first off, thanks on the work and effort by yourself and all researchers in this area and field. oceanography and marinebiology have always been a great intrest to me, perhaps its because the first memories of being led down to the beach with my aunt holding my hand to the surf. then having a foot and half wave pumel me down to the ground because she kinda forgot the size differences between a toddler and a 5'6" woman, has kept me from persueing a career in it.
As for solar forcing; nobody denies that the sun has an influence on climate, but natural influences alone cannot explain the trends we see today unless we also take into account GHGs. Climate models take these cyclical trends into account, which is why in 1981 it was predicted that we would see a temporary delay in the greenhouse effect that might skew public perception.
Dr. Dickson is completely right about the urgent need of improving communication between economists and environmental scientists. The argument that mitigating the climate crisis makes no economical sense is based on pure crap, since pure economists have no way to estimate efectively the cost of delaying decissive action in order to rein in the emission of CO2 & similar gases.
When the speaker talked about the time frames these projections take place in, he tried very well in explaining who will see an who wont see these changes. talking with friends with kids in usa, they all share a short sightedness in the distance in time they care to prepare for. They want the best for their kids, they love their kids dearly, and hopes of being a grand parent, but no empathy or thoughts on how their kids will love their kids just as much, in wanting the best for them
Above 7 the solution is more alkaline and below 7 it is more acid. The oceans are considered to have a pH of 8.2 with a variance of 0.3, so it is an alkaline solution.
Actually, if you had paid attention in chemistry class, you would remember that a 0.1 drop in pH indicates a 30% increase in the activity of hydrogen ions (this because the scale is not linear but rather logarithmic). Acidity is in turn a measurement of the concentration of hydrogen ions. So "it is becoming less alkaline" or "it is becoming more acidic" are both correct. But what is important is the rapidity and scale of the change, which hasn't occurred in 55 million years.
I didn't pass science in high school, but I get the drift of what is being said in this video. My layman's knowledge of global warming, etc lacks deep science but I can understand trouble when it is spoken well. I've bookmarked this on my Facebook page.
The main cations in the sea are sodium and calcium. Sodiumcarbonate always give alkaline solutions (strong base/weak acid) while calciumcarbote is fairly insoluble and when it gets in contact with deeper (read colder) sea levels it will precipitate and eventually form sandstone.
This is absolutely true people. I am a fisherman. And I have caught fish and later on I felt like my hands were itchy. Wasn’t making sense to me. And than I started to think. Al the pollution world wide we had. No wonder. No you understand why the animals in the waters are dying.
6) Earth is approaching it's closest orbit to the sun in 33,000 years and this causes core disturbances that cause volcanic activity and earthquakes that can disloge c13 co2 from the deep see thus the "acification of the oceans" 7) the Core disturbance earthquakes also can cause sudden tilts in axis aside from the natural wobble axis change and the earth has gain a 1/2 degree "sudden tilt" from the core indused quakes thus the more extreme winters and summer and suttle change in climate regions
As for the "fudge factor code", this code was never actually used in any published paper. It was used to see whether there was a statistically significant effect on the model calibration data, should the divergence problem be anthropogenic in origin. The only draft to use this was never published, and it was very clear on why and how this was done. It has nothing to do with the hockey sticks as we now know them.
NIce presentation but of couse I need to "complain", the quote about predictions is not originated by Niels Bohr but a another dane wold famous in Denmark, namely the poet, inventor and mathematician Piet Hain. Niels Bohr did however use it as many other danes still do.
The MWP was a local temperature anomaly, not a global one. Furthermore, it wasn't primarily caused by CO2 emissions. In current day climate change, CO2 is the primary driver, and so temperature lags behind it.
Most models assume that this percentage is constant, but the ocean is likely to reach a level of saturation at some point after which we'll see a decrease in its CO2 absorption rate and a corresponding increase in the percentage that remains in the atmosphere. The Knorr et al paper confirms that the percentage has not changed much since measurements began in 1959, essentially confirming the IPCC 2007 finding that: (cont)
Yes as the ocean cools it will absorb more CO2 so when the oceans all freez to the bottom they will quit absorbing CO2 and when they warm they release CO2 that is why about 200 years after the atmospheric temperature rises the atmospheric CO2 rises and about 200 YEARS AFTER THE ATMOSPHERE starts cooling the CO2 concentration start to drop! Yes climate change drives the CO2 level and not the other way around!
