Global ocean changes...

[Paul Beckwith]

This climate change related topic is big enough to have a seperate thread.
For a scientific report on the state of the oceans, look at the following link:

http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-46-en.pdf

Human CO2 emissions globally are well quantified. Over half of these emissions are absorbed into the ocean (CO2 + water = carbonic acid) changing its chemistry making it more acidic. Acidity has increased over 40% in the last several decades, and has severe consequences for the entire ocean food chain.

Oceans are the lungs of the planet (more important than rain forests).

Take 2 breaths, the O2 (oxygen) in the second breath was produced by plankton in the surface waters of the ocean. Plankton are in surface layers since they need sunlight to photosynthesize. However they also need nutrients to do this; these nutrients are derived from water that is deep in the ocean and mixes with the surface water.

Dead zones in the ocean (dissolved oxygen < 2 mg/liter) are lacking sufficient oxygen for fish/shellfish/and smaller creatures to survive. Only things like jellyfish which require less oxygen to live (since they have a huge surface area) can survive in these zones. The largest dead zone is basically the Baltic Sea, next largest is in the Gulf of Mexico each year (17,000 square km a few years ago) and is caused by fertilizer runoff from farmers fields entering the ocean via the Mississippi River. Fertilizer causes plankton explosion, plankton dies, sinks to bottem, bacteria decompose it aerobically and use up all the dissolved oxygen in the water.

Number of dead zones doubles each decade, and is now over 410.

Needless to say, an OCEANGATE will discount all the work of oceanographers soon....

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Global ocean changes...

This climate change related topic is big enough to have a seperate thread.
For a scientific report on the state of the oceans, look at the following link:

http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-46-en.pdf

Human CO2 emissions globally are well quantified. Over half of these emissions are absorbed into the ocean (CO2 + water = carbonic acid) changing its chemistry making it more acidic. Acidity has increased over 40% in the last several decades, and has severe consequences for the entire ocean food chain.

Oceans are the lungs of the planet (more important than rain forests).

Take 2 breaths, the O2 (oxygen) in the second breath was produced by plankton in the surface waters of the ocean. Plankton are in surface layers since they need sunlight to photosynthesize. However they also need nutrients to do this; these nutrients are derived from water that is deep in the ocean and mixes with the surface water.

Dead zones in the ocean (dissolved oxygen < 2 mg/liter) are lacking sufficient oxygen for fish/shellfish/and smaller creatures to survive. Only things like jellyfish which require less oxygen to live (since they have a huge surface area) can survive in these zones. The largest dead zone is basically the Baltic Sea, next largest is in the Gulf of Mexico each year (17,000 square km a few years ago) and is caused by fertilizer runoff from farmers fields entering the ocean via the Mississippi River. Fertilizer causes plankton explosion, plankton dies, sinks to bottem, bacteria decompose it aerobically and use up all the dissolved oxygen in the water.

Number of dead zones doubles each decade, and is now over 410.

Needless to say, an OCEANGATE will discount all the work of oceanographers soon....

Paul, all this is very pertinent and interesting, but I think in addition to disclosing this, you need to do more to answer claims that Vlad and Carl are making about CO2 not contributing to global climate warming. Because if it turns out they are correct on this, then no one will believe anything about CO2 causing ocean acidification even if it is 100% true.

Both sides are saying that data does or does not show that CO2 contributes to global climate warming. Both sides have also been claiming that the other side has vested interests.

I have been suggesting that because of the polarization of the debate, there needs to be an international court case with judge and jury to decide once and for all what the data does show in this respect.

I think that if you really want to move this debate forward, such a court case should be something you or someone you know should move up the "chain of command" until it gets to the people who could actually set it in motion.

As far as I can see, this is the only way we can really decide with one voice whether or not it really is happening, it really is because of CO2, and it really is mainly because of human activity. In the same way that a criminal once convicted gets placed in prison, global climate warming due to human activity ONCE PROVEN BY AN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF LAW can be addressed by concrete measures WITHOUT IMPASSE.

And by the way, I think you saw my proposal for ocean platforms with rainforest, wind turbines, and solar panels. My question to you is, would the square footage of rainforest not produce the same amount of oxygen and absorb the same amount of CO2 as the same square footage of ocean surface exposed to sunlight? If the rainforest would do better, would it be better enough to make a difference? If you dont know the answers to this, can you research it and find it out?

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Global ocean changes...

, you need to do more to answer claims that Vlad and Carl are making about CO2 not contributing to global climate warming.

