What Do We Think About Climate Change

Ocean Acidification Scam
Published March 19, 2009 Uncategorized 8 Comments


The evidence is inexorably mounting that the climate alarmists have been taking us all for a ride. It is only be a matter of time before their agenda is exposed as one of the biggest con tricks of all time. Thus they are already scrambling to breathe new life into the CO2 emissions scare. It will become obvious (by the passage of years if nothing else) that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not, after all, cause any significant climate change, thus it will be necessary to blame CO2 (and hence man) for some other catastrophic event. So, prepare yourself for the coming “ocean acidification” scam.

The media have already entered the fray with lying narratives that sound like science fiction scripts, warning about the catastrophe of ‘acid oceans’ and ‘toxic seas’. The BBC have churned out headlines such as ‘Marine life faces ‘acid threat”, ‘Acid oceans ‘need urgent action” and ‘Acidic seas fuel extinction fears’. Newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Times have got in on the act with scary headlines such as ‘Mussels face extinction as oceans turn acidic’, ‘Pollution to devastate shellfish by turning seas acidic’ and ‘Acid seas threaten to make British shellfish extinct’. Just recently, it has got all the more strident: the Sunday Times (March 8, 2009) chimes in under the headline The toxic sea:

Each one of us dumps a tonne of carbon dioxide into the oceans every year, turning them into acidified soups — and threatening to destroy most of what lives in them.

And from the Guardian (March 10, 2009) under the headline Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs:

Human pollution is turning the seas into acid so quickly that the coming decades will recreate conditions not seen on Earth since the time of the dinosaurs…The rapid acidification is caused by the massive amounts of carbon belched out from chimneys and exhausts that dissolve in the ocean…the pH of surface waters, where the CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere, has fallen about 0.1 units since the industrial revolution, though it will take longer for the acid to reach deeper water.

Note the continual use of the word acid. Yet there is not the slightest possibility that seawater will turn to acid, or even become mildly acidic, so this is drivel. Note also the claim that pH has changed by 0.1 units over the last 200 years: it was not possible a hundred years ago, never mind 200 years ago, to measure pH to the accuracy necessary to support that assertion, so it’s just posturing. Finally, notice that CO2 is branded ‘human pollution’, though CO2 is an entirely natural and absolutely essential nutrient for plant photosynthesis, without which all life on earth would certainly become extinct very quickly.

As an aside, we should note that if lower alkalinity per se were so unfavourable to shellfish as is claimed then we would have no freshwater shellfish and snails – but we do. The freshwater mussel has lived for thousands of years in waters that are genuinely acidic and with highly variable pH, not only seasonally, but geographically. With spring snowmelt and high rainfall, the pH of rivers and lakes can fall to below pH 5, and experiments have shown that mussels can survive this acidity indefinitely without any deleterious effects to their shells. Note: a pH of 5 has 1,000 times as many ‘acidic’ H+ ions per litre as seawater, and 100 times more than pure water. This is not to say that sea creatures can survive in fresh water – they are adapted to a radically different saline environment – the point at issue is that the idea of a small change in ocean pH due to increased dissolved carbon dioxide having a deleterious effect on marine shells of living organisms is not as obvious as the alarmists make out.

The ‘science’ underlying the anthropogenic global warming and ocean acidification scares relies on positive feedback – that is, that the overall effect of a small change is disproportionate to the effect of the change itself – there is an amplification process. Positive feedbacks cause unstable runaway or oscillating systems. The so-called physics of the global warming hypothesis are a perpetuum mobile of the second kind and should be consigned to the dustbin. Likewise, the so-called chemistry underpinning the ‘toxic ocean’ hypothesis suggests an unstable reaction process that pulls itself up by its own bootstraps (the mechanism in the literature is described and rebutted in the following post Toxic Seawater Fraud), whereas the equilibrium processes have massive negative feedbacks. In 1888, the chemist Le Chatelier wrote about a huge waste of resources that was caused by failing to apply sound equilibrium principles in relation to the reduction of iron ore:

Because this incomplete reaction was thought to be due to an insufficiently prolonged contact between carbon monoxide and the iron ore (confusing a problem with equilibrium with that of kinetics), the dimensions of the furnaces have been increased. In England they have been made as high as thirty meters. But the proportion of carbon monoxide escaping has not diminished, thus demonstrating, by an experiment costing several hundred thousand francs, that the reduction of iron oxide by carbon monoxide is a limited reaction. Acquaintance with the laws of equilibrium would have permitted the same conclusion to be reached more rapidly and far more economically.

