The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, that is impressive. And I thought Carlin was pessimistic.
I especially liked section 5 - SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF AUTHORSHIPS IN TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS.

I also thought that conclusion 2 was interesting. It's kinda of hard for anyone to review your work if you dont give them all the information and tools:

Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally
without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.
 
The greenhouse effect is a warming of the earth caused by an increased accumulation in the atmosphere of trace gases which are capable of absorption in that part of the infra red spectrum which is normally transparent. Although the most important of these gases is water vapour, its effect is usually regarded as being primarily reliant on the accumulation of carbon dioxide. Water vapour is treated as a "feedback" to carbon dioxide concentration, and the other greenhouse gases, which include methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur oxides, CFCs and ozone have their effects converted to "carbon dioxide equivalent".

It is thus of major importance that we have reliable measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, not only for recent years, but for the whole period that humans have been emitting carbon dioxide through the combustion of fossil fuels.

Since 1958 accurate measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have been carried out by Charles D Keeling, first at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, then from 1974 at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, and subsequently by other scientists at many other places. Most of these sites are in remote places, so the measurements represent the well-mixed background. There is still no proper record of the carbon dioxide concentrations over industrial regions, or over forests and other cultivated regions.

As I have pointed out frequently (Gray 1998) background carbon dioxide as measured at remote sites has been increasing in the atmosphere at an almost linear rate of about 1.4ppmv per year ever since 1972. The rate seems to be unaffected by the large increase in emissions form combustion of fossil fuels over the period (4.4Gt in 1972 to 6.4Gt in 1995, an increase of 45%).

The significance of this behaviour is difficult to judge without a knowledge of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from before the industrial era to the beginnings of the atmospheric measurements.

Measurements from this period have been made on air trapped in ice cores, drilled mainly from the Antarctic and Arctic, which have extended back as far as 160,000 years with the "Vostok" ice core. ( 78° 28’S, 106° 48’E; Barnola et al. 1991). Assumed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations between 1734 and 1958 have depended heavily on measurements made by Neftel et al. (1985) on the Siple ice core from the Antarctic (75° 55’S. 83° 55’W). These measurements indicated a constant concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of about 280ppmv before 1750, and a steady increase in an approximately exponential fashion since then, to join the modern measurements.

These ice core measurements have attracted much criticism, notably from Jaworoski (1996,1997).

It is difficult to believe that a chemically active gas such as carbon dioxide can remain unaffected by burial in ice for as long as 160,000 years. There are questions whether the carbon dioxide can diffuse through the snow, react with dust particles, or form clathrate compounds under pressure The technique of drilling, removal and preservation of the ice core is very difficult, and there are many things that can go wrong. The ice core must be protected from drilling mud and from entrance of air from the present atmosphere through cracks.. Fresh snow does not trap air until it has been buried for many years. There are accusations that this "adjustment" of age, estimated from diffusion measurements, has been deliberately chosen so that it will fit into the modern record.

Most of these objections have now been overcome, with a recent study on the Law Dome ice cores by Etheridge et al (1996, 1998), which involved collaboration between several of the previous teams. The three ice cores from East Antarctica (66°S, 112°E), were from a region with an unusually heavy snow accumulation, and many improved techniques from experience of previous studies were applied. The necessary adjustment for entrapped air was determined experimentally. The dating of the layers used three different seasonal parameters , the oxygen isotope ratio, electroconductivity, and hydrogen peroxide concentration. They were checked from the known dates of several volcanic eruptions.

The results from the years 1006 to 1978 are shown in the figure below.

<http://www.john-daly.com/law-dome.gif>

They differ in several respects from the Siple ice core results:

There is no "pre-industrial" equilibrium carbon dioxide concentration. There was variability in the order of 10ppmv between 1006 and 1800. It is therefore not possible to calculate the forcing due to presumed combustion of fossil fuels by subtracting a presumed past equilibrium value from the current value.

There was a marked fall of about 9ppmv in carbon dioxide concentration during the period of the "Little Ice Age" (about 1550 to 1850) with a period of very slow growth from 1800 to 1850. The authors are of the opinion that this fall in carbon dioxide concentration was caused by the fall in temperature, rather than the other way about. The carbon dioxide concentration in the period after 1850, extending into this century would be influenced by recovery from the Little Ice Age..

Between 1935 and 1945 the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was constant, or even declined slightly. The reason for this is unknown.

The measurements fit well with the modern results from the South Pole, but the whole record, particularly the recent modern one, does not follow an exponential curve, fossil fuel emissions, or comply with any of the current models, (Enting and Lassey 1993) which were used as a basis for future projections by the IPCC (Houghton et al. 1996)

The authors admit that some effects may have been regional, or at least mainly in the Southern Hemisphere.

Discussion

It is back to the drawing board for carbon cycle models. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration varies in a manner which has not been predicted successfully by existing models. There was significant variability before there could have been a human contribution. This variability appears to have followed temperature changes, rather than being responsible for them .Although there has been an increase during the period of industrial development, the increase has not been uniform. Thus, the period between 1935-45 showed no change. The period since 1972, when the increase has been linear despite an increase of over 45% in emissions, suggests that there are new carbon sinks being established in the ocean and in the terrestrial biosphere to absorb the increases. This behaviour plays havoc with previous predictions of global warming, but it is difficult to know how long the present apparently stable rate of increase will continue.
 
The Earth has tremendous self healing power. While I agree we need to address these issues, and preserve our planet, the world is not going to end. We will. And then it'll keep on going, and going, and going, and going, until the Sun reaches the Red Giant phase in about 4-5 billion years.

