Cross this place off my tourist list. I don’t care how inviting, it will be now the “island of stupid” in my memory. Watch the video below the “read more” line for today’s dose of silliness. Look for more stunts like this leading to Copenhagen.
Maldives Cabinet Signs Climate Change Document 20 Feet Under Sea
From Fox News:
Excerpts: GIRIFUSHI, Maldives —
Members of the Maldives’ Cabinet donned scuba gear and used hand signals Saturday at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the threat of global warming to the lowest-lying nation on earth.
President Mohammed Nasheed and 13 other government officials submerged and took their seats at a table on the sea floor — 20 feet below the surface of a lagoon off Girifushi, an island usually used for military training.
With a backdrop of coral, the meeting was a bid to draw attention to fears that rising sea levels caused by the melting of polar ice caps could swamp this Indian Ocean archipelago within a century. Its islands average 7 feet above sea level.
“What we are trying to make people realize is that the Maldives is a frontline state. This is not merely an issue for the Maldives but for the world,” Nasheed said.
Read the complete article at Fox News here
Members of the Maldives’ Cabinet donned scuba gear and used hand signals Saturday at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the threat of global warming to the lowest-lying nation on earth.
h/t to WUWT reader Steven Skinner
In the meantime, readers might benefit from reading this WUWT post:
Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise
Ah, I’m the first up.
This might be slightly “political” in nature.
But I must remind everyone that EVERYONE…by law in the Maldives is a MOSLEM!
Arab trading ships, and we might note…NOT KIND TREATMENT lead to the “conversion” about 600 or 700 years ago.
See Thor Hyerdahl’s “The Maldives Mystery”. (Circa 1972).
Thus, in terms of “hobbling the great Satan” (USA) there might, just MIGHT be some “hidden agenda” here…
I wonder what Dr. Moerner would have to say about this.
Just another version of “brother, please give me a dime”
Is it too early for a tee-shirt that says
“Global warming, anyone?”
Oh yes, I will be merciless.
The upshot is “Give us money” ?
Also at the Climate Meeting in Bangkok from 28 September through 9 October, a delegate from an African country said “We do hope that developed nations provide us with measures to cope with the GW” (my translation; Give us money!).
This “news” was covered by all the MSMs, both TVs and newspapers here in Japan, but no mention was given on the observation that sea level around the Maldives exhibit practically no rise in recent decades.
As a scuba diver, I am ashamed of this. What a shameless publicity stunt.
I just want to ask 1 question …..
….. given that the Maldives are a carbonate reef system (ie. will always be at sea level) and given that sea levels have risen 130m in the last 13,000 years (on average 1m per century ….. and for some of that time at much higher rates) ….
…… WHY ARE THE MALDIVES EVEN THERE ?
Anyone who seriously thinks about this will realise that they in absolutely no danger of sea level rises … whatever happens.
Ridiculous.
Well, at least I learned where the lowest lying nation on earth is.
P.S.
I approve the movie Not Evil Just Wrong.
Sorry for the slightly politic comment.
Real paradise, bla bla, with Islamic sharia and arresting tourist with Non-Islamic items ad the borders.
“Non-Islamic items can only be imported with special permission from the Islamic ministry and only for educational purposes.”
The people are pore the tourist money goes directly to Swiss.
http://www.minivannews.com/news_detail.php?id=7437
Looks like no one but them believes in AGW any more. Otherwise the US wouldn’t be about loan Brazil $’s to drill for oil. http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=340859&CategoryId=10718
Too bad there weren’t a few hungry, rather large, friends of mine (of the tiger and bull variety specifically) swimming around this publicity stunt at the time!
Cue John William’s theme: Dah di dah di DAH di DAH di…..CRUNCH.
~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Ok seems to me that they adapted to the Rising Sea Levels quite well, problem solved.
Proving that their country can operate in 20 feet of water is an interesting way to point out a potential danger from sea level rise. Seems they can still sign lunacy into law at that depth.
I live in Tennessee. Our ocean’s are rising at a rate far faster than ever predicted before. In no time at all, we could be underwater. Can someone please please give me $billions to help me relocate to higher ground, down the street?
Thank you!
They are just “diving for dollars” trying to milk the AGW system for money.
Any small community politician would be stupid to ignore that much potential money.
It is perfectly understandable from the point of view of political survival. Most politicians cannot afford the luxury of being honest with this sort of thing because if they don’t milk it their opponet will.
Free money corrupts the political process, which is one of the reasons AGW is so dangerous.
Larry
BTW, don’t these people realize, that with every breath they take, they are injecting that deadly CO2 pollution directly into the ocean? They are raising the acidity at an alarming rate! All the sea creatures are going to die!
All those island nations plus a few others (e.g. Indonesia) are 100% on the AGW bandwagon. As already mentioned they are after the money. Or Free right of emigration to the best western country of their choice.
AGW should be AGT : Anthropogenic Gravy Train
Of course the other problem with the Maldives is that the population risks being obliterated in the case of another Tsunami such as the 2004 event. – They were extremely fortunate to survive in 2004.
OK then The Netherlandic (I know, sounds stupid, but it is correct) people should be out with their sandwich boards begging for funds too. According to Wiki (the reference source of all great science, after all), 27% of The Netherlands is below sea level, and this includes the residences for 60% of the population. Seems the Dutch have an affinity for low lying territories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
There is a good pic of the sub-sea level regions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NederlandvolgensNAP.PNG
I, for one (and as part-Dutchman), look forward to my handout from the New World Order Government (might have to work on the acronym a bit) and shall look forward to my early retirement in Grand Cayman, Andorra or perhaps Liechtenstein.
PS> I think Ansterdam could rebadge itself as the Venice of the lowlands? or maybe the Lost City of Hashlantis? So much potential…
How much, exactly, do they want?
I’m just curious. I wouldn’t send ’em a penny.
A tee shirt contest would be good… speaking of PR…
A couple:
Got Global Warming?
Things go Better with Global Warming
Al Invented Global Warming
Do those idiots know they are scaring the sharks?
I wouldn’t call this the island of stupid. By the contrary, I see this as the island of smart politicians, who know how to play their cards very well, in order to be able to pull some money out of the pockets of the real stupid politicians (ours!).
This is cool. So how did they keep the paper from disintegrating? Are they in a bubble? If so then why the scuba gear?
And why are they building beachfront resorts?
Okay… I’ll bite.
The city I live in is on flat ground and just a few feet above sea level. Do we get some of this financial windfall as well? Our city budget could use it.
@ Bulldust (20:28:09)
Yup, better hand over the money now because Hoogheemraadschap van Delfland (Water board Delfland) needs more money to ensure my safety from the ever rising waters.
But aren’t these Maldivian expelling CO2 directly into the oceans and wont that increase acidification and cause the coral to die. Ahhh yes they can’t hear Al underwater.
Al’s Global Warming = AGW
Anyone know where to download the Not Evil Just Wrong movie?
Morons!
I thought it was hysterically funny. Do none of you people have a sense of humor?
The economy of the Maldives is heavily dependent on tourists who fly in on long-haul flights. Yet funnily enough, for all their concern about AGW, the Maldives are not advising tourists to holiday closer to home.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
As the Holocene is the emergence from the ice age to present and the temperature was of the same increasing gradient an interesting problem arises in Geology where sealevels were higher in the Maldives 2100-4000kbp .
Holocene reef growth in the Maldives: Evidence of a mid-Holocene sea-level highstand in the central Indian Ocean
P.S. Kench1, S.G. Smithers2, R.F. McLean3 and S.L. Nichol1
: Radiometrically calibrated ages from three reef cores are used to develop a Holocene reef growth chronostratigraphy and sea-level history in the Maldives, central Indian Ocean. Last interglacial reef (U-series age 122 ± 7 ka) was encountered at 14.1 m below mean sea level. An age of ca. 8100 calibrated (cal) yr B.P. immediately overlying this Pleistocene surface records the initiation of Holocene reef growth. Massive in situ corals occur throughout the cores and the consistency of the three age-depth plots indicate that the reef grew steadily between 8100 and 6500 cal yr B.P., and at a decreasing rate for the next 2 k.y. The position of modern sea level was first achieved ca. 4500 cal yr B.P. and sea level reached at least 0.50 ± 1 m higher from 4000 to 2100 cal yr B.P. before falling to present level. Emergent fossil microatolls provide evidence of this higher sea level. Results are significant to two long-standing issues relating to Maldivian sealevel history. First, the ambiguity of a late Holocene highstand has been resolved with clear evidence of its existence reported here. Second, the uncertainty of the regional pattern of sea-level change in the central Indian Ocean has been clarified, the Maldivian results broadly agreeing with island records in the eastern, rather than western Indian Ocean. Our results provide the first field evidence confirming geophysical model projections of a highstand 4–2 k.y. ago in the central Indian Ocean, though the observed level (+0.50 ± 0.1 m) is lower than that projected.
In the New Zealand news papers today theres a headline Start planning for Pacific warming refugees.MAJURO (AFP) – Many Pacific islands in danger of being obliterated by rising sea levels should seek relocation aid at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, a Fiji-based scientist said.New scientific projections show the pace of sea level is faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected in its 2007 report, Nunn said.”If relocation is to happen by 2050, then by 2020 a plan must be in place,” he said. read more here. http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/6234523/start-planning-for-pacific-warming-refugees-scientist/
Ok I guess its my turn this time…
All together now:
“Its worse than we thought”
ahhhh…it just keeps getting more stupid with each passing spotless day.
Mr Watts,
A frequent claim of global warming skeptics is that we shouldn’t trust any evidence that Man is causing global warming because producing that evidence is highly profitable. In other words, the evidence we have is a result of deliberate forgery by scientists in order to justify their research funding.
