Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate

[Shakeyhands]

And how do they "date" those water samples?

This should be good,I'm all freekin ears!

WWWTT

Here you go big ears...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

[WWWTT]

Here you go big ears...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Oh God not the Antartic/Artic air pockets in the ice crap thing again!

Ok first off there is an Argentinian poet called Jorge Luis Borges(a Spanish language avant gaurd artist/poet)he wrote a short story called the library of babel and the link you posted reminds me of that poem.(check it out if you dare)

That link proves didley squate!

If anything scientists probably studied sedimentary layers from what was to be believed from ancient sea beds(from fossil remains) and tried to analyze what the possible composition present in the water at that time was.This can not be trusted because there are too many factors that can influence the outcome.

Aswell the age of sedimentary layers in the Earths crust can only be estimated and this is how dinasour fossil remains are dated.

To make a claim that the amount of CO2 dissolved in our Oceans is at the highest level in 300 million years is a wild claim.They may be right but this is not evidence that this is dangerous.Nor are they being specific with the increased amount being capable of causing any harm.

They are just giving out vague statements and stressing that this is a bad thing.

If you do not question how they reached their results/conclusion then you will believe anything.

And really there's nothing I can say will convince you so I'm just wasting time here

WWWTT

[waldo]

Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate not seen in last 300 million years

acidification is but one of several threat stessors on ocean ecosystems... those being: acidification, ocean warming, hypoxia, sea-level rise, pollution, and overuse of marine resources

Multiple stressors pushing ocean ecosystems, livelihoods to the brink

A new study coordinated by the Stockholm Environment Institute shows climate change alone could reduce the economic value of key ocean services by up to 2 trillion USD a year by 2100, and urges world leaders to make the oceans a priority in global sustainability goals... the study, Valuing the Ocean, is the work of an international, multi-disciplinary team of experts; a preliminary Executive Summary is being released to inform preparations for the Rio+20 Earth Summit in June.

A key part of the study is a groundbreaking analysis on ocean economics, designed to quantify the costs of ocean degradation, which are often invisible in the cost-benefit analyses that guide policy. The analysis calculates the cost over the next 50 and 100 years respectively in terms of five categories of lost ocean value (fisheries, tourism, sea-level rise, storms, and the ocean carbon sink) under high- and low-emissions scenarios.

Valuing the Ocean - draft Executive Summary

:

[waldo]

Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate not seen in last 300 million years

In a new study marine scientists have warn that the rate of ocean acidification presently occurring is unprecedented in the last 300 million years.

the actual study... the combined work of scientists from nearly 20 research universities: The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification

Abstract:

Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively. In contrast, the geological record contains long-term evidence for a variety of global environmental perturbations, including ocean acidification plus their associated biotic responses. We review events exhibiting evidence for elevated atmospheric CO2, global warming, and ocean acidification over the past ~300 million years of Earth’s history, some with contemporaneous extinction or evolutionary turnover among marine calcifiers. Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry—a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place.

key study findings:

- The current rate of ocean acidification is faster than at any time in the past 300 million years.

- The most recent de-glacial transition phase, while similar in temperature and increases in CO2 levels, was “two orders of magnitude slower than current anthropogenic change.”

- The period 56 million years ago known as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum was determined to be the closest future analog. This period of sustained CO2 release was associated with a decline in ocean pH of between 0.25 and 0.45 units. However, current acidification is occurring at almost 10 times this rate.

- Historically sustained periods of acidification and CO2 increase — which were similar but not as extreme as the last 1,000 years — have led to the collapse of coral reefs and, in one instance, to the extinction of 96% of marine life.

study conclusion:

“the current rate of [CO2] release stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in … Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change.”

[waldo]

Take the carbon dioxide away or seriously reduce it and there will be mass extinction around the world.

the focused need is to reduce emission levels to realize the so-called point of stability... your speaking to "serious reductions/mass extinction" is baseless, without foundation, irrelevant... and a ridiculous statement given the ever increasing/accelerating atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Actually it can be successfully argued that more CO2 is better and less CO2 may be disasterous.

successfully argued? You're not another one of those, "CO2 is just plant food" guys, are you? You could try to make that argument you speak of... you could try to move beyond your previous posting in this thread... beyond your broad-based, unsubstantiated generalizations.

[waldo]

National Academy of Sciences - Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean

with particular attention in addressing the effects of ocean acidification, (1)- on the chemistry of seawater, (2)- on the physiology of marine organisms, (3)- on marine ecosystems... and related socioeconomic concerns.

[stopstaaron]

I find it hard to trust scientists, religious people, politicians, lawyers.. everyone has an agenda

[waldo]

I find it hard to trust scientists, religious people, politicians, lawyers.. everyone has an agenda

an empty statement

[bush_cheney2004]

National Academy of Sciences.....

Which nation?

Edited April 2, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Shakeyhands]

Which nation?

Holy... give it a rest BC.

[Michael Hardner]

So? Bureaucracies rarely represent the individuals that work for them.

I disagree with this statement, but it's an opinion and impossible to disprove or prove IMO.

Our paths part from this point.

[TimG]

I disagree with this statement, but it's an opinion and impossible to disprove or prove IMO.

