Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Ocean Acidification

Posted by greg2213 on March 30, 2010

It looks like the next great hoax to follow the global warming scam (and I’m not talking about the .5 to 1.0C that the world may have warmed over the last 100+ years) is ocean acidification.

WUWT has Ocean acidification: the “evil twin of global warming”

The rise in human emissions of carbon dioxide is driving fundamental and dangerous changes in the chemistry and ecosystems of the world’s oceans, international marine scientists warned today.

“Ocean conditions are already more extreme than those experienced by marine organisms and ecosystems for millions of years,” the researchers say in the latest issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE).

The report is pretty thoroughly ripped to pieces in the comments. Some of them cal it “grant bait.”

More stuff on “acidification

My view: aince airborne CO2 is trivial compared to oceanic CO2 and since the ocean is a well buffered system and since warming oceans release CO2 and since historic CO2 levels have been far higher with no issues of acid oceans and since oceanic organisms have shown their ability to adapt to higher and lower CO2 I conclude that acidification is a non-issue. More likely the reverse is true, that increased CO2 will be a boon in water as it is on land.

  • Monckton on acidification – corrects Sigourney Weaver’s scary movie on acidification. (Here’s the PDF)
  • China Sea pH bounces all over
  • SeaFriends site on Acidification – “Alkalinity in the ocean depends substantially on the plankton balance in which the pH results from autotrophs (plants) using hydrogen ions and driving the pH up, while decomposers return hydrogen ions, thus driving the pH down. The daily rhythm can amount to 0.4pH units (250%), and the difference between estuaries and the open sea as much as 1-2 units (1000-10,000%). It is important to keep this in mind, as one can find healthy calcification in shells in these conditions. When seas become eutrophied (overnourished), they also become more acidic due to high levels of decomposing bacteria and their work. Particularly coastal seas show this.”
  • CO2, acidification, tempering of extreme views

10 Responses to “Ocean Acidification”

  1. Ed Darrell said

    You start out as if you’re serious, and then you cite the Great Climate Clown Monckton as your source.

    Are you contributing to the parody, or are you unaware of Monckton’s Poe’s Law fuzzifications?

    • greg2213 said

      Monckton is the skeptic’s answer to your hero, Al Gore (yes, I’m assuming that Gore is your guy.) The difference being that Monckton actually has an understanding of the issues and science involved. So, point to me where you’ve tossed Mr. Gore under the bus and I’ll have more respect for your Monckton remarks. We can then move on from there.

      • Ed Darrell said

        Difference is that Al Gore is a Vietnam Vet and former Cub Scout, and Monckton is a liar.

        Monckton’s a liar about President Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy (what’s up with that?) and completely out to lunch on Rachel Carson and U.S. EPA (no problem, he’s a Brit — but he pretends to know, and that’s the mark of a swaggering braggert).

        John Abraham frisked him, and Monckton came up a piker on almost all climate issues, too.

        You don’t actually put trust in a guy who lies about being a member of Parliament, do you?

        That means we can’t trust anything else here, either.

        Too bad.

      • greg2213 said

        Vietnam vet and cub scout is irrelevant since everything he’s said about climate is clearly wrong, so I’ll put him solidly in the liar category as well. Not to mention his apparent manipulation of the issue for personal gain.

        As far as the abraham/monckton kerfluffle it looked to me like Monckton cleaned abraham’s clock quite nicely. As far as the parliment issue, that’s been clearly explained elsewhere and Monckton seems to be in the right.

        So on the one hand we have Monckton who may not exactly be an atmospheric physicist, and who may be somewhat full of himself, but who is clearly far superior to Gore. On the other we have Gore who has clearly lied about the climate issues and who clearly knows nothing about science.

        Can’t trust anything here? Heh, as if that was ever an issue. Given Gore as a spokesman, well, we certainly can’t trust anything on that side, either.

        Too bad.

  2. Ed Darrell said

    Please list anything Gore has said about environment that was wrong, and where the research is that establishes the correct facts.

    Your false charges against Gore for “manipulation of the issue for personal gain” say more about you. Why do people make up such stories?

    So, answer me this: Is Monckton a member of parliament? What is the name of Monckton’s research article, in which journal? How did Jack Kennedy establish the EPA in 1971, considering Kennedy died in 1963, and Nixon was president in 1971?

