Oysters in Washington and Oregon cannot form shells when they are young. The MTBE issue was a comparatively rapid event, now the effects of acidification are taking over the same terrestrial waterways.
I saw an astonishing documentary today about the life forms that have evolved and/ or were created for..... the highly acidic water in the remaining pools in Death Valley in California. Pretty amazing!
Here is one of the amazing creatures that they showed. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/life-in-death-valley-little-fish-big-splash/5055/ Life in Death Valley Little Fish, Big Splash ...
Another astonishing form of life are the creatures that live near volcanic cracks near the bottom of the ocean. http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/Third Book/Creation of life.htm The Creation of Life: Organisms Flourish in Thermal Vents Deep Beneath the Sea
Oysters with no shells. Sounds yummy. CO2 levels were five times higher in the Jurassic yet, The Shell Beings survived. More Science Less Hyperbole Moi View attachment 45080 r > g and who cares?
More science and less hyperbole? Here you go ... "In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become under saturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this under saturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of under saturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously." Excerpt from "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms" by James C. Orr et. al. Warning: pdf
Now that's what I call, Hyperbole, Not Science! Projections indeed. I read in Science magazine about a year ago was an article about how projections did not account for plankton driven CO2 removal in South Pacific regions. Here's a solution to global warming for ya, start construction with materials as neutral as forests or even bare earth rather than creating acres of "heat storage". Y'think the construction industry keeps that one off the table? Moi View attachment 45086 r > g Deus vult! Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Something tells me I am wasting my time with this question ... but, WHY do you think that the scientific paper I linked is 'hyperbole'? In what way is it not science?
Why on earth would you think that projections cannot be scientific? Did you have a particular issue with this projection? or is it just projections in general that bother you for some reason? Are you saying that you agree with their findings up to the present?
Because projections and models are more prone to being purpose driven. No more Scientific than, Social Science. I've explained my view as best I can and also the Jurassic when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today. Yet the shell people survived. Rather than deja vu it all over again, take the last word, Pah-leeze. Moi PS How'd you like my ref to construction materials and heat storage?
Do you have any evidence of this assertion? You haven't really explained your position at all. You have only stated that things you may disagree with are hyperbole. (Which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means). And what does the CO2 level during the Jurassic have to do with increasing acidity in the oceans today? This seems to be a regular red herring that 'Deniers' throw out. It's like you guys just think "Let's throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks" Let me ask you this, assuming that you accept that the oceans acidity was increasing and that it was due to man made CO2 (you didn't say you had a problem with past and present data), what would you accept as proof that the raising ph would be a hazard to the ecosystem?
Obviously our oceans are changing chemically and this will force species to adapt or die. The problem as I see it is has less to do with chemistry change than the speed with which it is happening. In past episodes (which certainly occurred), species adapted over thousands of years and tended to survive as a result. This time they do not have such a luxury and thus we see coral bleaching and such...added to this assault would be overfishing and pollution impacts changing the biosphere as well. There will be many victims over time and I am hopeful most will survive.
This is exactly correct. As further studies have shown: "Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistrya consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] release currently taking place." - The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification, Bärbel Hönisch, et.al. Link "The rapid change in ocean chemistry is faster than at any time over the past 50 Myr"- Limacina helicina shell dissolution as an indicator of declining habitat suitability owing to ocean acidification in the California Current Ecosystem, N. Bednarek, et. al. Link
1. The very title is misleading and anti-intellectual. The pH of ocean water is 8.2, whereas pure water has a pH of 7.0 Therefore ocean water is 18.4 TIMES MORE ALKALINE than pure water, which is NOT "acidic." 2. Increasing the temperature of water REDUCES the solubility of carbon dioxide in the water. It is called "degassification." So we see that the temperature increases atmospheric CO2, resulting from degassification as well as increased decomposition of the biomass, which has a .93 correlation with CO2 concentration. The Global Warming Fraud is being perpetuated by socialists and *researchers* who have been lining their pockets with government grants to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com
Says Befuddled, just before he throws some stuff out to see what sticks..... 1. The oceans do NOT HAVE "acidity." They have alkalinity, at a pH of 8.2, 18.4 times more alkaline than pure water. You didn't even knowTHAT? No wonder you are "befuddled." 2. "Assuming" this and "assuming" that "assumes" a very great deal. And you call those who deign to disagree with you and Al Gore "Deniers"? 3. It takes humanity ~22 years to add 1 part per MILLION CO2 to the atmosphere. 22 YEARS! And you seriously think that 1 ppm increase on a greenhouse gas base of 15,500 ppm is driving earth's climate? Have you sold your own car(s) yet, and forsworn all future vacations, to save those cuddly polar bears? Those darling Hollywood Limousine Hypocrites haven't and won't. China is building hundreds of coal-fired electrical power plants, and pouring billions of tons of fresh concrete in an effort to bring its hundreds of millions of peasants up to a halfway decent standard of living. Their increases in CO2 far outweigh everything you and your sanctimonious Leftists are doing and demand of others. So just keep up your worthless efforts. Nothing is going to change, but you can continue to feel good about yourselves, and isn't that precious.
This is an exceptionally good reply to this topic. What do you personally think of the idea that one nation on earth has experienced COOLING in their climate over the past six decades. That same nation, on a per capita basis led the world in planting trees and in desalination of ocean water for agriculture, for cities and towns....and for reforestation projects. Some of us are wondering if increasing plant coverage in arid areas could be the fastest ways to reverse the general warming trend and being stabilization of the climate.
Again.... exceptionally helpful comments. Thank you immensely. I shall try to factor how to use this in........ http://www.politicalforum.com/canad...tional-leader-canadas-conservative-party.html Dennis Tate for National Leader of Canada's Conservative Party.
This is an exceptionally helpful comment and quotation. This means that shell fish could be in big trouble if we don't make some positive changes quickly doesn't it? From your research would you say that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the biggest problem or...... is the major culprit other types of pollution altogether?
You are technically correct here. I am not saying that the oceans are acidic. I am saying that they are moving towards the acidity side of the pH scale. If you prefer, substitute the term "less-basic". Does that work for you? You are also correct here. I should definitely not assume that you understand and accept anything. Let me then ask you more directly: Do you accept the data that the oceans pH is becoming less-basic? Do you accept that that pH change is due to man made CO2? Your response to this will be appreciated. Do you have a citation for this claim? Because all the data I know of contradicts your claim. Here is one data source for you. It shows that the Annual Mean Global Carbon Dioxide Growth Rates has been about 2ppm per YEAR.[/QUOTE] This is yet more nonsense that has nothing at all to do with science. Trying to paint the scientific view as being the same as an 'alarmists' view may play well with your peer group. But it has no real world validity. Nowhere in any post have I advanced an 'alarmist' position.