This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.9 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Monday, 5 January 2009
OCEANS WILL NEVER BECOME ACIDIC SAYS PROFESSOR
A university professor has debunked an often quoted myth that our oceans are becoming acidic as a result of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Read the professor's explanation here.
Can you be any more disingenuous? This article only states that ocean pH won't go below 7, but this is clearly not the issue. 'Acidification' or even 'acid ocean' are relative terms as explained in the comments of http://tinyurl.com/y44sg3 (from www.realclimate.org): "It could be called “neutralization”, although (a) the change is demonstrably detrimental to calcifiers and (b) “neutral” has a connotation of “natural” which would be incorrect."
I pointed this out in my recent comment but you ignored it and continued to post here. One wonders if you are interested in understanding the issue, or only in persuasion.
Here is a scientific paper that lays the blame for 14% reduced Great Barrier Reef coral calcification since 1990 on a lower pH and higher sea surface temperatures.
"Since industrialization, global average atmospheric CO2 has increased by 36% (from 280 to 387 parts per thousand), the concentration of hydrogen ions in ocean surface waters has increased by 30% (a 0.1 change in pH), and the aragonite saturation state (Ωarag) has decreased by 16%."
The issue of what's happening on the Great Barrier Reef is very complex as this article explains. Corals have been around for millions of years, and they have survived much bigger changes than they are experiencing now.
Of course it's complex. Are you suggesting we can't understand it? Is it OK if the majority of coral dies off, as long as some species survive? What effect will that have on the rest of the food web? Do you reject out of hand that we could have any impact?
Marohasy's assertion that growth only increases as temperature rises lacks subtlety. The same is true for plants - to a point. When the temperature gets too high they become stressed. Would there be any coral growth if the water was boiling?
She also simplifies their argument to shoot down the pH theory, saying that it can't be pH related because it should have occurred earlier. This ignores the other factors the authors mention. Poor nutrition can make a person susceptible to a virus for example. As you say, the issue is complex.
She herself supplies no evidence herself that pH has not declined. You are dodging the question too, far from "debunking" it.
You ask whether it's OK if the majority of coral dies. Your question implies that we know the cause and that we can prevent it. I believe that we do not know the cause and so we cannot prevent it. The sea has not become significantly warmer, nor has their been a significant change in pH. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is also not unprecedented. In fact as Ernst Beck and others have shown measurements of CO2 were higher in the 1940's than today in some places. There is no certainty about any of this.
It is all too easy to play the agnostic and critic. If you truly know nothing about causes and consequences, why should we listen to you? What kind of "science" blog is this, that believes we can't understand nature, but happily assume we have little impact? In many cases we have understood environmental problems and improved the situation. Scientists discovered that CFCs were destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere, and a ban on them had a positive impact. Geoff Lawton understands the way forests spread and repair, and subsequently brought a salty, hyper arid farm to life.
It appears your motive is to defend business as usual and your lifestyle. Your research and interpretation is biased. You only accept data and conclusions that suit you. For example, you (climate change sceptics) are happy to point out that CO2 is necessary (but rarely limiting) for plant growth, but ignore that it dissolves in water (potentially) harming calcifying organisms.
Your judgement is not objective. You can't even admit (or understand) that your own web poll has selection bias.
You have double standards, deriding popular opinion on climate change, but accepting it on future resource availability.
Beck's measurements are discredited here: http://tinyurl.com/2t6l4u.
Stating that pH has not changed significantly does not prove it.
Tim, where there is doubt you claim certainty! Of course there are some areas where science has made useful discoveries and when we know something, we can take action if it is proportionate. In the case of CO2 there is no certainty, and the proposed action is disproportionate. In fact the harm to our society far outweighs the good that would be done - which in practice is non-existent because unless all nations were to drastically reduce CO2 (which they are not!) then even if the CO2 warming theory were true (there is no proof it is), then no reduction would be achieved.
"where there is doubt you claim certainty" This from someone who believes our dire energy situation will be solved by an unknown technology!
We all make judgements on what is certain and what is not. I've only tried to show you how fallible yours are. In addition, your desired course dooms much life and future generations if you are wrong. You must feel more certain than me (or not care)!
I won't comment on all 'proposals' you allude to as there are many I don't agree with and I personally don't like the focus on CO2 reduction - there are better, positive approaches - but...
