Climate Change Impacts In The USA are Already (NOT) Happening

by Craig Loehle, Ph.D.

Many government reports by NASA, NOAA, EPA, USFWS, USFS, USDA and other agencies mention that climate change impacts are already observable in the USA. This is discussed in the context of endangered species conservation, forest resource assessment, future water availability, disaster planning, agriculture policy, etc. I have read many of these reports, which often refer back to the IPCC or the US Global Change Research Program. But they are usually vague on details of what bad things are expected to happen, generally referring to increases in extreme events. Nevertheless, these vague bad things are being used to guide policy.

The USA has some of the best data and is a large country. Are bad effects of climate change really visible already? In what follows, I address the evidence often put forward to support these claims and compare these to the literature. The true story is far from alarming.

Ocean Acidification

One government draft report indicated that ocean pH has decreased (become more acid) by 0.1 units, and that this represents a 30% increase in acidity since 1750. Because pH is a log scale, estimating percent increases in acidity is problematic and a change of 0.1 units could not represent a 30% change in acidity as stated. A serious issue not addressed by the report is that a global time series of pH data for the oceans does not exist. Thus, the provenance of the 0.1 unit change in value is dubious, and the confidence intervals on such an estimate would no doubt be large. Furthermore, daily, seasonal, and between year pH fluctuations at any given location are on the order of ±0.3 pH units or more (Middelboe and Hansen 2007; Pelejero et al. 2005).

Sea Level Rise

Some reports state that sea level rise poses a threat to United States natural habitats, with other reports focusing on risks to developed areas. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) temperatures due to human activity began to rise after 1980, but estimates of sea level show a rise from about 1870 (earliest records) at a nearly linear rate and with no sign of acceleration. Sea level rise from 1870 to 1980 is not likely due to human activity. One report indicates that IPCC has projected a sea level rise of 0.4 to 2 m by 2090, but the fourth IPCC report does not make such a claim, instead giving a best estimate of 0.28 to 0.43 m. Recent levels of rise (http://sealevel.colorado.edu), at 3.1 mm/year long-term trend or 0.31 m in 100 years with no indication of “acceleration,” are only consistent with the lowest IPCC projections. In fact, recent deceleration of the rate of rise (Houston and Dean 2011) has been detected. Examples of papers that projected sea level increases lower than the range discussed in the fourth IPCC report are Bouwer (2011), Chu et al. (2010), Czymzik et al. (2010), and Xie et al. (2010).

Temperature Increases

Governement assessment reports note that US temperatures have risen 2°F since 1961. However, conclusions about the extent of temperature increase depend heavily upon the start date for the calculation. Perhaps by coincidence, a start date of 1961 gives the most alarming rise. In contrast, there is almost no rise from 1938 to 2011 in the US. The same is true for sea surface temperature changes. This is because natural climate oscillations (e.g., Wyatt et al. 2011) produced a warm period in the mid-twentieth century with a cool period in the 1960s.

Floods

Reports assert that floods are increasing, but data do not bear this out. Hirsh and Ryberg (2011) showed that there is no trend toward increasing flood magnitudes in any region of the US, and a small decrease in the Southwest. Arrigoni et al. (2010) showed that climate change in the northern Rocky Mountains over 59 years has not significantly affected basin flows, although human habitat modifications have reduced the difference between minimum and maximum flows. Kundezewicz et al. (2005), in a global analysis of 195 long series of daily flow records, rejected the hypothesis of a growth in maximum daily flows. Increasing trends in flood damage can be fully accounted for by rising population and wealth.

Regional Drought Frequency

According to assessment reports, regional droughts are increasing in frequency and severity. However, they typically do not support this contention with any reliable data. Droughts are difficult to characterize and methods for doing so have become more sophisticated over time. The actual quantification of the “area” of a drought is also extremely subjective and no standard methods exist, nor do long-term standardized data.

Data related to precipitation and drought activity do not appear to support the contention of increasing drought frequency and severity and suggest that drought patterns are complex. For example, there has been a 5% increase in overall precipitation in the US rather than increasing drought. Sheffield et al. (2009) found that large-scale droughts follow ENSO and northern Pacific and Atlantic SSTs. This relation to ENSO activity is confirmed in a study in the US Southwest (McCabe et al. 2010). Globally, the mid 1950s had the highest drought activity and the mid 1970s to mid 1980s had the lowest, rather than a simple increasing trend. Again, picking the mid-1970s as a start date will give a false appearance of an increasing trend.

Extreme Storm Events

Assessment reports allege that extreme storm events are increasing even though storm severity per se is not reported or documented in any government archives. A “storm” is not even a well-defined object in climatology. There is an apparent increase in the number of tornados over time. However, improvements in radar quality and coverage over the past decades cause a detection bias trend, with more, smaller tornados being detected and recorded over time. Furthermore, increases in available disaster assistance aid have encouraged more frequent reporting of smaller storms in efforts to get disaster aid. Counting only category F4 and F5 events, which are relatively consistently detectable and recorded, there is no trend over the past 100 years (Balling and Cerveny 2003).

Hurricanes

Hurricane strength is said to be increasing. This can likely be attributed to increasing satellite coverage and resolution, which tends over time to more accurately capture the hours when a storm is at maximum strength. A study that corrects for storm detection ability over time (Vecchi and Knutson 2011) finds no trend in Atlantic hurricanes over the period of 1878 to 2008. Studies of landfall hurricanes (Balling and Cerveny 2003) also show no trend. The last cat 3+ landfall hurricanes to hit (i.e., with the hurricane eye) the continental US were in 2005

Fires

Reports suggest that warmer temperatures and changing precipitation patterns will cause more fires and affect the seasonality of fires. Indians and early European settlers both used fire extensively. Areas converted to agriculture (e.g., the Great Plains) now see almost no fire. Some western forests have higher fuel loads than 200 years ago. In the context of these and other large landscape changes, no one has documented a change in fire regimes in the US that can be attributed to climate change. In fact, the largest historical fires were in the West around 100 years ago. Human activities (changes in fuel loads, increased ignition sources, arson) have on the other hand been clearly documented effects on fire extent, as have “let burn” policies in the West, which have only been implemented in the past few decades..

Algal Blooms

Reports indicate that harmful algal blooms in aquatic ecosystems have become more frequent, intense, and widespread. Climate change is only one factor potentially causing harmful algal blooms, with increasing nutrient runoff a clearly important factor. There is no basis for ascribing trends in blooms to climate change. There is also an increasing ability to detect them as satellite imagery improves over time.

Changes in Ecosystems

There are studies showing responses to biota that are “consistent with” warming, but most of these are actually positive, whereas negative effects are hypothetical (e.g., phenology “might” be disrupted). For example, changes in bird migration and nesting dates indicate adaptation to changes rather than an alarming situation. The clearest data pertain to long-term trends in plant growth. These studies, with a few local exceptions, show regional to global net primary productivity (NPP) to have been increasing in the past 50 to 100 years (Alcaraz-Segura et al. 2010; Bellassen et al. 2011; Jia et al. 2009; Kohler et al. 2010; Lin et al. 2010; Nemani et al. 2003; Tian et al. 2010) due to both rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures. If warming since the Little Ice Age is leading to increased NPP, this is difficult to construe as problematic.

Conclusions

Within the United States, the claim that bad climate effects can “already” be detected is a totally subjective and unsupported hypothetical.

Literature Cited

Aitken, S.N., Yeaman, S., Holliday, J.A., Wang, T., and Curtis-McLane, S. 2008. Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evolutionary Applications 1:95 111.

Alcaraz-Segura, D., Chuvieco, E., Epstein, H.E., Kasischke, E.S., and Trishchenko, A. 2010. Debating the greening vs. browning of the North American boreal forest: differences between the satellite datasets. Global Change Biology 16:760 770.

Anagnostopoulos, G.G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstradiadis, A., and Mamassis, N. 2010. A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data. Hydrological Sciences Journal 55:1094 1110.

Arrigoni, A.S., Greenwood, M.C., and Moore, J.N. 2010. Relative impact of anthropogenic modifications versus climate change on the natural flow regimes of rivers in the northern Rocky Mountains, United States. Water Resources Research 46:W12542; doi:10.1029/2010WRO09162.

Balling, R.C., and Cerveny, R.S. 2003. Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception v. climate reality. Natural Hazards 29(2):103 112.

Bellassen, V., Viovy, N., Luyssaert, S., LeMarie, G., Schelhaas, M.-J., and Ciais, P. 2011. Reconstruction and attribution of the carbon sink of European forests between 1950 and 2000. Global Change Biology 17:3274 3292.

Bouwer, L.M. 2011. Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 92:39 46.

Chu, P.-S., Chen, Y.R., and Schroeder, T.A. 2010. Changes in precipitation extremes in the Hawaiian islands in a warming climate. Journal of Climate 23:4881 4900.

Cole, K. 1985. Past rates of change, species richness and a model of vegetational inertia in the Grand Canyon, Arizona. American Naturalist 125:289 303.

Cole, K.L. 2009. Vegetation response to early Holocene warming as an analog for current and future changes. Conservation Biology 24:29 37.

Cwynar, L.C., and Spear, R.W. 1991. Reversion of forest to tundra in the central Yukon. Ecology 72:202 212.

Czymzik, M., Dulski, P., Plessen, B., von Grafenstein, U., Naumann, R., and Brauer, A. 2010. A 50 year record of spring‐summer flood layers in annually laminated sediments from Lake Ammersee (southern Germany). Water Resources Research 46:W11528; doi:10.1029/2009WR008360.

Hirsch, R.M., and Ryberg, K.R. 2011. Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels? Hydrological Sciences Journal doi:10.1080/02626667.2011.621895.

Houston, J.R., and Dean, R.G. 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research doi:10.2112/JCOASTRES D 10 00157.1.

Jia, G.J., Epstein, H.E., and Walker, D.A. 2009. Vegetation greening in the Canadian arctic related to decadal warming. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 11:2231 2238.

Kohler, I.H., Poulton, P.R., Auerswald, K., and Schnyder, H. 2010. Intrinsic water-use efficiency of temperate seminatural grassland has increased since 1857: An analysis of carbon isotope discrimination of herbage from the Park Grass Experiment. Global Change Biology 16:1531 1541.

Kundzewicz, Z.W., Graczyk, D., Maurer, T., Pinskwar, I., Radziejewski, M., Svensson, C., and Szwed, M. 2005. Trend detection in river flow series: 1. Annual maximum flow. Hydrological Sciences Journal 50(5):797 810.

Lin, D., Xia, J., and Wan, S. 2010. Climate warming and biomass accumulation of terrestrial plants: A meta-analysis. New Phytologist 188:187 198.

Loehel, C. 1998. Height growth rate tradeoffs determine northern and southern range limits for trees. Journal of Biogeography 25:735 742.

Loehle, C. 2000. Forest ecotone response to climate change: sensitivity to temperature response functional forms. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:1632 1645.

Loehle, C. 2003. Competitive displacement of trees in response to climate change or introduction of exotics. Environmental Management 32:106 115.

Loehle, C. 2011. Criteria for assessing climate change impacts on ecosystems. Ecology and Evolution doi:10.1002/ece3.7.

Loehle, C., and LeBlanc, D.C. 1996. Model-based assessments of climate change effects on forests: a critical review. Ecological Modelling 90:1 31.

Masek, J.G. 2001. Stability of boreal forest stands during recent climate change: Evidence from Landsat satellite imagery. Journal of Biogeography 28:967 976.

McCabe, G.J., Legates, D.R., and Lins, H.F. 2010. Variability and trends in dry day frequency and dry event length in the southwestern United States. Journal of Geophysical Research 115:D07108; doi:10.1029/2009JD012866.

Middelboe, A.L. and Hansen, P.J. 2007. High pH in shallow-water macroalgal habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 338: 107-117

Morin, X., Lechowicz, M.J., Augspurger, C., O’Keefe, J., Viner, D., and Chuine, I. 2009. Leaf phenology in 22 North American tree species during the 21st century. Global Change Biology 15:961 975.