    Nope, so far can’t trust anything here. Gore isn’t my spokesman, but I’ll take a Cub Scout any day over this stuff.

    • greg2213 said

      “please list…” here

      “False charges…” He’s your guy, I understand. It’s also why I used the word “apparently.” And no, I don’t trust his motivations and I don’t believe in his “science.”

      “So answer me…” Parliament (and, as an aside, Abraham,) here

      “Nope, so far…” Your issue, not mine. Gore said, “HE BETRAYED THIS COUNTRY! HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!” and goes on to create a certain fictional movie that attempted to create fear and play on those fears. Sorry, I’ll take the other stuff over this particular cub scout any day. Besides, I linked to plenty of other stuff in the post. Sorry you didn’t care for that, either.

  3. Ed Darrell said

    This is the closest you get to finding Gore in an error:

    2007: Steyn on Gore – A COUPLE of days before Al Gore was awarded his Nobel Peace prize, Michael Burton, an English High Court judge and apparently a fine film critic, ruled that Al’s Oscar-winner An Inconvenient Truth was prone to “alarmism and exaggeration” and identified nine major factual errors.

    And that’s a misstatement. In England, you can sue a movie for accuracy. There were 36 claims of error, the judge found 27 of them in Gore’s favor, and the other nine NOT errors, but statements of opinion.

    So, no, you don’t have any indication that Gore made stuff up. False charges. Shame on you.

    I note you dropped the claim about Gore profiting. Good move. That’s a false claim, better dropped.

  4. Ed Darrell said

    By the way, there is no excuse for Monckton. He’s a liar. He’s a committed liar. I’ve asked you about specific lies he’s told — like when he testified to Congress that he was a member of Lords, bringing greetings from them — and I don’t care how he rationalizes it, he’s not a member of the House of Lords. Truth is he stood for election once, but got not a single vote.

    You keep referring to Monckton’s stuff as if he were not a brazen liar. You won’t even defend it — isn’t that a clue?

  5. Ed Darrell said

    By the way, FYI:

    • greg2213 said

      Ocean acifification, right. Brought to us by the same crowd who brought us CAGW. That’s starting with two strikes against and no one on base, even if they are correct. here

      "You won’t even defend it…" You’re joking, right? That’s what all the other links were for, supporting what he said on the issue. As far as the rest, see below.

      As far as the other issues, well, it seems that the lies are of the same gaffes, exagerations, and tongue-in-cheek that a number of politicians and celebrities
      have made. Such as his "nobel

      "So, no, you don’t have any indication that Gore made stuff up. False charges. Shame on you." Good point, I’ll acknowledge that he believes this nonsense and just refer to him as a clown, using the term you used for Monckton. And I’m quite sure that everyone would be A-Ok with anyone who had such massive investments in products that were boosted by promoting gov policy influenced by the guy who holds the investments.

      Remember to support me when I invest heavily in the ABC industry, make a fictional movie indirectly justifying the need for that industry, and then work to influence gov policy in such way way that the ABC industry values will quickly rise.

      Gore doesn’t get nearly enough credit for the gaffes that, if made by others, would be shouted from the rooftops. here,
      here, here, here. But then, maybe he fired his fact-checking team in the same way that Bush fired his PR dept. In Gore’s favor, not all of his "lies," were lies. In this one it looks like the scientist lied and tossed Gore under the bus. This one’s probably not a lie, just cluelessness.

      AIT errors – here. Work of fiction seems like a good label for AIT. Gore believes it, 100%, which is fine. Some people believe the Earth is flat, too. That’s also fine, but they aren’t working to influence policy. And policy is where it’s not fine. As far as the court goes, AIT was ruled to be a political device. More.

      So it looks like Monckton, and let’s go ahead and call him a liar, is at least as honest as the Cub Scout, Gore, and is certainly far better on his understanding of the science. I’ll take your lead and just refer to Gore as clown, not a liar, and I’ll look at what Monckton is sayng about a particular issue and not worry much about his background. I’ll even acknowledge that some of it is exaggerated.

      We’re all happy now, right?

      Ok, this thread is pointless and comments are closed.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: