There’s nothing like conflicting your title in your own press release.
From the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Climate change reducing ocean’s carbon dioxide uptake
MADISON – How deep is the ocean’s capacity to buffer against climate change?
As one of the planet’s largest single carbon absorbers, the ocean takes up roughly one-third of all human carbon emissions, reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and its associated global changes.
But whether the ocean can continue mopping up human-produced carbon at the same rate is still up in the air. Previous studies on the topic have yielded conflicting results, says University of Wisconsin-Madison assistant professor Galen McKinley.
In a new analysis published online July 10 in Nature Geoscience, McKinley and her colleagues identify a likely source of many of those inconsistencies and provide some of the first observational evidence that climate change is negatively impacting the ocean carbon sink.
“The ocean is taking up less carbon because of the warming caused by the carbon in the atmosphere,” says McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Center for Climatic Research in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.
The analysis differs from previous studies in its scope across both time and space. One of the biggest challenges in asking how climate is affecting the ocean is simply a lack of data, McKinley says, with available information clustered along shipping lanes and other areas where scientists can take advantage of existing boat traffic. With a dearth of other sampling sites, many studies have simply extrapolated trends from limited areas to broader swaths of the ocean.
McKinley and colleagues at UW-Madison, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, and the Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris expanded their analysis by combining existing data from a range of years (1981-2009), methodologies, and locations spanning most of the North Atlantic into a single time series for each of three large regions called gyres, defined by distinct physical and biological characteristics.
They found a high degree of natural variability that often masked longer-term patterns of change and could explain why previous conclusions have disagreed. They discovered that apparent trends in ocean carbon uptake are highly dependent on exactly when and where you look – on the 10- to 15-year time scale, even overlapping time intervals sometimes suggested opposite effects.
“Because the ocean is so variable, we need at least 25 years’ worth of data to really see the effect of carbon accumulation in the atmosphere,” she says. “This is a big issue in many branches of climate science – what is natural variability, and what is climate change?”
Working with nearly three decades of data, the researchers were able to cut through the variability and identify underlying trends in the surface CO2 throughout the North Atlantic.
During the past three decades, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have largely been matched by corresponding increases in dissolved carbon dioxide in the seawater. The gases equilibrate across the air-water interface, influenced by how much carbon is in the atmosphere and the ocean and how much carbon dioxide the water is able to hold as determined by its water chemistry.
But the researchers found that rising temperatures are slowing the carbon absorption across a large portion of the subtropical North Atlantic. Warmer water cannot hold as much carbon dioxide, so the ocean’s carbon capacity is decreasing as it warms.
In watching for effects of increasing atmospheric carbon on the ocean’s uptake, many people have looked for indications that the carbon content of the ocean is rising faster than that of the atmosphere, McKinley says. However, their new results show that the ocean sink could be weakening even without that visible sign.
“More likely what we’re going to see is that the ocean will keep its equilibration but it doesn’t have to take up as much carbon to do it because it’s getting warmer at the same time,” she says. “We are already seeing this in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre, and this is some of the first evidence for climate damping the ocean’s ability to take up carbon from the atmosphere.”
She stresses the need to improve available datasets and expand this type of analysis to other oceans, which are relatively less-studied than the North Atlantic, to continue to refine carbon uptake trends in different ocean regions. This information will be critical for decision-making, since any decrease in ocean uptake may require greater human efforts to control carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
McKinley’s work on the project was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
“One of the biggest challenges in asking how climate is affecting the ocean is simply a lack of data, McKinley says, with available information clustered along shipping lanes and other areas where scientists can take advantage of existing boat traffic. With a dearth of other sampling sites, many studies have simply extrapolated trends from limited areas to broader swaths of the ocean.“
Models, meh.
“In a new analysis published online July 10 in Nature Geoscience, McKinley and her colleagues identify a likely source of many of those inconsistencies and provide some of the first observational evidence that climate change is negatively impacting the ocean carbon sink.
“The ocean is taking up less carbon because of the warming caused by the carbon in the atmosphere,” says McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Center for Climatic Research in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.”
Run for the Hills
Hey! various things
might endanger the planet
and kill all of us!
Clever scientists
say that possible perils
could be dangerous.
The ocean is getting warmer?
So, less “acidification”? Would flora increase over time, as well? Then, the ocean CO2 sink would grow. So many possibilities, such poor models and poorer data!