But first he should answer the charge that there cannot be any global warming because some claim that the Earth is not a globe, but is flat. Thus their cannot be any global warming by definition.

Wait! Before that he needs to refute the claim that the value of pi is exactly three, as it says in the bible. It is clear that all the measurements are badly flawed because they use an incorrect value for pi! And after that...

After all, the flatness of the earth has plenty of evidence in it's favour as anyone can plainly see that it is flat just by looking. The evidence in favour of the flat earth is at least as strong as the evidence that CO2 is not causing global warming. So I insist that before proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gass he must first disprove the claim that the earth is flat.

And how dare he deny the biblical evidence that pi =3.000...? God has clearly spoken on this. Yet scientists and mathematicians are involved in a global conspiracy to hide the true value of pi.

Since mathematicians believe in imaginary numbers then obviously math itself is merely a conspiracy to hide the truth that positive integers are the only real numbers. This is a much greater scandal than "climatgate", yet I predict that you and Vlad will deny this conspiracy.

Yes indeed, Paul B., your work is cut out for you!

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Global ocean changes...

This climate change related topic is big enough to have a seperate thread.
For a scientific report on the state of the oceans, look at the following link:

http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-46-en.pdf

Human CO2 emissions globally are well quantified. Over half of these emissions are absorbed into the ocean (CO2 + water = carbonic acid) changing its chemistry making it more acidic. Acidity has increased over 40&#37; in the last several decades, and has severe consequences for the entire ocean food chain.

Oceans are the lungs of the planet (more important than rain forests).

Take 2 breaths, the O2 (oxygen) in the second breath was produced by plankton in the surface waters of the ocean. Plankton are in surface layers since they need sunlight to photosynthesize. However they also need nutrients to do this; these nutrients are derived from water that is deep in the ocean and mixes with the surface water.

Dead zones in the ocean (dissolved oxygen < 2 mg/liter) are lacking sufficient oxygen for fish/shellfish/and smaller creatures to survive. Only things like jellyfish which require less oxygen to live (since they have a huge surface area) can survive in these zones. The largest dead zone is basically the Baltic Sea, next largest is in the Gulf of Mexico each year (17,000 square km a few years ago) and is caused by fertilizer runoff from farmers fields entering the ocean via the Mississippi River. Fertilizer causes plankton explosion, plankton dies, sinks to bottem, bacteria decompose it aerobically and use up all the dissolved oxygen in the water.

Number of dead zones doubles each decade, and is now over 410.

Needless to say, an OCEANGATE will discount all the work of oceanographers soon....

Ocean acidification from CO2 in the air is not bad news for shellfish and corals. The ocean pH is 8.1, which is alkaline, not acidic.

In order to become acidic, it would have to drop below 7.0. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated by some scientists (and in the future there could be a oceangate) to have dropped from 8.179 to 8.104. It will take another 3500 years for the ocean to become a bit acidic. Lets be serious here.

We can not say that one of the first victims of acidification will be the world’s hard corals. This is alarming. But corals became common in the oceans 500 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times greater than today. During this ice age periods the CO2 levels 10 times higher than today, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is 0. How come today a so small difference in ph would make a so dramatic change that we need to change our industrialized society.

In 1954 the world’s largest nuclear weapon at the Bikini Island the equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT vaporized three islands, and raised the water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. The corals at Bikini are now incredibly high no matter the acidic level. The corals flourished when the earth’s temperature was 10C higher.

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Global ocean changes...

Paul, all this is very pertinent and interesting, but I think in addition to disclosing this, you need to do more to answer claims that Vlad and Carl are making about CO2 not contributing to global climate warming. Because if it turns out they are correct on this, then no one will believe anything about CO2 causing ocean acidification even if it is 100&#37; true.

Both sides are saying that data does or does not show that CO2 contributes to global climate warming. Both sides have also been claiming that the other side has vested interests.

I have been suggesting that because of the polarization of the debate, there needs to be an international court case with judge and jury to decide once and for all what the data does show in this respect.

I think that if you really want to move this debate forward, such a court case should be something you or someone you know should move up the "chain of command" until it gets to the people who could actually set it in motion.

As far as I can see, this is the only way we can really decide with one voice whether or not it really is happening, it really is because of CO2, and it really is mainly because of human activity. In the same way that a criminal once convicted gets placed in prison, global climate warming due to human activity ONCE PROVEN BY AN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF LAW can be addressed by concrete measures WITHOUT IMPASSE.