Considerable cost was expended in redesigning furnaces to no benefit, because in the mid-nineteenth century they did not fully understand what became known as Le Chatelier’s principle. Why cannot 21st century scientists properly understand the basics of physics and chemistry that were known over a hundred years ago? It is due to the corrosive influence of an atheist worldview: if all life in the universe, and all the complex processes on earth, came about by chance, then everything is a fluke – it’s just a one in a quadrillion chance that it all came right on the night. This gives rise to the mentality that the slightest disturbance will upset this highly improbable chance arrangement, so highly unstable systems and positive feedbacks are to be expected and feared. Anthropogenic catastrophism thus flows naturally from atheism, and belief in anthropogenic catastrophism feeds atheism. However, in a worldview that holds that the universe and all life was purposefully designed then one would expect there to be very strong negative feedbacks and ultra-stable systems, because this is what a good designer would do – design extremely robust systems with extremely robust processes for extremely complex organisms that are to flourish for thousands of years. Of course, this is what we actually find in the cosmos whatever our worldview. But as the religion of atheism gains ground amongst scientists, it not only colours their outlook and what results they expect to find, and what evidence they suppress, it also (as illustrated on the posts of this blog) seems to corrode their understanding of basic scientific principles.

 

And the bull **** continues.

In Australia they want to intorduce a new scam. If you want to sell or rent a house you own you will have to get an "energy efficency performance report" by paying an idiot a yet unknown sum for such report.

"Providing information to the housing market by requiring Australian homes to provide energy, water and greenhouse performance information to buyers and renters, starting with energy efficiency in 2011;"

That means the need for yet more "report" will follow. More money to pay another bunch of cretins to do nothing else but scam us out of our money to prove to themselvs how vlauable they are.

I for once will not provide any report to my tenants unless it is supplied for free. Otherwise I intend to write it myself by applying the lowest comon denominator.

When are the greens going to get a real job?

 

And That Kids Is Why We Call Them Deniers

how you enjoying the party so far Spear

that was classic guys

simple facts
simply denied

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/Ocean_Acidification%20FINAL.pdf

Ocean Acidification Summary for Policymakers 2009.

from
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/

from NOAA news online
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2606.htm

astounding how you guys just deny whatever you dont like

hey Jim whats up
I believe those numbers represent a time span of about a 100 years although measurement records go back about 250 and derived records go back substantially farther than that
cheers
B

 

Boston...do you know what the word ACID means?

 

sure do

I guess my first question would be are guys hep to the PH scale and the concepts behind its measurements

 

Boston, you obviously do not.

Otherwise you wouldn't use the word acid so loosely.

The sea water is alcaline, very alcaline and PH8.2 or PH8.1 or PH 8 is alcaline and will always be alcaline and not acid nor acidic nor acidified or any of the ******** terms used in those "reports". For the sea to be slighlty "acid it would need to drop it's PH below 7...say 6.9 in order for hidrogen to be availalbe to "dissolve" the poor shell fish.

If the sea water would drop to PH7 it would be neutral, and no CO3Ca would "dissolve" in neutral water.

Futhermore, shell fish live happily in water with PH5 (now that is acid) and no shell DISSOLVES so how can you repeat those pontificating about shell "dissoving" in the ACID SOUP we have turned the ocean into? WITH PH 8.1 ? How can anyone in his right mind believe such SCAM? Because it is on Google? Please Boston wake up !!!!!!!!!!

Besides, shell fish control their CO3Ca content so no harm would come to them even if ocean turned acid yet that would be impossible for the simple reason that there are megatons of salt and alcaline rocks submerged in the ocean that would prevent that from ever happening

 

come on
that is the standard denialist tripe being spewed to there favorite and most obvious supporters
politicians who are bought and paid for by the energy industry

the senate minority report is basically a republican manifesto who's party platform is one of denying global climate change

you argueing semantics when you try and say the referring to a drop in HP is not a move towards a more acidic range of the scale

the PH may still lie within the range considered alkali but thats no to say the the measurement did not become more acidic

its a silly argument and represents classic agnotology

no one is saying that the oceans will become a roiling cauldron of boiling acid melting anything in its path

the simple truth is that if the rate of change in the oceans PH keeps up ( and yes its moving towards the acidic end of the spectrum ) the species we depend on will not have time to adapt as they may have in the past.

the drop in PH is a problem and it is a man made problem directly related to co2

its also predictable as stated in the articles I presented

those predictions show and are born out by not only experimentation buy also observed data that the changes will be sufficiently extreme and occur sufficiently fast enough to do serious damage to an already stressed marine ecosystem

 

Boston, I am sorry but you lack the most fundamental knowledge in chemistry.
The PH scale is not subject to interpretation.
Above 7 it is alcaline
below 7 it is acid.

This is not debatable. and calcium carbonate DOES NOT AND CAN NOT dissolve in an alcaly simply because the hidrogen is not available.

Furthermore the shelfish REGULATES its CaCO3 content and the so called 'facts' in your link are pure ********.

 

so if the measurement moves from say 8.5 to say 8.1 it has not become more acidic in your book

thats nuts

of course it has

it certainly did not become more alkali did it

oh it may still be above neutral or still within the range considered alkali but it has most definitely moved toward the acidic end of the spectrum

you are arguing semantics plane and simple

as far as the basics of the chemistry are concerned
or are you really wanting to argue with e NOAA ocean sciences team on the chemistry of sea water

direct from the NOAA ocean science team site



from
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/background.html

whats really frightening is that the graph posted was made in 1999 and today's measurements put the time frame of the graph about 40 years behind the observed data
in other words
the graph was an extremely conservative report on the part of the NOAA and needs to be revised in order to show the severity of the crisis

the latest data places the change at about ten times faster than predicted just ten years ago

 

Boston, your argument is moot.

