The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast, 96% of Marine Life Went Extinct

You have a peer reviewed paper that discredits the report in the OP? Please do post it.

 

I already have

 

Really? Where?

 

post 21, do you deny the Cambrian period ?

 

Did you read the link I posted? It's about the Cambrian period and why you're wrong.

 

One question. Is obama still flying all over the globe to play golf in one of the worlds most polluting jets?
If the answer is yes there is no global warming. Easy as that.

 

your link is the wrong, just more propaganda from Environmental Media Services paid for by billionaires like Tom Steyer who needs a few more billion by shoving worthless windmills and solar fiascos down the public's throats .

 

I really don't care about Obama's thoughts on global warming, honestly. He's a lawyer.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong how, exactly? I'll even quote it for you so you can point out which paragraph is wrong.

Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.

Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

 

I posted links to the Cambrian CO2 levels and to the Cambrian Explosion of life, believe the propaganda if you wish. I believe in science. Go play your silly word game with someone else, and hope you rest well knowing you are participating in something that will ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands when you drive up the cost of energy

 

So you're not going to respond? That's a shame.

 

ME: 'No, I don't expect any answer save hand waving and emotional spew. Go ahead anyway.'

Thanks for meeting expectation.

 

really ? you are the one not responding by showing me why thousands of links to the Cambrian Periods CO2 and the expolsian of life are wrong. It is pretty obvious you have no scientific knowledge and are just here to spread propaganda for the green billionaires

 

I posted a large explanation for why the Cambrian period cannot be used as your justification. You chose to ignore the entire post. Your loss.

 

Take it for what it's worth, the article is from anonymous kook blog.

Domain Name: VICE.COM
Registrant Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC

http://www.whois.com/whois/vice.com

Believing what any anonymous blog is like buying aluminum siding from a guy that comes to your door wearing a Nixon mask.

 

Well, there really is a worldwide problem no matter what you believe and there is more than enough mounting evidence that it's getting worse. The solution(s) will most definitely the best science we can bring to bear, but the political will to do so must also be there. Without it, we're pretty well screwed.

Don't know your business experiences, but where I come from, if there was a serious problem, we fixed it first and then worried about all the rest later. I felt perhaps a more graphic example might help. If you wish to continue to deny the reality of what has been happening to our climate for decades, and refuse to accept scientific evidence, then I guess we don't really have a whole lot to discuss.

 

LOL, not only hysterical alarmism but still using the thoroughly destroyed 9.8/10.

The PH of the Oceans is around 8.1 to 8.3 which is alkaline. The alleged 'predicted' rise is smaller than the natural swings in PH and even the difference between areas of the oceans. For instance, the North Pacific is less alkaline than the mid Pacific. If the oceans become 'more acidic', they become less alkaline and just move toward neutral, which is less corrosive than being alkaline. All this hysteria is based on hypothesis and not fact.

 

Yes, you do. Every assertion must be taken at face value. You read it, then make judgements based on what you've read. You don't close your eyes and ears while shouting about something being a lie when you haven't even read it.

 

I simply can't appreciate your faith in those whose very careers depend on Global Warming. The "Global Warming" fear insures they are paid top dollar for their research due to the sense of urgency. But, who said the climate wasn't changing? The climate has changed untold numbers of time in the last 4 Billion years. It's the reason that's in dispute.

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? Since we know without speculation that the above warming existed without fossil fuels being burned due to the fossils being found there, the burden of proof is on the scientists to prove that the burning fossil materials is fueling the warming. So far none of them that I know of has put their careers on the line by stating an absolute YES, burning fossil fuels is causing the latest warming trend. Please spare me the zippty doo da about exact science. We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. If you can't prove the latest warm period it's man made, then you can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/about.html

 

I'm not sure where you live, but the vast majority of scientists have "stated an absolute YES".
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

It's Legion Of Doom phrases like "it may already be too late" that cause a chuckle. If that were true we'd be witnessing great numbers of dying marine life..............but of course we're not.

 

Sigh, just because a government agency in an administration that has a political agenda that affects all agencies does not make it fact when they repeat nonsense like that. No, 'scientists' have not stated an absolute YES. In fact only a couple of headline grabbing scientists have turned political. You are referring to a very flawed study of someone's opinion of what the papers that scientists wrote imply, and only selected papers at that.

 

I know about your business experiences. You react with raw emotion. You MUST fail.

Pragmatism has no place in your reactive world.

 

Everything stated here is pure speculation. I really like the dimmer sun part. That's a laugh. They are relying on a computer model for this theory and you know their track record with computer models. If anything the sun was heavier with more mass and was just as bright. The Young Sun Paradox has been around for decades, but CLIMATE scientists won't buy into it.. Hmmmm, I wonder why that is...It's because it destroys their CO2 claims.

http://www.space.com/14565-earth-climate-young-sun-paradox.html

 

I was unaware all of NASA got fired after Obama came to power, and then they re-hired an entire agency to support one specific issue that isn't even NASA's primary aim.

Silly me, thinking that most personnel have been there for decades, focusing on real issues like space exploration.