And by the way, I think you saw my proposal for ocean platforms with rainforest, wind turbines, and solar panels. My question to you is, would the square footage of rainforest not produce the same amount of oxygen and absorb the same amount of CO2 as the same square footage of ocean surface exposed to sunlight? If the rainforest would do better, would it be better enough to make a difference? If you dont know the answers to this, can you research it and find it out?

Paul,

For sure a court would be a very very good idea. Like in any court there would be the two sides. This is what the deniers wants. Read the climategate emails, the scientists hide the data, prefer to destroy it instead of giving it for real peer review. For sure it would be good to have a court where those studies and the data would be supplied.

The climategate give the momentum to do it but will any government start it? I doubt since it would be seen as an attack on the green movement. It is not winner politically. Maybe it could be started from people like Stephen Harper, or if he was still president, George W. Bush (which has diplomas from Yale and Harvard).

Carl

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Global ocean changes...

Human CO2 emissions globally are well quantified. Over half of these emissions are absorbed into the ocean (CO2 + water = carbonic acid) changing its chemistry making it more acidic. Acidity has increased over 40% in the last several decades, and has severe consequences for the entire ocean food chain.

How do you think Underwater Volcanoes effect all this?

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Global ocean changes...

Paul,

For sure a court would be a very very good idea. Like in any court there would be the two sides. This is what the deniers wants. Read the climategate emails, the scientists hide the data, prefer to destroy it instead of giving it for real peer review. For sure it would be good to have a court where those studies and the data would be supplied.

The climategate give the momentum to do it but will any government start it? I doubt since it would be seen as an attack on the green movement. It is not winner politically. Maybe it could be started from people like Stephen Harper, or if he was still president, George W. Bush (which has diplomas from Yale and Harvard).

Carl

Carl, I believe Stephen Harper has now admitted that the prepondance of evidence now supports climate change.:)

[Lawrence Day]

Re: Global ocean changes...

1954...nuclear...raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees...

The atomic age is obviously hotter than the industrial age.

Human's 400ish atomic reactors are built by rivers for cooling. Cooling the rods heats the river. Even spent rods require massive "cooling." Thus humans heat the planet.

Note we atomic-agers have more heat before the issue of the CO2 greenhouse blanket retaining it. At worst, CO2 only augments pre-existing heat.

Atomic energy interests like CO2 taking the blame. But are unlimited nuclear plants sustainable? They don't seem to want Iran building one.

Currently nuclear waste, the toxic depleted uranium, is given to the armaments industry and, in a complicated and explosive process, oxidized far away from its source of production. UO2 is a genetic poison, illegal, toxic and radioactive! Any amount at all in the atmosphere is already too much.

Science has to rescue itself from big financial interersts.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Global ocean changes...

Carl, I believe Stephen Harper has now admitted that the prepondance of evidence now supports climate change.:)

So let have a court to prove him. With real data and conclusions that would explain why the satellites source since 1979 show there is no warming and that the ice level did recover since 2008 to its previous 1979 level then for sure he could not denied. Drastic changes would be required in our CO2 production. Deniers wants a court, but scientists that hide the data, fake the review by peers process for sure won't want it.

Would you like such a court?

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Global ocean changes...

1954...nuclear...raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees...

The atomic age is obviously hotter than the industrial age.

Human's 400ish atomic reactors are built by rivers for cooling. Cooling the rods heats the river. Even spent rods require massive "cooling." Thus humans heat the planet.

....

If you read the climategate emails you will see that these scientists says between them (in my words): When the heated water evaporate, the evaporation process create the equivalent in cold like in your refrigerator. They say: the heat of the warming, if there is one, is not in the upper atmosphere since we don't see the hot spots we should expect, it is not in the deap ocean and it does not seems to have been emitted in space based on satellite information. Where did it go. We are in deep trouble.... we need to find the heat that we predicted. The problem we have is that the last 10 years shows a relative stability in the temperatures.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Global ocean changes...

the satellites source since 1979 show there is no warming and that the ice level did recover since 2008 to its previous 1979 level then for sure he could not denied.

Scientists tries to use several methods to obtain results for the same phenomena. From Saturday's newspaper:

http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencet...the-arctic-cap

" On an expedition in September to check out an apparent recovery of the polar cap in the Beaufort Sea, Barber's team found instead a heavily decayed honeycomb structure of ice, weakened by years of melting and refreezing.

Barber calls it "rotten" ice. He says his ship easily plowed through what satellite images suggested was good, solid ice. He has no idea how much of the cap is rotten."

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Global ocean changes...