Of course, the latest “contrarian entertainment” book, Superfreakonomics, says the phrase “global cooling” on the front cover, making me suspicious that questioning global warming is at least as profitable as confirming it. After all, consensus doesn’t sell.
So out of full disclosure, I’d ask you to let us know how much revenue this site generates you personally in terms of ads, speech fees, book sales, etc. Otherwise, how will we know you’re being honest? I look forward to your response.
REPLY: I’ll be happy to, if you’ll post your full name, affiliation, and city here. Your website doesn’t give it. Otherwise, how will we know you are being honest? Also have you asked any other bloggers this question? – Anthony
I call into order the first Parliament of October 28, 2259. First order of business, Typhoon Moosana passed over at 8pm last night. Churning action increased 2259 sand repositioning needs by 15%. Motion to allow.
Yay.
Yay.
Yay.
Hey, those bubbles weren’t coming from the scuba tank !!! …. 8^D
Bret (21:28:52) :
I thought it was hysterically funny. Do none of you people have a sense of humor?
Dude I laugh at the same Family Guy episode even though I have seen it 100 times.
Don’t come challenging about sense of humor or you will get tagged.
Laugh at it??? You bet. (We are laughing at them, not with them).
Is it funny? Yes. But world governments are not to be in the comedy business.
Leave that to Saturday Night Live….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
And you thought the East African pirates were bad news…
Wait until everything freezes over and they get 20 m above the sea level… who’s gonna laugh then?
Re: WAG 22:04
You thermaggedonists have more cheek than elephants. The alarmist scientists are stuffed with massive “research grants”, nice comfortable salaries, endless jollies flying all expenses paid to “climate conferences” warning that mere mortals shouldn’t be allowed to go on holiday and can look forward to fine inflation proof pensions. All paid for at the expense of people lucky enough to still have real jobs and their tax pounds / dollars.
You have the brass faced effrontery to blog on here questioning the motives of those who are still interested in real climate science. I note that you do not even attempt to justify the blatant fraud which has been used to puff up this whole eco-fascist AGW bubble hoax.
When the bubble bursts, you need to make sure you have a good escape route planned because the millions crippled by climate taxes, fuel poverty and all those condemned to subsistence without hope in the third world might just want a word with you.
No wonder you are too cowardly to reeal your identity.
“the meeting was a bid to draw attention to fears that rising sea levels caused by the melting of polar ice caps could swamp this Indian Ocean archipelago within a century.”
Except that north polar ice is floating and won’t raise sea level if it melts, and the south polar ice isn’t melting anyway.
Doh!
tallbloke (23:44:28) :
Except that north polar ice is floating and won’t raise sea level if it melts, and the south polar ice isn’t melting anyway.
Doh!
Indeed.
Also, and someone please correct me if I’m wrong, the Maldives are a series of coral atolls? As such, will they not themselves grow / rise in line with any sea level increase (assuming said rise is not abruptly overnight).
Cheers,
Mark.
Yo, tallbloke – the Greenland ice sheet is an ice cap, and that’s melting. And have you ever stopped to consider that low backlighted oceans are practically black, and would no longer be white if it melts?
I’m so concerned by this, that I think I’ll e-mail their Tourist Ministry and say that I’m so concerned by this, that I’ve abandonned plans to holiday in the Maldives, so me flying there doesn’t contribute to their problems.
In fact, I think that I will start a campaign, I’ll send a few letters to diving magazines to say that divers shouldn’t go there either, ditto wedding magazines & weddings.
I’ll also highlight this article!
http://www.maldives.us/maldives-construction-fair-2009-begins/
“The planned infrastructure development in the Maldives include the construction of 64 new resorts with each estimated to cost around US$ 40 million. Maldives is a country that imports almost everything and with the new government’s policy of large scale privatization there are endless opportunities for the bold and enterprising”.
Not that I’ll mention anything about hypocracy.
The other scare story is always Tuvalu, in fact the SEAFRAME data covers this and other South Pacific islands.
http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/picreports.shtml
This is from the executive summary but it distorts the picture by using the trend from 1993 when there was a big bubble followed by a drop, bur since 2000 there charts show no trend at all, (P 9). However it is the exec summary as usual that is quoted and extrapolated.
“The sea level trend to date is +6.0 mm/year but the magnitude of the trend continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows. Accounting for the precise levelling results and inverted barometric pressure effect, the trend is +5.3 mm/year. A nearby gauge, with a longer record but less precision and datum control, shows a trend of +0.9 mm/year.”
Later they say:
Diverse climatic and oceanographic environments are found within the Pacific Islands region. Different rates of vertical land movement are likely at different stations. Many of the historical tide gauges were designed to monitor tides and sea level variability caused by El Niño and shorter-term oceanic fluctuations rather than long-term sea level change and lack the required level of instrumental precision and vertical datum control.
All of these factors potentially affect the rates of relative sea level change that are listed in Table 5. The overall mean trend from stations with more than 25 years of data is 1.16 mm/year.
Isn’t that 4 inches/century? But the scaremongers use the 6mm figure.
Dishonest? Deliberately misleading certainly.
They talk of global sea level:
Satellite altimeters have an accuracy of several centimetres in the deep ocean, but are known to be inaccurate in shallow coastal regions. As such they cannot replace in-situ tide gauges. Tide gauges are needed to calibrate the satellite altimeters and provide accurate and more frequent sea level measurements in specific locations where reliable tide predictions and real time monitoring of extreme sea levels is of prime importance.
Information about global sea level change derived from satellite altimeters is available from the University of Colorado at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/.
Sea level data collected by Topex/Poseidon and Jason show that global mean sea level has risen at a rate of 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/yr since late 1992.
This sounds like the figure often quoted to “prove” that sea level rise has accelerated, but they point out that the data only goes back to the early 90’s, which they say is inadequate for assessing long term trends, as I think most would agree.
This is in the summary:
In the early years, the trend appeared to indicate an enormous rate of sea level rise. Later, due to the 1997/1998 El Niño when sea level fell 35 cm below average, the trend actually went negative, and remained so for the next three years.
Given the sea level record is relatively short, it is still too early to deduce a long-term trend.
But we don’t care about that do we? Let’s use the bigger number in our models.
Interestingly, air and water temperature are currently falling.
Jason: no it’s not.
There is an evident solution for the Maldivians: to build stilt houses.
Why did they not think about that?
Mark, coral grows harly these days on account of acification of the oceans.
To dismiss that underwater conference out of hand is to not understand what vulnerability you have when you country is nowhere higher than 2 metres above sea level.
It is like dismissing any action of New Orleans to build better levies and dykes. Only people not living in these areas could be so arrogant!
RR Kampen:
Do you even know anything about the subjects about which you write?. And don’t even get me started on people living on atolls.
Fawcett, maybe not overnight but if it’s faster than the reef can compensate or not, I wouldn’t be suprised either way.
Jason (00:17:10) :
Yo, tallbloke – the Greenland ice sheet is an ice cap, and that’s melting. And have you ever stopped to consider that low backlighted oceans are practically black, and would no longer be white if it melts?
So how much? Can you give the amount of cubic km that melt each year and how much cubic km’s there is in the Greenland icecap? And then is there another question, how much cubic km’s is added to Greenland every winter?
And once you know that than you would know that a catastrophic melting is not in the line of events that are going to happen in the next decades let alone centuries.
Of course I do, Jeez. But have you read the article you posted?
“This combination of circumstances provided a lucky escape for the coral reefs in Keppel Islands, but is also a clear warning for the Great Barrier Reef. As climate change and other human impacts intensify, we need to do everything we possibly can to protect the resilience of coral reefs,” he adds.
It’s like the ‘miraculous recovery’ of Arctic sea-ice, a ‘recovery’ still trending to an ice free Arctic sea in summer within a decade.
Have you found information about ‘miraculous recoveries’ in other reefs? Or have you cherry picked that part of the Barrier?
I did a one second search on coral recovery. I’m sure there are thousands of articles including some without the obligatory genuflecting to undefined climate change. That one was the first. Every time there is coral bleaching there are bleats of disaster. Then it grows back and there are murmurs of miracles. Coral bleaches then grows back. Happens all the time. Observation bias anyone?
Here’s a more scientificy reference for you.
http://www.bio.warwick.ac.uk/res/abstract.asp?Ref=1315
Jason:
The polar regions are net emitters of radiation
and
tropical regions are net absorbers of radiation,
Polar regions are cold.
They get no solar radiation in the winter.
And they absorb little solar radiation in the summer because of the low angles of their surfaces to the Sun.
Tropical regions are hot.
They get solar heating throughout each day throughout each year.
And they absorb a lot of solar heat throughout the days of each year because of the high angles of their surfaces to the Sun.
Some of the heat absorbed by tropical regions is transported poleward by the oceans and this heat loss acts to cool the tropical oceans. Hence, tropical regions are net absorbers of radiation.
The heat transported to polar regions from warmer regions acts to warm the polar regions. Hence, polar regions are net emitters of radiation.
You ask Jason;
“have you ever stopped to consider that low backlighted oceans are practically black, and would no longer be white if it melts?”
It seems more appropriate to ask you the following questions.
And have you ever stopped to consider that water surface is a better radiation emitter than white ice surface?
Have you ever stopped to consider that an ice cover on polar ocean acts as an insulator that inhibits heat transfer from liquid water to the ocean surface?
Have you ever stopped to to consider that radiation to and from an ocean only occurs at the ocean surface?
So, in answer to your question to Jason; viz
“have you ever stopped to consider that low backlighted oceans are practically black, and would no longer be white if it melts?”
I respond that I have considered it, and I can tell you that polar oceans would COOL if they lost their ice cover because their net net heat loss would increase.
Richard
The outgoing British Prime Minister is clutching at publicity straws with his announcement yesterday, that ” ….negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse”.
He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was “no plan B”.”
That’s it then!