You're assuming that high energy modern living is good for society and that there is no better alternative. I have introduced you to a design system (Permaculture) that can improve conditions for humanity and other species indefinitely, and as a byproduct sequester carbon. You do not recognise the significance of it. You seem to think that the only (hypothetical) benefit of reducing carbon emissions could be a reversal of climate change, this ignores other potential benefits. A trivial example is living without a car saves you money and gives you exercise. Many of these benefits are independent of how many other people participate.
Moreover, you are assuming that modern living is sustainable. It is actually on its death bed right now. You believe this "recession" will end soon without basis. It will come as a surprise to you when things do not improve (at least in the way you expect).
I expect that no serious action will be taken on climate change as you wish, but business as usual, globalisation, and standard of living will collapse anyway. If I'm wrong, no big deal. I'll have saved a lot of money, enjoyed learning from and interacting with nature, growing and eating healthy food, exercising and getting to know other friendly, down-to-earth people.
Tim, I am very happy to "live and let live". If you are happy living without a car I have absolutely no problem with that, as long as you will leave me free to carry on using mine! What I object to, is the people who want to control everyone else's life by imposing taxes and levies.
I agree with eating healthy food, exercising. I also believe I am a down-to-earth sort of person. Modern living has many benefits and some disadvantages, but I believe the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. You are a little too certain that "modern living is on its death bed". That reminds me of the people we used to see with placards proclaiming "the end is nigh!" I bet those who are still here will all be carrying on much the same in another ten years.
Infrastructure and town planning decisions that force you to own a car and work your life away ARE a tax. Traffic pollution and sedentary lifestyle diseases are major burdens on public health care which taxes pay for. Using ornamental plants is unproductive. Supporting and subsidising energy intensive agriculture is costly and provides poor quality food, creating another burden on public health. People get into ridiculous amounts of debt and buy a staggering amount of stuff they don't need, preyed upon by aggressive advertising. Now we see explicit theft in the form of government bail outs to banks and industry to prop up the foundering growth economy. People are already being controlled and fleeced, but they have been conditioned not to see it.
Families used to be able to live on one income, but increasingly both parents must work just to make ends meet. The system is geared to keep us working and consuming. Providing our own needs and consuming little is the most subversive action we can take.
See how easily you dismiss a concept that you don't like? There are plenty of warning signs. Your own country's oil production has fallen so fast that it quickly became a net importer. At the very least this represents a large cost to the country, but it also means it is vulnerable to a volatile and contracting export market. Record oil prices were unable to break a 3 year plateau in global production. What do you think low oil prices will do? Oil makes this modern life tick, you should be worried. Why don't you do some real research on it with an open mind?
The answer to oil shortages lies across the Channel - nuclear power could provide our electricity needs for the foreseeable future. If oil became too costly for out cars we would soon see a new breed of electric vehicle emerge, or even some new technology, depending on exactly what time this happened. I have been told all my life that oil was going to run out in about 20-30 years. It has never been proved correct. No doubt it will happen one day, maybe in my grandchildren's time.
I am an optimist, so I expect to see life improve as new technology comes along and we conquer deseases which now kill us. You seem to paint a bleak future, I hope you are wrong.
I am not saying everything is perfect by any means. Many people have become much too materialistic. We need to provide work for most of those who now rely on benefit. It would be better if more women would stay at home to raise their children - though that is unlikely to happen as they prefer to go to work. But that's what happens in a free society when people are given a choice. They often choose things which have negative side-effects.
To succeed in the modern world it is much better to have money and that means work of some kind.
We won't just "run out" instantly, production will decline. It already is, rapidly. You should be more discriminating about who you listen to and find out for yourself. The fact that there have been bad calls on "running out" in the past is irrelevant. There have been just as many bad calls on late or indefinite peaks, but people won't care about them until the peak actually happens.
I'll be repeating myself if I respond to your other points here, so I'll say no more. Keep all this in mind while you're hearing about your economy going down the drain, though.
Can you be any more disingenuous? This article only states that ocean pH won't go below 7, but this is clearly not the issue. 'Acidification' or even 'acid ocean' are relative terms as explained in the comments of http://tinyurl.com/y44sg3 (from www.realclimate.org): "It could be called “neutralization”, although (a) the change is demonstrably detrimental to calcifiers and (b) “neutral” has a connotation of “natural” which would be incorrect."