Nemani, R.R., Keeling, C.D., Hashimoto, H., Jolly, W.M., Piper, S.C., Tucker, C.J., Myneni, R.B., and Running, S.W. 2003. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300:1560 1563.

Noble, I.R. 1993. A model of the responses of ecotones to climate change. Ecological Applications 3:396 403.

Payette, S. 2007. Contrasted dynamics of northern Labrador tree lines caused by climate change and migration lag. Ecology 88:770 780.

Pelejero, C., Calvo, E., McCulloch, M.T., Marshall, J.F., Gagan, M.K., Lough, J.M. and Opdyke, B.N. 2005. Preindustrial to modern interdecadal variability in coral reef pH. Science 309: 2204-2207

Schliep, E. M., Cooley, D., Sain, S.R., and Hoeting, J.A. 2010. A comparison study of extreme precipitation from six different regional climate models via spatial hierarchical modeling. Extremes 13:219 239.

Sheffield, J., Andreadis, K.M., Wood, E.F., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2009. Global and continental drought in the second half of the twentieth century: Severity-area-duration analysis and temporal variability of large-scale events. Journal of Climate 22:1962 1981; doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2722.1.

Stephens, G. L., L’Ecuyer, T., Forbes, R., Gettlemen, A., Golaz, J.-C., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Suzuki, K., Gabriel, P., and Haynes, J. 2010. Dreary state of precipitation in global models. Journal of Geophysical Research 115:D24211.

Tian, H., Chen, G., Liu, M., Zhang, C., Sun, G., Lu, C., Xu, X., Ren, W., Pan, S. and Chappelka, A. 2010. Model estimates of net primary productivity, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency in the terrestrial ecosystems of the southern United States during 1895-2007. Forest Ecology and Management 259:1311 1327.

Tinner, W., Bigler, C., Gedye, S., Gregory-Eaves, I., Jones, R.T., Kaltenrieder, P., Krähenbühl, U., and Hu, F.S. 2008. A 700-year paleoecological record of boreal ecosystem responses to climatic variation from Alaska. Ecology 89:729 743.

Vecchi, G.A. and Knutson, T.R. 2011. Estimating annual numbers of Atlantic hurricanes missing from the HURDAT database (1878-1965) using ship track density. Journal of Climate 24:1736 1746; doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3810.1.

Wertin, T.M., McGuire, M.A., and Teskey, R.O. 2010. The influence of elevated temperature, elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration and water stress on net photosynthesis of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) at northern, central and southern sites in its native range. Global Change Biology 16:2089 2103.

Williams, J.W., Tarasov, P., Brewer, S., and Notaro, M. 2011. Late Quaternary variations in tree cover at the northern forest-tundra ecotone. Journal of Geophysical Research 116:G01017.

Woollings, T. 2010. Dynamical influences on European climate: An uncertain future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 368:3733 3756.

Wyatt, M.G., Kravisov, S., and Tsonis, A.A. 2011. Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability. Climate Dynamics doi:10.1007/s00382 011 1071 8.

Xie, B., Zhang, Q., and Wang, Y. 2010. Observed characteristics of hail size in four regions in China during 1980–2005. Journal of Climate 23:4973 4982.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

230 Responses to Climate Change Impacts In The USA are Already (NOT) Happening

  1. corporate message says:

    please fix

    more acidic is a pH decrease not increase

  2. richard says:

    One government draft report indicated that ocean pH has increased (become more acid) by 0.1 units

    became less base.

  3. BobN says:

    Craig – just a quick correction, pH has allegedly decreased (become more acid), not increased.

  4. Ian H says:

    Surely pH would need to DECREASE for the seas to become more acidic.

  5. John Marshall says:

    So we have severe drought increasing and increasing flooding.

    This paper looks like a direct reprint of the latest IPCC forecasts.

  6. Peter Plail says:

    May the scales fall from the eyes of the alarmists, that they recognise the truth.

    Sadly for them, the opportunity for staking their claims as saviours of the planet from deadly CO2 are vanishing.

  7. ImranCan says:

    “The last landfall hurricane to hit (i.e., with the hurricane eye) the continental US was Katrina in 2005.”

    I don’t disagree with anything you have said in this article, but you need to be accurate. I believe you are referring to ‘major’ hurricanes, in which case your statement is true. Otherwise, what about Dolly, Gustav and Ike that all made landfall as Cat 2 hurricanes in 2008 ?

  8. ian middleton says:

    If my chemistry serves me correctly an increase in pH makes something more alkaline. Or has AGW changed the rules.

  9. Anteros says:

    A welcome post.
    Great clarity and a much needed antidote to hysteria.

  10. bruce says:

    Re: tornados and algal blooms–Here in central Fla. when I was a 1950’s teenager we didn’t have the faintest idea we had tornados because there were only 1/4 the current population and nothing like our current detection and reporting capability. Algal blooms have now ruined many formerly pristinely clear lakes but this well know to be caused by the mountains of fertilizer used on lawns and in agriculture.

  11. John West says:

    “These studies, with a few local exceptions, show regional to global net primary productivity (NPP) to have been increasing in the past 50 to 100 years (Alcaraz-Segura et al. 2010; Bellassen et al. 2011; Jia et al. 2009; Kohler et al. 2010; Lin et al. 2010; Nemani et al. 2003; Tian et al. 2010) due to both rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures.”

    That seems all well and good with oxygen @ 20.8%, but wait until the plants have knocked that down to less than 19.5% and see how you like it then. …….. (/sarc)

  12. tokyoboy says:

    > ocean pH has increased (become more acid) by 0.1 units, …..

    Should be “…pH has decreased…” if the ocean became more acidic.

  13. Steve Keohane says:

    Thanks Dr. Loehle, great summation of a nonevent. I am still puzzled how you and others can put together temperature proxies that are consistent with human observation, as well as being consistent with what I read since the 50s, and the first IPCC report. Then the whole field of climate is absconded by a dire fantasy. I appreciate your well-grounded perspective.

  14. I’m sure the usual parade of disagreement will rise to the occasion? The whole point of alarmist rhetoric is to…..raise alarm. Not to use data, or the logical conclusions to be drawn from data, but to point out ‘impacts’ that ‘could be’ due to the CC Bogeyman. One mustn’t let reasoned conclusions based on observable facts get in the way; and if they do, quickly discredit the offering author. So, Dr. Loehle; prepare thyself for the usual litany of half-truths! Trolls, do your best!

  15. Within the United States, the claim that bad climate effects can “already” be detected is a totally subjective and unsupported hypothetical [fill in the missing word(s) please].

  16. mike about town says:

    good stuff….thanks!

  17. Jacob says:

    Nice summary. However, Irene made landfall in NC in 2011. I think you might have meant ‘major hurricane’, cat3+.

  18. richard verney says:

    I do not live in the USA but do consider that it should be used as a benchmark for assessing the cAGW claims because it is a large land mass and the ‘quality’ and extent of available data is high in relative terms when compared to the global position.

    Given that there has been little if any warming since the mid 1930s in the USA, one can see no reason why the USA should be exhibiting any adverse signs of climate change.

  19. Mr Lynn says:

    “Climate Change Impacts In The USA is Are Already [NOT] Happening”

    Subject of head is ‘Impacts’, plural.

    /Mr Lynn

  20. WRT pH, from what I understand it’s still firmly on the alkali side of the scale, and people should also realize that ‘acidic’ or relatively more acidic doesn’t mean bad, nor does alkali or relatively more alkali mean good. It’s like these people never heard of chemical burns outside of acid attacks in horror movies. They should watch The Seven Doors of Death, in the begining they melt a warlock with lye.

  21. Craig Loehle says:

    Note sent to Anthony about PH typo.
    ImranCan: yes, I’m only counting >Cat 2 hurricanes
    Murry Grainger: hypothetical is the last word in the sentence. Not a hypothetical something.

  22. JuergenK says:

    I cannot see why there should be more extreme wheather events.
    Electric energy is produced using a potential e.g. a difference in height from power house to water reservoir. Gravity accelerates water downwards the water pipe which then drives the turbines.
    What would happen when one could rise the whole location updwards?
    Nothing. Only the elevation difference between water reservoir and turbine counts, not the elevation of the whole system.
    Same with wheather. If you’ld increase the global mean temperature you won’t increase the differences in atmospheric pressures. Although there is more moisture in the air to be expected at an increased mean temperature, the engine driving wind and wheather doesn’t get stronger.
    Energy as such can’t do any work. What one needs is a potential. To heat earth up doesn’t raise any potential. To the contrary. Melting the polar ice caps will decrease the useable potential for wind and storms.
    Speaking of hurricans there is another potential in charge, I believe. One needs shearing winds to create a vortex and an up/down potential that is the difference between sea surface temperature and the temperature of the upper troposphere.
    So how will heating up the blue marble as a whole increase that potential?

  23. MikeL says:

    Most people are scientifically and mathematically illiterate and thus have not a clue what pH represents and thus can be fooled by the dubious and intentional use of the 30% more acidic claim. A change of pH of 0.1 units does in fact represent a 26% change in the hydrogen ion (H+ or H3O+) concentration.

  24. Alec Rawls says:

    Nice resource Craig. Bookmarked, under Loehle.

  25. Owen in GA says:

    This reminds me of the scene in “The Princess Bride” between Wesley and Vizzini – “What you do not smell is Iocaine powder…”

    I always love observing the null set, it is quite comforting at times.

  26. Kasuha says:

    I can’t help it but in my opinion effects of climate change are already very observable – taxes went up, prices went up, people are more stressed, live in worse conditions, more people are unemployed and poor – all of it because of climate change…

  27. DavidCobb says:

    The need for accuracy is important. You should change it to read “no major (cat 3+) hurricanes since Katrina”. You would be hard pressed to find anyone living around Galveston Bay who thought Ike was a minor storm.

  28. corporate message says:

    Their reasoning behind the “acidity” increase dealy, is that what they are talking about is no longer about pH, you see. It’s something different they are measuring related to free ions, I assume.

  29. HenryP says:

    Craig says:
    One government draft report indicated that ocean pH has increased (become more acid) by 0.1 units

    Henry@Craig

    the pH =-log [H+]
    we have a pH scale of 0-14
    pH=0 is 1 mole H+ per liter
    7.00 is completely neutral water.
    14 is where the pOH is 0, i.e 1 mole per liter OH-

    So if they say that the pH increased by 0.1, it means the water became a bit more alkaline, not acidic.
    An increase in pH, i.e. water getting more alkaline is better for life in general.

    Seeing that the actual cause of the warming is natural, i.e. more sunshine and or less clouds and or/less ozone shielding, etc.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    it actually makes sense for me to disregard reports that the oceans have become more acidic due to CO2 emissions.
    Namely, with clearly more (natural) heat ending up in the SH oceans, we would expect to find that, similar to boiling your tap water (to remove CO2), you get
    heat + HCO3- => CO2 + OH-
    which raises the pH
    which makes the water more alkaline.

    So, I have to correct you. If they say the pH is raised by 0.1 then it has become more alkaline.
    Not more acidic.

  30. Craig Loehle says:

    Yep, another typo: Climate Change Impacts Are … not “is”
    I’m trying to set a record.

  31. David S says:

    Dr Loehle
    Can you please clarify whether you think Ike was a hurricane when it made landfall in September 2008? My understanding is that it was a Cat 2 at landfall and still a Cat 1 about 100 miles inland, meaning that the eye would have been well over the coast before it was downgraded to a triopical storm. Your general argument is still valid, but I think Chris Landsea’s various papers and presentations make the point better, particularly when one looks at the ACE index numbers or the hurricane damage figures normalised for population growth and intensity.

  32. FYI: A change of -0.1 in pH results in a change in concentration of H+ (or H3O) ions by a factor 10^0.1, which equals 1.26. Perhaps rounding this number to 1.3 is where the ‘30%’ comment came from? Not a big effect in the scheme of things…

  33. corporate message says:

    When it comes to water measurements, and understanding, sometimes the best place to get info, is on hobbyist sites such as reef central.