“…They found a high degree of natural variability that often masked longer-term patterns of change and could explain why previous conclusions have disagreed. They discovered that apparent trends in ocean carbon uptake are highly dependent on exactly when and where you look – on the 10- to 15-year time scale, even overlapping time intervals sometimes suggested opposite effects….”
In other words, the noisy signal gives no discernible information, and the imaginary trends that they just absolutely KNOW must be there, can’t be detected. Grant money in, garbage out. Science is dead.
Just make sure you don’t mention the possibility that natural warming of the oceans lowers the solubility of all gases, not just CO2. So instead of high manmade CO2 causing warming which then lowers ocean CO2 uptake leading to even worse man caused climate catastrophe, maybe the real sequence is natural warming heats the ocean which then releases stored CO2. But that wouldn’t justify all those nice regulations the power hungry climategate crew their AGW bretheren are after.
OTOH, as Dr. Spencer noted in his piece yesterday:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/09/while-suns-in-a-funk-no-hint-of-resumed-warming-in-the-oceans/
the trend for SSTs during the past 9 years (yeah, I know, it’s only 9) is mostly flat to very slightly cooling. And while it’s for more than just the North Atlantic, it suggests continued uptake of that most noxious gas.
Of course, there’s also those pesky plants that are acting like they’ve been invited to an all-you-can-eat buffet.
And Dr. Spencer just had a post on July 9 here at WUWT showing that according to NASA’s Aqua satellite, there has been no warming of the global sea surface during the last 9 years.
In response, expect rational agwers to heave a sigh of relief and promptly ditch their “global warming = increasing ocean acidification” bogey …
But we’re still doomed, right?
Are the climate scientist’s finally catching up with Henry’s law? he!
“University of Wisconsin-Madison”
Not exactly MIT, and a staff full of watermelons.
Well we always knew that the UoW is on the cutting edge of marine research…………
Dr. Spencer just demonstrated that SST’s have been going down, clouds go up/SST’s go down…
…so let them figure that one out
kwik says:
July 10, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Are the climate scientist’s finally catching up with Henry’s law? he!
====================================================
LOL it’s the UofW……don’t get your hopes up
But the AMO is a 70 year cycle! Didn’t these kids look at the basics?
Does anyone look at the possibility that co2 in water with minerals and salts is not just a dissolved gas? It gets tied up in things like cacium bicarbonate or Ca(HCO3)2. In warm tropical waters it breaks down to calcium carbonate which precipitates out (sequestering carbon dioxide), water and co2 which can be released to the atmosphere. So more warm water in shallow seas ought to increase the rate of this one way trip (sequestration) for half the co2.
Good to see what small funds are left for NASA going to measuring ocean water, instead of actually doing something in space.
Oh Lord, please save us from simple minded models!
Carbon uptake in the oceans is highly dynamic due to a little thing called BIOMASS. Yes, I now work for NASA designing their command, control, communications and Information systems across flight and ground. But before that I was a biology major with a passion for oceans and marine life.
And if ANYONE cared to think this through one would know the oceans’ ability to ‘take up’ carbon is directly related to the biomass of corals, shell fish, etc. Because these massive communities ‘take up’ carbon to form Calcium Carbonate, which in turn becomes an integral part of sedimentary rocks.
If one only looks at the chemical absorption of CO2 gas in a liquid, one is only looking at a small portion of the entire system of transforming atmospheric carbon to rock (and of course the other way around).
When did we get so narrow minded? – AJStrata
The bad news is that they look to have only 2 cycles, averaged over 3 large areas, and have found a potential trend in one of those areas.
The good news is that they admit the limitations of the study, not that that will slow down the advocates of manmade climate change, and are calling for more studies in other regions to confirm the trend is global.
Did these “researchers” bother to include a plot of sea-surface temperature vs time? The way they talk, they have never heard of the UAH SST project. Or did they dismiss those obvious measurements because they only go back 30 years instead of the 25 years they say they need?
1) As photosynthetic activity is an alkalizing process, these waters would soak up CO2 better with the higher pH, as the carbonic acid formed at dissolution of CO2 would be instantly deprotonated to bicarbonate and thus facilitate CO2 absorption. They find a lot of variability? Duh!
2) This is not a simple gas solubility problem since there are successive equilibria involved, going from CO2 to carbonic acid to bicarbonate to carbonate to calcium carbonate. Add more CO2 and you facilitate calcium carbonate deposition and shell formation. The minor amount of protons released by carbonic acid barely changes the pH; marine life loves higher CO2 as their physiology can well handle much higher CO2 and any attendant pH changes that might entail.
3) Even if the oceans were warming a bit, with CO2 rising, CO2 would counterbalance the effect of gas being less soluble in warm that cold water by having a higher partial pressure. However, with the linked equilibria and no outside source of protons (protons given off by the equilibria cannot effect them). Warming alone does not cook CO2 out of the water—it’s solubility is higher due to the chemistry involved.
Sodas have a lot of CO2 to release because we purposely add acid, such as phosphoric acid, to keep the carbonate and bicarbonate protonated to form carbonic acid, situated to break down to CO2 and H2O as soon as the overhead CO2 pressure is decreased by opening the bottle. This is NOT how our oceans work!
Here’s something that occurred to me (let alone the good comments about the ocean and life that uptakes the CO2 . . ) – CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere. And the colder waters in higher latitudes (towards the north pole and south pole) will absorb more than lower latitudes. In the Arctic ocean, the water sinks as part of the thermohaline circulation (not sure if there is sinking at the south pole also . . ) So how much CO2 does that account for in terms of removing it from the atmosphere. .?
And what is the time frame for that sinking water in/around the arctic ocean to circulate and make it’s way back to the surface ( maybe hundred of years – trying to recall seeing that somewhere. . .?) And if the ocean surfaces have warmed over the last 30 years or so ( even though almost none in the past several years), wouldn’t the CO2 then get released? Might that be part of the increase come from water that might have been on the surface during the MWP?
Or is the volume of water per year that resurfaces not sufficient to have a major impact to CO2 . . .( . .maybe just answered my own question . .). Any comments from the ocean experts would be great.
During the Middle Ages the Catholic Church realised it couldn’t totally suppress dissent and free thought, so it adopted a simple policy: writers were allowed to publish ‘speculation’ on all sorts of heresy, as long as they included a disclaimer stating that this was, of course, nonsense, and the only truth was in the possession of the Holy Mother Church.
Need I say more?
AJStrata says:
July 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Oh Lord, please save us from simple minded models!
Good post, most of know that we don’t know and the more we know the more we know we don’t know … but it is fun to play with models. That’s why some of us started with model aeroplanes and some ended up at NASA with really big models.
I swear the pal review process advances thusly: Scan document for keywords like “acidification” “could” “may” “carbon”. Ignore sentence structure or logical argument based on facts or data. Get out yer big “Publish” or “Perish” stamp. Send opinion to Journal editor, who happens to be a primate, species not clearly defined.
Honestly, the convolutions in this article indicate that the MSM hack who summarized the content has no basic grasp of the topic, nor critical synapse in her/his neural net.
@ AJStrata, when indeed. One look at the Canadian Rockies is testimony enough as to the carbon-sinkiness of the oceans. Prepeat after me…C-a-r-b-o-n-a-t-e M-i-n-e-r-a-l-s
ew-3 says:
July 10, 2011 at 6:34 pm
“Not exactly MIT, and a staff full of watermelons.”
Holy Cow! Full of Watermelons!
Poor fellah’s, Hunting for new Grants day in, day out. Glad I got a real job then.
Now that sounds certain enough to tax the industrial world into oblivion. (/eye roll)
Nothing like fear mongering with out data.
NASA data from what looks to be 8 years or so ago appears to give a better description of the carbon cycle than the article under discussion but maybe it is covered in the details rather than the press release: http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/
A search on “carbon cycle” or “ocean carbon cycle” will provide lots of conflicting information. Clearly, we are still in the early stages of understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle.
“But whether the oceans can continue mopping up human-produce CO2 at the same rate is up in the air”
Yes, trace CO2 is definately up in the air. And compared to that humungous quantity of ocean water out there, the ability to absorb being limited is a big stretch of the imagination. ENSO turns the water over quite regularly, so I don’t see the big deal.
Even if it did not, you still have hungry plants that would gorge themselves if CO2 were to rise more, being that optimum begins at > 1000 ppm, and use less water, and do a lot more filtering of water supplies. Sounds like a boon for Bio if CO2 were to rise much further and faster than it does now.
Sigh. Only in a Bizzaro world are the building blocks of life despised and reviled as threats to the Planet.
Wayne Delbeke said: “A search on “carbon cycle” or “ocean carbon cycle” will provide lots of conflicting information. Clearly, we are still in the early stages of understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle.”
Early stages, indeed. I recall discussing the uncertainties of the carbon cycle in geochemistry course over 50 years ago. Very little has changed – we still don’t understand it completely.
A bunch of quotes?
AJStrata says: July 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm
quote
Oh Lord, please save us from simple minded models!
And if ANYONE cared to think this through one would know the oceans’ ability to ‘take up’ carbon is directly related to the biomass of corals, shell fish, etc. Because these massive communities ‘take up’ carbon to form Calcium Carbonate, which in turn becomes an integral part of sedimentary rocks.
unquote
Have a look at what we’ve done to the relative size of diatom vs calcareous phytoplankton populations in areas where dissolved silica levels have increased. Diatoms are not so good at fixing CO2 and also pull down more heavy isotopes that the usual C3 metabolism used by the chalky ones and, because their shells are made of the silica, they pump down less into the deep water. Result, more CO2 in the air with a light isotope signal.
Biology, it’s the biology….
JF
Overall temperatures of oceans and seas will also effect CO2 movement. Ever tried to swim in the
English channel or North sea without a wet suit. Then try Bermuda, it will spoil you swimming any where else. It’s like swimming in a tropical marine aquarium with all the little fishes coming up and picking at you. Parrot fish feeding out of your hands. It effected me coming back from Bermuda even in the summer months in Australia. And no sharks, sting rays or poisonous octopus or cone shells or jelly fish. Sea temps vary around the world. Where did they pick their samples. All this
‘whooo ahh’ about climate change do the scientists supporting AGW when the truth comes out will
they lose their credibility? I hope they do!
off topic slightly (ok, a bit), but does anyone know if there is somewhere on the internet where a list is kept of all the AGW predictions that have proven false thus far? You know, things like less snow and more hurricanes etc etc
It’s a pity the education system is so poor these days that assistant professors don’t know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.
Green lies is one. Rogerthesurf ‘Hasn’t anyone heard of the Medieval Warm Period. Joanne
Nova – but you might find it hard to find any one report that covers all the myths. Just keep looking you’ll find some. Best of luck.
Why are NASA (taxpayers) dollars funding this sort of work? Don’t they have space activities to work on?
Also look on U Tube there is quite a few there by reputable scientists like Prof.Bob Clark, then
you have ‘Michael Mann’s ‘Hide the decline’ on U Tube it was taken off but was on again not so long ago, Especially ‘ the one hour ‘Global Warming – The biggest scam’ plenty of them if you have broadband.
…They discovered that apparent trends in ocean carbon uptake are highly dependent on exactly when and where you look…
Really? Did they just admit to cherry picking the data?
And really, can we stop worrying about the neutralization of the ocean PH? I say neutralization because acidification is a poor phrasing. Neutralization is more accurate. Although, this study would suggest, not accurate either.
how long is a pice of string
OMG! How is all this profound research going to affect the central tennet of Warmism?
Carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes does not appear in the atmosphere.
Obviously if the tiny human contribution of CO2 has now saturated the ocean sink then the much larger volcanic contribution is running out of places to hide. This brilliant piece of research is now illuminating a most obvious horror. We have initiated a dangerous positive feedback loop as the central tennet must now fail and a muliplier effect will take place: For every ton of CO2 we produce a further 20 tons of CO2 will appear in the atmosphere as a result of volcanic emissions.
I’m afraid there is now no alternative to the complete destruction of industrial society. I’m voting Green before its too late and calling for the end of democracy. The alternative is that we will all fry before Christmas.
Can I have a nice research grant please?
It seems to a classic case of the target being painted around the arrow.
Poor CO2, what have these evil people done to you… 🙁
Hmmm. They did have plenty of space to insert “May Be” in the headline. But they didn’t.
It is from Wisconsin. Maybe the political climate disruption there is causing everything.
This might have been mentioned, but doesn’t plankton growth increase with increases in CO2? And plankton eat CO2 and give off O2. Where is the balance in the science? Where is the science?
Eco-geek said: For every ton of CO2 we produce a further 20 tons of CO2 will appear in the atmosphere as a result of volcanic emissions.”
Do you have a reference for that? I was under the impression that volcanoes produce around 1-4% of human emissions, depending on whether you include sub-sea volcanoes, whose CO2 mainly goes straight into the deep ocean. I can provide links if you need them.
Just asking…
The sole reason for this paper and its rather dubious conclusions can be found in the penultimate sentence of the article:-
“She stresses the need to improve available datasets and expand this type of analysis to other oceans, which are relatively less-studied than the North Atlantic, to continue to refine carbon uptake trends in different ocean regions.”
This means only one thing. Give me MORE MONEY.
I don’t think that these Madison people know what they are talking about. CO2 adsorption into sea water depends on water temperature and the partial pressure of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If the partial pressure increases then for a given temperature there will be an increase of CO2 adsorption until equilibrium is restored. It does not matter from where the CO2 comes from, volcano or coal fires power station it is the same CO2 as far as the sea is concerned.
The way these people are arguing is to ignore the laws of physics. They do not deserve any money. Tell them to get a real job sweeping the streets of Madison.
“This is a big issue in many branches of climate science – what is natural variability, and what is climate change?”
No problem here with conflation of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Climate change is clearly only man made according to McKinley, such is the degree of indoctrination within her peer group. Natural climate change is mearly natural variabilty.
After three decades of research we get this:-
“This is a big issue in many branches of climate science – what is natural variability, and what is climate change?”
Seems to me they cannot even determine whether the climate ever changes or not! Ms McKinley is so certain; “could”, “may”, “possibly”, “likely”! Uncertainty (yep, my trusty 1925 Pocket OED, bought it as an aid to report writing 20 years ago & still doing me proud!):- unsettled (that’s a good one!), failing (even better), erring, unreliable, unsure, disputable, doubtful, unconvincing, not assured………..(Need I go on, my brain hurts?) so give us even more dosh to be even more uncertain than we were before! Purrleeeese!
Here is the global net absorption of CO2 by Oceans, Plants and Soils each year since 1750 in ppm (approximately of course).
A nice exponential line which is about 50% of our annual emissions. The amount absorbed in the last few years is more than double what it was 30 years ago.
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2832/co2absorptionperyear175.png
It is approximately 1.0% each year of the amount in the atmosphere which is above 280 ppm.
http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/4348/co2absorptionperyear194.png
Wow, not only does CO2 act as a GHG, but it also warms the oceans. Stop the presses!!! Re-issue 9th grade Earth Science books!!! I was taught, back int he Stone Age, that the Sun warms the oceans, and the oceans in turn warm the lower atmosphere. After reading this piece, I now learn that this trace gas (CO2) has several magical qualities.
Of course, her theory would go straight to the ash-bin if there was an increase in cloud cover over the tropical oceans that persisted for several years. Now only would her theory be doomed, but many people would notice that the weather patterns all over the world would get downright cold. I am still one of those fossils who believe that if you decrease insolation over the tropical oceans you cool the globe despite the levels of CO2.
Flood,
I see, some small isolated systems with increased silica have now caused the oceans to lose the ability absorb carbon, as well as all the other biomass still out there is now crippled in its carbon uptake capacity …
So glad you were able to clear that up for all us. I had no idea such localized changes could incur such enormous ripple effects?
I gather you are implying the CO2 in the oceans is NOT being taken up as fast as before (even though the article makes no such claim and only ponders were the limit might be). And all due to more silica! The new GHG replacement has arrived!
Sarcasm off.
As with IPCC reports, the science is more likely to be found in the paper rather than the press release.
