Hi Jennifer,
The shallows near Dobu Island off Papua and New Guinea have active underwater fumaroles pumping out virtually pure CO2. The sea grass is extraordinarily lush and healthy and there is very healthy coral reef a few metres away.
May 2008 in PNG at Dobu Island in the D’Entrecasteaux Group
May 2008 in PNG at Dobu Island in the D’Entrecasteaux Group
Both photos show bubbles of CO2 which continually flow. I collected samples of gas years ago for a vulcanologist and he reported back to me that it was “virtually pure CO2”.
Unfortunately the water had poor visibility the day I shot the pictures, but it is often clear.
Bob Halstead
www.halsteaddiving.com
And also…
Dear Jennifer,
I have recently updated my article about ocean acidification by reviewing two recent studies.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm
I thought it may interest you.
Dr J Floor Anthoni
Director Seafriends Marine Conservation and Education Centre
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Which is not factored into any climate model. In order to so one would need to do an inventory of all the fumaroles and other vents exuding volatiles into the ocean.
Database?
AGW continues to unravel once the physical sciences start looking at the data on which it is based.
What is the pH of the water there? Any one know?
That link is the finest and most comprehensive demolition of the ocean acidity bunyip yet. In case anyone missed it;
“More important, down to a pH of 7.6 (4x more acidic), no measurable effect was found and minor loss of biodiversity. Thus a doubling (pH=7.9) or quadrupling (pH=7.6) of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not going to have any measurable effect on marine life.”
No wonder the spivs are in such a hurry to get us all signed up and locked in to their carbon cargo cult? The wheels are falling off faster than you can say “soon to be extinct Bimbolopithicus climatensis”.
No! No! No! No! – This is GOOD CO2 not made by humans. Sheesh.
It seems like just the other day someone was trying to tell me that decomposing forest debree and leaf litter didn’t cause acidification.
I’m a simple dude, almost fell for it.
That most despised branch of the physical sciences – Geology – keeps right on swinging the baseball bat at AGW.
Submarine vulcanology is to AGW as Bolyai and Lobachevsky were to Euclid’s Fifth Postulate. Euclid was not entirely wrong, but he was unaware of a larger, liberating mental framework.
I am trying, patiently, to get Luke to understand that, but he seems to be a bit slow. Ah well, mathematical and philosophical maturity cannot be hurried. Some may never get beyond half-baked statistical models.
Ianl, I love geology. As a child of a geologist, I was taught at an early age to think in geological time and the evolutionary paradigm was there with the gum nut babies onwards. If you are spatial curious in four dimension, geology is the most important science to those of us on planet Earth.
We should focus more attention on the facts around possible acidification of the ocean as CO2 in the atmosphere increases. As I understand it, the oceans are slightly alkaline. Right?
If the AGW apocalypse has to be postponed (again) then there will surely be an intensified fear mongering campaign around “ocean acidification” in order to salvage the CO2 forced socio-economic agenda that so many institutions have punted their future existence upon.
CO2 as “pollution” is the message. Surely, this can be rebutted.
Green Davey,
Fancy that!
Someone remembering Bolyai (s, should be, both were great mathematicians).
Einstein owed them a great deal.
Cheers
Ianl
they are all yours my friend 🙂
Wes
“ocean acidification” has been taking the place of “runaway temperatures” for about 2 years now. AGW cannot be falsified, since it doesn’t make testable predictions, just what-if guesses.
Yes, thinking in 4 dimensions (5 actually, since the finiteness of capital is always present) has been a fascinating core element of my life for over 30 years now.
Louis
Thanks, but I really think there is nought to be done at present as the political battle has been won (the horses are now terrified).
I don’t believe the war is over – the inflationary cost of a C-tax in whatever form plus the disorganization being foisted on the real economy (jobs, businesses, no reliable baseload, petrol) is a huge political threat to the AGW agenda. We’ve been asking these zealots for 15 years to produce a credible plan for the transform (ie. to what ?) and now we have Rudderless’ cabinet stuck in disarray … 15 years for this ?
I am grimly amused at the stark hypocrisy of throwing smelly cabbages at the mining industry while demanding that the profits (ie. other people’s money) are used for other pet agendas. Still, Watermelons don’t mind being hypocritical, they just mind it being pointed out.