    There is a bit of difficulty relating all the terms; .General Hardness or GH, German Degrees hardness, kH, acidity, basicity, alkalinity and so on. It’s not clear cut understanding across the board.

  34. David A says:

    Good post Craig. I have always noted that the claimed harms of CAGW are missing. The benefits are KNOWN, the harms are THEORY, unsupported by observations. Usually the alarmist type run away from a post like this.

  35. Bob Moss says:

    Hurricane Rita (cat 5, cat 3 at landfall) was after Katrina by a few weeks but, of course, does not change the point that it has been several years since a major hurricane hit the USA.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/special-reports/rita.html

  36. klem says:

    Are any of those changes out of the ordinary in any way?

  37. dcfl51 says:

    Regarding the ocean pH value, log 1.3 = 0.114 where the log is to base 10.

    OR 10^-7.9 / 10^-8 = 10^0.1 = 1.26

    This seems to suggest that a reduction in pH value of 0.1 and an increase in H ions of 30% in sea water do seem to roughly correspond.

    I suspect that this figure derives from the claim, based on ice core analysis, that atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 30% since the start of the industrial revolution. It is then assumed that dissolved CO2 in the oceans must also have increased by 30%, hence the 0.1 change in pH. This seems plausible if the ice cores can be believed. But my view is that the criticisms of ice core analysis by Jaworowski, together with the historical direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 collated by Beck and the several analyses of stomata records call into question the officially accepted history of atmospheric CO2 levels. Thus, it is quite possible there has been no trend in the pH value of sea water at all.

    Just hypothesizing !

  38. Dodgy Geezer says:

    I would like to share with you the results of a simple google on ‘aquarium ph levels’ – here is an excerpt from the nearest aquarium advice site:

    “…Unless you intend to breed a species that is very particular about water chemistry, you will find that the stability of the pH in an aquarium is far more important than the exact value. Large, rapid changes in pH are often fatal to fish. Any change greater than 0.2 in a 24-hour period will cause physical stress for most fish.

    Most fish will do fine in a broad range of values starting as low as 6.5 and going up to 8.0. Some species will do better at even higher or lower values than these, but for all practical purposes, it is best to allow the pH to settle at a value and simply leave it there. As a natural part of the biological processes in an aquatic environment, the pH in the tank will become increasingly acidic over time. The change is very gradual, though, and so poses no real threat to the fish…”

    So if I’m a warmist, I can alter the pH value in my test tank by .04 in 10 minutes, and document definite physical stress. But if I’m a ‘denier’, I can swing the pH from 8 to 6.5 over a few months and demonstrate no impact at all.

    Isn’t climate science wonderful…..?

  39. Craig Loehle says:

    A change (decrease) of 0.1 on a 14 point PH scale is not 30% no matter how you twist it. It is possible that warming water could lose net CO2 and become more alkaline absent rising atmospheric levels as HenryP noted, but I can’t assess the net effect myself with both processes going on.
    On hurricanes, a storm “hitting” the coast means the eye hit, and cat 2 isn’t much of a storm so I discounted those.

  40. Joe Born says:

    “Because pH is a log scale, estimating percent increases in acidity is problematic and a change of 0.1 units could not represent a 30% change in acidity as stated.”

    I was about to make the same observation about this statement’s accuracy as MikeL did, i.e., that it’s not really off by too much. But my conclusion is different. Dr. Loehle’s argument would be more bulletproof if he avoided reliance on such debatable points.

  41. Hu McCulloch says:

    Craig — pH is on a log 10 scale, not a natural log scale. So a decrease (not increase) of .1 units increases H3O by a factor of 10^.1 = 1.26, or about 30%.

    According to two recent survey articles by Dana Royer, over the last 550 million (not thousand) years, CO2 has mostly been in the range 1000-3000 ppm. Despite this “acid” environment, the seas did just fine, and laid down all the limestone we see around us, so I’m not too worried that the clams are going to have to swim around naked. . The seas are a huge buffering mechanism and can absorb a lot of CO2 without much change in pH.

  42. ImranCan says:

    Craig – suggest you fix the text on hurricanes to be accurate. As Bob Moss also points out, Rita was after Katrina and a Cat3 hurricane. These kind of errors don’t affect the overall storyline – which is great – but they cause an erosion of credibility, and its easy to start wondering “well … if he can’t even get that right …..”

  43. Be Green says:

    A lot of other hurricanes have hit outside of Katrina. Ike, Irene, Gustav…

  44. “…The last landfall hurricane to hit (i.e., with the hurricane eye) the continental US was Katrina in 2005…”

    Weren’t there a couple AFTER Katrina in 2005?

    IIRC, Rita and Wilma were both 5’s.

    Gustav and Ike in 2008 only made it to cat 2’s at landfall, but still hit the mainland.

    I think Ike of 2008 would be the last “landfalling” hurricane.

  45. Hu McCulloch says:

    RE unprecedented floods —

    There’s a new art movie out titled The Great Flood. From the blurb:

    The Great Flood of 1927 [was] a natural catastrophe that sparked a transformation of American society and music. In the spring of 1927, the Mississippi broke out of its earthen embankments in 145 places and inundated 27,000 square miles. The disaster became a major force in spurring the Great Migration of rural sharecroppers to northern industrial cities, triggering the evolutioin of acoustic country blues into urban electric blues, then R&B, rock, and jazz.

    Must have been the CO2! ;-)

  46. Latitude says:

    corporate message says:
    March 8, 2012 at 6:39 am
    When it comes to water measurements, and understanding, sometimes the best place to get info, is on hobbyist sites such as reef central.
    ==================================================
    and even they don’t get it right……

    But aquariums in the house are a decent example of why the ocean acidification does not work….

    It’s common for CO2 levels in a closed house to be 1000 ppm or higher. Aquarists maintain pH by simply adding buffer….
    The oceans will not become more acidic unless they run out of buffer….and as long as carbon dioxide is converted to calcium carbonate that won’t happen

  47. corporate message says:

    Boiling tapwater removes some dissolved gases due to the pipe water pressure – but also removes carbonates of calcium and perhaps magnesium ….so you see a lime scale on the kettle – hardness vs acidity – chemists !

  48. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Good post. Take the bones out of that, Warm-mongers.

  49. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Dr. Loehle, would you care to comment on a recent paper in Science about ocean acidification that examines the geologic record for context relating to ocean acidification. The research group (twenty-one scientists from nearly as many different universities) reviewed the evidence from past known or suspected intervals of ocean acidification. The work provides perspective on the current trend as well as the potential consequences. They find that the current rate of ocean acidification puts us on a track that, if continued, would likely be unprecedented in last 300 million years.
    Citation: “The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification.” By Bärbel Hönisch et al. Science, Vol. 335, No. 6072, Pg. 1058-1063. March 2, 2012. DOI: 10.1126/science.1208277.

  50. cromagnum says:

    It might be helpful to know which USG reports have these errors. perhaps a table of report names, category, year, agency, and column(s) for check box(es) or qty(s) per error type. (yeah its gonna be a large file listing those reports). If we know of a direct rebuttal report/posting, that name/link could aslo be given. This expands the tribal knowledge to the global knowledge.
    And make the table available for the WUWT community for additional inputs/corrections (sort of like the temp station project)

    You post is a good summary, it’s also good to see the data of where the errors reside.
    And so then when faced with an individual cited report, it gives a quick sanity check of known errors.

  51. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Latitude you are correct that when CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land.

    However, the rise in atmospheric CO2 from human activities leads to not only by elevated dissolved CO2 and decreased pH but also decreased saturation with respect to calcium carbonate. In the recent Honish et al (Science 2012), they show the progressive coupling between calcium carbonate saturation and pH as the rate of CO2 emissions increases and sources (weathering) and sinks (calcium carbonate burial) of alkalinity are no longer balanced. For future projections of increases in atmospheric CO2, both surface ocean pH and saturation state decline at the same time.

  52. Latitude says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 7:36 am
    The work provides perspective on the current trend as well as the potential consequences
    ==================
    The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification
    Abstract
    Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively. In contrast, the geological record contains long-term evidence for a variety of global environmental perturbations, including ocean acidification plus their associated biotic responses. We review events exhibiting evidence for elevated atmospheric CO2, global warming, and ocean acidification over the past ~300 million years of Earth’s history, some with contemporaneous extinction or evolutionary turnover among marine calcifiers. Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry—a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place.

  53. Olen says:

    Truth, justice and the American way are no where to be found in those reports. Sure that was the standard of Superman but there are no such standards in reports promoting false claims.

    From the American Heritage Dictionary: (Philosophy) (In the philosophy of Nietzsche) an ideal man who through integrity and creativity would rise above good and evil and who represents the goal of human evolution
    Superman, the all-American 20th-century comic-book hero, takes his name from the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s term for the ideal superior man, which is Übermensch in German.

    Scientists don’t have to be Superman to be good scientists but they do have to be truthful,

  54. Latitude says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 7:49 am
    ==========================
    Julienne, are you aware that CO2 is nothing more than an acid, and that there are much stronger acid releases in the ocean…….that do not lower pH?
    As far as acids in the ocean……CO2 is a non-player

  55. Craig Loehle says:

    cromagnum: government reports like I mentioned are given notice in the Federal Register and anyone can comment on them, in contrast to the IPCC. There are so many it is hard to keep up.
    Stroeve: I am not in a position to comment on that particular paper.

  56. Craig Loehle says:

    Changes made per requests:
    The last landfall hurricane to hit (i.e., with the hurricane eye) the continental US was Katrina in 2005″
    to
    “The last cat 3+ landfall hurricanes to hit (i.e., with the hurricane eye) the continental US were in 2005.”
    in title: “is” to “are”

  57. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Latitude, there are many studies out there that contradict what you say above, including the recent Science paper. Do you have evidence to show that atmospheric CO2 does not impact ocean pH?

  58. Alfred Giesbrecht says:

    “Reports indicate that harmful algal blooms in aquatic ecosystems have become more frequent”
    Lakes in the Okanagan British Columbia are threatened by algai blooms due to increased population and high nitrates in water from sewage treatment plants. Other small lakes are totally polluted due to increased agricultural activities. Where are the studies related to these factors ?

  59. Latitude says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 8:19 am
    Latitude, there are many studies out there that contradict what you say above, including the recent Science paper. Do you have evidence to show that atmospheric CO2 does not impact ocean pH?
    ==============================================
    Chemistry is easy………..biochemistry is hard
    First, show all those clean surfaces where pure chemical reactions take place……can’t be done, it’s a biological process

    CO2 can only lower pH in the lab, where you continue to inject CO2 until you deplete all of the buffers.

    Buffers are replenished in the ocean by bacterial processes in the sediment. The boundary layer between the aerobic and anaerobic…the oxic. As you increase CO2 levels in the real world, the oxic migrates closer to the surface making the process faster.

    Biological processes produce such a huge amount of acids…..it makes the whole CO2 acidification look stupid and silly….which it is. Bacteria alone produce so much acid and CO2…that dwarfs anything CO2 could do………….

  60. Craig Loehle says:

    Alfred: of course algal blooms are a problem but not because of climate change–because of fertilizer and wastewater loading. Furthermore, they are not monitored like hurricanes are. What is a “bloom”? How do you define its size? So no serious database exists to compute trends.

  61. Pat Moffitt says:

    Many of the loosely defined “harmful algal bloom” cells were too small for the counting methods routinely used prior to the late 80s. An increase in harmful blooms can be the result of changes in salinity, temperature, silica, grazing pressure, flushing times, allelopathy, tidal range, nutrient ratios, wind, mixing, light, state changes, end point bias and the many “things we do not know we do not know.”

  62. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Latitude, so you are saying that all the published studies on how atmospheric CO2 changes the pH of the Ocean are wrong? Or do you have a paper that has been published that refutes all other publications on the issue? Please cite some work that supports your statement that CO2 does not matter to Ocean pH.