The Maldives is a curious case, because they have the world’s most CO2 intensive economy. Their economy is almost entirely dependent on CO2 spewing jumbo jets full of tourists from far away places like Europe.
It makes no sense that they would want to wreck their own economy, and rest assured that CO2 taxes (aka Cap and Trade or Emissions Trading) will ruin their long haul tourism trade by substantially increasing the cost.
I can only assume that the promise of cash from CO2 taxes routed via the United Nations proved too strong. And this cash will go directly into government bank accounts (whether in Switzerland or elsewhere) rather than into the hands of tourist operators and workers, who rather understandably would try to keep the money, rather than hand it over to the government for deposit in said bank accounts.
maksimovich,
though the observed level (+0.50 ± 0.1 m) is lower than that projected.
There is good evidence from Pacific Ocean islands (archeology from Polynesian settlements) that sea levels fell fairly abruptly by about this amount, around the start of Little Ice Age.
Which means, were the climate to return to Pre-Little Ice Age levels (ie Medieval Warm Period levels) then sea levels would naturally rise by a half to one meter without any help from CO2.
Many references for the sea level fall, one example
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119826516/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The sea level fall around 500 years ago is well documented and there is little doubt it was caused by LIA cooling. Climate Scientists not completely blinded by the AGW ideology should know this, and know that a return to a pre-LIA climate will be accompanied by a half meter or more rise in sea level.
Which makes me smell an extremely large rat in the whole CO2 will cause rising sea levels story.
Either sea levels will rise or we are heading back into a LIA climate.
“Ray (21:23:11) :
Morons!”
Not at all. They are plucking at AGW heart strings (Or to put it another way, indicating their intention to fully pluck “developed” nations for their sins), clever policy to secure income as tourism falls off (Because the usual, sinful, tourists, can’t afford to buy a loaf of bread. And no, Australia will not accept people who’ve stollen a loaf of bread any more).
That should have read,
Which makes me smell an extremely large rat in the whole CO2 will cause rising sea levels story.
Either sea levels will rise naturally, and without any help from CO2, as a result of the end of the Little Ice Age, or we are heading back into a LIA climate.
Maldives …
.
Probably the most moronic state in the world .
A piece of randomly grown coral reefs unsuitable for life and lacking of everything .
300 km² all in all on which are now compressed 400 000 people .
The capital Male stuffs 80 000 people on 1.5 km² which leads to the world’s highest population density (about 3 times the density of Manhattan) .
During centuries the population of the Maldives was at best anecdotical – a few pirates and fishers .
In the last 40 years the population has been multiplied by FOUR and continues unabated .
Are their politicians raving lunatics ?
.
Well 400 000 tourists visit per year (!) what is as much as the whole population . That provides more than enough money to grow . Without that , they would simply starve and go back to an equilibrium which might be anywhere around 40 000 or less . Having only fish to eat and no more money and energy to make the drinkable water plants work does the trick easily .
.
If people simply said NO to the tourism on Maldives it would eliminate 90% of the population much , MUCH faster and more reliably than any sea water level could ever do .
After this stunt I have decided to cancel my trip over there and to write to their minister of tourism that I will vote and make vote “No to travels to Maldives .” because it is the only way I see how they could contribute to the necessary dramatic reduction of CO2 emissions .
RR Kampen (01:22:02) :
Mark, coral grows harly these days on account of acification of the oceans.
Bullsh*t.
To dismiss that underwater conference out of hand is to not understand what vulnerability you have when you country is nowhere higher than 2 metres above sea level.
It is like dismissing any action of New Orleans to build better levies and dykes. Only people not living in these areas could be so arrogant!
[1] Don’t presume to tell me what I do and don’t understand – that’s true arrogance.
[2] The example of the Maldives is nothing like that of New Orleans, the latter requires constant protection now; this is achieved via engineering projects and is solved on a local scale. (As to the general principle of living close to / at / below sea level is a separate topic IMHO.)
[3] I grew up on the North Sea coast in England and am very much aware of the issues surrounding sea-levels, storm surges, coastal erosion and so forth, but hey you didn’t ask did you…
[4] The Maldives underwater conference was a publicity stunt, with one main aim – to get more money for the Maldives via [a] publicity and [b] reinforcing the compensation / guilt mentality that is starting to run riot, to paraphrase (Sir) Bob Geldof (“just give us yer f*cking money”).
Cheers
Mark
Jason (01:27:50) :
Fawcett, maybe not overnight but if it’s faster than the reef can compensate or not, I wouldn’t be suprised either way.
I prefer “Mark” to “Fawcett” ta :o)
Indeed that was the main point of my conjecture…a sea level rise of 20-70cm in the next 100 years (going by rough IPCC figures) equates to 2-7cm per decade or 2mm to 7mm per year – I think I may do some digging on coral growth rates…
(That’s if assume those figures are vaguely accurate of course…)
Cheers
Mark.
RR Kampen,
What evidence do you have that the “coral grows harly these days on account of acification of the oceans”? I don’t know if “harly” is even a word. I presume it is some science term for inhibited.
Now, can you please explain what the amount of acidification is and why, if it exists at all, it should be damaging to calcification when foraminifera thrived in the geological past when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today?
And please don’t tell me it’s to do with rate of change, because I shall then ask you to provide evidence of such an assertion.
Vincent, if you need to point at typo’s, well really…
This is a site where people know what is happening. Why ask me the well known facts? Coral erosion by acidification is going on world wide and affect more than half the reefs, both in the tropics and outside, conform first predictions of this since about 1965.
I will not give sources for these assertions, because they will invariably be called ‘alarmist’ or something like that. Sources are very easy to find for yourself, if you don’t already have them.
When, exactly, were CO2-levels ten times as high?
What is the response of diverse coral forms to a slow change in CO2? To a fast change in CO2?
What evidence do you have that the “coral grows harly these days on account of acification of the oceans”? I don’t know if “harly” is even a word. I presume it is some science term for inhibited.
I checked this out some time ago. Extensive laboratory experiments show no effect on coral growth at current levels of water acidification due to CO2. To find an effect on coral growth they had to increase CO2 acidification far in excess of current levels, and from memory well over the amount of acidification that would result from a doubling of CO2.
I don’t have time to chase down the links but I found them from references at the bottom of the wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Don’t use,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification_and_its_effects_on_marine_systems
This is opinion and has no links to any real science.
Mark, I am Dutch myself.
As to [4], because in the climate discussion ANY argument can be spinned as to ‘making/grabbing money’ by all participants and from all perspectives, I tend to dismiss such arguments from any side out of hand. E.g. I don’t care if Gore makes money with his AGW-bandwagon; I care about his comments about AGW + consequences itself. You see, the truth value of a message is always entirely independent of the messenger (and I know this is one of the least known principles within society!).
RR Kampen (04:28:49),
You won’t give sources because you don’t have credible sources.
If I’m wrong, show us that the ocean is acidifying. No papers, no speculation, no opinion, no models; raw data only, and data from across the world’s oceans, not from a few cherry-picked locations.
The ocean acidification canard is the latest in the lineup of failed examples of AGW — which, when looked at closely, show that there is no AGW.
Data, and data only. Everything else is speculative opinion, if not outright alarmist propaganda.
Vincent:
Your question concerning ‘ocean acidification’ is well put.
It is reasonable to consider effects (e.g. on biota) of altered ocean surface water pH.
And it is reasonable to make that consideration whatever the cause of the altered pH may be.
But it is a logical error to assume that ocean pH must reduce in response to anthropogenic emission of CO2.
I explain the logical error as follows.
Available data does not permit adequate measurement of ‘ocean acidification’ (more properly, ‘reduced alkalinity’ of the oceans) and all estimates of it are model studies.
As with almost all climate-related data there are large uncertainties concerning change to ocean pH. This uncertainty is because
(i) the variations with geography are larger than the global average temporal change being assessed
and
(ii) the measurement sites are sparse.
Hence, empirical data cannot show with required accuracy what the change to ocean surface layer pH has been over the last century.
In this case, Wiki gives a good start to a reading list of measured and modeled ocean pH changes at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Reading of those papers and reading the chains of references from them is useful. For now, I provide the following.
The equilibrium of dissolved CO2 and atmospheric CO2 varies with ocean chemistry and temperature. The equilibrium value is very sensitive to the chemistry of the ocean surface water, and the pH of the surface water is a useful proxy for altered ocean surface water chemistry.
Large change to the atmospheric CO2 concentration would provide small change to the chemistry of the ocean surface water by increased CO2 solution concentration with resulting small change to the water’s pH.
But, as I keep pointing out, the opposite is also true. Small change to the chemistry of the ocean surface water with resulting small change to the water’s pH would provide large change to the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
And there is reason to suppose that such relatively-large, natural changes to the pH occur. The undersea volcanic outputs of sulphur and chlorine affect the pH of the water the sulphur and the chlorine enter. And that water returns to the surface at a much later date. This must alter the pH of the surface water where the deep ocean water upwells to the surface. And altered pH of ocean surface waters alters the atmospheric and oceanic equilibrium concentrations of CO2.
The data is not capable of determining which of these possibilities has happened and/or to what degree.
Please note that over each year the amount of CO2 in the air increases and reduces by over an order of magnitude more than both the anthropogenic emission and the annual increase. The annual increase to the CO2 in the air is the residual of the seasonal variations for each year. Therefore, the observed increase to the CO2 in the air over the last 50 years could have resulted from
(a) increased CO2 input to the air
or
(b) reduced CO2 extraction from the air
or
(c) a combination of increased CO2 input to the air and reduced CO2 extraction from the air.
So, a variation to ocean surface layer pH could have induced the observed rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent decades by reducing the ability of the surface waters to extract CO2 from the air (as they do seasonally each year).
Furthermore, the isotope data and Beck’s data each suggest that ocean chemistry changes are causal of the atmospheric CO2 concentration change (n.b. this is the reverse of the normal assumption of ‘ocean acidification’).