Ian
Agreed.
Was it Doney who set up a private enterprise to dump iron into the oceans; if it’s not to combat ocean acidification maybe he’s setting up artificial surfing reefs.
Can’t you just picture KRudd et al in some tawdry back street S & M joint making his trembling, guilt laden confessions of carbon emission as madame lash oils up the cat-o-nine-tails and tightens the knots on the climate spank-a-tron.
Seriously, not a word from the resident climate gimps? Have they just had a sartori? Or are they feeling more at home under a rock.
Oooo, hear that frustration and tension. Still not getting anything from your wife Mott? LOL!!
>Seriously, not a word from the resident climate gimps? Have they just had a sartori? Or are they feeling more at home under a rock.
What about can’t be bothered posting here, better things to do, demonstrating their intelligence, it’s more fun reading what you guys come up with amongst yourselves? Pffttt!!
Amazing.
Such undeniable evidence of the benefits of CO2.
Of course, I’m not surprised that this propels Travis in the direction of making remarks about Ian’s wife.
Just because I’m not surprised doesn’t mean I’m not outraged. Remarks like that are worse than irrelevant in “the debate”.
How can your remarks be worse than irrelevant? Because they accurately demonstrate the depths to which some will sink. Calling a man’s wife into question in “the climate debate” is beneath contempt.
Yeah Travis can lay off those who are never on here however I must agree with “it’s more fun reading what you guys come up with”
BTW PH 7.00 is neutral and ph 9 is quite alkaline in the scheem of all things natural. Been lurking to see if it would come up again. Dead thread hey
Yes Schiller, beneath contempt isn’t low enough. Travis is a special case probably beneath beneath beneath contempt.
Travis’s Top Quote:
“Actually, I choke on oxygen sometimes,”
http://www.bigbrother.com.au/housemate-profile-travis.htm
Are we getting close?
Thanks Schiller, WJP. My wife just thinks Travis is one real weird blog stalker for latching onto a bit of marital banter and trying to turn it into defamatory material. He only ever comes on to the blog to post a personal attack. But if he ever takes it any further I will blow his nuts off with both barrels.
Agree Gavin, it would take a four fold increase in CO2 to get to a pH of 7.6 which is still alkaline.
I wonder if the monty python boys would like to make a sequel, “The life of Brine”?
“Always look at the darkest side of life,
when you’re modelling some climate strife”
“Can’t you just picture KRudd et al in some tawdry back street S & M joint making his trembling, guilt laden confessions of carbon emission as madame lash oils up the cat-o-nine-tails and tightens the knots on the climate spank-a-tron.”
Hi Ian,
I feel privileged to be present when the man who penned “Breakfast at Sweethearts” and “Bow River” allows his muse to be set free and reveals himself to us. Will we see a reunion gig? I know Barnsie needs the cash and we could all do with a blast from the “Telephone Booth”.
cheers
Patrick.
Jan Pompe asked:
“What is the pH of the water there? Any one know?”
Dr. J. Flour Anthoni has a website that answers the question:
From part 2,
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm
How acidic are the oceans?
As this map suggests, ocean pH measurements have been done all over the world and in the most unlikely places. The false colour scale on the right suggests a range from 7.9 to 8.2 (personally I have measured a wider range from 7.8 to 8.3). The lowest pH occurs in upwelling areas whereas highest pH occurs in the centres of ocean gyres. From this extensive mix it would be difficult to state what the ‘average’ pH is for the oceans, let alone whether the oceans have become more or less acidic. Note that upwelling areas are more acidic because high-CO2 bottom water surfaces, warms up and makes CO2 more readily available, a bonus for photosynthesis by marine plankton.
Sunset: I know there is general information about the pH of the ocean and at different locations I was wondering if it was tested where the photos were taken.
Marcus,
I agree, both Bolyais, father and son, were great. So were Euclid and Isaac Newton, even though they have since been shown to have considered only special cases, and so were not entirely correct. Luke is not entirely correct on climate, because he, too, is thinking in a limited, dogmatic way. Not only does he not know, but doesn’t want to know that he doesn’t know. He is just a nail-biting mountebank who hasn’t done his homework. Out of his comfort zone in philosophy I suspect.