Scientists tries to use several methods to obtain results for the same phenomena. From Saturday's newspaper:

http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencet...the-arctic-cap

First of all, the PDF that has been shown on the newspaper show data for 2000 and then a projection for 2015. This is a trick to hide the increase we had in 2008, they simply show an old graph. Year 2000 was just after the El Nino so we were in a peak high. Why don't they take real 2008 data for the graph? Simply to be able to make a catastrophic graph. This is very poor science.


From Cryosphere today. Compare here by yourself.

This guy “rotten ice” had no announcement from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They would make some sort of announcement or post a caveat about it on the “Arctic Sea Ice News and analysis” web page where they present the satellite data.

I think the peer review process will be interesting. When you read the report of this guy (18 pages, Darwin would no be impress), he tell us clearly that he used sophisticated detecting ice system to trace a route for the boat. Obviously we probably did not had this type of navigation system a few years ago. In the peer review, they will check if the route selected for the boat was a trick that used the high speed water courrants. It is possible that the peer review will tell that making such a route with a sophisticated ice detector system would have given the same results 25 years ago. But in the climategate the technique for pair review was to refuse to give the data to anybody but to a friend of the scientist that would make sure the conclusions would be the same. This guy will get more easily money for the university of Manitoba if his study make sensation. But we have to wait for conclusions.

See the video made by this man here (with sound).

Carl

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Global ocean changes...

No one (that I know of) is denying that the extent of arctic ice is changing from year to year, nor that sometimes it actually increases from one year to another. But two or three years don't say anything about the long term trend. The long term trend is still down and it is still a problem.

You don't determine this with your eyeballs, you determine it with math, namely least-squares regression. The math says that the long term extent of sea ice in the northern polar cap is declining and that this decline is statistically significant and is very unlikely to be happening by chance. And that the observed trend is consistent with a complete absence of ice sometime in the next few decades.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Global ocean changes...

No one (that I know of) is denying that the extent of arctic ice is changing from year to year, nor that sometimes it actually increases from one year to another. But two or three years don't say anything about the long term trend. The long term trend is still down and it is still a problem.

You don't determine this with your eyeballs, you determine it with math, namely least-squares regression. The math says that the long term extent of sea ice in the northern polar cap is declining and that this decline is statistically significant and is very unlikely to be happening by chance. And that the observed trend is consistent with a complete absence of ice sometime in the next few decades.

No the math shows with the satellite that the ice level is the same as 1979 and this has been demonstrated clearly. And this is exactly what this guy with his boat trys to contradict and he tells you that in the beginning of his video. But a professionnal scientist like Darwin on such a expedition, to make sure there would be no critics, would have shown a table showing the dates, the hours and the boat speed at all time (lowest speend and highest speed) and would have a use the same techniques to make his way in the ice than we did 25 years ago. Darwin would also have supplied more than 18 pages report.

Can you show the math you are referring to?
Do you have an article so that I can demonstrate you the trick they used in the climategate to create it?
Please show the data you are talking about.

You say that no one you know is denying the ice level decrease? There is three differents petitions from hundreds of scientists that have been presented to show there was no consensus. Do you mean there is a scientific consensus?????

From the link I gave you in the previous post you can compare 1979 to 2009:


http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=09&sy=2009
The more violet you have on this graph, the more ice concentration you have.

Now you should understand why meteo stations are stuck in the ice and snow. The recovery this year is very good. Are we going into a cooling period?

Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

W at Yale

Mr. Bush never was a strong student. His transcript at Yale, leaked to The New Yorker, shows that he was a solid C student. Although a history major, he sampled widely in the social sciences and did poorly in political science and economics while achieving some of his best grades (the equivalent of a B+) in philosophy and anthropology. (The anthropology class, however, was taught by Margaret Mead that year and was enormously popular because she offered among the easiest grades at Yale.)

Mr. Bush was not much of a student of politics, for he earned only a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System and a 71 in Introduction to International Relations. Few, if any, professors seem to have left a mark on him, or he on them.

Several professors who taught him said he had simply been one student in a huge class. As the historian John Morton Blum put it, "I haven't the foggiest recollection of him." Erich Segal, who later met Mr. Gore at Harvard and based the main character in "Love Story" partly on him, taught a classical comedy course that Mr. Bush took, but Mr. Segal said he had no memory of him.

The transcript indicates that in Mr. Bush's freshman year, the only year for which rankings were available, he was in the 21st percentile of his class, meaning that four-fifths of the students had better grades than he did.

Source: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...900wh-bush.htm