I suggest you do a bit of a research into basic chemistry, and what the percentage of Hydrogen and it's availability means, the activity factor and other very interesting facts about interaction and exchange in a said solution.

If the PH of a solution drops from 8.5 to 8.1 the solution's alkalinity has dropped yet can not be considered acid by any stretch of the imagination.
And no it is not semantics, it is basic chemistry. An acid is acid because it has ions H+ available for exchange. And an alkali has OH- available for exchange and not one single solitary H+
An acid can dissolve a calcium compound like a marine shell mainly made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) because the ion H+ replaces the metal Ca++ but to do so it must be ACID and that is what the PH scale measures. H+ availability and at PH 8 no H+ is available.
However your experts are saying that the molusk are disolving their shell in alcaline water. That is a boldface lie and besides the fact that they live in acid water with no problems, in alcaline water such is simply impossible The whole argument is total ********. Of course I argue with any "expert" and don't need Google for that.

Furthermore, in case you did not read what I posted, shellfish are living organism and not pieces of rock and as such they regulate and protect their calcium content in the shell in ways that are much more clever than any of the stupid scaremongering reports posted before. That is how they live an thrive in freshwater that can have a PH as low as 5.

The problem with religious convictions is that they do not follow logic. And clearly you have a religious conviction.
You can preach and try to find accolade as much as you want in a free country, however be honest and say so. You want to proselytise for the church of climatology.
Don't pretend to find logic into your believes, they just aren't there.

 

reading up on it now and it is exactly as I thought
the oceans are in fact acidifying and its a reaction to anthropogenic CO2

sorry but you have it all wrong
the oceans are becoming more acidic and the culprit is anthropogenic co2 plain as day
direct measurement bears this out and no amount of denial is going to change it

your welcome to go to the Royal sciences society page and argue chemistry with them all you want
mine may be a little rusty but not so much that I cant follow there logic and frankly
its pretty basic ( pardon my pun )

frightening part again is
this is happening way faster than the typically conservative predictions of the IPCC

 

Total ********...those people don't deserve your support

And there is nothing "frightening" about any of the ******** pedalled in those websites.

 

you might gracefully admit that there chemical analysis does appear accurate.

they are clearly no suggesting that there is an over abundance of H+ but instead that there are less CO32- available to aid in calcium formation

if you would care to write a detailed analysis of what you think are there errors I would be happy to send it along to them through my university membership

or if you like I can have my chemistry professor friend check it for you before we take up any of there valuable time

I dont see anything in there analysis that defies the laws of gravity so to speak

you are welcome to point out any flaws but I suspect that last article kinda put a damper on your argument


also
direct measurements of the oceans PH bears out the findings of numerous researchers
are you saying that there is some mystery cause of the rise of ocean PH unique to the early 21st century massive enough to cause a major shift in ocean ph and exactly mimicking the effects and quantities of anthropogenic CO2 yet somehow going unnoticed by the thousands of researchers studying our climate today

if you want me to believe what your saying you need to present a coherent argument rather than just jump up and down and screeming "I'm not going to believe it and you cant make me"

cause thats basically what just happened

although I am grateful for the conversation because I just got a nice short refresher course on the interaction of co2 in sea water


ps
great party eh spear

 

Boston what has happened is he refuted your assertions and you simply keep making the same idiotic assertions that defy 7th grade chemistry. He is getting upset because you, as always, just keep repeating the same ******** in the hopes that a new poster will believe you and not look further. Your past lies and deceptions make anything you post suspect at best. Marco knows that, Jimbo, Guil, and I are used to it. You insist on posting the same irrelevent minutae that often times is only marignally on topic and some times from a totally different equation and it only shows just how shallow you really are and how weak your core beliefs are.

Just for fun, defend the Himilayan Glacier report, or perhaps the hockey stick, or maybe the Dutch water level screwup, or how about the non-existant drought in Austrailia, or the sea levels that are not rising out of normal expectations, or the temp that has actually dropped since 1998, the growth in the number of polar bears, the missing hot spot in the troposphere, the non-event of tropical storms so eloquently reported on Sunday. Oh, while you are at it, repeat and defend your charge that the emails were forged, and that one tree sample really should determine the future of mankinds level of civilization, or that a temp station in a highway meridian is a true guage of temperature.

That you fail to even acknowlege all the screwups by the AGW Clown Club of the IPCC just shows what a religious fanatic you are. Problem is, the false gods that you worship can't even give you any solace, they just promise apocolypse and doom. Pretty sad when you think about it.

 

Another little item you won't see Boston talking about. For all the hand wringing and alarmism, we have not yet reached the level of warming that was present at the beginning of the Little Ice Age in the early 1300's. Nor is there any aerable land on Greenland as there was when the Vikings were there. Wonder how they wrecked the climate and got it so hot that it stumbled into a five hundred year cooling period. Another little BTW, all the of the alarmists graphs seem to start around 1850, when the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age and the planets natural variation went into another cycle which is continuing today.

No childeren, the sky isn't falling.