  63. Latitude says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 8:39 am

    Latitude, so you are saying that all the published studies on how atmospheric CO2 changes the pH of the Ocean are wrong? Or do you have a paper that has been published that refutes all other publications on the issue? Please cite some work that supports your statement that CO2 does not matter to Ocean pH.
    ===================================
    Of course they’re wrong……read the very first sentence of the abstract again……

    “Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively.”

    I have nothing dealing with climate science, ocean acidification, etc…and I’m not inclined to look for it either……….

    There are tons of papers out there dealing with nitrification, denitritication, ammonification, etc etc which explain the biological processes, acids produced, CO2 produced……
    …even just a basic understanding of biological processes would provide enough common sense

    Don’t you think there are processes in the ocean that produce much more acid? why don’t those processes make the ocean acid/less alkaline?

  64. Craig Loehle says:
    March 8, 2012 at 6:09 am

    Murry [sic] Grainger: hypothetical is the last word in the sentence. Not a hypothetical something.

    Sorry Craig but you cannot have “is a …. hypothetical” Either remove the “a” or tell what the next word is.
    You can have:
    “Within the United States, the claim that bad climate effects can “already” be detected is totally subjective, unsupported and hypothetical.”
    or you can have:
    “Within the United States, the claim that bad climate effects can “already” be detected is a totally subjective and unsupported hypothetical construct”.

    But as it is written it make no sense to me.

  65. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Dr. Loehle, with all due respect I would hope you would be able to comment in detail on the various items you discussed. The Middelboe, A.L. and Hansen, P.J. 2007 you reference refers to shallow water macroalgal habitats, so I’m not sure how that is relevant to global ocean pH levels. But the study did find that pH is higher in natural shallow-water habitats than previously thought, and that high pH has a direct effect on photosynthesis that cannot be accounted for by low availability of inorganic carbon.

    The Pelejero et al. paper abstract is:
    The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compositions in a ∼300-year-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over ∼50-year cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.

    They go on to conclude: Our findings suggest that the effects of progressive acidification of the oceans are likely to differ between coral reefs because reef-water Pco2 and consequent changes in seawater pH will rarely be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Although the relatively large variations in seawater pH at Flinders Reef suggest that coral reefs may be resilient to the shorter term effects of ocean acidification, in the coming decades many reefs are likely to experience reduced pH that is unprecedented relative to “natural” levels. Additional paleo-pH records are required from a range of coral reef ecosystems to improve our understanding of the physical and biological controls on reef-water pH, and the long-term impacts of future ocean acidification.

  66. Apologies Craig,

    I see that the adjective “hypothetical” has been ‘nouned’. My bad – learn something new every day. Wretched Americans trashing a perfectly logical language :) What ever was wrong with “hypothesis” as the noun?

  67. corporate message says:

    Julienne, Latitude is talking sense here, paper or no paper.

  68. HenryP says:

    Henry@Julienne Stroeve

    I repeat to you what I said earlier:
    Seeing that the actual cause of the (global) warming is natural (and is not global at all),
    i.e. it is caused by more sunshine and or less clouds and or/less ozone shielding, etc.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    it actually makes sense for me to disregard reports that the oceans have become more acidic due to CO2 emissions.
    Namely, with clearly more (natural) heat ending up in the SH oceans, we would expect to find that, similar to boiling your tap water (to remove CO2), you get
    heat + HCO3- => CO2 + OH-
    which raises the pH
    which makes the water more alkaline.

    As far as I know, all their current reports on ocean acidification are based on only two sites in the oceans where they monitor the pH on a continuous base. This would be the same as me sitting and measure the temperature on two places on earth and believing that this will give me a true global value.

    If you can bring me reports of at least 20 sites all over the globe where they monitored pH and came to this result of -0.1 on the pH scale, I will be more inclined to believe you. As it stands, more CO2 is better for the biosphere.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

  69. durango12 says:

    On the 0.1 pH, they could be thinking simplistically 10^0.1 = 1.26, representing an increase of 26% in H ions, rounded up to “30%.”

  70. Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 8:39 am

    Latitude, so you are saying that all the published studies on how atmospheric CO2 changes the pH of the Ocean are wrong?

    I know this sounds like semantics, but there are no papers that show this. Yes, there are many papers that purports to show that CO2 may cause a decrease in ocean pH, but absoutey nothing to demonstrate clear causation in the pH of the actual, physical oceans of the Earth.

    Unless you, Julienne, know of some paper that states such unequivocally, I would suggest you retract your baldly unscientific statement that “atmospheric CO2 changes the pH of the Ocean”.

  71. corporate message says:

    “Unless you intend to breed a species that is very particular about water chemistry, you will find that the stability of the pH in an aquarium is far more important than the exact value. Large, rapid changes in pH are often fatal to fish. Any change greater than 0.2 in a 24-hour period will cause physical stress for most fish.”

    This is not necessarily true.
    Since the 70’s, people have tested. One may plunge many types of fish from one extreme to the other with no ill effect observed – so long as “saliniity” or osmotic pressure is not being altered much.

    Cells dehydrate at one extreme, and burst on the other. Dehydration is less harmful. Observations commonly are about raising pH and lowering it..Usually this involves buffering salts.

    pH damage maybe not…more like osmotic pressure damage related to the differing amount of salts usually found in higher pH water and lower pH water
    Usually natural waters are thought to correspond; hard and alkaline, as the rift lakes volcanic basin water, compared to soft and acidic, like blackwater rivers with tannins and so on.

    It’s not necessarily true that higher pH water has more minerals, though. You could take distilled water and add a pinch of baking soda…boom high pH in soft water. .

  72. The steady stream of ALARMIST DECLARATION is to grab power. It has been happening since early 1900’s. The base for every alarmist activity is to drive out capitalism, destroy our republic, and replace our political system with “yes we can” “hope and change” dictatorial leadership. This article points to a group of subjects that are politically driven.

    So, for those who are posting arguments supporting the alarmist mantra, they are missing the point behind the reason for alarmists activity.

    Good luck!

  73. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Stark, I would start with this book chapter that reviews the impact of atmospheric CO2 on Ocean pH and references therein. C. Turley, J.C. Blackford, S. Widdicombe, D. Lowe, P.D. Nightingale and A.P. Rees, Chapter 8, Reviewing the Impact of Increased Atmospheric Co2 on Oceanic pH and the Marine Ecosystem.

    This chapter discuss the Carbonate system and the chemical reaction that occurs when CO2 dissolves in seawater.

  74. corporate message says:

    Here is a paper somewhat connected to the dialogue on ” your papers please”.

    Google “ion poor rio negro” and see the little set of expert papers

    experiments on Corydoras julii supposedly plucked from the rio negro. Unfortunately they do not exist there.

    Plonk

  75. Hoser says:

    corporate message says:
    March 8, 2012 at 7:28 am

    Consider alkalinity. How is bicarbonate (there should be essentially no carbonate) in tap water converted to CO2 by boiling? Hardness is the Mg and Ca, as I think you know.

  76. Gerald Wilhite says:

    Whether it’s hiding heads in the sand or fudging or distorting data or concocting hoaxes like ‘Piltdown Man’, perpetrators of scientific crimes should be prosecuted for a crippling form of intellectual child abuse. Tell me how to calculate the cost to civilization of billions of misinformed, disillusioned young minds? Tell me how many centuries ahead our Scientific Revolution might be if Rome’s 1516 Inquisition had been unable to enforce a two-century ban on reprinting Galileo’s works? Tell me why practitioners who suspect a scientific fraud is being committed and don’t report it immediately should be as legally liable as the RN or MD or Catholic Priest or University Football coach who fails to report suspected child abuse?

  77. Craig Loehle says:

    Murray: we noun everything and verb everything here in the USA. Sorry about that.
    Jullienne Stroeve: my point was simply that PH varies a lot–the abstracts you cite show exactly that. I am not writing a book here, just making some points.
    HenryP: your point is exactly true–there is no such thing as a long-term monitoring network for PH. If you think there is, point me to it. Inferring PH from ancient data is also iffy.

  78. John West says:

    If 0.1 change in pH is 30% then what’s a 1.0 change? 300%?

    LOL!

    pH is the negative Log of the molar concentration (mol/L) of H+ ion.
    8.3 pH ~ 0.000000005 mol/L
    8.2 pH ~ 0.0000000063 mol/L

    S0, 0.0000000013 increase from 0.000000005 is a 26% increase in H+ concentration; but its like offering to double the pay of a volunteer. Double nothing is still nothing and 26% more than 0.000000005 is still only 0.0000000063.

    pH H+ mol/L
    0 1
    1 0.1
    2 0.01
    3 0.001
    4 0.0001
    5 0.00001
    6 0.000001
    7 0.0000001
    8 0.00000001
    9 0.000000001
    10 0.0000000001
    11 0.00000000001
    12 0.000000000001
    13 0.0000000000001
    14 0.00000000000001

  79. Latitude says:

    Julienne, I’ve been thinking about this……let me try one more stab at common sense

    Have you even had a fish bowl or an aquarium?
    If you have, you have experience with biological processes and having to adjust pH.

    What makes the pH fall in an aquarium?
    Is it the ambient CO2 levels in your room?
    Or is it the biological processing the fish poop/pee, bacterial waste, ammonification/nitrificaiton etc?

    If you lower the CO2 levels in your room, do you think the pH of your aquarium would become stable?

    I think that’s a fairly good example of common sense…….there are things going on in the ocean that produce magnitudes more acid….the ocean does not know what acid it is, or where it comes from….only that acid lowers pH……

    Why do those things not lower pH? If you understand that, you understand that ocean acidification is a crock……………

    Plus, first they are going to have to find somewhere in the ocean where pH is actually falling……

  80. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Corporate message, I believe it is important to back claims with citations. If you and others want to say that atmospheric CO2 has no impact on Ocean acidification, then I would hope you would be able to back that with evidence, since there are many papers out there that say the opposite. I started my discussion on this blog posting with a question to Dr. Loehle asking him to comment on a recently published paper that appears to counter what he was saying in his post. He is not prepared to discuss it, which is unfortunate since I think if someone is going to do a guest post on WUWT they would be up-to-date with the research on the topic and prepared to discuss it in detail. Latitude makes a claim that atmospheric CO2 is not important to Ocean pH yet cannot back it with scientific evidence/studies. I’m simply asking you to back up your claims, and if you disagree with published studies, then provide evidence to support why you disagree.

  81. Craig Loehle says:

    Stroeve: you are expecting the poster (me) to be instantly able to respond to any question in real time? I am not a savant. I can not debate the entire issue of ocean PH — please limit your questions to what I wrote. I was making the points that 1) PH varies at any given locality and 2) there is very poor long term monitoring data from which to derive trend estimates. That’s all.

  82. Latitude says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 9:41 am
    Latitude makes a claim that atmospheric CO2 is not important to Ocean pH yet cannot back it with scientific evidence/studies.
    ===========================
    Julienne, having plenty of experience with dealing with you in the past….
    …..I already know how you twist things
    Now my turn…..back at you

    Julienne, being too lazy to look up easy key words – denitrification, ammonification, etc – accuses me of not being able to back up what I’ve said………..

    There’s plenty of “scientific evidence/studies” on these subjects….I’m not going to read them to you either…………..

  83. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Latitude and others, Scripps has been investigating the impacts of dissolved CO2 and pH both in the laboratory and in the oceans. They have a laboratory apparatus that enables studies on the effects of varying CO2 and oxygen levels on marine organisms in a controlled setting. Same with the Monteray Bay Aquarium Research Institute. In addition, for more than 60 years, the California Cooperative Fisheries Investigations have gathered biological, chemical and physical data off the West Coast. This data provides a valuable research to look at changes in Ocean pH over time. Scripps researchers have recorded a drop in pH at several ocean locations.