We will either be engulfed by the expansion, or the loss of mass in the beginning of the Red Giant phase will cause our orbit to widen, but the added intensity will boil off our atmosphere and liquid water.

The Earth can heal itself. However, we need to address these issues while we are living on the planet. It's like staying in a hotel room, and not picking it up a bit when you leave because the maid's going to do it. Cmon, who does that?? :)
 
“The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.”

“The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed”

The only problem with the world is us!
We are killing our self
We multiply like rabbits, want to make the world a better place? stop making more people then the world can handle

Whats wrong with global sterilization?
If you dont make a certian amount of money a year, or cant put your kids through college, or don’t own a home, or have a low IQ, or especially if you are on welfare or the government takes care of you, or live in a place like Ethiopia you cant have kids!


Less people less problems
Selective breading just like in everything else


Those of you that don’t agree with George Carlin or myself are the problem
Yes he is a comedian, but that means he isn’t 100% right on the money?

We are just another in a long line of life forms that have developed over time
If we get out of line mother nature will slap us back in line or remove "us" the problem permanently.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7748256#post7748256 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by divemasterjim
Whats wrong with global sterilization?
If you dont make a certian amount of money a year, or cant put your kids through college, or don’t own a home, or have a low IQ, or especially if you are on welfare or the government takes care of you, or live in a place like Ethiopia you cant have kids!
Lol, you're a maniac.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7748256#post7748256 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by divemasterjim
Whats wrong with global sterilization?
If you dont make a certian amount of money a year, ... or have a low IQ

Less people less problems
Selective breading just like in everything else

How many of us on RC would still be here? :D
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7748969#post7748969 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman
If you really want to help, stop having kids.
No, just don't have more than 2 kids, and stop being ignorant.
 
Isn't there something about North Americans consuming way more than any other country on this planet.Even if we did have population control here it wouldn't change a bit.
We need to apply the available technologies and stop useing oil...but since the world economy is based on oil consumption we'll need very influential and determined gouverments to bring changes that will start reversing the impact we are doing on global warming and dimming.
Like somoene already said here, the fact that we're sending money to 3rd world countries isn't helping at all,it's condoms we should be sending.
Just my 0.02 cent.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7749657#post7749657 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coraladdict
Isn't there something about North Americans consuming way more than any other country on this planet.Even if we did have population control here it wouldn't change a bit.
We need to apply the available technologies and stop useing oil...but since the world economy is based on oil consumption we'll need very influential and determined gouverments to bring changes that will start reversing the impact we are doing on global warming and dimming.
Like somoene already said here, the fact that we're sending money to 3rd world countries isn't helping at all,it's condoms we should be sending.
Just my 0.02 cent.
I agree, but oddly enough, the dimming might be a good (relatively) thing. Sulfur Dioxide, which was touched upon a couple times in this thread, interacts with water vapor and reflects sunlight. There was a sulfur dioxide trading program (kind of like the stock market) put into place a number of years ago and has had great success. An unforseen side effect of reducing this compound is that it unmasked the full effects of CO2. Previous calculations of the effect of CO2 on global warming may be too low, because the global dimming effect SO2 had obscured the impact CO2 had on warming.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7694022#post7694022 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
*sarcasm on* Ummm, excuse me? Sir? Pardon me. I would just like to point out that, well, your planet is having some problems. Maybe you would like to look at the data...oh, I'm sorry, you look to be very busy. I'll come back later. *sarcasm off*

The fact is that this stuff IS pretty scary. I personally don't want to live through a mass extinction (which we already are, unfortunately) and make humanity wait a couple million years for evolution to take its course.


Oh bla bla bla bla bla...is it any wonder you are and unemployed plant biologist...
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7749901#post7749901 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
Oh bla bla bla bla bla...is it any wonder you are and unemployed plant biologist...

Yeah, and get a haircut too ya hippie! :rolleyes:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7749901#post7749901 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
Oh bla bla bla bla bla...is it any wonder you are and unemployed plant biologist...
:lol:
I'm unemployed in plant biology. BTW, can you dispute anything I've said, or is your argument confined to "bla bla bla"?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7749657#post7749657 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coraladdict
Isn't there something about North Americans consuming way more than any other country on this planet.Even if we did have population control here it wouldn't change a bit.
We need to apply the available technologies and stop useing oil...but since the world economy is based on oil consumption we'll need very influential and determined gouverments to bring changes that will start reversing the impact we are doing on global warming and dimming.
Like somoene already said here, the fact that we're sending money to 3rd world countries isn't helping at all,it's condoms we should be sending.
Just my 0.02 cent.

No kidding? I am just curious how many of us vote with our
hearts or wallet? Or better yet, how many of us vote at all? That is where the real change lies. It doesn't stop with posting on RC. The oil companies have their best interest ( financially at least ) represented. Do you?
 
No kidding? I am just curious how many of us vote with our
hearts or wallet? Or better yet, how many of us vote at all? That is where the real change lies. It doesn't stop with posting on RC. The oil companies have their best interest ( financially at least ) represented. Do you?


No I don't but that doesn't mean that I have to sit and watch and tell myself that the earth is going to fix herself on the short term and that all is well.
If we had gouverments with their word worth more than their money we'd probably would't be talking about this.

Regards




Sadly enough there's only a handful of people who do have their best interest represented but they don't , money speaks louder than a mans word tha' why we are where we are.


__________________
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top