Accessible copy of the paper: http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5993/version/1/files/npre20115993-1.pdf
Abstract: The oceans’ carbon uptake substantially reduces the rate of anthropogenic carbon accumulation in the atmosphere1, and thus slows global climate change. Some diagnoses of trends in ocean carbon uptake have suggested a significant weakening in recent years2-8, while others conclude that decadal variability confounds detection of long-term trends 9-11. Here, we study trends in observed surface ocean partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) in three gyre-scale biomes of the North Atlantic, considering decadal to multidecadal timescales between 1981 and 2009. Trends on decadal timescales are of variable magnitudes and depend sensitively on the precise choice of years. As more years are considered, oceanic pCO2 trends begin to converge to the trend in atmospheric pCO2. North of 30 degN, it takes 25 years for the influence of decadal-timescale climate variability to be overcome by a long-term trend that is consistent with the accumulation of anthropogenic carbon. In the permanently stratified subtropical gyre, warming has recently become a significant contributor to the observed increase in oceanic pCO2. This warming, previously attributed to both a multidecadal climate oscillation and anthropogenic climate forcing12,13, is beginning to reduce ocean carbon uptake. 24
I sure hope the ocean’s uptake capacity for CO2 is reducing–I don’t want all this glorious CO2 to be gobbled up and taken from the atmosphere, thereby leaving us (plants directly; humans, and other animals indirectly) with no benefit.
(You thought I was going to put in the “/sarc off” line, right? Wrong. I’m serious.)
“the ocean takes up roughly one-third of all ‘human’ carbon emissions”
After a sentence like this, what is to follow will be pure propaganda.
Cognitive dissonance must be one of the hallmarks of human intellectual development: the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Perhaps it is useful to be able to act on multiple though contradictory scenarios at the same time – you’d be ready for anything that eventually showed up as actual rather than possible.
Increased atmospheric CO2 in a (very slightly) warming world that causes decreasing oceanic absorption seems to be one of those internally inconsistent scenarios. Obviously heating – which discharges CO2 through less solubility – is a nullifying effect to increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which creates a increased osmotic-like force to put more CO2 into the oceanic waters. But at an SST increase of only 0.35C (close enough) since 1979, the temperature component is very small. Biomass changes are so critical – look at the seasonal change in the Mauna Loa data to see the impact of vegetative growth in the Northern Hemisphere. – it is unsurprising that research is so regionally dependent.
Once again we have a global effect that shows up only regionally. Once again we have a catastrophic development that can’t be shown to be really any development at all with certainty. And none of this seems to get through to the warmist. Everything is rushing like a driverless train to a bridge-less ravine and yet we can’t be shown where the ravine is and which train it is we are talking about. Perhaps the warmists don’t understand the concepts of train schedules as they are always on bicycles (except when they are not): train schedules, like climate change scenarios, require you to know where it is going EXACTLY, how fast it is going EXACTLY and what obstacles might be on the route EXACTLY. Who would get on a train that MIGHT go to your destination sometime and MIGHT go down some track with or without problems?
Non-falsifiable hypotheses. Climate “scientists” always seem to be micro-specialists who don’t see or aren’t concerned about the disconnect between what they say and what their colleagues say. Perhaps that is why the WUWT-style researcher is the skeptic: only a generalist bumps into the problems.
Jorgekafkazar says it all!
wholovesdavidhewlett says:
off topic slightly (ok, a bit), but does anyone know if there is somewhere on the internet where a list is kept of all the AGW predictions that have proven false thus far? You know, things like less snow and more hurricanes etc etc
I believe a list like that was published here a little while back – check the archives. That’s a good start, at least.
wholovesdavidhewlett says:
“off topic slightly (ok, a bit), but does anyone know if there is somewhere on the internet where a list is kept of all the AGW predictions that have proven false thus far? You know, things like less snow and more hurricanes etc etc”
C3 site keeps updating a list of postings re: bad predictions ——- http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
This sounds like a grade 10/11 science project for kids living near an ocean. Take fresh ocean water at a fixed temperature, and bubble CO2 through it at a specific rate. Measure the change in PH after a set time and repeat the time interval until until the PH no longer changes (water/CO2 has reached equilibrium). Check this against fresh water at the same temperature. Then warm the same water a set amount (say 10C) …
Have a number of students doing the experiment and have unrelated party compare results.
I’m sure a scientist could come up with a better procedure, but this would be fun to do if enough science teachers along the coast of various countries became interested.
“With a dearth of other sampling sites, many studies have simply extrapolated trends from limited areas to broader swaths of the ocean.”
He must’ve gone to the Hansen school of advanced cherry picking.
John Brown,
[Snipped because I see no comment by or reference to John Brown on this page – mj]
[eco-geek, feel free to resubmit, this appears to have been an overzealous moderation by mj, our sincere apologies ~ ctm]
I’m not convinced that “conflicting” can be used as a verb. I’d have thought “contradicting” would be preferable?