    Some conclusions from these field and laboratory studies reveal “that the carbonate chemistry of seawater has a profound negative impact on the calcification rates of individual species and communities in both planktonic (floating) and ocean bottom organisms. The calcification rate of nearly all calcium-secreting organisms investigated to date decreased in response to decreased carbonate ion concentration. This response holds across multiple taxonomic groups from single-celled organisms to reef-building corals. In general, when dissolved CO2 was increased to two times pre-industrial levels, a decrease in the calcification rate was observed, ranging from -5 to -50%. For example, decreased carbonate ion concentration has been shown to significantly reduce the ability of reef-building corals to produce their calcium carbonate skeletons, affecting growth of individual corals and the ability of the larger reef to maintain a positive balance between reef building and reef dissolution. Scientists have also seen a reduced ability to produce protective calcium carbonate shells in species of marine algae and planktonic molluscs, on which other marine organisms feed. Calcification probably serves multiple functions in calcifying organisms. Decreased calcification would presumably compromise the fitness or success of these organisms and could shift the competitive advantage towards non-calcifiers. Carbonate skeletal structures are likely to be weaker and more susceptible to dissolution and erosion. While long-term consequences are unknown, experimental results from enclosed laboratory experiments indicate that coral reef organisms do not acclimate to decreasing carbonate saturation states over several years. Thus, if calcifying organisms cannot adapt to the changes in seawater chemistry that will occur, the geographical range of some species may be reduced or may shift latitudinally in response to rising CO2. Based on the best available understanding, it appears that as levels of dissolved CO2 in sea water rise, the skeletal growth rates of calcium-secreting organisms will be reduced as a result of the effects of dissolved CO2 on ocean acidity and consequently, on calcification. The effects of decreased calcification in microscopic algae and animals could impact marine food webs and, combined with other climatic changes in salinity, temperature, and upwelled nutrients, could substantially alter the biodiversity and productivity of the ocean. As humans continue along the path of unintended CO2 sequestration in the surface oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound.”

  84. Can something be more of what it isn’t already? If we say that something is more blue, aren’t we saying that it is already blue and getting bluer? If the yellow paint on a house is fading, would saying that it is getting bluer be misleading?

    Can an alkaline solution become more “acidic” while remaining alkaline? Wouldn’t it be getting less alkaline rather than more acidic?

    Can the oceans ever become become acidic? If not, how can they ever become more acidic? I hate to sound like a pedant but a lot of folks are getting the impression that the oceans are being turned into acid by CO2. That is a fearful prospect and it is intended to be. I don’t think that we should help CAGW espousers give them that impression by repeating their propaganda. If the pH of the oceans decreasing, then we should say that they are getting slightly less alkaline.

  85. AdolfoGiurfa says:

    I think Climate Change Impacts In The USA are Already Happening…. but only at the political ideological level. :-)

  86. E.M.Smith says:

    I love the way that the proposed disaster scenario includes BOTH more flooding and more drought… but the drought is called ‘regional drought’ so I guess those floods must be all the more bigger …

    BTW, the proposed bad consequence of ocean “less alkaline” is the inability of shell fish to make shells. The distribution of freshwater clams into areas with surface water pH in the very acid 4.x range kind of says that’s not a problem:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/clams-do-fine-in-acid-water/

    Also there are many megatons of carbonate on the ocean bottom ( “fish gut rocks” along with diatoms et.al.) that will buffer the pH such that it can’t change much at all. Oh, and don’t forget the megatons of METAL NODULES aka manganese nodules that have precipitated out on the ocean bottom. They, too, are going to prevent acid conditions from forming…

  87. John West says:

    In addition to above…….

    To go from 8.3 to 7.0 pH using H+ concentration as apparently used by the [self-snip], it’d take a 1900% increase. So, a 26% increase even rounded to 30% isn’t much.

    It’s crazy to use %’s with pH, if any of my Chemists tried that …. well, they’d need an updated resume, just saying.

  88. Latitude says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 9:53 am
    Latitude and others, Scripps has been investigating the impacts of dissolved CO2 and pH both in the laboratory and in the oceans.
    ==================================================
    Who was it that said something about keeping up?
    ====================================================
    Scripps blockbuster: Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally

    Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed.

    It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scripps-paper-ocean-acidification-fears-overhyped/

  89. Latitude says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 9:53 am
    Same with the Monteray Bay Aquarium Research Institute. In addition, for more than 60 years, the California Cooperative Fisheries Investigations have gathered biological, chemical and physical data off the West Coast. This data provides a valuable research to look at changes in Ocean pH over time.
    ================================================
    Yes it does, nothing to see here……….

  90. Craig Loehle says:

    Stroeve is talking about possible future impacts. My post is about already evident impacts. 0.1 PH units is not an impact.

  91. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Latitude, it’s a shame you now resort to personal attacks. I may have my opinions about you, but I’m not voicing them. Instead I’m simply asking you to back up your claims, which so far you haven’t.

  92. Scottish Sceptic says:

    How ridiculous … the mere fact that temperature is not increasing, hurricanes are not increasing, tornadoes, rain, fires, storms, and there is no appearance yet of the seven men of the apocalypse ….

    …. doesn’t prove that mankind is not destroying the world and that we will not end up in a fiery doom of global warming hell … where we will all be forced to watch end-to-end videos of “An inconvenient truth” …. and

    Well how can I persuade you …. do you want to roast in temperatures as high as 1C warmer?

    Go on! Tell me the truth! Cause all the evidence of our evil ways are obvious to anyone without the IQ to see them!

  93. 1DandyTroll says:

    Darn, yet another rational post I read and understood everything from. Its like it’s a trend, the more rational the post the easier it is to understand. I wonder why the greens seem to miss that stuff. :p

  94. corporate message says:

    Julienne, do you have a problem with comprehension ?

    I’ll show evidence for what I posted; the study on ion regulation by Rio Negro fish…where the scientists PURCHASED from the ornamental fish trade down the road..fish that DO NOT LIVE in the Rio Negro and never have.

    Not knowing your subjects, Julienne, means it’s all in your head.

    Check Fishbase source for C. julii habitat if you are not too LAZY.
    Try to have it corrected, ma’am. Go ahead. So much for your whine.

    Next.

  95. HenryP says:

    Julienne Stroewe says:
    While long-term consequences are unknown, experimental results from enclosed laboratory experiments indicate that coral reef organisms do not acclimate to decreasing carbonate saturation states over several years.

    Henry@Julienne
    You are still not getting it/ this is exactly what I found wrong with that study:
    more carbonate (CO3) is dependant on getting more CO2 dissolved in the oceans
    but that is not happening because the warming is natural,
    and the reaction at those places (especially in the SH) is exactly going the other way
    HCO3- + heat=> CO2(g) and H2O
    Hence, it is not us that is causing the problems with coral reefs, it is nature.
    There is no other way for me to see the truth of this tragedy enfolding.
    Remember Julienne, I said that as far as I know there are only two places on earth where the data of pH are good and both are in the NH.
    You show me 20 other places on earth showing the same trend of -0.1 pH and I will agree with you.
    That was my challenge to you. Don’t come to me with: bring me your references.
    I asked you first, didn’t I?
    (I know there are no other data)
    At the moment I can only see what is happening on my own pool table.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    Don’t panic. I think there are reports (at WUWT) that colder weather might be on its way.

  96. Jeff D. says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    Please cite some work that supports your statement that CO2 does not matter to Ocean pH.
    ——————————–

    Your being a skeptic and I applaud that!

    But here is the real question. Is the data that says the pH has been decreasing to be trusted? I would be hard pressed to get an average pH value out of a properly operating Reef Aquarium let alone the vast ocean. As in an aquarium the pH of the ocean can swing by “Huge” amounts over the course of a daily light cycle. Add to this the the differences of pH of deep ocean vs the shallows and the impact that events like upwelling’s can make as well as the ever changing ocean currents and mixing caused by the wind. Taking say 1000 measurements from around the globe and averaging them will not account for all the variability that can skew the results. Getting a grip on this value is very close to the same as the Argo temp data that Willis has been playing with over the last month.

    Does atmospheric co2 effect the pH value of the ocean? Yes. However not the way in which we are lead to believe. Lets go back to the aquarium for a minute. I prefer real world observations. When people add CO2 to the reef via a calcium reactor it is possible for the pH of the tank to start dropping due solely to the fact that the air above the tank becomes saturated with CO2 and the excess CO2 becomes trapped. The quick fix is to vent the hood of the aquarium to reduce the saturation of CO2 above the water and allow the proper out gassing of the CO2. Along with this you must have good circulation of the surface of the aquarium as so the tank can (breath). When both of these things are “fixed” the aquarium will be able to achieve a minimum low pH balance as long as the buffers are supplied. Ranges of 8.0 to 8.4 in a reef aquarium are not unheard of and are considered to be normal for a daily high/low in a healthy, growing reef tank. So you would say ” hey this proves my point” well no. The ppm of trapped CO2 in the hood has to be massive for the pH to start dropping. In the real world 380ppm is not considered massive by any means.

    A favorite little example by the warmist is to blow into a straw placed in a (small) cup of water and see the pH of the water drop. The CO2 in our breath ( 5% vs 380pp) does indeed cause the pH drop but what is never stated is that you can take a spoon give a quick stir and see the value return to normal just as fast. Nature likes balance……

    So to conclude. I have yet to be shown a valid way to accurately say that the pH of the entire oceans of the world have dropped by a puny amount of .1 pH. And if by chance they really did personal observation on the impact of marine life is just not evident when it has been clearly shown that most species can easily handle a flux from 8.0 to 8.4 and thrive and reproduce.

  97. E.M.Smith says:

    OK, having read over a bunch of the comments, Latitude has the better ‘handle on things’ compared to Stroeve.

    I’ve had aquariums (several hundred gallons of fish at one point). It’s ammonia that drives the system. I’d be more inclined to think any “Less Alkaline” conditions (it is not acidification until pH is past 7.0) in places like Monterey Bay were due to all the tonnage of fish pulled out of the local fisheries. Lets the plants grow (less being eaten). Now you have a big increase in the consumers of ammonia and a big drop in the producers (fish). Guess which way the pH will move? Yes, towards more NEUTRAL.

    So look at global fisheries production. All those amino acids from all those megatons of fish will not be decaying to ammonia in the ocean nor metabolized to ammonia as fish food… They will be neutralized in human sewage treatment plants. That’s one heck of a lot of ammonia no longer in the system. “That matters”.

    Oh, and one other minor point: pH in wild environments has a day / night cycle due to photosynthesis. So any measured pH change can not just be attributed to CO2. You need a cloud density record… which we don’t have.

    And, just a tiny little reminder again: The reason surface pH changes some while the deep water doesn’t is that the surface is where all the life is happening (all that ammonia and photosynthesis) while the deep is where the bottom is covered in meters deep carbonate and metal nodules that stabilize the pH. So any assertion of ocean pH changing has to look at the deeps, not the surface. Otherwise you are measuring a flux, not a result.

    Now the manganese nodules are also scattered all over. These are lumps of mixed metals, not just manganese. Metals oxidize in acids, removing the acidity. How much? Well, “a lot”:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/

    There are about 500 BILLION tons of nodules and the harvest techniques are already developed (that’s about 100 TONS per person on the planet…) but the land resources are so cheap that it’s hard to compete on the economics today. (Especially if the World Government wants to tax you to death.)

    So IF I were to produce 100 TONS of CO2 (Manganese is mol wt about 25, CO2 is about 44, so we’d really need 44/25 x 100 tons of CO2 to make the carbonate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese(II)_carbonate ) but being conservative: IFF my 100 tons goes into the oceans (and nowhere else, not a single tree nor benthic organism can touch a molecule…) and heads to the bottom and reacts with the nodules… The net result will be: more carbonate deposits on the ocean bottom…

    So you can get back to me on that whole ‘acid ocean’ thing after the manganese nodules have shown any tendency to dissolve. (At present they are still depositing / growing…)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule

    Several processes are involved in the formation of nodules, including the precipitation of metals from seawater (hydrogenous), the remobilization of manganese in the water column (diagenetic), the derivation of metals from hot springs associated with volcanic activity (hydrothermal), the decomposition of basaltic debris by seawater (halmyrolitic) and the precipitation of metal hydroxides through the activity of microorganisms (biogenic). Several of these processes may operate concurrently or they may follow one another during the formation of a nodule.