@@terenceiutzi4003 No, it's both ways; it's a feedback loop. You're talking about climate change in the past. In that case, long term changes in the earth's orbit around the sun that lead to increased solar irradiance triggered (via various means) an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses, which then further heated the climate in a feedback loop. The heating would not have been as extensive without the CO2 feedback. Today we are releasing GHGs far more rapidly than at any time in the last few million years.
@@jellekastelein7316 funny that if you look at climate records for the last 800milion years the CO2 levels have followed the temperature changes by at least 200 years but the CO2 levels have not led the temperature once in 800 million years!not even now look at the record from the maunder minimum the temperature started climbing in the 17th century and the CO2 level started to rise in the 19th century! Yes the whole alarmists argument is based on the premise that docks flying south cause winter,
@@terenceiutzi4003 I just pointed out that it's a feedback loop. Heating causes CO2 release, which in turn causes further heating, which causes more CO2 release, and so on, until the climate reaches a new equilibrium. That loop can be triggered in a number of ways, including by orbital changes, changes in the positions of the continents, or in this case human CO2 release. We are digging up enormous amounts of fossil fuels and releasing the CO2 that was captured by plants and animals and buried in the very distant past back into the air, which then traps more heat as it always has, making us the ultimate cause of the feedback loop in this case.
@@jellekastelein7316 yes as water temperature increase it gives of Co2 and as it cools it absorbs Co2! And the oceans contain approximate 90 percent of the Co2 on earth!
There is a whole hockey team now that confirms the results of Mann's work, and pretty much every major scientific institution has endorsed his conclusions. They do not just rely only on tree rings, but on a wide variety of sources (boreholes, ice cores, corals, stalagmites, etc), and they all give roughly the same results.
And btw, the cooling phase we're in now was predicted in 1981 by Schneider and Thompson. Specifically, they predicted that it'd be a source of confusion for the public.
Although pH in seawater has been measured for many decades, a reliable long- term trend of ocean water pH cannot be established due to data quality issues. seawater pH is very sensitive to temperature, and temperature is not always recorded or measured at sufficient accuracy to constrain the pH measurement. The claim of ocean acidification is based on estimates and computer models not on observed data. So 55 million is bogus.
You should look up how the experts work instead of making stuff up on assumptions then. Even a hobby scientist can figure that stuff out with some investment. We know the ocean acidity by fossils we dig up in ocean sediments. By researching shells that are sensitive to acidity (thickness, form, composition, populations etc) we can keep a good record of the trend of the water in that area over a long time.
@@NewPipeFTW An alkaline or basic water solution is not acidic, any "basic" knowledge of water PH can understand that. BTW, you are obviously unaware of this process, CO2 is dissolved in the oceans and combines with calcium to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that forms seashells and other forms of limestone deposits, *** it means better and stronger shells. ***
@@WilbertRobichaud Yes - thank you for recapitulating - if you ever met 'Dolger Hanske' here - be sure to tell him that too. (he thinks acidification=high aciditiy) Did you found the question sufficiently answered, with reference to the sediments and other proxi measurements? Im still not quite sure how the rising CO2 concentrations we observe should benefit the ocean? Afaik only a few plankton and algea species do profit from it. Most species will lose, as there ecosystem changes/migrates/dies off. (Quote Website of NOAA " Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.. ...studies have shown that lower environmental calcium carbonate saturation states can have a dramatic effect on some calcifying species, including oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton.."
"There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period." However, this does not mean at all that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been constant, nor does it mean that emission rates have remained constant. In fact, both emission rates and absolute amount have been growing. All it means is that the PERCENTAGE of emitted CO2 that has remained in the air has remained the same, for now.