I doubt if Luke and supporters will contribute much to this thread. CO2 bubbling up from fumaroles – well outside their dogma. Probably they think it comes only from those power station cooling towers, repeatedly shown on TV, belching – er – steam.
I gather the alarmists are saying the oceans are becoming more acidic because of the increased CO2. I have read the comments here and can’t see where the infomation is coming from. Can any enlighten me as to the source of the opposing view. Is it modelling or emperical study? BTW I have just read Hansen’s modelling uses 8000 points which is more than others. That is one point for every 64500 square kilometres.
WJP,
If you watch Big Brother, or know anything about it, it says more about who you are than me!
>My wife just thinks Travis is one real weird blog stalker for latching onto a bit of marital banter and trying to turn it into defamatory material. He only ever comes on to the blog to post a personal attack. But if he ever takes it any further I will blow his nuts off with both barrels.
This coming from the person who continually feels the need to make fun of my grandfather and mother’s loss?? Classic. As usual, your response to any sort of rebuff is violence. Yes, *I* only ever come here for personal attack Mott – there you go getting confused with your own behaviour. Speaking of delusionals on a soap box…
Schiller,
Are you serious? You’re not exhibiting bias here are you? It’s ok for my family to regularly cop a lashing from Mott but not his? If he wants to regale us with his sexual fantasies, he leaves himself wide open. Apart from that, he has blatantly admitted here previously about a lack of attention from his wife (his ‘marital banter’) Give your biased moral standards a break.
Given your crap on the Arctic Fire thread and previously the polar bear one, you have a nerve posting anything here at all. There are a number of contributors waiting for you to post literature to support your silly views Schiller, and yet all you can do is keep shooting your mouth off and talking down from the clouds. Put up or shut up.
Jennifer. Surely you have enough evidence now to delete this tedious clown’s IP? When was the last time he actually posted on topic?
All in all very uninteresting. A local CO2 plant growth effect like you get with bubbling CO2 into aquaria. So plants grow better.
Purely from a photosynthesis viewpoint aquatic environments can be limited by CO2 availability which is why many bog plants are emergent (take it from the air direct). And if people don’t think you can control pH with Co2 – well aquarists have been doing it for years. However you do need to have some kH buffer and not go too high and you’ll kill your fish when overnight plant respiration dominates. http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/CO2/co2-booth-faq.html
However – in the ocean swamped by surrounding currents?? – totally local effect.
Do we have any detailed pH studies of the site – no ….
Oceans are indeed alkaline – so “acidification” really means a reduction in the alkaline pH not moving to the less than 7 pH range.
Indeed this post could not have been more timely and more misplaced – as new exciting work on ocean acidification near volcanic events indicates dissolving shells (come in spinner guys – roasted and totally toasted – oh yea – doesn’t get much sweeter than this!).
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/609/2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7437862.stm
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/natural-lab-shows-seas-acid-path/
These two photographs do point to a significant issue with the need for much greater scientific understanding and research of our complex oceans ……… not emotional pseudo-scientific alarm which certainly succeeds in capturing headlines. It just seems what we have always understood with CO2 on land enabling thriving plants we now see the possibility that says vegetation and sea life may be starving for some atmospheric CO2 too.
Nope just seagrass !
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.
While I admire Luke’s lack of fear of walking where the more cautious (or better trained) would hesitate to tread, I regret to say in this case IMHO his ‘taste of sweetness’ probably lies largely ‘in the mouth of the beholder’.
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/phytoplankton-calcification-in-a-co2-accreting-ocean/
Iglesias-Rodriguez et al. conducted several batch incubations of the phytoplanktonic coccolithophore species Emiliania hyxleyi while bubbling air of a number of different atmospheric CO2 concentrations through the culture medium and determining the amounts of particulate inorganic carbon (PIC) and particulate organic carbon (POC) produced by the coccolithophores within the different CO2 treatments. In addition, they determined the change in average coccolithophore mass over the past 220 years based on data obtained from a sediment core extracted from the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean, over which period of time the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration rose by approximately 90 ppm.