ReplyDeleteI pointed this out in my recent comment but you ignored it and continued to post here. One wonders if you are interested in understanding the issue, or only in persuasion.
Here is a scientific paper that lays the blame for 14% reduced Great Barrier Reef coral calcification since 1990 on a lower pH and higher sea surface temperatures.
ReplyDelete"Since industrialization, global average atmospheric CO2 has increased by 36% (from 280 to 387 parts per thousand), the concentration of hydrogen ions in ocean surface waters has increased by 30% (a 0.1 change in pH), and the aragonite saturation state (Ωarag) has decreased by 16%."
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/01/coral-calcifica.html
The issue of what's happening on the Great Barrier Reef is very complex as this article explains. Corals have been around for millions of years, and they have survived much bigger changes than they are experiencing now.
ReplyDeleteOf course it's complex. Are you suggesting we can't understand it? Is it OK if the majority of coral dies off, as long as some species survive? What effect will that have on the rest of the food web? Do you reject out of hand that we could have any impact?
ReplyDeleteMarohasy's assertion that growth only increases as temperature rises lacks subtlety. The same is true for plants - to a point. When the temperature gets too high they become stressed. Would there be any coral growth if the water was boiling?
She also simplifies their argument to shoot down the pH theory, saying that it can't be pH related because it should have occurred earlier. This ignores the other factors the authors mention. Poor nutrition can make a person susceptible to a virus for example. As you say, the issue is complex.
She herself supplies no evidence herself that pH has not declined. You are dodging the question too, far from "debunking" it.
You ask whether it's OK if the majority of coral dies. Your question implies that we know the cause and that we can prevent it. I believe that we do not know the cause and so we cannot prevent it. The sea has not become significantly warmer, nor has their been a significant change in pH. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is also not unprecedented. In fact as Ernst Beck and others have shown measurements of CO2 were higher in the 1940's than today in some places. There is no certainty about any of this.
ReplyDeleteIt is all too easy to play the agnostic and critic. If you truly know nothing about causes and consequences, why should we listen to you? What kind of "science" blog is this, that believes we can't understand nature, but happily assume we have little impact? In many cases we have understood environmental problems and improved the situation. Scientists discovered that CFCs were destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere, and a ban on them had a positive impact. Geoff Lawton understands the way forests spread and repair, and subsequently brought a salty, hyper arid farm to life.
ReplyDeleteIt appears your motive is to defend business as usual and your lifestyle. Your research and interpretation is biased. You only accept data and conclusions that suit you. For example, you (climate change sceptics) are happy to point out that CO2 is necessary (but rarely limiting) for plant growth, but ignore that it dissolves in water (potentially) harming calcifying organisms.
Your judgement is not objective. You can't even admit (or understand) that your own web poll has selection bias.
You have double standards, deriding popular opinion on climate change, but accepting it on future resource availability.
Beck's measurements are discredited here: http://tinyurl.com/2t6l4u.
Stating that pH has not changed significantly does not prove it.
Tim, where there is doubt you claim certainty! Of course there are some areas where science has made useful discoveries and when we know something, we can take action if it is proportionate. In the case of CO2 there is no certainty, and the proposed action is disproportionate. In fact the harm to our society far outweighs the good that would be done - which in practice is non-existent because unless all nations were to drastically reduce CO2 (which they are not!) then even if the CO2 warming theory were true (there is no proof it is), then no reduction would be achieved.
ReplyDelete"where there is doubt you claim certainty" This from someone who believes our dire energy situation will be solved by an unknown technology!
ReplyDeleteWe all make judgements on what is certain and what is not. I've only tried to show you how fallible yours are. In addition, your desired course dooms much life and future generations if you are wrong. You must feel more certain than me (or not care)!
I won't comment on all 'proposals' you allude to as there are many I don't agree with and I personally don't like the focus on CO2 reduction - there are better, positive approaches - but...
You're assuming that high energy modern living is good for society and that there is no better alternative. I have introduced you to a design system (Permaculture) that can improve conditions for humanity and other species indefinitely, and as a byproduct sequester carbon. You do not recognise the significance of it. You seem to think that the only (hypothetical) benefit of reducing carbon emissions could be a reversal of climate change, this ignores other potential benefits. A trivial example is living without a car saves you money and gives you exercise. Many of these benefits are independent of how many other people participate.
