There are two articles of interest from a climate point of view in this week’s Science magazine. The first is entitled: ‘Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet’ by R. S. W. van de Wal et al.
The Abstract states:
Continuous Global Positioning System observations reveal rapid and large ice velocity fluctuations in the western ablation zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Within days, ice velocity reacts to increased meltwater production and increases by a factor of 4. Such a response is much stronger and much faster than previously reported. Over a longer period of 17 years, annual ice velocities have decreased slightly, which suggests that the englacial hydraulic system adjusts constantly to the variable meltwater input, which results in a more or less constant ice flux over the years. The positive-feedback mechanism between melt rate and ice velocity appears to be a seasonal process that may have only a limited effect on the response of the ice sheet to climate warming over the next decades.
The report concludes:
Longer observational records with high temporal resolution in other ablation areas of the ice sheet are necessary to test the importance of the positive-feedback mechanism between melt rates and ice velocities. At present, we cannot conclude that this feedback is important. We do see a significant increase of the ablation rate (Fig. 2), which is likely related to climate warming, but it remains to be seen if this is likely to be amplified by increasing annual ice velocities.
Moving on to Perspectives, Oceans: Carbon Emissions and Acidification by Richard E. Zeebe et al:
Much of the scientific and public focus on anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has been on climate impacts. Emission targets have been suggested based primarily on arguments for preventing climate from shifting significantly from its preindustrial state. However, recent studies underline a second major impact of carbon emissions: ocean acidification. Over the past 200 years, the oceans have taken up ~40% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This uptake slows the rise in atmospheric CO2 considerably, thus alleviating climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. But it also alters ocean chemistry, with potentially serious consequences for marine life.
The authors conclude:
To monitor and quantify future changes in ocean chemistry and biogeochemical fluxes, intensified global-ocean carbon dioxide surveys in combination with carbon-cycle modeling will be necessary. Awareness must be raised among the public and policy-makers of the effects of ocean acidification and the steps required to control it. Ocean chemistry changes, and not only climate effects, should be taken into consideration when determining CO2 emission targets; such consideration is likely to weigh in favor of lower emission targets.
Meanwhile, join the red dots between the dates of James Hansen’s testimony to Congress in June 1988 and June 2008 – see if you can spot a tipping point:
Figure lifted from Climate Audit.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What can I say, but quote a comment on that blog. “Those little red dots look just like cherries”.
The little red dots mark Hansen’s testimony and its 20 year anniversary. Red flags might have been more appropriate.
I can cherry pick too, how about we use the tenth anniversary?
“Atmospheric CO2 Not So Scary – Wheel Out Ocean ‘Acidification'”
Yes, it’s all just a big conspiracy.
Unbelievable.
Good idea – the ‘big El Nino year’ testimony.
Conspiracy or exaggeration?
They are the same accusation.
I know I’m just a simple engineer, but I have a problem with global warming causing Ocean Acidification. Perhaps someone can advise me.
The way I see it, warmer water can hold less dissolved CO2.
More CO2 is given off as gas to the atmosphere.
Less CO2 in the ocean means less acidic oceans.
What have I got wrong?
The fact is, ShJT, that the tipping point is closer to a negative anomaly than a positive one. The only thing close to indictment for fraud is the GISS surface temperature record and its master.
As you are well aware, Dr. Hansen predicted a much higher temperature than exists today and so does AGW theory. You have to wonder why, when the evidence is so contrary.This is the history of apocalyptic forecasts. Wrong today, but just wait till tomorrow! (See the Last Judgement, Nostradamus, Club of Rome, IPCC, etc.)
In fact, the trend since 1988 is basically flat as anyone can see. It’s pathetic to have reality diverge from your forecasts so much, then cling to them reciting cant and dogma as your world view spirals down the gurgler… We offer our condolences.
Normally such divergence failure invalidate a hypothesis. No doubt, AGW true believers don’t exist in the real world but a virtual fantasy GCM, in which their faith trumps data.
We’ll be half way to the bottom of the next ice age before ShJT and the other trolls here own up to the failure of AGW theory to forecast the climate direction.
Dr. Hansen’s tipping point, Clive’s utter faith and Prof Ross’s “diabolical” AGW are in for a major empirical test in the next few years. The warming we have been promised is very late indeed.
Perhaps the lesson is not to bet your hidden socio-economic agenda on the weather.
Good question, Hasbeen.
A simple engineer is often worth his weight exponentially in Garnauts, Hamiltons and other ShJT…
“What have I got wrong?”
Your touch typing is terrible?
You haven’t even tried to find out the answer to your question?
Currently the 1000 m AMSU satellite measurements are quoting the temperature as 0.92 degrees F BELOW this time last year.
If this persists through July, the next dot point will be well below the current level.
Surely someone in the Government will notice this?