What was learned: The thirteen researchers — hailing from the United Kingdom, France and the United States — observed an approximate doubling of both PIC and POC between the culture media in equilibrium with air of today’s CO2 concentration and 750 ppm CO2. In addition, they write that the field evidence obtained from the deep-ocean sediment core they studied “is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass.”
What it means: Once again we have a situation where real-world observations depict something that is just the opposite of a major theory-based prediction, the clear implication being that relevant environmental and energy policies must be based on the former and not the latter.
OK – here’s a go – this could be a longer thread than I thought.
>Yeah Travis can lay off those who are never on here
Gavin, it starts somewhere, but Mott has a tendency to cry croc tears when his toe is stubbed from kicking his little sister.
>Jennifer. Surely you have enough evidence now to delete this tedious clown’s IP? When was the last time he actually posted on topic?
Yes Mott, S&M joints are on-topic. For a good example of how you post on topic, feel the need to regularly post your toilet humour and sexual perversions and began your attack on my family (which has been ongoing without any prompting from me and been at a the level well below your ‘marital banter’) see here:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002563.html
But whatever turns you on. I’m sure Jen will see through your hypocrisy.
Luke, why bother?
Is Motty into S&M ? What have I missed?
Although I know absolutely zilch about marine biology I was going to make a bold statement on ocean alkalinity after guessing the minium ph for growing lime formations however Luke’s links seem to have outlined the situation for me.
Luke: Given my guess was a minium ph 8.0, I’m not surprised by that lot. I had intended to suggest the same level of alkalinity would do for seagrass too. What ph is best for slime and algae growth at sea is another matter. My guesses based on industrial water recycling could be way off.
Travis: Never let the sun set over an argument or a dispute of the domestic kind hey.
On the blog though, every time you see a long pair ears, a periscope or a pair of eyes poking up far side, shoot first then do the wombat thing.
Well it seems to me there are likely significant effects of ocean acidification especially at high latitudes. It’s all about the speed of change.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo100.html
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/mzawoysky/2005/10/OCCC_fabry_2005_use_this_one_5585.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g8p25514t153p723/
Well. Luke to use your own approach….
Er…..no!
Supply as many lightweight, misplaced, misquoted or misunderstood references as you like.
There is plenty of dud science floating around, both in the AGW camp and on t’other side, as you know.
Unless you know some special way of getting around 1000s of critically reviewed chemothermodynamic studies of the last 100 or so years this is not a goer until the SIs fall to zero i.e. until atmospheric CO2 gets to well over the 2000 ppmv mark.
Something for your grandkids, maybe?
As you well know Luke, I’m stacking a PhD in geochemistry, 35 years hard at it (incl. almost 2 decades of pure research) plus 70 odd peer-reviewed papers and book chapters against your …….what? A willingness to ride on the back of ‘chemical comment’ here which hasn’t yet risen above high school level?
Your standards are definitely slipping.
Well no – I’m quoting actual studies with real organisms. Dissolving shells don’t lie do they?
You should know by now Steve that appeals to authority never work on Jen’s blog.
Somehow I don’t think these authors are at school level. Did they not measure what they measured? Made it up?
I’m only warming up.
Take this summary for example – are all these papers bogus? Are not the ecological interactions numerous and interesting.
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/5/641/2008/bgd-5-641-2008-print.pdf
I think it’s all far from clear from a whole marine community perspective. The CO2 Nature paper is as extreme as the silly example used in the beatup lead post. As usual on blog we have a trivial examination of the issues – no real discussion of the literature. Hardly an educational experience or real examination of the risks is it?
“there is not enough carbonate in the water to combine with the free calcium, and any increase in CO2 would mean that laying down a limestone skeleton becomes easier rather than more difficult.”
Nice work Dr. Anthoni. As any aquarist knows, CO2 (given the over-abundance of Mg and Ca), is the ocean’s buffer system. Corals moved seamlessly (adapting not evolving) from aragonite to calcite as pH breached 7.9.
The oceans would be much more sensitive to acidic pulses (SO2) without.
Unfortunately, Luke only kept guppies as a lad.
How many modellers does it take, leaning on each other, to make an informed self?