Please note that – because of the rate constants – altered pH would have a more rapid effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration than altered atmospheric CO2 concentration would have on the pH of the ocean surface layer.
And the changes to ocean pH are so small that observing their global variation is not possible at present. The following listed points are pertinent to this.
1.
Ocean pH varies from 8.2 to 7.6 between localities. A change in average ocean pH of less than 0.2 would account for all recent observed rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration (and some of that CO2 rise must have resulted from temperature rise).
2.
Changes to upwelling cold water do alter global atmospheric CO2 concentration as is demonstrated by ENSO.
3.
Small changes to the pH of the upwelling water would have much greater effect on global atmospheric CO2 concentration than the changes induced by temperature effects of ENSO.
So, it is not known if or how much the ocean surface layer pH has changed globally over the last century and/or decade(s), and if it has changed then it is not known why it has changed.
However, there is a chain of assumptions which is often accepted: i.e.
(a) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 is sufficient to disrupt the carbon cycle despite its relatively small amount (the total anthropogenic CO2 emission over the last century is only 2% addition to the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle).
(b) It is assumed, therefore, that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
(c) It is assumed that the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is inducing increased oceanic solution of CO2.
(d) It is assumed that the increased oceanic solution of CO2 is altering the pH of the ocean surface layer.
But it is equally valid to use the following chain of assumptions.
(A) It is assumed that the pH of the ocean surface layer has altered (e.g. as a result of past undersea volcanic emissions of S and Cl).
(B) It is assumed that the altered pH of the ocean surface layer has altered the equilibrium for atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations.
(C) It is assumed that the altered equilibrium is increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
(D) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is too small to significantly affect the effect of altered equilibrium for atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations (the total anthropogenic CO2 emission over the last century is only 2% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle).
A very important point is that the AGW hypothesis is founded on three assumptions: viz
(1) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration
and
(2) It is assumed that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is significantly increasing radiative forcing
and
(3) It is assumed that the increasing radiative forcing will significantly increase mean global temperature.
There are reasons to doubt each of these assumptions. But if any one of them were known to be false then the entire AGW hypothesis would be known to be false.
Serious science investigates the validity of assumptions as a method to attempt to falsify hypotheses and theories. Hence, serious science investigates each of the three underlying assumptions of the AGW hypothesis. It is bad science to accept any one of these assumptions as being true. The acceptance is especially bad science when each of these assumptions fails to agree with empirical data (e.g. the isotope data conflicts with the assumption that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration).
I hope this helps your thoughts.
Richard
Smokey, a sum of real numbers always returns a real number. How do you expect me to prove this to you – given the fact you want data for all real numbers?
richardscourtney,
Thanks for that excellent analysis:
Untill Kampen can overcome these measurement issues, he’s just giving uninformed opinion. Hardly a basis for taking any kind of action.
richardscourtney, not being funny or anything, but do you have any specific expertise in this area? I would love to quote your post elsewhere, but given arguments usually boil down to “authority” (eventually), I hesitate to quote, “bloke from Watts blog”.
RR Kampen (04:35:41) :
Mark, I am Dutch myself.
I had a feeling you we’re going to tell me that :o)
As to [4], because in the climate discussion ANY argument can be spinned as to ‘making/grabbing money’ by all participants and from all perspectives, I tend to dismiss such arguments from any side out of hand. E.g. I don’t care if Gore makes money with his AGW-bandwagon; I care about his comments about AGW + consequences itself. You see, the truth value of a message is always entirely independent of the messenger (and I know this is one of the least known principles within society!).
To a certain extent I agree with your point in relation to it being an argument that can be applied from just about any perspective.
However, I can’t agree on the latter point you make; having a messenger who themselves has a degree of power, an invested interest and their own agenda can (and indeed I would say must) influence the message that is given.
It may well depend I suspect on what you (personally) think that the true value of the message is…from my own point of view if the underlying context is one of “be nicer to the world” then I’m all for that.
Unfortunately, most people will take a message on face value and therein I have a problem with AGW – we’re being sold a pup and a lot of people are falling for it. This is a crying shame as the money, time and best-efforts of some very talented people could be put to much greater use in solving some of the real problems facing this planet.
Cheers
Mark
Anthony: “Cross this place off my tourist list”. Well, in a world where most of the press and main stream politicians are chanting the AGW message, where do you plan to go on holiday then? After all the Maldivians (and just watch some of the Dutch commenting here!) have more immediate concerns than most other nations. And at least they have more sense of humor than England’s new doomsday prophet Gordon Brown: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/gordon-brown-copenhagen-climate-talks – “The extraordinary summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths. On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades’ time”. Rather than worrying about purely a purely hypothetical AGW connection to the 2003 heat wave (1540 AD also saw a scorching heat wave over Europe…), the politicians should rather worry about their short-sighted enthusiasm for biofuels, which may have killed hundreds of thousands of people all over the world (starvation rates have risen again the last couple of years, and the biofuel mania is one of the reasons).
(1) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration
I know no better than that this is both easy to measure and de facto measured, first in 1961 I know of.
and
(2) It is assumed that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is significantly increasing radiative forcing
Yes, that is straight physics dating back to Fourier, about 1850, followed up by Arrhenius, Arrhenius again (1906) and others. This assumption is exactly as strong as Newton’s second law.
and
(3) It is assumed that the increasing radiative forcing will significantly increase mean global temperature.
Follows from (2) modulo feedback effects – which have proved to be quite small hitherto, which is why you see CO2 rise and temperature rise virtually in unison.
I find it quite hard to believe these points are still doubted so strongly by some.
I have decided to mount a scientific expedition to the Maldives next year. I shall be taking along a tape measure (Pen Hadlow/Catlin Artic Ice Expedition style) to measure sea levels, a fridge/freezer thermometer to measure both surface and sea temperatures, as well as a packet of litmus papers to measure oceanic acidification levels.
I shall be following standard Climatological practices when it comes to releasing the data. This can best be summed up by paraphrasing a plaque that can be found in many English pubs, namely “Please do not ask for data as a smack in the mouth often offends”. I’m 100% with Dr Phil Jones of the Met Office on this one – you’d only find fault with my data if I were to release it. And besides, suppose a certain unnamed person over at CA were to get hold of it. Think what he might do with it.
Nevertheless, I would like to reassure WUWT readers that both my results and analysis will be completely robust, as they will have been fully peer-reviewed by my mates down the pub.
The expedition will be entirely at my own expense. Should interested parties be prepared to sponsor my expedition, which will be proving conclusively that climate change is indeed both catastrophic and being caused by man, please contact me.
Not really that different than when the democrats in the Senate turned up the heat in the hearing room to make Hansen’s 1988 speech more dramatic:
A stage prop, paid for by tax payers, to sell a lie.
RR Kampen,
You are doing exactly what the AGW promoters want you to do:
Relying on a simplistic model, full of false assumptions, and false conclusions.
AGW and the models that are used to make cliams about it are not based on basic physics.
They are based on feedback loops that have not been shown to exist in nature.
But if believing this merely gave you comfort, that would be no different from any other religion, except that you and your fellow believers want to control the world based on your misapplied faith.
RR Kampen there is no evidence at all that ‘coral erosion from acidification’ is happening.
There is evidence that irresponsible countries like the Maldives are polluting coral with run off, bad fishing practices, commercial harvesting for the pet trade, etc.
To have acidification killing coral you would first be required to have acidification.
And there is no evidence of that.
AGW- the intersection of historical ignorance and fear mongering.
Not much long term measured ocean pH data available as far as I know. However, at least in Monterey there is no problem with the incoming water pH levels:
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
RR Kampen
Why don’t you ask yourself how the maldives survived a sea level rise of 130m in the last 13,000 years .. since the start of the current interglacial period. In the early part of that period, sea levels rose at much faster than the 1m per century averege….. why are the Maldives even there ? They are a carbonate reef system … they grow with sea level !!! If they couldn’t keep up they would have drowned !!!
If you can reasonably answer that and also be concerned about sea level rise then you are a smarter man than me.
It was a publicity stunt …. show me the money baby !
Rgds
Imran
Robinson:
You ask me:
“richardscourtney, not being funny or anything, but do you have any specific expertise in this area? I would love to quote your post elsewhere, but given arguments usually boil down to “authority” (eventually), I hesitate to quote, “bloke from Watts blog”.”
Well, I earn my living as a consultant on matters of energy and environment. Some people – mostly politicians – must think I know a little about the subject because they continue to pay me. And a few others do, too.
For example, I have been called as Expert Witness before UK Parliamentary Select Committees. In November 1997 I chaired the Plenary Session of the Climate Conference in Bonn at the joint request of the European Academy of Science, the Science and Environment Project (USA), and the Europaische Akedemie fur Umweltfragen e.v. (Germany). And in June 2000 I was one of 15 scientists invited from around the world to give a briefing on climate change at the US Congress in Washington DC when I then chaired one of the three briefing sessions. More recently, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asked me to be an expert peer reviewer for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 published 2007) of the UN Intergovernental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). After that, Rejendra Pechauri, Chairman of the IPCC, asked me to peer review the subsequent IPCC Synthesis Report.
You do not expect me to say they are wrong to respect my expertise when I use that expertise provide my income do you?
Richard
Brian Johnson …. don’t worry .. Plan B involves losing the election and never havig to make any more completely absurd statements ……
….. its embarrassing to be British “we have 50 days to save the world” …… for gods sake .
With any luck by the time David Cameron gets in next year … when the politics starts to catch up ….. e’ll have enough sense to realise the massive liability of making any closed door statements about the end of the world and keep his mouth shut.
