anything towards 7 would be neutralization , not acidification , because at anything above 7 , it's not an acid , even just taking it to 7 would be neutralization

Correct Tablet..

The process is one of neutralisation and not one of acidification, in chemical terms..

The effect of the Bicarbonate ion will be to buffer any acidic effect of the hydrogen ions.

15 year old carry out this experiment in basic science classes.

Only 'politicians' with no science training will call this 'acidification'.

MIA 

 

[Devonian]

6 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Correct Tablet..

The process is one of neutralisation and not one of acidification, in chemical terms..

The effect of the Bicarbonate ion will be to buffer any acidic effect of the hydrogen ions.

15 year old carry out this experiment in basic science classes.

Only 'politicians' with no science training will call this 'acidification'.

MIA 

 

You're playing with words.

But, to try and understand what is behind your mischief I have the following questions for you:

Are you saying it's only acidification if the movement is to below pH7?

If I have a solution of pH7.1 and I add a strong alakali what would you call the change?

If I have a solution of pH 7 and add acid what would you call the change? And if if it was pH 6.9?

[Methuselah]

23 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Correct Tablet..

The process is one of neutralisation and not one of acidification, in chemical terms..

The effect of the Bicarbonate ion will be to buffer any acidic effect of the hydrogen ions.

15 year old carry out this experiment in basic science classes.

Only 'politicians' with no science training will call this 'acidification'.

MIA 

 

A chemical equilibrium which is, of itself, dependent on temperature - the warmer the water becomes, the more the equilibrium moves away from soluble carbonate ions and towards insoluble calcium carbonate (white cliffs of Dover?)...Ergo, as a body of water warms (any water, not just seawater) its ability to act as a buffer against acidification becomes ever less efficient?

See...there's no reason to put the planet into a pressure cooker! Neither do plankton and corals refer to a pH meter before setting-up home...? 

[BornFromTheVoid]

10 hours ago, tablet said:

no , I don't accept that it is  possible ,, here's why ( below )

Every single one of those papers agrees that ocean acidification is happening. Every. Single. One.

 

1 hour ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Correct Tablet..

The process is one of neutralisation and not one of acidification, in chemical terms..

The effect of the Bicarbonate ion will be to buffer any acidic effect of the hydrogen ions.

15 year old carry out this experiment in basic science classes.

Only 'politicians' with no science training will call this 'acidification'.

MIA 

 

Each of the papers linked above, by tablet, are written by scientists and all call it ocean acidification.

[Midlands Ice Age]

22 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

A chemical equilibrium which is, of itself, dependent on temperature - the warmer the water becomes, the more the equilibrium moves away from soluble carbonate ions and towards insoluble calcium carbonate (white cliffs of Dover?)...Ergo, as a body of water warms (any water, not just seawater) its ability to act as a buffer against acidification becomes ever less efficient?

See...there's no reason to put the planet into a pressure cooker! Neither do plankton and corals refer to a pH meter before setting-up home...? 

Ed.....

In theory yes...

However

The effect of the temperature changes we are seeing  (288.1K to 288.8K? from memory) are insignificant in terms of chemical reactivity. Remember that Chemistry and particularly reactivity works in terms of absolute temperature NOT an anomaly which may double or treble quite easily , as we  see at the moment.

I agree that the relationship is not linear however. (as evidence is provided by gaseous drinks).

The difference is so small as to make the slight change in temperature insignificant in these still relatively strongly alkaline solutions. It will make the carbonate ion slightly more soluble as you suggest, but this will  not affect the Bicarbonate ion balance with the carbonate that much. As always there is a balance in these things.

To answer the above posts  - these change should be described as less alkaline, not more acidic.

As DEV suggests to claim otherwise is playing with words. The subject of Climate Science should start using actual scientific terms, not those used for best political impact.

As we all admit,  the political IPCC and the like are quite good at 'playing with words'. . 

Try - Global Warming, AGW Warming and Climate Change for similar playing with words.

To accuse me of playing with words when I describe the scientific processes really does show how far away from true Science, 'Climate Science' has moved (in terms of its  publication to the public).  They have  moved it into being a politician's delight. Politicians these days have more knowledge than the actual pure science tells us..

MIA

 

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age

[BornFromTheVoid]

Try changing your body temperature by 1C. See how well the "theory" of temperature changes on chemical activity works then.

Our CO2 emissions cause global warming. The warming results in other climate changes. Both terms have been used for decades within the scientific community. It's neither difficult to understand nor a political play on words. You need to approach those terms from a heavily biased and politicised position to view them as political. I mean, like the US republicans, who issued a memo in 2003 instructing politicians to use climate change instead of global warming - it's less scary sounding and pleases the big oil donors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

[Methuselah]

2 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Ed.....

As we all admit,  the political IPCC and the like are quite good at 'playing with words'. . 

MIA

And therein lies your problem, MIA: for some reason (best known to you) you insist on making every subject political; it's almost as though, by the sheer will of your intellect, you can fit facts into whatever best suits your politics...

There was good reason (even if it took a while for me to accept it) why the politics area was closed down, so please refrain from bring it over here..?

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

And therein lies your problem, MIA: for some reason (best known to you) you insist on making every subject political; it's almost as though, by the sheer will of your intellect, you can fit facts into whatever best suits your politics...

There was good reason (even if it took a while for me to accept it) why the politics area was closed down, so please refrain from bring it over here..?

 

How on earth can you believe that I am twisting it to be political.

My post speaks of the scientific truths of the interaction of CO2 with sea water.

I have pointed out that the IPCC are a political organisation, replying to a note from Dev which accused me of 'playing with words'.   I pointed out that I was actually giving him the scientific facts, and that I am no where near as good at politicking as the IPCC.

How does that make ME  a 'political animal'.

 

I see that no one has disagreed or commented upon my scientific facts, when I pointed out that the twisting of the words was being performed by the IPCC.. 

MIA

 

 

[parrotingfantasist]

I wish I could be as blissfully ignorant (or just ignorant) like many of the denialists on here. Then everything would be hunky dory.......

"The oceans aren't acidifying, they're just neutralising. We were much warmer in the past anyway, and its just a 40 year natural cycle. The ice extent is at a record maximum. Anybody who says anything otherwise is easily-brainwashed.

 

 

1 hour ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

 

How does that make ME  a 'political animal'.

 

He didn't call you a political animal.

Edited November 5, 2018 by parrotingfantasist

[Devonian]

8 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

 

As DEV suggests to claim otherwise is playing with words.

 

 

Huh???

I said no such thing, you're putting words into my mouth. I asked you some questions, care to answer them?