Moreover, you are assuming that modern living is sustainable. It is actually on its death bed right now. You believe this "recession" will end soon without basis. It will come as a surprise to you when things do not improve (at least in the way you expect).
I expect that no serious action will be taken on climate change as you wish, but business as usual, globalisation, and standard of living will collapse anyway. If I'm wrong, no big deal. I'll have saved a lot of money, enjoyed learning from and interacting with nature, growing and eating healthy food, exercising and getting to know other friendly, down-to-earth people.
Tim, I am very happy to "live and let live". If you are happy living without a car I have absolutely no problem with that, as long as you will leave me free to carry on using mine! What I object to, is the people who want to control everyone else's life by imposing taxes and levies.
ReplyDeleteI agree with eating healthy food, exercising. I also believe I am a down-to-earth sort of person. Modern living has many benefits and some disadvantages, but I believe the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. You are a little too certain that "modern living is on its death bed". That reminds me of the people we used to see with placards proclaiming "the end is nigh!" I bet those who are still here will all be carrying on much the same in another ten years.
Infrastructure and town planning decisions that force you to own a car and work your life away ARE a tax. Traffic pollution and sedentary lifestyle diseases are major burdens on public health care which taxes pay for. Using ornamental plants is unproductive. Supporting and subsidising energy intensive agriculture is costly and provides poor quality food, creating another burden on public health. People get into ridiculous amounts of debt and buy a staggering amount of stuff they don't need, preyed upon by aggressive advertising. Now we see explicit theft in the form of government bail outs to banks and industry to prop up the foundering growth economy. People are already being controlled and fleeced, but they have been conditioned not to see it.
ReplyDeleteFamilies used to be able to live on one income, but increasingly both parents must work just to make ends meet. The system is geared to keep us working and consuming. Providing our own needs and consuming little is the most subversive action we can take.
See how easily you dismiss a concept that you don't like? There are plenty of warning signs. Your own country's oil production has fallen so fast that it quickly became a net importer. At the very least this represents a large cost to the country, but it also means it is vulnerable to a volatile and contracting export market. Record oil prices were unable to break a 3 year plateau in global production. What do you think low oil prices will do? Oil makes this modern life tick, you should be worried. Why don't you do some real research on it with an open mind?
Here are a few links to kick you off.
ReplyDeleteOrlov's comparison of the US with the collapsed Soviet Union:
http://energybulletin.net/node/23259
Comprehensive introduction to financial, resource and environment crises unfolding:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
Interview with author of 'Limits To Growth':
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2008/07/modeling_planetary_dynamics.html
Financial and economic collapse commentary:
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/
Neat piece by Richard Heinberg explaining why there's unlikely to be a recovery:
ReplyDeletehttp://energybulletin.net/node/47659
The answer to oil shortages lies across the Channel - nuclear power could provide our electricity needs for the foreseeable future. If oil became too costly for out cars we would soon see a new breed of electric vehicle emerge, or even some new technology, depending on exactly what time this happened. I have been told all my life that oil was going to run out in about 20-30 years. It has never been proved correct. No doubt it will happen one day, maybe in my grandchildren's time.
ReplyDeleteI am an optimist, so I expect to see life improve as new technology comes along and we conquer deseases which now kill us. You seem to paint a bleak future, I hope you are wrong.
I am not saying everything is perfect by any means. Many people have become much too materialistic. We need to provide work for most of those who now rely on benefit. It would be better if more women would stay at home to raise their children - though that is unlikely to happen as they prefer to go to work. But that's what happens in a free society when people are given a choice. They often choose things which have negative side-effects.
To succeed in the modern world it is much better to have money and that means work of some kind.
We won't just "run out" instantly, production will decline. It already is, rapidly. You should be more discriminating about who you listen to and find out for yourself. The fact that there have been bad calls on "running out" in the past is irrelevant. There have been just as many bad calls on late or indefinite peaks, but people won't care about them until the peak actually happens.
ReplyDeleteI'll be repeating myself if I respond to your other points here, so I'll say no more. Keep all this in mind while you're hearing about your economy going down the drain, though.
Are Tim Auld's comments in ALLCAPS? It doesn't look like it, and yet I feel as if he's been yelling at me.
ReplyDelete