WTF? Whether someone trusts scientific institutions or not is obviously a opinion. The only issue is instead of acknowledging that is a valid opinion based on evidence you want to look down your nose and sneer.

[Michael Hardner]

WTF? Whether someone trusts scientific institutions or not is obviously a opinion. The only issue is instead of acknowledging that is a valid opinion based on evidence you want to look down your nose and sneer.

Your opinion is that I'm sneering here ? Why ? I just disagree - if you think it's a sneer you may be inferring something, and that may say something about you in itself.

This is your statement again:

So? Bureaucracies rarely represent the individuals that work for them.

[TimG]

Your opinion is that I'm sneering here? Why?

In this thread you suggested that questioning the basis for some scientific claims is equivalent to believing in astrology. I would say that is sneering.

BTW: you still have not explained what verifiable evidence paleo-climatologists have to support their claims? (hint: its a trick question because time machines don't exist therefore it is simply not possible to verify such claims - this separates paleo-climatology from fields like aerospace where planes that actually fly or fields like medicine where diseases that are actually cured provide evidence that the theory is good enough to be useful).

Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

In this thread you suggested that questioning the basis for some scientific claims is equivalent to believing in astrology. I would say that is sneering.

No... my comment is about the scientific approach only.

You're splitting the atom of that discussion by dividing it into questions of science vs institutions. Your claim about institutions not representing those they're supposed to is what I disagree with.

[TimG]

You're splitting the atom of that discussion by dividing it into questions of science vs institutions.

You are attempting to denigrate views that you disagree with by conflating the scientific method with the scientific institutions. Would you also argue that believing is Christianity is the same as believing in the Catholic Church?

[Michael Hardner]

You are attempting to denigrate views that you disagree with by conflating the scientific method with the scientific institutions. Would you also argue that believing is Christianity is the same as believing in the Catholic Church?

I am not doing that. If you believe in science but not institutions then that is a special case, which I haven't commented on except to say I disagree with that position.

[waldo]

The statements by professional bodies and other such organizations does not count as evidence since those statement are not voted on by the membership nor is there any evidence that the people supporting such motions actually looked at the evidence themselves.

The bottom line I do not trust anything produced by the US government anymore than I trust the IPCC because there is too much evidence of ideological biases and politically motivated conclusions.

I don't trust scientific institutions.

Bureaucracies rarely represent the individuals that work for them.

ah yes... now you're finally back to your conspiracy theme! It truly was quite comical as I started to tally and label your growing conspiracy (ala circa xxxx – xxxx, vol xxx) It wasn't enough for you to just beak off with your favoured select scientists "group-think" posturing... no you extended on that to weave a tangled web of conspiracy that included a world-wide grouping of all scientists, scientific institutions, scientific organizations, scientific associations, etc. - all predicated upon a wanton desire for all scientists to forego independent thought and creativity, in favour of purposely failing to test, analyze and evaluate actual science towards improving scientific knowledge/understandings. When you included the U.S. Department of Defense in your conspiracy, I thought you had topped out... but then you ramped that up by extending your conspiracy to include the U.S. Government itself. The mammoth world-wide conspiracy actively working to keep the poor downtrodden denier man down! Ah yes, good times... good fake-skeptic conspiracy times!

[TimG]

I am not doing that. If you believe in science but not institutions then that is a special case, which I haven't commented on except to say I disagree with that position.

Which is the same as saying you can't be a Christian unless you trust the Catholic Church.

[Michael Hardner]

Which is the same as saying you can't be a Christian unless you trust the Catholic Church.

I'm not sure that I said that, even allowing for the bad analogy.

[TimG]

I'm not sure that I said that, even allowing for the bad analogy.

It is a extremely good analogy for the argument that you are using. The scientific method has nothing to do with the scientific institutions that exist in society today yet you are insisting they are one in the same. Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

I'm not sure that I said that, even allowing for the bad analogy.

why do you indulge the TimG nonsense? Clearly, in the face of science, scientific pursuit, scientific methodology, the standard TimG fall-back and go-to is to deflect from the actual science in favour of casting doubt and uncertainty... typically conspiracy tinged with a hint of religiosity flavour. I expect it will not be long before he raises the zealot tag!

[Michael Hardner]

It is a extremely good analogy for the argument that you are using. The scientific method has nothing to do with the scientific institutions that exist in society today yet you are insisting they are one in the same.

I am not saying they are the same.

As for the analogy, it's based on a false equivalence: moral knowledge vs scientific knowledge.

No one can tell me I'm unqualified to evaluate morality.

[TimG]

As for the analogy, it's based on a false equivalence: moral knowledge vs scientific knowledge.

You are one creating a false equivalence: scientific institutions are NOT the same as science. Science exists whether or not these institutions exist and they really have nothing to do with one another.

What you are doing is EXACTLY the same is saying one can't be a good Christian unless one believes in the Catholic Church. It is obviously your opinion which you are entitled to but it arrogant opinion intended to deem the opinion of others - hence my use of the word 'sneering'.

Edited April 2, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You are one creating a false equivalence: scientific institutions are NOT the same as science. Science exists whether or not these institutions exist and they really have nothing to do with one another.

Nothing?

You're now hyperbolizing as well as putting words in my mouth.