RR Kampen (05:11:44),
Every point in your argument is wrong. Every one of them. Your assumptions claim that:
“…CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration”
This IPCC chart shows that far from being the “major cause” of increasing CO2, human activity only accounts for one molecule emitted by humans for every 34 molecules emitted naturally. Next you say:
“…increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is significantly increasing radiative forcing… that is straight physics dating back to Fourier, about 1850, followed up by Arrhenius, Arrhenius again (1906) and others. This assumption is exactly as strong as Newton’s second law.”
Wrong again. The planet disagrees; as CO2 rises, the temperature continues to fall. Further, Arrhenius’ 1906 paper recants his 1896 paper, giving a greatly reduced climate sensitivity number [which, as it turns out, was still much too high]. And we don’t refer to “Arrhenius’ Law” like we do re: Newton’s 2nd Law, so claiming that your “assumption is exactly as strong as Newton’s second law” is plainly wrong.
Finally, you falsely claim that “you see CO2 rise and temperature rise virtually in unison.” This is so incorrect it is farcical. As CO2 rises, the planet’s temperature has been flat to falling. And not just temporarily, but for many years now.
Your incorrect beliefs can only be the result of cognitive dissonance, or deliberate alarmist propaganda.
Hi Mark, quoting “However, I can’t agree on the latter point you make; having a messenger who themselves has a degree of power, an invested interest and their own agenda can (and indeed I would say must) influence the message that is given.”
What I mean is this. Substance of the message depends on choices the messenger makes. But once the message exists, it’s truth value cannot depend on the messenger.
So if an ‘alarmist’ calls out ‘AGW is going to sink the world!’ and hopefully supplies some arguments for this, this hypothesis and these arguments can be evaluated without even knowing the messenger, let alone his or her agenda.
Unfortunately, most people will take a message on face value and therein I have a problem with AGW – we’re being sold a pup and a lot of people are falling for it. This is a crying shame as the money, time and best-efforts of some very talented people could be put to much greater use in solving some of the real problems facing this planet.
I tend to agree, though I think (A)GW ìs a real and serious problem. But my stance on solving this (if it can be solved at all), and my stance on how is dealt with it today, is entirely Björn Lomborg’s.
My ‘method’ of separating message and messenger though is exactly to eliminate the problem of popularism: it cannot work on me. For me, that suffices.
Re: Smokey (05:35:16) :
This IPCC chart shows that far from being the “major cause” of increasing CO2, human activity only accounts for one molecule emitted by humans for every 34 molecules emitted naturally.
So this molecule, being a pure additional CO2-source builds up in the atmosphere and is the sole cause of increasing CO2-concentration there. Isotope fingerprinting proves it (in this case I actually mean: proves).
Wrong again. The planet disagrees; as CO2 rises, the temperature continues to fall.
I asked you before if you believed in December 1998 we were in a runaway greenhouse effect situation, given the short terms you base your conclusions on.
Rising CO2 is not the only driver for global temperature, it is just the most dominant today. It is why 2007 and 2008 belong to the ten warmest years in the global record, instead of in the coolest ten percent befitting the combi of a vast Niña and a deep dip in the solar cycle. These two years are actually far better evidence for GW than 1998.
Finally, you falsely claim that “you see CO2 rise and temperature rise virtually in unison.” This is so incorrect it is farcical. As CO2 rises, the planet’s temperature has been flat to falling. And not just temporarily, but for many years now.
See previous remark. Correction: flat to increasing (do not connect the endpoints of a term to establish a trend, please).
Imran:
“Why don’t you ask yourself how the maldives survived a sea level rise of 130m in the last 13,000 years ”
We can assume that
a) The Maldives are constructed from a coral base and has a constant elevation with respect to the sea level, or
b) The Maldives are constructed from inorganic rock and have a constant elevation with respect to the sea bed, leading to the conclusion that 13,000 years ago, the islands thrust 130m above the sea like a giant parapet.
RR Kampen, can you enlighten us which model is correct?
The first thing that came to mind when I read this story was how large a phenomenon pet rocks were in the 70s (pet ghosts, too). AGW is simply this generation’s pet rock mania, albeit on a larger scale. The similarity between the two begins with their absurdity.
Paul Boyce (05:12:49) :
I suspect you’ll easily attract research grants if it supports the AGW notion. Perhaps you can begin marketing pet coral. Goodness, sounds like a revenue source for the Maldives in case their tourism ever dries up.
Why are those guys in the top photo deliberately dissolving carbon dioxide into the ocean while they sign a climate document?
RR Kampen (05:43:52) :
So if an ‘alarmist’ calls out ‘AGW is going to sink the world!’ and hopefully supplies some arguments for this, this hypothesis and these arguments can be evaluated without even knowing the messenger, let alone his or her agenda.
In an ideal world this would be true. However, in the case of AGW (and there have been others) we seem to be in a position where confirmation-bias, coupled with group-think mean that the objective evaluation you seek above cannot be achieved.
Dissenting voices are routinely dismissed or ignored; despite excellent, scientific and mathematical foundations for the dissent. Who now (in a position of authority) will be the first to break ranks and claim that there is no problem (or if there is that it has been greatly overplayed)?
Cheers
Mark.
RR Kampen,
“It is why 2007 and 2008 belong to the ten warmest years in the global record, instead of in the coolest ten percent .”
This is a fallacious argument, and you know it. The fact is that global temperatures have risen from the LIA until the end of the 20th. Therefore, it is inconceivable that they could instantaneously drop back to those levels. A good analogy is climbing a hill – once on the summit you have to retrace your altitude all the way back to the base.
Here’s why I do not see the influence of AGW. The theory predicts a radiative imbalance. I will use the values predicted by Hansen and the beginning of this century: he predicted a value rising to 0.85 watts/meter squared by the end of this decade. This in turn is predicted – indeed it must – lead to an accumulation of heat energy measured in joules. The Argo buoy network has detected no ocean warming since 2003. Satellite and radiosonde have detected no troposhere warming. This energy cannot be detected. Where is it? Observations are showing that the radiative imbalance no longer exists.
If the radiative imbalance does not exist then the agent that was predicated to cause it, cannot be causing it. QED CO2 is not causing the climate to warm.
RR Kampen:
I strongly agree with you when you say the “message” is independent of the “messenger”.
A Saint can be mistaken and a Nazi child-molester may make a true statement. So, as you say, it is right to consider the “message” and not to accept or to reject it on the basis of its source.
Having said that, I strongly dispute your statement saying;
“So this molecule, being a pure additional CO2-source builds up in the atmosphere and is the sole cause of increasing CO2-concentration there. Isotope fingerprinting proves it (in this case I actually mean: proves).”
The facts do not support your assertion.
There are two types of “isotope evidence” obtained by analysis of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide (CO2) in samples of air; viz. 14C isotope data and 13C:12C isotope ratio data.
It is important to note the difference between ‘residence time’ and ‘recovery time’ for isotope data. Both these terms are sometimes described by different names, and they are both usually expressed in terms of ‘half life’.
‘Residence time’ is the time it takes for the molecules of pulse of CO2 injected to the air to be removed from the air
‘Recovery time’ is the time it takes for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to return to its original level following a pulse of CO2 having been injected to the air.
14C isotope data
14C isotopes were created in the atmosphere by atomic bomb tests in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. The subsequent decay of atmospheric 14C isotope concentrations indicates atmospheric residence time of CO2 molecues as being ~14 years. This agrees with dozens of other studies that indicate the residence time is between 5 and 15 years.
But the model (e.g. reported by IPCC) of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere requires longer residence time for the accumulation to explain the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Those accumulation studies are adjusted to ‘fit’ by altering the assumed residence time. Hence, the IPCC reports residence time in the range 50 to 250 years.
So, the modeled residence time based on the assumption that accumulating anthropogenic CO2 provides an indication of atmospheric CO2 residence time of 50 to 250 years: but this does not agree with the observed residence time of ~14 years indicated by decay of the 14C concentration.
This failure to agree is contra-evidence for the assumption of accumulating anthropogenic CO2 being the cause of recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
13C:12C isotope ratio data
If the 13C:12C isotope ratio in the air varies then it must increase or decrease. The ratio is observed to have changed and in the direction expected if the change were a result of accumulation of the anthropogenic emission of CO2 into the air.
The ‘classical’ method for calculating the expected 13C:12C ratio change assumes the change results from accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. But there is no published comparison of the calculated magnitude of the change to the observed magnitude of the change.
I obtained a surprise when I used the ‘classical’ method to determine the expected magnitude of the change (i.e. the method reported in e.g.
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.).
The 13C:12C variation over recent decades as indicated by this method is (depending on assumptions) from 3 to 6 times too large if the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is accumulation of anthropogenic CO2. This indicates that the bulk of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a result of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2, and results from an unknown something else.
Importantly, if that ‘something else’ is causing the bulk of the rise then there is no reason to suppose it is not causing all of the rise.
I reported my finding to several others. Some of them – including some AGW-supporters – conducted their own calculations and they all reached the same conclusion that I had.
Roy Spencer was one to whom I stated this finding, and he did something much more useful than merely replicate what I and others had done. He considered the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration associated with interannual variations in the 13C:12C ratio and reported his comparison on his web site at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
He concluded:
“This means that most (1.71/1.98 = 86%) of the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around. ”
Using that conclusion, he went further by constructing a simple model that assumed 80%natural:20%anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and posted this on his web site at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/
There, Spencer said:
“There will, of course, be vehement objections to this admittedly simple model. One will be that “we know the atmospheric CO2 increase is manmade because the C13 carbon isotope concentration in the atmosphere is decreasing, which is consistent with a fossil fuel source.” But has been discussed elsewhere, a change in ocean biological activity (or vegetation on land) has a similar signature…so the C13 change is not a unique signature of fossil fuel source.”
I fully understand Spencer’s point because some people are so sure of the anthropogenic cause that they refuse to look at the evidence.
Richard
RR Kampen:
I strongly agree with you when you say the “message” is independent of the “messenger”.