    The entire claim of ocean ‘acidification’ is bunk. The metal lumps growing on the ocean bottom say so.

  98. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Latitude, I don’t argue that Ocean pH levels vary, and that they can vary in certain locations by more than what is predicted under future CO2 emission scenarios (and nothing from what I have written says otherwise). What I have been asking you to back up is your assertion that atmospheric CO2 is not important in terms of ocean pH levels.

  99. Craig Loehle says:

    The meme is that bad things are “already happening”–this post is about that. 100 year projections is really not the point. “Already happening” is a rallying cry for alarm. But it isn’t. There are more studies: Christy’s new one on Calif snowpack–no trend. others.

  100. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    “… What I have been asking you to back up is your assertion that atmospheric CO2 is not important in terms of ocean pH levels…”

    Julienne, I have been trying to follow this thread, but I still can’t find the place where you cite a paper showing that CO2 IS important in terms of ocean pH levels. Can you direct me to it, please?

  101. E.M.Smith says:

    @Latitude:

    That link: http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ScreenHunter_152-Mar.-04-13.39.jpg

    is a great one! So, as I read that chart, pH at the Aquarium intake has ranged from 7.7 to 8.1 in the 1997-98 seasonal swing, but by 2002-3 it had changed to a 7.7 to 8.1 swing… (really 7.75 to 8.05 by my reading) and by 2005, pH was just about 8 and becoming more alkaline…

    Yes, that sure is a dramatic … oh, wait, it’s a ‘nothing happening’ other than surface minor cycling on the alkaline side of neutral with weather and currents.. Oh…

  102. Jeff D. says:

    Craig Loehle says:
    March 8, 2012 at 10:40 am

    The meme is that bad things are “already happening”–this post is about that

    _________________________

    Sorry to stay on topic add to the bottom of my previous post :)

    The alarm of the pH dropping by .1 is total BS! With today’s tech we do not have the ability to make these claims.

  103. Bill Illis says:

    The Ocean is absorbing on net about 2 gigatonnes Carbon per year right now.

    But the total Carbon reservoir in the Oceans is 40,000 gigatonnes.

    Someone needs to show how the pH can possibly change given those numbers.

    We need physical explanations and numbers in this debate rather than more conjecture.

  104. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Craig, just so you know, I’m not an alarmist. While my research focuses primarily on Arctic climate change, I also know that there are a lot of uncertainties in our climate system and just how it will all play out is unclear. Climate model projections may give robust predictions on temperature and sea ice reductions for example under increasing CO2 emissions, but they are not robust when it comes to changes in other variables, such atmospheric circulation and precipitation (e.g. Deser et al., 2010).

    But not being in a state of alarm, does not mean that we shouldn’t be paying attention to our impacts on the climate system.

    Can you point to the link of Christy’s new study? I’m interested in reading it as I’ve been doing research on the impacts of the loss of Arctic sea ice on northern hemisphere snow cover together with folks at Rutgers University.

  105. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Dodgy Geezer, the references I’ve given so far do discuss the chemical reactions that occur when atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in ocean water and how it impacts pH levels.

    When (CO2) dissolves in water (H2O) it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) – the same weak acid found in carbonated drinks.

  106. Latitude says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 10:36 am
    Latitude, I don’t argue that Ocean pH levels vary, and that they can vary in certain locations by more than what is predicted under future CO2 emission scenarios (and nothing from what I have written says otherwise). What I have been asking you to back up is your assertion that atmospheric CO2 is not important in terms of ocean pH levels.
    =============================================
    Julienne,….you’re not that dense…and neither is anyone else reading this
    Google nitrification, ammonification, denitrification……….

    In order for ambient CO2 levels to make the ocean acid……it would have to override natural biological processes in the ocean that produce magnitudes more acid.
    If those processes that produce magnitudes more acid….do not make ocean acidification…..
    ….how can something that produces very little…of a very mild acid…..override that natural biological system?

    Here’s a direct question to you…..again:

    Do you understand that there are natural biological processes in the ocean….that produce magnitudes more acid…..than CO2?

  107. Julienne Stroeve says:

    As CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with seawater to produce H+ and various negatively charged forms of dissolved carbon. CO2 dissolved in seawater first reacts with the water molecule (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3). Not all the CO2 dissolved in seawater reacts to make carbonic acid and therefore seawater contains dissolved gaseous CO2; a point that is easily appreciated from a familiarity with carbonated drinks (which are solutions of carbonic
    acid). According to Henry’s Law, in a simple aqueous solution we would expect the concentration of CO2 in the air to be proportional to that in the solution of carbonic acid.
    [CO2] + [H2O] ⇒[H2CO3]
    Carbonic acid is an acid because it can split up into its constituents, releasing an excess of H+ to solution and so driving pH towards lower values. Carbonic acid splits up by adding one H+ to solution along with HCO3
    – (a bicarbonate ion):
    [H2CO3] ⇒[H+] + [HCO3–]
    This increase in H+ causes some CO32– (called carbonate
    ion) to react with H+ to become HCO3–:
    [H+] + [CO32–] ⇒[HCO3–]
    Thus, the net effect of the dissolution of CO2 in seawater is to increase concentrations of H+, H2CO3 and HCO3–, while decreasing concentrations of CO32–.

  108. Jeff D. says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 10:56 am
    When (CO2) dissolves in water (H2O) it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) – the same weak acid found in carbonated drinks.
    _________________________

    My chemistry background is weak and pretty much isolated to Marine Aquaria. I have a general question as it pertains to the alarm of CO2 and the oceans that I hope a chemistry pro could answer.

    If I take one gallon of distilled water and expose it to the air with a current 380ppm of CO2 what effect will this have on the pH of the water? Can I come back next week and have fizzy water? Will the water that started at a pH of 7 drop? I would assume that it would have to but at what ppm of CO2 will I be able to measure this drop?

  109. Smokey says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:

    “What I have been asking you to back up is your assertion that atmospheric CO2 is not important in terms of ocean pH levels.”

    CO2 is not important in terms of ocean pH levels. As a matter of fact, atmospheric CO2 levels, being less than one four hundred-thousanth of the CO2 contained in the oceans, are not important. To assume atmospheric pH is important to oceans is to assume the tail wags the dog. More accurately: that the flea’s wagging tail wags the dog’s tail that wags the dog.

    To help Julienne get up to speed on the subject, here are some articles that deconstruct the “ocean acidification” nonsense:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/chicken-little-of-the-sea-visits-station-aloha

    Ocean pH varies far more than the calibration tolerances of the recording instruments, therefore the claim that there has been a change of 0.1 pH cannot be supported. Like most of the alarmist claims, “ocean acidification” is a baseless assumption.

    And I agree with E.M. Smith. I have maintained tropical fish aquariums up to 125 gallons in capacity. pH is one of the very least important variables. The fish routinely tolerated pH levels from ≈6.5 – ≈8.4 with no problem. One variable that made a huge difference was a CO2 injection kit. The plant growth rates exploded, to the point that I disconnected the CO2 injection. I wanted to see the fish more than the plants.

  110. Latitude says:

    Jeff D. says:
    March 8, 2012 at 11:12 am
    ===========================
    Jeff, you just started out with no buffer……
    …which is the same as injecting CO2 in the lab until you run out of buffer…and then the pH falls
    …..don’t know about the answer to your question though, I would assume since it was bottled at 380 and has a pH of 7, it would hold there.
    Put it in an aquarium with bacteria, fish, etc….and with no buffers, it will crash like a rocket

  111. corporate message says:

    Quite Sorry for my angry post, Julienne.

    My apologies.

    Is this correct ?
    “The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic ”

    Then first off, maybe set definitions need to be arranged so we can follow along.

    .

  112. E.M.Smith says:

    Julienne Stroeve says: March 8, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Latitude, I don’t argue that Ocean pH levels vary, and that they can vary in certain locations by more than what is predicted under future CO2 emission scenarios (and nothing from what I have written says otherwise). What I have been asking you to back up is your assertion that atmospheric CO2 is not important in terms of ocean pH levels.

    See the above referenced chart of the Aquarium intake where all the CO2 produced has left the water becoming more ALKALINE at the intake at about 8 and headed toward more alkaline.

    Or:

    Mass of ocean: 1.4×10 ^21 kg,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater puts the Ca and Mg at: o.o4 and 0.1292 percent. I’m going to be sloppy here as it doesn’t need great precision, but folks who care can make the numbers exact. Let’s just say this is about 0.17% alkaline earths. Atomic wt of Ca is about 40, Mg 24, so guessing the average Mol Wt is about 28. so… 0.0017 x 1.4 x 10^21 = 2.38 x 10^18 kg or 2.38 x 10^ 15 Metric Tons of alkaline earth ions. Lets see… Millions is 10^6 and Billions or Giga is 10^9 and Trillions or Tera is 10^12 and Peta is 10^15… yes, that will do nicely. 2.38 PETA TONS to be reacted before you can have an acid, instead of an alkaline, environment. (We won’t bother counting the other metals like copper and manganese, as they tend to be in lumps on the bottom…)

    Now global coal reserves are way larger in C tons than other global fuels, so lets use them as our number base:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

    Gives the total global reserves of all coal types as 860,938 Million Tons.

    Think about that for a minute. I’ll wait…. Mega vs Giga vs Tera….. shift the decimal…

    0.860 x 10^12 or 0.000860 x 10^15. That’s about 3 orders of magnitude difference. Oh, and you can have the gratuitous 3 x it would take to move 0.8 to a comparable 2.4 … more than allows for all the other carbon fuels.

    SO that’s why “CO2 is irrelevant to ocean pH”. You could dissolve ALL the fossil fuel CO2 into the ocean and react to form carbonates and not even touch your 3 orders of magnitude excess of alkaline ions.

    Now, in reality, we ought to allow a relative mol wt adjustment. Carbon dioxide is about 44 and our average alkaline at wt is about 28, so we ought to have 44 tons of CO2 per 28 tons of metal ions. So we get an ‘uplift’ of an added 44/28 in our relative excess. 1.57 more.

    1.57 x 2.38 = 3.74 divide by 0.86 = 4.34 of excess alkaline ions over carbon dioxide. Oh, and 3 orders of magnitude… (though the coal percent C to CO2 ratio needs figuring, it isn’t pure C… so somewhere there ought to be a C to CO2 ratio… not that it matters.)

    (Somebody ought to check the math on this I just dashed it off very quickly and, frankly, once I saw the relative tonnages kind of lost interest in counting angels and pins… so I could have dropped an order of magnitude or two… not that it would matter at all…)

    Or in an easier to grasp form: The ocean is big. Really Really BIG. We are not.

  113. HenryP says:

    Julienne says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/08/climate-change-impacts-in-the-usa-is-already-not-happening/#comment-916449

    Well, that is nonsense of course.
    The correct equilibrium reactions are
    CO2 +2H2O => HCO3- + H3O+ (in cold water)
    HCO3- + H2O => H3O+ + CO3 2-

    Both reactions reverse if / when warms or cooks/boils.

    Without the CO2 dissolving there is no source of carbonate for the coral reef.
    H2CO3 does not exist in sea water, because there is no pressure (like in your carbonated soda’s)

  114. Julienne Stroeve says:

    There is a critical concentration of carbonate ions in seawater (the saturation concentration) below which CaCO3 will start to dissolve. Because CaCO3 solubility increases with decreasing temperature and increasing pressure, the critical concentration occurs at a depth, the
    ‘saturation horizon’, below which seawater is undersaturated and CaCO3 will tend to dissolve and above which seawater is super-saturated and CaCO3 will tend to be preserved. Because the CaCO3 mineral calcite is less soluble than the form aragonite, the aragonite saturation
    horizon is shallower. Because added CO2 decreases the carbonate ion concentration, the saturation horizons will become shallower with increasing releases of human-derived
    CO2 to the atmosphere.