A good example of how to use the sophisms can prove everything. I was just discussing with some delinquent. Totaled my post and told me that I was not credible. Because I do not have sources.
speaking of orbits and milenium cycles, one research into the sediment layers shows a global extentction cycle every 50million years, which is leaving some theories that another orbiting mass may be influecing the gravity fields to swing more asteriods on each of its 50million year cycle to head towards us.... at least you didnt state the more co2 means more green growth fallacy 8) which i heard of more than i could ever care for
heh anyhoots, doesnt mean i can't apreacieate your hard work effort and compation in this area still 8) and giving you a great thank you to everyone for haven all the material here for me to view and read. I also apoligize for the discoherent flow of my reply, due to character count limitiations for each post. when talking with friends with families and the topic would come up about this, they showed no intrest or given some irrational ideas on co2 build up.
most of the points you mention TRAA, i'm vaguely familiar with, been some time since i browsed the information your relating here. wouldnt mind debating some of your points, but i lack confidence in what i know of these issues you bring up. i kinda recall one report of grizzly polar bear hybrid taken place, but its not a solid confirmed report, like most of the points of yours. which have reminded me of the oil bearing scientists council debunking fossil fuel use is doing any damage
Natural Oyster production off the westcoast of washington state has drasticly been reduce because of increased levels of carbonic acid in the ocean, an oyster farm opened a shell fish hatchery in Hilo HI, in order to shield the oyster lavae for the more corrosive ocean waters off washington, then they fly them back to washington for grow-out when they are better able to survive the declining water quality in large part due to billions of tons of carbon emissions in less then 100s time......
McIntyre's critique has been thoroughly investigated, and most of his criticisms have been found to be unfounded. The few points on which he was correct have been corrected for. And again I repeat, Mann's hockey stick is just one of hundreds of studies that all lead to the same basic conclusions.
The original data weren't destroyed, they're in the custody of the people who gathered them - this data wasn't the property of the CRU to begin with (they just analyzed it), and so it isn't theirs to make it available. Much of the data for the other studies actually is freely available, but some of it is provided by third parties. In those cases, the scientists simply aren't allowed to hand it out.
I'll suggest with air CO2 off the Washington coast at 418-ppm and ocean at 314-ppm there's no way in hell acidification will slow down to where it's not going to drop global pH below 7.9 at the rate it's going in much over 50-years. ------------------------------------->>--------------------------------------- This isn't trivial, there's no way to turn it around without ending emissions the message, the acidification rate is 10-times what led to the PETM ...
No, it DOESN'T mean that. You might not be aware of this, but large parts of the world have been hit with extreme heat waves in the past ten years. This year's cold is due to the arctic oscillation which now carries cold air downwards, and it's a temporary effect. See this graph: w. realclimate. org/images/Hansen09_fig4. jpg Note that the only way you can get a "cooling" trend is by measuring from 1998, which was anomalously hot, and thus not a good baseline.
@TheRealArchAngel "Co2 mixing with calcium in the Oceans and turning to sandstone (sic) has a Alkalizing effect not a acidifying one in the Ocean(Rollseyes)" Sorry, but Ca does not exist in elemental form in H2O, and if you are talking about creating LIMESTONE (marble chips) then you are indeed acidifying Ca(OH)2. This is ignoring the buffer of (-HCO3) but simply put increasing CO2 gas into ocean lowers (-CO3) dissolved, so it would precipitate out, allowing more gas to dissolve.
Hiding the decline refers to fixing the "divergence problem", a well known problem with tree ring data, which are known to diverge from actual temperature data after the 1960s (but are consistent with them before that time). Hiding the decline consists of replacing the faulty indicators with the correct, measured temperature data. It's a standard technique to correct for known faulty data.
8) The Core disturbances from getting so close to the sun also causes fluctuations in the Earth;s Electromagnetic Field which is our primary defence against the Solar wind and the EM field has been weakening in the last 300 years thus more radiation is getting in,thus warmer oceans,thus a increased evaporation/precipitation cycle thus stronger storms and more extreme weather 9)CO2 is 1.4 times heaver then air & rides the evaporation/precipitation cycle including the new c13 co2 from deep ocean
That was incorrect 12years ago and today even more: 8:)the milankovic cycles and solar activity both considered earth experiences a net loss in solar forcing over the last decades. 9.) Yes CO2 is heavier but earth is windy.. The studies are talking about "well mixed greenhousegases" in the atmosphere. The concentration are higher in the lower atmosphere were the observed warming is strongest.