A glint of physics each, no analytic Chem whatever (PChem? I’m choking, you fiend), stats but no math–why no number will do!
Luke states:
“Dissolving shells don’t lie do they?”
Live coral does NOT have its calc’ exposed to to the ocean. It has a biological “skin” that protects it. So, dead calc’ will dissolve. Living organisms won’t. If something else kills the living coral its skeleton can dissolve.
You might find these pages interesting:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm#intro
Apologies for the triple post. The Safari browser crashed while posting!!
Here is a report on a vent field exuding LIQUID CO2!!!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050104114942.htm
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/lupt2843/lupt2843.shtml
Luke: “You should know by now Steve that appeals to authority never work on Jen’s blog.”
I know it doesn’t impress a certain small subset of readers but the rest of us who don’t consider ourselves experts in everything (especially geochemistry in my case) do value the comments of a person with Steve’s training and experience.
Let’s refocus the discussion because there’s something very special with this page, in case you’ve missed it. Let me explain:
* the global warming alarmist have run out of steam because the climate has been cooling lately.
* so they latch on to a far worse scare scenario, that of acidifying oceans. The logic is quite naive: add CO2 to water and it becomes more acidic. Calcium skeletons dissolve; coral reefs disappear; islands sink back into the ocean; plankton organisms lose their shells; the food chain collapses with the massive loss of biodiversity.
* if this is not going to happen, we still need to be ULTRA cautious because we know so little about it (true).
* the most respectable scientific outfits in our universe have behaved quite badly: the AAAS and the British Royal Society leading the pack. ALL respectable journals came out with BIG scare articles: Science, Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist and so on.
* the media could do nothing else than widen the circle of publication, giving the Greens and GWAs a huge leg-up. We indeed know ZERO about acidifying oceans, so there’s nobody who can allay our fears.
* Enter Floor Anthoni from Seafriends in New Zealand, who has been doing thousands of pH (acidity) measurrements in his quest to understand how eutrophication / degradation works. In doing so he also discovered that scientists had overlooked the most important factors in the sea and that the sea does not work at all like we thought it would. Not something trivial. Well, that was back in 2003-2005.
* It placed him in the unique position to debunk the ocean acidification scare. Read http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm written for 12-year olds, you should be able to understand the first two parts which give you the brain tools to understand Bob Halstead’s two photos at the top of this page. These photos are a severe blast for the acid scare movement.
The first photo shows super-rich sea grass near a bubbling CO2 vent. The gas here is pure one million ppm CO2, compared to our atmosphere of 400 ppm. From studies in the Mediterranean we know that the water all around the vent is quite CO2-rich with pH down from 8.2 to 6.0 or lower (100x acidic). In such high concentrations, all water-breathers die, so look in vain for sea urchins, snails or worms. But CO2 is a potent fertiliser for plants, so sea grass thrives beyond recognition.
The second picture shows corals thriving so close to a CO2 bubbler. But hang on, aren’t corals animals and supposed to die from CO2 poisoning like other water breathers? Well, corals have plant cells in their tissues, and these thrive on CO2, converting it to pure oxygen for the coral polyp to breathe. The polyp’s waste CO2 is likewise absorbed by the plant cells and also converted to oxygen. So, although corals are animals, they function like plants. More importantly, the picture shows how they thrive. Look in vain for water breathers that cannot migrate out of the area. Fish can and so can turtles who are air breathers.
So what Bob Halstead did, was to give us an important insight in what scientists are bound to discover years from now. A heavy blow to acid scare.
IMO It’s an odd lot hey
http://www.thefishingparty.info/wst_page8.html
If Luke had not been such a one-eyed bogan and actually retained some of the Floor Anthoni/Seafriends material he would have realised that it included a thorough debunking of the mediteranean “science”.
But no, he persisted with his regurgitation of the same old same old, oblivious to the fact that it depended on a claimed disolving point that will not exist until there is a 3 to 4 fold increase in CO2.
Good one, boy wonder. Do you do somersaults too?
Can you believe it, “without any provocation” from Travis. Fella, you are a first rate delusional nutter.