    It’s important to understand that natural buffers in the Ocean reduce the concentration of hydrogen ions (and hence the acidity) such that the change in Ocean pH is less than would otherwise be expected when atmospheric CO2 is dissolved. So while atmospheric CO2 does increase the ocean’s acidity, because of the carbonate buffer, the resultant solution is still slightly alkaline. However, the capacity of the buffer to restrict pH changes diminishes as the amounts of CO2 absorbed by the ocean increases. This is because when CO2 dissolves, the chemical processes that take place reduces some carbonate ions, which are required for the ocean pH buffer.

    I have to run now, but the new Science paper will help answer some of the questions folks are raising, so please read it if you can.

  115. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Corporate, yes you are correct.

  116. Craig Loehle says:

    Turned into an ocean chemistry discussion? Really guys. Off topic. SO FAR the claim is 0.1 PH units change (which ignores data quality). That was the post.

  117. E.M.Smith says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 10:56 am
    When (CO2) dissolves in water (H2O) it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) – the same weak acid found in carbonated drinks.

    Um, no.

    It makes carbonic acid under pressure in pure water. In sea water it makes a carbonate ion that will be snuggled up next to a Magnesium or Calcium ion and form Dolomite (Mg Ca CO3).

    Fish poop out such carbonate rocks as a way to dump their trash… Even the Warmers have learned this (so you need to catch up on the reading):

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16432-fish-an-ally-against-climate-change.html

    An unlikely ally may have been found in the fight against the effects of climate change. Fish excretions seem to play a key role in maintaining the ocean’s delicate pH balance, says a study that also reveals that there are 2 billion tonnes of fish in the world’s oceans.

    Bony fish excrete lumps of calcium carbonate, known as “gut rocks” which are thought to dissolve in the upper layers of the ocean. A team led by Rod Wilson of the University of Exeter in the UK has now shown that the sheer amount of gut rocks produced plays a key role in buffering the carbon dioxide that acidifies seawater.

    Notice that “thought to dissolve” is not the same as “does dissolve”…

    And the “delicate pH balance” is hype garbage too. It’s tough mother to move the pH of something that big. Takes a load of sun, photosynthesis, and gigatons of ammonia.

    So I suggest chucking the high school chemistry and catching up on your aquatic biology…

  118. SteveSadlov says:

    The end of the last century was a welcome warm and generally wet respite from the cold and dry conditions of much of the mid century. Sadly, since 1997 the general behavior has relapsed to globally colder and drier. In so many ways, the 21st century may be setting up as one which will make the 20th, warts and all, appear to have been a cake walk.

  119. corporate message says:

    “If I take one gallon of distilled water and expose it to the air with a current 380ppm of CO2 what effect will this have on the pH of the water? Can I come back next week and have fizzy water? Will the water that started at a pH of 7 drop? I would assume that it would have to but at what ppm of CO2 will I be able to measure this drop?”

    Often hobbyists would let municipal tapwater sit or would pump it around in a barrel to be stirred stirred overnight in order to “off gas” since the piped water is under pressure..Nitrogen and CO2 are the concerns.
    Often reports are that pH rises ..say from pH 6.8 to 7.4. Something in that range is not uncommon. but sometimes the report is a shift downward depending on the water supply.

    Distilled water commonly comes in a bottle at less than pH 7. Then you could get double distilled for better grade, I believe. Never done it.

    Industrial usage grade…

  120. Jeff D. says:

    Latitude says:
    March 8, 2012 at 11:19 am

    I think you missed my point. The use of distilled in that experiment was to ensure that buffers played no part in the equation. I am wanting to get a feel for what effect CO2 has on water at a certain ppm value.

    To frame it better. Take an open container holding one gallon of distilled water at sea level with an atmosphere pressure say give or take 14 psi. How acidic will the water in the container become with just the CO2 available in the atmosphere and how long would it take? If we double the CO2 what will the pH do?

  121. Matt G says:

    My estimations of how ocean pH will change with 2 gigatonnes carbon per year will depend on nothing reacting with them and maintaining the acidity. Even if this was possible it would take 2000 years at this rate to fall from pH 8.0 to pH 7.9.

  122. Latitude says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 11:36 am
    ====================
    As usual, you make assertions that are just not true…..the science paper did no such thing
    ““Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively.”

    and, as usual you tried deflection as a way of avoiding direct questions put to you….
    …you linked Scripps and said “Scripps researchers have recorded a drop in pH at several ocean locations.”
    …..I linked to the recent Scripps paper that says it’s normal

    You said “Same with the Monteray Bay Aquarium Research Institute”
    ….I linked you to their tide gauge that shows nothing happening

    You don’t even realize what the formulas you posted mean…..
    C(arbon)O2 = (carbon)ic acid + calcium = calcium(carbon)ate……your missing buffer

    Everything in the ocean is covered with something alive…corals, sponges, algae, bacteria, etc..most commonly called bioflim…and all of it producing acids
    Where are the clean surfaces for those simple little grade school equations to work?

    You try to deflect again by claiming no one is answering your questions…..and using that to dodge answering questions you’re asked…..

    I asked you a direct question, more than once, here it is again…
    Do you understand that there are natural biological processes in the ocean…that produce magnitudes more acid…..than CO2?

  123. Mike D. says:

    Excellent, excellent, excellent post!

    Dr. Loehle’s synopsis of alarmist claptrap is refreshing. It is no wonder that it draws the Chicken Littles out from their henhouse.

    I especially appreciated the skewering of the false climate-wildfire connection. Yes indeed firefighting policies have radically changed since Clinton/Gore took office. “Let It Burn” has been all the rage ever since, hiding under such bureaucratese as “prescribed natural fire”, “wildfire use”, “appropriate management response”, “natural ignitions used to achieve desired objectives”, and most recently “adaptive perimeter control”. They all amount to the same thing: deliberately allowing wildfires to burn without initial attack or substantial efforts to contain.

    In this modern era of Let It Burn, some of the largest fires in state history have occurred in Oregon (Biscuit Fire 2002 500,000 acres), Colorado (Hayman Fire 2002 138,000 acres), Arizona (Rodeo-Chediski Fire 2002 467,066 acres and the Wallow Fire 2011 538,049 acres), California (Cedar Complex Fire 2003 721,791 acres, the Basin/Indians Fire 2008 244,000 acres, and the (Klamath/Six Rivers/Shasta-Trinity Fires 2008 650,000), Washington (Tripod Complex Fire 2006 300,000 acres), Idaho (Cascade Complex Fires 2007 750,000 acres), Montana (Valley Complex Fire 2000 212,030 acres), and even Georgia and Florida (Georgia Bay Complex/Bugaboo 2007 561,000 acres and the Volusia-Flagler Complex Fire 1998 205,786 acres).

    All these fires (and hundreds more) were exacerbated by deliberate failure to control the fires, backburning from miles away, allowing the fires to burn unchecked for months on end, as a matter of stated Federal policy, without any NEPA process, for the alleged “benefit” of our public forests. Most recently, Federal fire bosses have banned the use fire retardant and adopted in its place nitroglycerin firebombing as a “firefighting” tool, deliberately expanding wildfires across thousands of acres by dropping aerial IEDs on our forests.

    That madness has nothing whatsoever to do with “global warming”. As a matter of fact, wildfire acreage has increased (more than doubled) while average summer and winter temperatures have declined over the last 15 years.

    Dr. Loehle is absolutely correct to point out the phony “climate change” excuse-making by NASA, NOAA, EPA, USFWS, USFS, USDA, etc. Our Federal (and most state) bureaucracies have bought into climate alarmism in a big way to cover up their own barking incompetence, and even more tragically, their deliberate sabotage and destruction of America.

  124. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:

    Dodgy Geezer, the references I’ve given so far do discuss the chemical reactions that occur when atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in ocean water and how it impacts pH levels. When (CO2) dissolves in water (H2O) it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) – the same weak acid found in carbonated drinks.

    Thanks – that’s what I seemed to find. That seems to be a statement that the reaction occurs, which I fully accept. In the same way, I accept that a container with air and a little CO2 will get hotter when sunlight is passed through it compared to a similar container with no CO2.

    What I am questioning is whether this actually has the impact in the real world that it has in the lab. You see, you seem to have jumped from ‘this reaction exists’ to ‘it is important’, and, by implication, ‘we must do something to stop it’. Since we don’t have the same tracking data on pH levels in the ocean that we have for temperature on land (and lord knows that data is subject to a lot of issues), I can’t see how you can possibly say that it is important.

    As far as I can see, the most you can say is that it ‘might’ be important, so we should try to find this out in some way…

  125. Craig Loehle says:

    Mike D: “barking incompetence” very apt, can I use that?

  126. Dr. Dave says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 8:39 am

    “Please cite some work that supports your statement that CO2 does not matter to Ocean pH.”
    ===========================================================
    Please read this:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acidification_co2.pdf

  127. Dr. Dave says:

    Julienne Stroeve,

    When you’re done with that one try this one:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acidification.pdf

  128. All categories of F1+ tornadoes have decreased since the 1970’s.

    Only REPORTED F0’s have increased. However since Doppler technology picks up many F0’s that were not spotted before, this statistic is meaningless.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/us-tornado-trendsupdated-to-2011/

  129. 1DandyTroll says:

    The whole 0.1 lower PH due to CO2 emissions rather pales in comparison on all the biological and chemical toxic crap the former soviet union directly poured into the Arctic sea, Baltic sea, Black sea, and the northern pacific ocean. Then enter their deliberate toxic waste fills on land, which subsequently, ends up in the above named oceans from streams and rivers. And, apparently, “poor” Russia only cleans up what they get paid for by EU to clean up…which means it probably will take another 1000 years or so, since EU rather spend money on what to do with the dangerous evil gas CO2, who just happened to be a building block both above and beneath the sea.

  130. Jeff D. says:

    Craig Loehle says:
    March 8, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Turned into an ocean chemistry discussion? Really guys. Off topic. SO FAR the claim is 0.1 PH units change (which ignores data quality). That was the post.
    _____________

    Again sorry if it seems off topic but for me the alarmist claim of a pH drop of 0.1 has gone unproven and I am pretty sure it can’t be. Sometimes inquiring minds want to know. This blog is a wonderful place to ask questions. The scientific knowledge available here is incredible. Sometimes finding an active topic to ask those questions can be difficult.

    The death of the oceans is something that gets to the root of the emotional context they have tried to inject. Who here didn’t grow up watching Jaque Cousteau? This is no different the the Polar Bear, pull on the heart strings by claiming that a beautiful (insert species) is about to die and its all our fault for driving cars and wanting to keep warm. We talk about CO2 because of the war but the real killer of the sea are excess Nitrates and Phosphates. Guess those are on the next tax list.

    It is all really a bit frustrating and I can see how tempers can flair on the Skeptic side. My observations seem to hint that most skeptics have some form of technical / science background. When 1+1=3 they will demand proof presented in some context that makes all right with the world. I include myself in this category. If you ask me a philosophical question that is not black & white or good vs evil I have a difficult time with it. The active soldiers on the warmist side seem to be from the touchy feely side. If someone in a white lab coat tells them that this is a fact it is now a fact and there is nothing we can say that will change this. How many times here has an idea been refuted to the point of oblivion and still the warmist holds the line. You can take someone as stubborn/hard-headed/ opinionated as Willis and if someone can present him with facts that make sense to him he will reverse his view on a subject. To me this is the most striking difference between the two sides.

    ps. Willis the above comments were meant with the greatest respect :)

  131. Jim G says:

    Latitude says:
    March 8, 2012 at 8:02 am
    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 7:36 am
    “The work provides perspective on the current trend as well as the potential consequences
    ==================
    The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification
    Abstract
    Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult……..,..,……… Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry………..a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place.”