“Surely someone in the Government will notice this?”
The governments behind this, didn’t anyone tell you?
Let us see if this gets through:
Hasbeen asks: “The way I see it, warmer water can hold less dissolved CO2. More CO2 is given off as gas to the atmosphere. Less CO2 in the ocean means less acidic oceans.”
“What have I got wrong? ”
More precisely, what have you missed. The answer is the what is the what that made Roger Revelle famous. CO2 in water takes part in a complicated set of equilibria that include CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, CO3(2-) briefly,
CO2 + H2O H2CO3
H2CO3 + H20 H30+ + HCO3-
HCO3- + H2O H30+ + CO3(2-)
and then there are hundreds of other ionic species that buffer the pH of the oceans. What you missed was that increasing temperature increases the solubility of the H2CO3, HCO3-, etc that overwhelms the warm coke effect wrt acidity.
Now this is scary!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080704/ts_afp/climateenvironmentbiofuelsworldbankusbritain
Not content with the millions they killed through the effective ban on DDT for antimalarial purposes, the environmentalists are now clearly behind efforts to starve millions to death as a means to further population control.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25495301/
Eli,
and it only takes how many gigatons to cause a point decrease in alkalinity ocean wide??
With levels of atmospheric co2 in the past over 2000 ppm I wonder that anything was left alive on earth!! Did acidification kill the dinosaurs?? NAAAAAHHHHHHHH. Their bones are too well preserved!!
Maybe you can point to where this researcher is wrong.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm#intro
(link from previous post)
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
Although I would say that some are just plain evil . . . .
Just filing this here: http://opiniondominion.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-on-acidification.html
Why glad that you asked Kuhn, about 130 billion metric tons since the beginning of the industrial age has changed the average pH form ~8.25 to ~8.15, about a tenth. However pH =-log[H+] is a logarithmic scale, that is an increase of about 25% (5.6 E-9 to 7.1 E-9) in the concentration of hydronium ion for an increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 33% (280 to 380 ppm)
It appears to be a tradition here abouts that if someone answers a question he gets dumped on for not answering a different one.
Eli,
Care to give some kind of confidence intervals for your measures of ocean alkalinity? From my experience it takes some effort to get within about +/-0.1 pH units in a beaker in a lab. For “the oceans” over an interval of two hundred or so years (industrial age?)it would be a bit more of a challenge.
Do you believe the shit you post Mark or are you just a natural redneck?
Let’s here it for the “Evil” Luke!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.html
Even the deniers accept that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere… I mean we’ve measured it.
To then think that the physics describing the exchange rate of gases between gas and water, or the chemistry of well established equilibrium processes are down to some kind of political will game… defies belief.
To believe that the measured decrease in pH can just be denied requires the simultaneous rewriting of physics and chemistry courses. I guess a UQ degree is a bit soft on the fundamentals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7437862.stm
note where the text says “Meanwhile, seagrasses thrived, perhaps because they benefit from the extra carbon in the water.”
Mark, averages can be measured more precisely than individual measurements, but you knew that. Nice to see you keeping up with the local traditions.
‘Average’ is a statistic, not a measurement.
Fine Paul.
Perhaps you could address his point, instead of fiddling with the finer points of definitions, because the point Eli was talking about is important.
I used to fish quite a bit. Never to eat it, no. Don’t like to cut them up or clean them. What I did was catch and release.
When you do catch and release it’s important to hold the fish by the lip, because the fish has a natural coating of slime or mucus covering it’s body.
400 million years ago, when co2 was at 4000 ppm, the oceans must have been lightly acidic.
Especially along coastal estuaries.
http://www.horseshoecrab.org/
Didn’t bother this little critter.
Halpern: What you missed was that increasing temperature increases the solubility of the H2CO3, HCO3-, etc that overwhelms the warm coke effect wrt acidity.
James: Good thing the oceans are cool, cold and getting colder.
You know since the oceans solubility of the H2CO3, HCO3-, etc is temerature dependant, it follows that the amount of atmospheric co2 is uncoupled from ocean ph.
Thank you Eli. Good catch there pal.
Averages are computet, not measured – and just what is the Rabett’s point SJW?
That increasing atmospheric CO2 causes acidification, etc? But as James just pointed out, he now states that atmospheric co2 is uncoupled from ocean ph.
I think this is called shooting one’s foot, or scoring an own goal.
Regarding the ocean acidification issue, I posted on this about a month ago on my blog, with a link to my local newspaper (The Oregonian) who had published a story about some researchers studying this off of the Oregon coast. For those interested, read more here…
http://gorelied.blogspot.com/2008/05/get-ready-heres-way-agw-alarmists-will.html
and here…
http://gorelied.blogspot.com/2008/05/update-ocean-acidity-levels-due-to-co2.html
James, you are confusing buffered with uncoupled. Look up buffering in any general chemistry text book. It means that the change will be PARTIALLY compensated by the buffering system, not that it will be COMPLETELY compensated, or decoupled.