Dead zones……..and there was a report recently
And don’t you just love the methodology in the experiments Luke dredged up. Transplant the coral, a rapid change of conditions, and we don’t even know if they were to the same depth or with all other water conditions unchanged, and they couldn’t take it.
So tell us, dopiwan, which climate model is predicting a 24 hour global transition in sea state involving a 4 fold increase in CO2?
Make the change over even a decade, let alone a century or two and the coral won’t die, the protective film won’t break down, and the skeletal coral won’t disolve. Well, fancy that.
What ? a bucolic waddler like Mott is actually trying to make a point – after PIG, total grazing pressure, Amazon clearing? Give us a break doofus. If you had read some of the other papers you’d realise there is a bit more in it. And as we know Mottsa can always be relied on to “make shit up”.
So here we have a lead post showing CO2 fertilisation of sea grass, no measures of pH near the said coral, no information on currents in the area, and a total dismissal of a literature on the subject of the effect of CO2 increase on marine communities. About what you expect from denialist drones. And so it’s totally reasonable to provide a study from another vent situation that shows major effects. It’s about the level you’re at.
We can always rely on denialists to provide half a story.
Steve Short is the only one worth listening to – the rest of you denialists are just drongos following along elephant-walk conga line. Cha a cha cha cha – cha … to the beat guys…
>Can you believe it, “without any provocation” from Travis. Fella, you are a first rate delusional nutter.
LOL! Mott, you forget this blog is archived (except for the entire thread that was deleted due to your attacks)! Plenty of evidence of where you have started slanging off my relatives. As I keep saying, you seem to have some sort of weirdo fixation with them. It’s all there in black and white.
travis; unless your relatives are cyanobacteria can you give it a rest; of course, if you are related to the cyanobacteria, we all owe you a vote of thanks, given that they are responsible for regulating the small increase in atmospheric CO2;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003141.html#comments
Steve Short’s study IMO demonstrates that Miskolczian -ve feedbacks can be biological as well as physical. Given this, and the miniscule proportional amount of anthropogenic CO2 residual in the atmosphere (0.04% of the total annual CO2 emissions from nature and human sources), I don’t think the “penguins, polps and people”, as acidicity alarmist Joellen Russell glibly puts it, have anything to worry about.
Travis,
You forgot to remark upon his wife. Establish a reputation for being consistent, you’ve got nothing else left.
Cohenite, sure, but please be consistent with your frustration (surely you can do this?). You have Mott and now Schiller who chime in, and consistency seems to be what Schiller wants.
And Schiller, the recent thread http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003200.html#comments
is still waiting for your information. My reputation here is not in question.
Travis,
Your reputation as a foul-mouthed simpleton is secure. You’re simply not consistent in the distribution of your verbal offal.
Now, come on, mention his wife, too. You know you need to.
This shows what I’ve been pointing out to everyone. Environmentalists must be considered to be lying unless it has been absolutely proven that they are telling the truth. And even then it won’t be on the environment that they may utter something that by some law of chance isn’t a lie. .
They were always lying about this ocean-acidification racket. Clive Hamilton has just confessed to having taken a fraudulent position the whole way through. Fundamanetally this is a pandemic of lying.
This shows what I’ve been pointing out to everyone. Environmentalists must be considered to be lying unless it has been absolutely proven that they are telling the truth. And even then it won’t be on the environment that they may utter something that by some law of chance isn’t a lie. .
They were always lying about this ocean-acidification racket. Clive Hamilton has just confessed to having taken a fraudulent position the whole way through. Fundamentally this is a pandemic of lying.
Graeme,
I don’t think the Enviro’s purposively lie at all, it’s rather the case of supporting a deduced theory whose starting point is not based on empirical fact.
No one observed anthropogenic global warming, it was a postulate advanced on the misunderstanding of what “absorption” means in terms of radiative gases. They actually believe that CO2 absorbs heat, like a sponge absorbs water. Having mutually agreed on this understanding to be a self-evident fact, the rest falls into place in a logical manner – the whole AGW theory is cantilevered on the original assumption that doubling atmospheric CO2 causes a temperature rise.
And now that temperatures are not rising, but CO2 is still increasing, the next ploy is to invoke ocean acidification.