A Saint can be mistaken and a Nazi child-molester may make a true statement. So, s you say, it is right to consider the “message” and not to accept or to reject it on the basis of its source.
Having said that, I strongly dispute your statement saying;
“So this molecule, being a pure additional CO2-source builds up in the atmosphere and is the sole cause of increasing CO2-concentration there. Isotope fingerprinting proves it (in this case I actually mean: proves).”
The facts do not support your assertion.
There are two types of “isotope evidence” obtained by analysis of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide (CO2) in samples of air; viz. 14C isotope data and 13C:12C isotope ratio data.
It is important to note the difference between ‘residence time’ and ‘recovery time’ for isotope data. Both these terms are sometimes described by different names, and they are both usually expressed in terms of ‘half life’.
‘Residence time’ is the time it takes for the molecules of pulse of CO2 injected to the air to be removed from the air
‘Recovery time’ is the time it takes for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to return to its original level following a pulse of CO2 having been injected to the air.
14C isotope data
14C isotopes were created in the atmosphere by atomic bomb tests in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. The subsequent decay of atmospheric 14C isotope concentrations indicates atmospheric residence time of CO2 molecues as being ~14 years. This agrees with dozens of other studies that indicate the residence time is between 5 and 15 years.
But the model (e.g. reported by IPCC) of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere requires longer residence time for the accumulation to explain the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Those accumulation studies are adjusted to ‘fit’ by altering the assumed residence time. Hence, the IPCC reports residence time in the range 50 to 250 years.
So, the modeled residence time based on the assumption that accumulating anthropogenic CO2 provides an indication of atmospheric CO2 residence time of 50 to 250 years: but this does not agree with the observed residence time of ~14 years indicated by decay of the 14C concentration.
This failure to agree is contra-evidence for the assumption of accumulating anthropogenic CO2 being the cause of recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
13C:12C isotope ratio data
If the 13C:12C isotope ratio in the air varies then it must increase or decrease. The ratio is observed to have changed and in the direction expected if the change were a result of accumulation of the anthropogenic emission of CO2 into the air.
The ‘classical’ method for calculating the expected 13C:12C ratio change assumes the change results from accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. But there is no published comparison of the calculated magnitude of the change to the observed magnitude of the change.
I obtained a surprise when I used the ‘classical’ method to determine the expected magnitude of the change (i.e. the method reported in e.g.
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.).
The 13C:12C variation over recent decades as indicated by this method is (depending on assumptions) from 3 to 6 times too large if the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is accumulation of anthropogenic CO2. This indicates that the bulk of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a result of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2, and results from an unknown something else.
Importantly, if that ‘something else’ is causing the bulk of the rise then there is no reason to suppose it is not causing all of the rise.
I reported my finding to several others. Some of them – including some AGW-supporters – conducted their own calculations and they all reached the same conclusion that I had.
Roy Spencer was one to whom I stated this finding, and he did something much more useful than merely replicate what I and others had done. He considered the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration associated with interannual variations in the 13C:12C ratio and reported his comparison on his web site at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
He concluded:
“This means that most (1.71/1.98 = 86%) of the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around. ”
Using that conclusion, he went further by constructing a simple model that assumed 80%natural:20%anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and posted this on his web site at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/
There, Spencer said:
“There will, of course, be vehement objections to this admittedly simple model. One will be that “we know the atmospheric CO2 increase is manmade because the C13 carbon isotope concentration in the atmosphere is decreasing, which is consistent with a fossil fuel source.” But has been discussed elsewhere, a change in ocean biological activity (or vegetation on land) has a similar signature…so the C13 change is not a unique signature of fossil fuel source.”
I fully understand Spencer’s point because some people are so sure of the anthropogenic cause that they refuse to look at the evidence.
Richard
RR Kampen: “Rising CO2 is not the only driver for global temperature, it is just the most dominant today. It is why 2007 and 2008 belong to the ten warmest years in the global record, instead of in the coolest ten percent befitting the combi of a vast Niña and a deep dip in the solar cycle. These two years are actually far better evidence for GW than 1998.”
This and similar arguments rely crucially on the hockey stick, and I consider the hockey stick to be completely broken by now. Until somebody should manage to repair the hockey stick, the possibility that the roman and medieval warm periods were at least just as warm as the current warm period must be taken seriously again, and then the question whether there is anything special about our current warm period (or if it is just another ripple in the chaotic world climate system) remains quite open.
Re: Vincent (06:01:38) :
We can assume that
a) The Maldives are constructed from a coral base and has a constant elevation with respect to the sea level, or
b) The Maldives are constructed from inorganic rock and have a constant elevation with respect to the sea bed, leading to the conclusion that 13,000 years ago, the islands thrust 130m above the sea like a giant parapet.
RR Kampen, can you enlighten us which model is correct?
Most of the Maldives base (98%) is sand.
The islands rose above sea level after 6.000 years ago, when a combination of reefs and sand sustained a yearly sea level rise of 3-10 mm/yr.
This might mean the Islands are safe for now, but I lived there I’d be a bit worried for my grandchildren… Too many uncertainties and too many scenario’s to neglect. But it’s complex, I absolutely submit that.
Comparable situation, different environment: Dutch Waddenzee, a tidal sea mostly dry at low tide. The area sinks thanks to us taking methane gas from the ground (this also causes earthquakes up to or slightly over magnitude 3/Richter). Question was whether the sea would survive this as is, it being a unique nature area. Answer seems to be quite convincingly it is surviving with no noticeable changes: silt from the North Sea just washes up a little faster.
Vincent, given that coral grows in the shallows which are, by definition, under water, we can assume that those parts of the Islands currently above water were once underneath it, i.e. that sea levels were once much higher than they are now (assuming for the sake of argument that the sea floor hasn’t risen). Unless of course the corals trap drifting sediments which gradually build up into Islands over time, which is another possibility. In any case, something more complex than the water simply rising and falling is going on there, in my totally uninformed and probably stupid opinion.
R R Kampen,
You claim ocean acidification is happening now, and is strong enough to hurt coral.
Please show us that ocean pH is falling, or withdraw your assertion.
Also please demonstrate that GCMs are are not engineering models, based on large assumptions about how the physics of CO2 operate in the atmosphere.
You ask if we were in a runaway greenhouse condition in 1998.
There is no runaway greenhouse tipping point in the real world of Earth climate.
The AGW community, until the last years when the differences between the apocalyptic predictions and reality have been too great to ignore, has not been making the claim that ‘except for CO2 things would be cooler’.
In the US, we call that kind of argument ‘moving goal posts’.
The specific failures of AGW predictions are long:
Storms are down, not up, worldwide.
Droughts are normal.
Rainfall pattersn are normal.
Temperatures have had nothing but modest changes, well within normal variability.
The ‘hockey stick’ ‘results’ used to suport the idea of a rapidly warming climate have proven to be fraudulent.
Ocean levels are rising at about the rate they have for long periods of time.
Arctic ice fluctuations have proven to cyclic.
Antarctic ice is up
Greenland ice has proven to be highly variable historically, and is not anywhere close to the catastrophes the aGW community has cliamed.
So what are you defending?
WAG … you asked So out of full disclosure, I’d ask you to let us know how much revenue this site generates you personally in terms of ads, speech fees, book sales, etc. Otherwise, how will we know you’re being honest? I look forward to your response.
.. what Martin said. AND …
So have you asked Al Gore the same question? I understand that he charges something like $200,000 (and more) to do a speech. Have to check how much money Gore made from the sci-fi fiction AIT? Have you asked Gore how much he makes directly or indirectly from his “carbon offset” businesses?
Al says, “We MUST reduce by 90 percent in ten years!!” KA-CHING!
And how much money do university researchers make (I am NOT bashing university types) who have based their careers on perpetrating the grant-generating AGW fallacy?
And how about the money made by all of the eco lawyers and CEOs of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club etc ad nauseum. Eco pimps comes to mind. (Snip?)
The AGW myth is making a lot of money for a lot of people and the longer the myth can be sustained the more they make.
WOW! … WAG is an anagram for AGW!
Coincidence? Freudian? Stranger than fiction, wot? ☺ ☺ ☺
Clive
“They are just “diving for dollars” trying to milk the AGW system for money.
Any small community politician would be stupid to ignore that much potential money.
It is perfectly understandable from the point of view of political survival. Most politicians cannot afford the luxury of being honest with this sort of thing because if they don’t milk it their opponent will.
Free money corrupts the political process, which is one of the reasons AGW is so dangerous.”
Larry
I commend this comment, and the similar one by helvio. Politicians are in an invidious position – if they do not lie and cheat they will be thrown out of power in short order by someone who does. What this comes down to is that, en mass, people do not mind being cheated and lied to, and will vote for someone who does this readily.
Do not blame the politicians. If we did not encourage dishonour, and, more importantly, discourage any spark of honour, then we would have better leaders. If scientists really cared about truth, rather than getting the next grant in, Mann would never have gained the following he has today.
Money is power, and Lord Acton’s dictum was never so true…
RR Kampen (05:11:44) :
CO2 it is not black, but trasparent and invisible
CO2 is the gas you exhale. You exhale about 900 grams a day of CO2
CO2 that you exhale is what plants breath to give you back O2 (oxygen) for you to breath. Then it is neither a pollutant nor a poison, it even rejuvenates!!!:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1485258/carbon_dioxide_therapy_carboxy_therapy_pg2_pg2.html?cat=69
CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn´t fly up, up and away
CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038 per cent of it, or 3.8 parts per ten thousand.
The atmosphere, the air you know, does not have the capacity to “hold” enough heat, it only “saves” 0.001297 joules per cubic centimeter, while water , the sea you know, has 3227 times that capacity (4.186 joules).
Would you warm your feet with a bottle filled with air or filled with hot water?