Looks like the model is getting more complicated , because it seems like weather patterns also influence ocean carbon uptake (up to 50%) (10.1029/2007GB003167)
Calling climate change science a religion is asinine at best. The paper you're referring to is Knorr 2009 (or it might be Le Quéré's paper). It doesn't mean what you -or Watts- think it does; he's discussing the "airborne fraction" of our CO2 emissions. This is the percentage of the CO2 we emit that stays in the air, which is roughly constant, not the absolute amount, which is growing. Some climatologists have raised concerns about the percentage of CO2 that is absorbed by the oceans.(cont)
he is an Expert and does not know that if the water PH is 8 and use to be PH 8.1... it means it is less alkaline not more acidic. Some expert! My guess is using the word acid is soooo much more scarier.
most of these lectures, when i walk away from them leave me seeing a more relation to peoples industrialization to enviromental change, than any of your points. what will happen I don't know what has happened I do know a bit about like per say the ban of leads use in gasoline. core samples off california show a distinct change when that took effect. we all can agree i think that was a wise choice to move on.
@TheRealArchAngel pH = -ln[H+] = [HCO3-] / [CO3-] so that increasing bicarbonate ion to carbonate ratio drops the pH, making it more acidic (less basic). At some point, solid limestone would precipitate out, "making room" for more CO2, but at that point we may have an ocean devoid of life as we have it now. That may assume too much about our ability to even exist in that world.
the oceans are warming up. but if global warming was real, then the ocean temp would decrease because the ice chunks would break off and head south cooling the ocean. but the temp is increasing
@CokeSupply CO2 levels for December 2010 - 389.69 ppm and STILL rising. Amount of oil the U.S. burns in a year - 4.5 billion barrels and STILL rising. its not rocket science to figure out that the more oil that is burned the higher the CO2 levels will rise.
We should care about ocean pH but in terms of having an effective plan to deal with it we haven't got there yet. Carbon taxation is basically a scam that will have little effect on temp and I also suspect ocean pH. I am all for reducing fossil fuel burning and introduction of cleaner energy including nuclear which rarely gets a mention and I fully support doing that. But it is born out of a need to be cleaner and have less pollution not a drive to reduce temperature or pH through CO2 reduction. If you are talking about caring about oceans and this planet then we must be effective with where the money and time is spent, and that means we have to deal with toxicity first , pollution,( including plastic) and over fishing . If you were a fish what will kill you first ....a net, toxic chemicals, plastic pollution etc or a very slight lowering of the pH.
This was an excellent talk, but at around 22 minutes in, things really go off the rails for a moment. Look at the graph of atmospheric CO2 levels. It shows emissions peaking AFTER 2100, and at levels something like 3X current levels. CO2 in the atmosphere peaks out AFTER 2250, at almost 2000 ppm. That has NO connection to any reality that can happen. This is presumably what would happen from burning nearly ALL available fossil fuels. If you want to be pessimistic and say we do that, the Planet becomes a hothouse over a century before then-5 or 6 degrees C higher, maybe more. That is "incompatible with civilization," to put it politerly, or SHTF, to be more blunt about it. Optimistically, if we stop with the fossil fuels in the next few decades (by 2050 or so, with peaking by 2030 at the very latest), then CO2 will never get that high-maybe 450 to 500, which is bad, but certainly nothing like 1800. EITHER WAY, that graph he shows is essentially impossible. Trying to do such a burnup, we would literally die trying. I lean strongly toward the more optimistic scenario, but either way, that graph is just delusional.
No, it freaking doesn't. It's the solution to the divergence problem, like I said. Look it up! If you're just going to parrot an unfounded claim after the explanation has been provided, then it's no use arguing.
Nonsense. The pH average pH of earth's oceans has dropped in the last century (100 years) from 8.2 to 8.1. This is by all accounts still pretty alkaline. Another point: All agree that the biodiversity in rainforests is very high, but not many people know that the CO2 level under the canopy is easily 10x higher than elsewhere, which means the water going into the forest floor must be fairly acidic - but that does NOT change the biodiveristy or the health of the plant. Similar to sea shells.