What temperature does is change the amount of buffering..
If you have an unbuffered situation, like a glass of distilled water, and you expose it to air it will rapidly absorb CO2 and have a pH of about 5. The ocean is buffered by a complex series of chemical reactions, among which are those controlled by the partical pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. Those wishing to learn more can look at this web site, with links to an article written at a more popular level.
I realize, dear James, that you have an Eli thing, but don’t let it make you appear foolish.
For some reason the links did not show
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Ocean_Acidification.htm
As Dr. Spencer has pointed out the antrhopogenic CO2 flux is 1/24,000 that of the natural total.
Indeed, that of the worlds termites alone is 20 times larger.
QED, the assertion that the acidification is due to that fluence is unalloyed idiocy. Balanced equations wherein fluences are members is woefully ignorant at best, insidious deceit at worst.
Southern Ocean heating has bumped atmospheric CO2, and Southern Ocean cooling will take it away.
Josh: If you have an unbuffered situation, like a glass of distilled water, and you expose it to air it will rapidly absorb CO2 and have a pH of about 5.
James: I have a backyard pool exposed to the ambiant air, which being in a city, must have higher co2 content then Mauna Loa.
How rapid is rapid?
Strangely it has never approached 5 ph. In fact I have never had to adjust the acid content at all.
I think I’ll try out Eli’s distilled water exposed to the air test for grins and giggles.
I don’t trust the guy. He might be “JOSH”ing me.
a. Your pool didn’t start with distilled water. Water from the tap has its pH adjusted.
b. You add chemicals to your pool to keep the small critters at bay, mostly chlorates and such. Others are to adjust pH.
c. You swim in it
d. You really need to get over the Eli thing and start thinking
http://www.intheswim.com/Pool-Chemicals/Water-Balancing-Pool-Chemicals/
A. Your pool didn’t start with distilled water.
Neither did the ocean.
You really should have thought before dealing yourself into a climate change advocate.
It’s a good rule of thumb, if you can’t afford to use your real name, then you probably shouldn’t be advocating for a controversial point of science.
I mean even Rich Borgland will sign his name, and he claims there are extraterestrial monuments on the moon.
“You really need to get over the Eli thing and start thinking”
Nice to see you here Eli. If you were hoping to take part in a debate, you may as well pack up and go home. The run of the mill drongo is here for the beer and slap on the back of fellow believers.
Typical response to science is ridicule and taunts. If you taunt them back, it’s because that’s what deluded warmers typically do. Interesting comments, though.
Aragonite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by corals) and calcite (the form of calcium carbonate secreted by calcareous forams – phytoplankton known as cocolithophores) cannot dissolve unless they are thermodynamically permitted to do so i.e. their Saturation Indices (SIs) must be zero or less than zero.
For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an increase in the partial pressure (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere 6.4 times level of 2455 ppmv (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of aragonite down from its present +0.61 to zero.
pH of the seawater would then be 7.52.
For an ocean fully equilibrated with the atmosphere, it would require an 8.8 times increase in the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level of 3388 ppmv ppm (presently 384 ppmv) to drive the SI of calcite down from its present +0.73 to zero.
pH of the seawater would then be 7.39.
These values are easily obtained using any standard geochemical model such as USGS PHREEQC.
The established literature shows clearly that the occurrences of corals and calcareous phytoplankton in the geological record over the last several hundreds of million years are fully consistent with the above thermodynamic facts.
Thus the modern level of CO2 in the atmosphere of 384 ppmv would have to double 2 – 3 times before corals and calcareous plankton would begin to disappear. Until we approached such a condition any field observations are highly likely to be instances of natural, complex ‘noise’ restricted to specific species or other local factors.
A timely reminder, Steve Short. Brer Rabett was almost sounding credible there for a moment but as usual, his mutterings founder once a test of significance is applied.
Here you have it:
http://www.mccn.org.au/files/attachments/1198895619_Waves_Vol_13(1).pdf
Climate Change Impacts on Australia’s Coast and Oceans
Dr Gina Newton, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Greenhouse Office Volume 13, Number 1 Summer 2007 ISSN 1321-7593
Refer page 6
“At present the surface ocean is supersaturated with both calcite and aragonite. By about 2060, depending on future CO2 emissions, aragonite will become undersaturated in surface waters poleward of 60°S. High densities of pteropods with aragonite shells that live in the surface water of the polar and sub-polar regions are likely to be affected. Calcite undersaturation may follow in the next century.”
Nothing more, nor less, that an outrageously blatant lie!
Totally refutable by long established textbook chemothermodynamics.
And all paid for by us mug taxpayers.