The so called “Greenhouse effect” does not exist, see:
http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
But if you have been cheated to the core and still believe in it, think the following:
Svante Arrhenius, the guy of the greenhouse effect, said he thought CO2 acted as the “window panes” of a green-house, but as its concentration in atmosphere it is just 3.8 per ten thousand, you would have a greenhouse with 3.8 window panes and 9996.2 empty holes.
Conclusion: That issue they have told you of “global warming” and/or “climate change” it is just an issue of MONEY, MONEY, promoted by some who are inflating this new financial bubble, out of which you will not receive anything.
They will become trillioners while you will have to suffer the cold which instead, and for sure, is coming.
On a typical island in the Maldives you can sleep in a house on stilts, eat (but never be served by a female), lay in the sun, go boating AND LEARN TO DIVE. So this is a free advertisement for those who want to LEARN TO DIVE in warm water with little sharks around their feet. So take that plane to Male (it can be very cheap off-season), and LEARN TO DIVE in water so warm you do not need a diving suit. And the water is clear, so you see something when you LEARN TO DIVE.
I don’t want to sound pedantic but it seems that nobody here seems to understand how islands with coral reefs as foundation are formed and maintained during sea levels rise.
The Maldives and most atolls are sandy above the water surface. Coral doesn’t grow above the water. Only islands in tectonically active areas, where there is or has been some tectonic uplift, old dead coral reefs may be found above the water. The sand originates from certain coral fish that grinds the coral with their jaws and from strong wave action that causes coral to break. The sand and the coral debris are washed up onto the beach which already has an older dead part of the reef as its foundation. The occasional storms and wind will finally accumulate the sand at a level that make habitation by humans feasible (some 2 meters above high tide level). Bird droppings brought plant seeds and fertilizer to these islands.
When sea level rises gradually the corals that fringe these sandy islands will keep up with the rise and the natural process described above will maintain sand islands with new detrital sediment.
However!!! This natural process cannot be allowed to go on since humans have changed their ways of life and have constructed permanent infra-structures (roads, permanent houses, airports) that cannot evolve with the islands. Hence the rate of sea level rise, which was no problem in the past 12000 years, has now become a major problem for the inhabitants. Coral islands are not sustainable for the permanent inhabitation. That is a fact and has everything to do with post-glacial global warming and sea level rise, but nothing to do with CO2.
If I’m wrong, show us that the ocean is acidifying.
This is the same as CO2 causing atmospheric warming. Increased atmospheric CO2 will cause atmospheric warming and cause ocean acidification.
The 64K question is how much?
In both cases the answer appears to be too little to be measured empirically.
richardscourtney (04:44:37) :
I’m sceptical volcanic activity in the recent past has produced sufficent S and Cl to produce a measurable effect on ocean acidity on the scale of the world’s oceans.
Thanks for that explanation Chris.
This Maldives publicity stunt is getting plenty of mainstream media coverage.
It’s been pointed out here for quite some time that alarmist blogs [particularly those funded by G. Soros] censor opposing points of view as a matter of policy.
Now it appears that the Administration’s stated policy is the same: click
I would say that the consensus opinion on this blog is that the maldives have adjusted themselves to rising sea levels. However, it was noted (Chris Schoneveld) that once they became paved over then they have effectively been fixed with respect to the sea level.
Should Maldivians be worried? Probably, but this has nothing to do with accelerating sea level rises. In fact, the solution is simple. Tear down all the buildings and rip up all the paving, thus returning the islanders back to the role of noble savage, muched beloved by warmists.
Deceptive reporting all over the media, from the Maladives to Hong Kong:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Deceptive_reporting_hides_truth.htm
Clive – you responded to my query by repeating the same allegations to which I was responding. I’m trying to point out that the proper question to ask is not “how much money do scientists stand to make from researching AGW,” but rather “how much MORE money could they make doing something else – e.g. writing global warming denial pieces?” What’s the opportunity cost of agreeing to the global warming consensus?
Climate scientists are some of the world’s most brilliant minds. If they were really in it for the money (instead of seeking truth), there’s much more money to be made modeling risks at investment banks than modeling climate for universities.
Another argument is that research wouldn’t get funded if it didn’t conform to the consensus. Really? I can think of a funding source that would gladly support anti-AGW research (and has). Hint: it’s a multi-trillion dollar industry with a vested interest in CO2 production. Think they could outbid universities for scientists?
Moreover, basic economics teaches that there’s no profit to be made doing the same thing everyone else is doing. Competition drives profits down, so the only way to make money is through differentiating your product or message (I do sales and marketing consulting, and this is what we teach our clients). There’s a large market – 40% of the US who don’t believe AGW – desperate to lap up any talking point that confirms their views. Publish a book with the words “global cooling” in the title (i.e. the latest Freakonomics book), and you’ve got a guaranteed audience ready to buy your book; publish a book about global warming, and you’re competing with hundreds of others.If scientists were driven by money, you’d expect their published views to be roughly 50-50 as they competed to capture share of the “AGW idea market.” The fact that the breakdown is closer to 97-3 proves that climate scientists are either not motivated by money, or that the market isn’t working. Controversy sells, consensus does not.
Now we know for sure!
White House controls our media and they are proud of it too.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347
Mr Watts,
I think now would be a good time to repost your historical images and maps of Boston’s coast line to demonstrate how humans adopt to slowly rising sea levels using far less technology and resources then we currently have at our disposal today.
RR Kampen (01:22:02) :
“Mark, coral grows harly these days on account of acification of the oceans. Now there’s a typo that’s worth its weight in gold.
They won’t be turning back the sea, they’ll be turning back refugees from the mid latitudes who are fleeing the cooling.
“This might mean the Islands are safe for now, but I lived there I’d be a bit worried for my grandchildren… Too many uncertainties and too many scenario’s to neglect.”
Not to worry RK, they were down there working on legal reforms, and those living there will understand that it’s just “Allah’s Will” if they sink and all die.
A couple of quotes from the news,
“Suood said difficulties arose when there were conflicts between the three. “Some Islamic sharia punishments are not enforced in the Maldives. For example, there is no amputation for thieves or death for apostates.””
“Several MPs said Islamic sharia should take precedence in specifying offences and punishments and spoke in favour of introducing the death penalty.
Ungoofaru MP Dr Afrashim Ali of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) said the penal code did not include offences specified in Islamic fiqh or law, adding it was obligatory to enforce punishments set out in Islam.
Apart from the Qu’ran and the hadiths, said Afrashim, the consensus (ijmah) of religious scholars should be taken into account when drafting such laws.
“Before looking at the laws of England or France, we have to look at the principles of sharia in Islam,” he said. “I am not saying at all that we should not benefit from laws developed in England or France in 1,000 or 2,000 years.””
http://www.minivannews.com/news_detail.php?id=7488
Being a big un-believer in the supernatural, I don’t quite follow how a “consensus of religious scholars” would have anything of value to add to a discussion of legal reforms.
Of course the term “religious scholars” being one of those oxymoron’s that seldom sees the light of day, perhaps it is the “consensus” that is so powerful.
WAG (09:55:18) :
“Climate scientists are some of the world’s most brilliant minds.”
Ri-i-i-i-ght. That’s why Michael Mann looks at his data upside down.
There are a few brilliant minds in the climate sciences. But not a single one exists on the alarmist side. Not one.
“Wild Ass Guess” is accurate.
RR Kampen (05:45:56) :
Sorry mate. Being old, I didn’t even realise that 1998 was that warm.
DaveE.
Sea level rise leads Temperature?????????????????????
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/sea-level-rise-rate-leads-global-temperature/
WAG (09:55:18) :
“Climate scientists are some of the world’s most brilliant minds. If they were really in it for the money (instead of seeking truth), there’s much more money to be made modeling risks at investment banks than modeling climate for universities”
==========
I always start to question things, especially ‘new’ and ‘creative’ things, when I am told they are the products of ‘brilliant minds’. Such a phrase is not often in harness with the concepts of ‘common sense’ and ‘practical solutions’. Normal things are just not always interesting enough for ‘brilliant minds’.
My guess about earnings potential is that the Banks already have their quota of ‘brilliant minds’ as the last 2 or three years probably illustrates. Having cherry picked ‘the best’, the rest get to go elsewhere. Maybe.
Alternatively some of the minds may be more attracted to the concepts of an academic life and prefer the promise of tenure to the lure of the pressure dollar. Plus I would imagine they get longer holidays and stuff.
No doubt some would explicitly turn down jobs with banks or other major businesses on the basis of the moral or political beliefs and of those a few may wish to use their academic position to promote their personal beliefs in some way. After all other people making a success of their careers – politicians, business men, bankers, etc., – can and do do just that. So why not academics?
With businesses and politicians one gets some choice about who one trades with and how much you are prepared to allow them to influence your life. Individually it may not be much but at least the choice is there. In other areas we don’t have that choice at all.
So, in order to ‘save’ this artificially populated ‘land’ known as the Maldives our leaders, ‘brilliant minds’ all no doubt, seem more than prepared to embark on a journey based on wishful thinking and, one has to say, self aggrandizement in the eyes of … well, I was going to write ‘their peers’ but since they are all at it on a competitive basis one must assume they are doing this mostly for themselves and their egos.
Hence the pranks.
I don’t ‘do’ holidays and I don’t travel much at all these days. I find I don’t have the need. Sadly this means I am unable to offer much help to the Maldives by deciding not to go there. Hopefully other will do so in my stead.
It seems to me that ‘the science’ has been bleached out of the current rush to claim seniority in the hair shirt game of CO2 targets. It would be a pity for humanity if CO2 was simply the chaff and the wheat that could feed prosperity for all was being left unsecured to be eaten by rodents.
WAG
“Climate scientists are some of the world’s most brilliant minds. If they were really in it for the money (instead of seeking truth), there’s much more money to be made modeling risks at investment banks than modeling climate for universities.”