Deductive science is really technically sophisticated religion. All deductive paradigms start with a non-empirically derived assumption, whether it is climate sensitivity or God, and when everyone agrees on it, contraditing it is nigh well on impossible.
If it were truly a science, the contradictory facts should prompt changes in the theorey. That his does not occur simply confirms that AGW is a technically sophisticated religion.
What a con those two photos are.
Do you seriously believe that sea grass emits bubbles of O2 that appear to be at least 1-2 cm in diameter!!
I find the spacing of bubbles in the first photo a bit suspicious.. I mean its not exactly random is it.
And everyone knows that coral just blows out O2.
Christ.
And how do we know it is O2?
The diver could have disturbed anoxic sediment… or his buddy just swam by (given the spacing in 1).
C’mon people.
SP,
You have sharp eyes! If you look closely, you can see an Exxon executive emitting flatus. Yes, right there, in the lower corner.
Which means, of course, a significant component is methane as well. And likely even octane!
The price of paranoia is eternal vigilance, maintain the fort!
The AGW crowd seems to be overlooking a fundamental principle of chemistry in their effort to convince us that CO2 is destroying the reef systems through acidification: Le Chatelier’s Principle. Adding CO2 to a CO2/carbonate equilibrium will drive the reaction towards the formation of MORE carbonates, not less.
@SP
Reading comprehension is important here.
“…active underwater fumaroles pumping out virtually pure CO2…”
If you don’t understand “fumaroles”, then the rest of the following debate would escape your understanding as well.
Cheers from America.
I’m surprised that the AGW crowd is reaching back into the “Ocean acidification” grab bag again. They must be getting desparate. Ocean study has been putting the screws to AGW for years now. With an 100% Greenhouse gas “atmosphere” (water), continuously flowing sources of CO2, delicate ecosystems, and volcanic activity that produces sulfur, methane and the like, the ocean is the ultimate Worst Case AGW model. Yet when we look at a microscale environment like this one, that roughly fits the “worst” conceiveable scenarios according to the AGW crowd, we see a healthy abundant ecosystem. Where are the extreme temperatures predicted by the computer models? Where are the suffering gasping fish? What is with the healthy coral and seaweed? One picture erases a thousand words. Most of which are lies.
Of course this is nothing new to oceanographers. They’ve been a thorn in the AGW side for years now with their data and facts and all. The “Ocean Levels Rising” scenario attributed to AGW, that really only amounts to a ~1cm a year, has in large part been attributed to a net positive gain of ocean floor as a result of underwater volcanic activity (do you think it might affect ocean temperature too?). Hard as they try to sell us on the melting icecaps nonsense. Sound science beats pictures of hungry polar bears any day. Imagine that, Nobel Prize winning scientists that can’t figure out that your glass of water WON’T overflow if the ice in it melts, but WILL overflow if the bottom of the glass is raised.
Thank god for geologists and oceanographers. And their underwater cameras. Get your fiddles ready. This Rome is starting burn…
Fraudulent CO2 science, scientific CO2 fraud
Doing experiments in the ocean that truly reflect the real-world situation is difficult if not impossible. So scientists take shortcuts, essentially in two ways:
1. they add hydrochloric acid (HCl, because salt water has a lot of chloride ions already). This shifts the pH baseline in the Bjerrum plot above to the left, producing more CO2 in a more acidic environment. It is a scientific fraud because it also produces less of the CO3 ion instead of more, resulting in abnormal dissolution of shell.
2. they bubble CO2 through the water, thereby essentially increasing the left-hand side of the equilibrium equation. Although this reflects the real-world more than trickling acids through the water, it is still a scientific fraud because the water is not given time to form more of the CO3 ion.
In all experiments the enriched water is flowed through the experiment, never giving enough time for an equilibrium with the calcium-rich environment which increases CO3. In other words, the experiment does not allow the water to buffer the enriched water. Neither method reflects the real-world situation, and this is scientific fraud.
This is not a scientific discussion but an endless religious one … No one can argue (on scientific grounds) with “believers”.
Rob (Geologist)
Not that I expect Jen to actually pick this up, but almost 3 years after your post, here’s the science behind the myth of Dobu Bay. Unsurprisingly, the coral reef isn’t “very healthy”: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110529184043.htm