**its going to be buisness as usual in the USA due to a blind spot in caring for future generations** Probabbly, considering those in charge not only here from Marine Chemists like this guy and Historians like Naomi Okes, but also Meterologist (weather Scientist),Geologist(Planet Scientist),Ecologist(Enviroment trend Scientist), and are told 1) Weather is controlled by the sun making Evaporation/precipitation cycle not "Magical GHG" 2) Humans can't make c13 CO2 by burning fossil fuels
Oh no did you catch a spelling error? Awe that is cute. Too bad you didnt even know about the little ice age and I did. It looks like you are my spell checker and I am your teacher. I like this relationship. btw, the hockey stick graph has been debunked. LOL!!!!! GENIUS. AHHHAHAHAH!!!! I love watching as you bake in the heat of your red hot lies.
w2. sunysuffolk. edu/mandias/global_warming/images/sea_ice_mean_anomaly_1953-2009. png There's a reason why climate change is typically measured over a number of decades.
In excess everything can get harmful. Culmulative CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere reach dangerous limits - and as the benefits are net zero... ..thats is a self destructive habbit.
It took 20years to abolish slavery in America. Once they got serious. We supposedly smarter and more moral have done nothing in 20 years. Who's statues don't deserve to stand??our grandkids will have what opinions of us??
@@NewPipeFTW so are you saying fish and shells require acidic water? All life on earth requires basic water between 8.1 and 8.2 PH which is what the Oceans are and have been since the first life evolved on earth!
@@NewPipeFTW you should go check out the reefs off of the Yucatan peninsular I just did and after 2 years with no tourist wagering sunscreen and body wash they are the healthier they have been in 200 years! Or are you saying we have totally reversed climate change?
@@terenceiutzi4003 No. Incorrect. Wrong again. Repost as my last comment got deleted.. "When CO2 is absorbed by seawater, a series of chemical reactions occur resulting in the increased concentration of hydrogen ions. This increase causes the seawater to become more acidic and causes carbonate ions to be relatively less abundant. Carbonate ions are an important building block of structures such as sea shells and coral skeletons. Decreases in carbonate ions can make building and maintaining shells and other calcium carbonate structures difficult for calcifying organisms such as oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. These changes in ocean chemistry can affect the behavior of non-calcifying organisms as well. Certain fish's ability to detect predators is decreased in more acidic waters. When these organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk. Ocean acidification is affecting the entire world’s oceans, including coastal estuaries and waterways. Many economies are dependent on fish and shellfish and people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein." The ocean ph is variable and depends on temperature and atmosphere contents. As both changed several times according to paleo research we have solid evidence to know that there were several "ocean anoxic events" in earths past - where the ocean ph did change significantly and ecosystems changed"
@@NewPipeFTW check the PH of your blood or look it up! The first life on earth had seawater as blood and it was PH 8.1 or 8.2 and all species on earth still have that PH and always will! And try all you want you will never get Co2 to form Catholic acid in a basic solution it will bond to any metal present and form a salt! Check out all of the different salts in ocean water like sodium bicarbonate! For God's sake think! Don't just regurgitate alarmist lies!So
Phytoplankton will be on the increase with more co2 . Sounds good for the marine ecosystem to me. Spend more on Scientists? lol Another protection racket emerges from the deep.
hmm not sure if my point is getting across correctly here. its going to be buisness as usual in the USA due to a blind spot in caring for future generations.
Co2 is not in your agenda...but it is natural to the earth...oh well...the smartest guys in the room....hahaha...let the Indians come back so they could save us.....
out of the families, one thinks this is still a normal cycle, that perhaps has taken place before that we don't know about 2nd feels its a gods way of punishing sinners like myself, because i denounced god 3rd doesnt even see the future beyond trying to keep together with a spouse, as he has kids with each woman who believes his facade. to prove he's a man 4th she's pretty much like the 3rd person, but only caring on the support and sexual pleasure of the men she can bed
Current humans only model in a linear way - what's necessary is to model in a compounding fashion, ascending levels of concentration as unique states from each other. The year 2100 is not the problem one - (we'll be stressed down to 2 billion people by then and those 2 b will wish they'd never been born, in their grey acidic bio-sterile vestige of a 'world' 'biosphere' no more (Yes, panic ; because yes, the house is on fire. Greta Thunberg
You comment makes no sense. You clearly don't have a clue about how a digital computer simulation works. The 2100 AD is obviously just a milestone to work to so's everybody (except you) has a common reference for comparison and understanding. I'm pretty sure that most humans know that absolutely nothing special happens at 2100 AD and time does not end then.