And how do you know that the best of them have not already chosen that option in the past? 🙂
Money? It’s about insitutional funding and that affects things like tenure. It’s also a good idea because you get to sit on lots of administrative boards, government quango’s and other such highly lucrative positions (ok, not lucrative in a Goldman Sachs bonus kind of way, but relative to, say, a lowly teaching position). So, in my view, you love being an academic, you enjoy your subject, but you want the security of tenure and perhaps the opportunity to Holiday once a year in the Maldeves and maybe drive a pretty decent middle of the road sportscar. The kind of aspirations a lot of us have ;).
WAG,
“If they were really in it for the money (instead of seeking truth),….”
Is exactly the touching gullibility that charlatans from time immemorial have been able to bank on.
From religious scammers to financial ponzi schemes, the sort of faith you have towards AGW is the chief tool that con artists take advantage of.
AGW is no different at all from any other phony scheme.
DennisA (01:02:22) :
[quote] Given the sea level record is relatively short, it is still too early to deduce a long-term trend. [unquote]
Sorry for a tardy response. Japan Meteorological Agency began sea level measurement on the Japanese coastline with tide gauges in 1906, and the temporal evolution of anomaly (from 1971-2000 average) for 1906-2008 was found as shown here:
http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/shindan/a_1/sl_trend/sl_trend_graph.png
The Agency states (1) there’s no definite trend for over 100 years, and (2) a 20-year oscillation is clearly present.
Philip B:
Thankyou for your comment.
Please note that I am not claiming undersea volcanism is the main cause of the recent rise atmospheric CO2 concentration, but I am pointing out that it is one of several possible main causes that cannot be discounted on the basis of presently available data.
You say to me:
“richardscourtney (04:44:37) :
I’m sceptical volcanic activity in the recent past has produced sufficent S and Cl to produce a measurable effect on ocean acidity on the scale of the world’s oceans.”
I am certain that variations to volcanic S and Cl in sea water cannot produce such a measurable effect. Indeed, the main point of my post was that variation to average ocean pH is so small that it cannot be measured.
However, very small variations to the concentrations of S and Cl ions will have a much greater effect than large change to concentration of carbonate ions in ocean waters. This is because the S and Cl ionic concentrations are relatively very large. Ions in typical ocean water are:
chemical ion valence concentration
ppm, mg/kg part of
salinity % molecular
weight mmol/
kg
Chloride Cl -1 19345 55.03 35.453 546
Sodium Na +1 10752 30.59 22.990 468
Sulfate SO4 -2 2701 7.68 96.062 28.1
Magnesium Mg +2 1295 3.68 24.305 53.3
Calcium Ca +2 416 1.18 40.078 10.4
Potassium K +1 390 1.11 39.098 9.97
Bicarbonate HCO3 -1 145 0.41 61.016 2.34
Bromide Br -1 66 0.19 79.904 0.83
Borate BO3 -3 27 0.08 58.808 0.46
Strontium Sr +2 13 0.04 87.620 0.091
Fluoride F -1 1 0.003 18.998 0.068
Please note that the CO2 is present as bicarbonate and sulphur is present as sulphate.
Also, pH is a logarithmic scale of free hydrogen radicals. However, on concentration alone, Cl and SO4 are thousands of times more prevalent than bicarbonate.
It is argued by some that the recent increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration change has altered the bicarbonate composition of ocean surface waters to alter the pH of the surface waters by 0.2.
I have said no more than that it is equally plausible for such a small pH change to have been induced by variations to volcanic emissions of S and Cl.
And the ionic composition of ocean waters is altered by volcanism. I cite
Seyfried WE and Mottl MJ, Hydrothermal alteration of basalt by seawater under seawater-dominated conditions, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 46, Issue 6, June 1982, Pages 985-1002.
Its abstract says:
“Fresh mid-ocean ridge basalt glass and diabase have been reacted with seawater at 150–300°C, 500 bar, and water/rock mass ratios of 50, 62, and 125, using experimental apparatus which allowed on-line sampling of solution to monitor reaction progress. These experiments characterize reaction under what we have called “seawater-dominated” conditions of hydrothermal alteration.
In an experiment at 300°C, basalt glass undergoing alteration removed nearly all Mg2+ from an amount of seawater 50 times its own mass. In the process, the glass was converted entirely to mixed-layer smectite-chlorite, anhydrite, and minor hematite. Removal of Mg from seawater occurred as a Mg(OH)2 component incorporated into the secondary clay. This produced a precipitous drop in solution pH early in the experiment, accompanied by a dramatic increase in the concentrations of Fe, Mn, and Zn in solution. As Mg removal neared completion and the glass was hydrolyzed, pH rose again and heavy metal concentrations dropped.
At water/rock ratios of 62 and 125 and 150–300°C, the mineral assemblage produced was similar to that at a water/rock ratio of 50. Solution chemistry, however, contrasted with the earlier experiment in that Mg concentrations in solution were greater and pH lower. This caused significant leaching of heavy metals. At 300°C nearly all of the Na, Ca, Cu, Zn, and CO2 and most of the K, Ba, Sr, and Mn were leached from the silicates. H2S, Al, Si, and possibly Co were also significantly mobilized, whereas V, Cr, and Ni were not. Little or no seawater sulfate was reduced.
Although submarine hot spring solutions sampled to date along mid-ocean ridges clearly come from rock-dominated hydrothermal systems, evidence from ocean floor metabasalts and from heat flow studies indicates that seawater-dominated conditions of alteration prevail at least locally both in axial high temperature systems and in ridge flank systems at lower temperatures.”
Please note that the experiment did not inject Cl and S into the water but it found severe variations to pH were induced and;
“H2S, Al, Si, and possibly Co were also significantly mobilized, whereas V, Cr, and Ni were not.”
So, volcanic effects do make substantial alterations to the chemistry of the water that contacts them. And volcanic effects at any geologically active site vary over time.
I remind that I wrote:
“The undersea volcanic outputs of sulphur and chlorine affect the pH of the water the sulphur and the chlorine enter. And that water returns to the surface at a much later date. This must alter the pH of the surface water where the deep ocean water upwells to the surface. And altered pH of ocean surface waters alters the atmospheric and oceanic equilibrium concentrations of CO2.”
and
“So, a variation to ocean surface layer pH could have induced the observed rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent decades by reducing the ability of the surface waters to extract CO2 from the air (as they do seasonally each year).”
And
“And the changes to ocean pH are so small that observing their global variation is not possible at present. The following listed points are pertinent to this.
1.
Ocean pH varies from 8.2 to 7.6 between localities. A change in average ocean pH of less than 0.2 would account for all recent observed rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration (and some of that CO2 rise must have resulted from temperature rise).
2.
Changes to upwelling cold water do alter global atmospheric CO2 concentration as is demonstrated by ENSO.
3.
Small changes to the pH of the upwelling water would have much greater effect on global atmospheric CO2 concentration than the changes induced by temperature effects of ENSO.
So, it is not known if or how much the ocean surface layer pH has changed globally over the last century and/or decade(s), and if it has changed then it is not known why it has changed.”
I stress that I am not claiming volcanism is the main cause of the recent rise atmospheric CO2 concentration. I am merely pointing out that it is one of several possible main causes which cannot be discounted on the basis of presently available data.
Importantly, undersea volcanism must have at least as great an effect on ocean pH as atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Richard
Jason (00:17:10) :
Yo, tallbloke – the Greenland ice sheet is an ice cap, and that’s melting. And have you ever stopped to consider that low backlighted oceans are practically black, and would no longer be white if it melts?
Do keep up. Greenland was losing about 250km3/year of ice during the height of the warming in 1998. But it was also gaining a bit more than that in new snow. Since 2007 the melting slowed right down and the overall trend is up for Greenland ice mass. Check the official data.
Despite what you may have been led to believe by alarmists, Greenland is fine.
DaveE (12:03:45) :
Sorry mate. Being old, I didn’t even realise that 1998 was that warm.
DaveE.
This is a double positive answer to my query. I thought so. Thank you.
RE: richardscourtney (18:08:24) :
You should chat with Dr. Doug Erwin. He’s a specialist regarding the big extinction ~ 60M YBP. I think he’d be quite fascinated with your perspective.
I agree that mid ocean ridge volcanism may have an influence in ocean pH per what you wrote.
Sorry, a correction, Erwin studied the extinction ~ 250 – 260 MYBP, not the one ~ 60 MYBP.
Well I think that Abraham or whatever his name is, is all wet.
I seem to recall an old cowboy western music song, about a dawg that was howlin. Apparently the pooch was howlin cos it was sittin on a thorn and was too darn lazy to move.
Seems like old Abraham and his cronies have a touch of Canut’s fever.
Most people with some common sense (which ain’t all that common) when they see the sea rising, they head for the high ground. In this case there isn’t any high ground in the Mal Dives (aptly named).
I can suggest some good desert locations in Saudi Arabia, where Abraham and his folk can go and be guaranteed to not be under water.
Only a fool or a whole bunch of fools, would choose to hang around some place where the water is rising; which incidently is not happening in the Mal Dives.
Maybe Abraham can go and join that 12th Imam at the bottom of that dry well in the desert that he fell into; but leaver us out of your future financing plans mate; we ain’t interested.
Nice reply to the circus from Nils-Axel Morner, Leader of the Maldives Sea level project (small .pdf)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OpenLetter.doc.pdf
They still haven’t shut down that international airport. Considering the threat they are under, they should be taking down those 747s full of European tourists on approach.
“Maldives, Friday, January 16, 2009: A $500 million project to build a total of 10,000 housing units in various areas of the country will commence during the second quarter of the year, President Mohamed Nasheed has said.”
http://www.mreic.com.mv/news.asp?Type=News&Id=11
[snip. Try again without the excessive profanity. ~dbs, moderator]