    I do not believe the geologic evidence for CO2 release provides the requisite TIME sensitivity information regarding the RATE of historical release of CO2 to make such a statement regarding the “unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place.”

  132. corporate message says:

    Jeff D, bottled distilled water comes in at about pH 6.7, I believe it’s said.. ..It’s said to go lower if left opened…down to maybe pH 5 or so.

    Don’t quote me.

  133. Having read many “impacts” reports of this type, my general observation is that they tend towards scrapping the bottom of the barrel or go off on speculative tangents. With so little actual data to work with, there is little choice for them to do otherwise. Also the brief of these types of reports tend towards impacts assessment, not asking the more basic question on whether there are actually impacts.

    The last detailed report I read was on health impacts of AGW. The authors of this study seemed rather desperate to find anything at all to discuss. So while mentioning in a passing sentence that deaths caused by harsh cold events was readily measurable and significant, the remainder of the many pages of this section focused on speculating about cardiovascular heat stress related deaths. The authors complained about the lack of data and empirical backing for their speculations (presumably in order to cover themselves), but this did not stop them from spending an inordinate amount of text on painting scary scenarios that *might* be true, based on their “modelled” assumptions. What else could they do?

  134. Latitude says:

    Craig Loehle says:
    March 8, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Turned into an ocean chemistry discussion? Really guys. Off topic. SO FAR the claim is 0.1 PH units change (which ignores data quality). That was the post.
    ===================================
    Sorry Craig…..
    …what Jeff D.at 12:58 pm said .. goes double

    You’re right, no one can measure 0.1 pH units change….you can only get that through adjustments and math

  135. Owen in GA says:

    We have more of a problem in that CO2 saturation curves indicate that if the ocean warms it will lose significant quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere. I have never understood this “Ocean Acidification” meme. Or maybe I do – it is an attempt to provide for scary scenarios that laymen will never be able to untangle and thus scare the bejebus out of them. Is that close? or is my understanding somehow flawed?

  136. E.M.Smith says:

    @Owen in GA:

    Per “CO2 Saturation”:

    We already have LIQUID CO2 bubbling up out of the ocean bottom… The action at the atmosphere surface is just not relevant…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/liquid-co2-on-the-ocean-bottom/

  137. Agile Aspect says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 7:36 am

    Dr. Loehle, would you care to comment on a recent paper in Science about ocean acidification that examines the geologic record for context relating to ocean acidification. The research group (twenty-one scientists from nearly as many different universities) reviewed the evidence from past known or suspected intervals of ocean acidification. The work provides perspective on the current trend as well as the potential consequences. They find that the current rate of ocean acidification puts us on a track that, if continued, would likely be unprecedented in last 300 million years.

    ;———————————————————————————————————————–

    I think part of your confusion is you don’t seem to realize the CO2 content of the atmosphere is determined by the CO2 content of the ocean.

    The most acidic part of the ocean is the bottom (where huge amounts of CO2 from “smoker” vents are generated) which has a pH of 7.

    It’s so acidic it might eat the flesh off of your arms.

    Oh wait, pH of 7 is neutral.

    But life still thrives there – including coral.

    Is there a URL to the paper which isn’t behind a pay wall?

  138. Latitude says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    March 8, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    @Owen in GA:

    Per “CO2 Saturation”:

    We already have LIQUID CO2 bubbling up out of the ocean bottom… The action at the atmosphere surface is just not relevant…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/liquid-co2-on-the-ocean-bottom/

    ===============================================
    excellent post E.M…….

  139. corporate message says:

    Julienne … about alarmism…you scared your interviewer and both of you nodded… : )

    Get the message to the young minds ….sorry.

  140. corporate message says:

    Julienne, at 1:40 or so

    Green Girl: “OMG , that’s a scary thought”

    Julienne: “It is”

  141. Jeff D says:

    corporate message says:
    March 8, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Get the message to the young minds ….sorry.
    _________________________________

    Now I get it. Us skeptics are woefully under armed for this battle. Anthony, Lizden, Spencer, ect. are not near as cute as Julienne. How are we to compete with that?

    Thanks for the video it allows me to ask Julienne in line with the topic of this thread her opinion why with CO2 still rising Arctic Ice seems to have made a decent recovery this year and with the anticipated cooling do you still see an ice-free Arctic in the next decade? And how does this contrast with the ice free time of the Arctic in the 1930’s?

  142. Brian H says:

    @Grainger;
    Don’t be such a pushy tw**. The word is used as a noun in many contexts. Here’s the online dictionary.com:

    hy·po·thet·i·cal
       adjective Also, hy·po·thet·ic ( for defs. 1–4 ) .
    1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
    2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.
    3. given to making hypotheses.
    4. Logic .
    a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
    b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.
    noun
    5. a hypothetical situation, instance, etc.: The Secretary of Defense refused to discuss hypotheticals with the reporters.

    See #5.
    You, too, can learn, if you try hard enough!!

  143. Disko Troop says:

    Why do I always get the impression that climate pseudo scientists are working from a 5th grade chemistry textbook. Distilled water + Co2 makes carbonic acid. End of life in the ocean. Tick. Do we add in currents, plankton, algae, fish, the fact that it is salt water not distilled water, seaweed, Sargasso weed, land run off, coral growth, Co2 goes both ways, temperature variations, density, volcanic and subsea vents, etc. They have all been around for a few million years There is more biomass in the Ocean than we can even conceive, let alone account for yet we get H2O + Co2 = H2CO3 and that’s final folks. End of the world starts here.

    Next experiment, children: put some pure Co2 in an enclosed bottle, apply heat…………….The correct answer is …End of the World… children. Write that in on the bottom line if you want to go up a grade next year.

  144. Brian H says:

    John West says:
    March 8, 2012 at 5:12 am

    “These studies, with a few local exceptions, show regional to global net primary productivity (NPP) to have been increasing in the past 50 to 100 years (Alcaraz-Segura et al. 2010; Bellassen et al. 2011; Jia et al. 2009; Kohler et al. 2010; Lin et al. 2010; Nemani et al. 2003; Tian et al. 2010) due to both rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures.”

    That seems all well and good with oxygen @ 20.8%, but wait until the plants have knocked that down to less than 19.5% and see how you like it then. …….. (/sarc)

    Since plants have generated all the free oxygen in the atmosphere, and continue to pump it out as long as they get some sunshine, I’m curious about how they would go about knocking it down. A Flora Strike?

  145. Julienne says:

    Jeff, I don’t agree that Arctic ice has made a decent recovery this year. Based on what metric? The February ice extent remained below 15 million sq-km (as have all years since 2003, except for 2008 at 15.01 million sq-km). But even if this February extent was above 15 million sq-km, it has little bearing on what will happen this summer. Unfortunately winter extent remains a poor predictor for what will happen in the summer. A better metric is the ice thickness. Or if we don’t have that information, the ice age can also be a useful indicator of the ice thickness. Given the predominantly positive AO state this winter, the export of the older ice out of Fram Strait increased this winter compared to the last few winters when the AO was negative.

    Also, there is no indication that the Arctic was ice-free in the 1930s. There are regional observations of lower ice conditions than in the 1950s-1980s time-period.

    Finally, model projections of summer ice free conditions range from 2030 to sometime after 2100

  146. Dr. Dave says:

    A more enlightening look at Dr. Juliene Stroveve is this page. Notice what she’s been involved with and who she has been associated with in recent years.

    http://nsidc.org/research/bios/stroeve.html

  147. Latitude says:

    Julienne says:
    March 8, 2012 at 3:49 pm
    Finally, model projections of summer ice free conditions range from 2030 to sometime after 2100
    ============================================
    Julienne, you told me at one time on Steven’s blog that you would consider anything less than 1,000,000 sq km…..ice free
    The size of Egypt…..or the size of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas combined…..

    Do you still consider something that large…..ice free?

    I asked you a direct question, more than once, here it is again…
    Do you understand that there are natural biological processes in the ocean…that produce magnitudes more acid…..than CO2?

  148. Jeff D says:

    Julienne says:

    First, I would like to thank you to have the courage to state your opinion here. Most from the warmist side would have already disappeared never to be seen again. I would also caution you to be prepared to have anything you state shredded under the harshness that comes with this blog. Even Skeptics that propose an idea here get hammered from all sides. It doesn’t matter if you have Dr. in front of your name or just some smuck like me that is only interested in learning.

    While watching your video interview I miss-heard one of your statements and believed you stated that ice free was to be within a decade. Have to love the crappy speakers on a laptop. You did indeed state that it was to be in 2 decades.

    Is the two decade time frame based on the anticipation that we will be well on the way into the next 30 year cycle?

  149. corporate message says:

    Craig, if I might point out that our Ocean Acidification Fixation might be only have appeared so as it happened to be your first bullet point ?

    I think lots of people felt this coming from a couple of years back…that as GW AGW CC CD wound down in credibility, the pointing at the ocean would be the resort. OW: Ocean Wrecked by CO2
    Nice.

    Anyway, there are more points to your post !

  150. Bill Illis says:

    What can we really point to in terms of the warming appearing.

    – the Arctic ice cover is lower (although there could be some cycles in this).
    – temperatures have gone up (although there is certainly some cycles in this based on at least the ENSO and some other longer-term 60 year cycle based on the ocean/solar/something).
    – Sea level is increasing at 2 mms/year but this is actually the expected impact in an interglacial given that Greenland and mountain glaciers should continue decreasing in an interglacial.

    The warming is certainly much lower than the global warming theory predicted based on every single prediction ever made (other than the Arctic sea ice).

    Otherwise, I don’t think anyone can point to something that is occuring which is not expected in a naturally variable climate. The people of Eastern Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, South America and Indonesia certainly wouldn’t say there is global warming based on the last 3 months.

    Be objective. Has your own backyard’s climate changed in the last 40 years.

  151. Charlie says:

    Natural rainwater contains carbonic acid which falling on Ca and Mg rich rocks which will dissolve them. There is plenty of limestone and Feldspar to react with carbonic acid. People should assess the CO2 in the atmosphere when the calcium carbonate rocks of the Carboniferous, Jurassic and Cretaceous were laid down. Any slight warming will result in the increase in CO2 escaping to the atmosphere. The idea that we have an accurate and precise knowledge of the oceans pH theoughout a single let alone since 1750 is laughable. The water in a stream coming from a glacier will change over a day.

  152. corporate message says:

    Can’t miss Judith’s Climate Etc blog , what with the new Lu Curry et al. stuff going on, for some history from Tonyb

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/05/impact-of-declining-arctic-sea-ice-on-winter-snowfall/

  153. Charlie says:

    typos
    throughout a single day

    The chemistry of the water in a stream coming from a glacier will change over a day.

  154. corporate message says:

    “Finally, model projections of summer ice free conditions range from 2030 to sometime after 2100″

    Julienne, if this is so, why did you present as 2 decades rather than 9 for the Green Girl show ?

    I have a bit of trouble there.

    Help ?

  155. Smokey says:

    Dr. Dave,

    Thanks for the link. Julienne is no dummy, she knows where her bread is buttered. Climate scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits. What surprises me is that she’s trying to convince WUWT readers that her [evidence-free] opinion of repeatedly deconstructed conjectures, such as “ocean acidification”, are something we have to be alarmed about. I will admit that she does know how to play the game, saying:

    “Finally, model projections of summer ice free conditions range from 2030 to sometime after 2100.”

    Computer model predictions, and safely off in the future. There are lots of juicy grants available between now and then. And if the Arctic is not ice free in the summer [as it has been repeatedly in the past], it will be easy to kick the can down the road as 2030 approaches. It’s called tuning the model.

    Julienne needs to read E.M. Smith’s link: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/liquid-co2-on-the-ocean-bottom along with the comments, and the four WUWT articles and comments I posted @11:13 above if she truly wishes to get up to speed on the ocean/CO2 question. Mike Smith and others are running rings around her arguments.

    The fact is that the claimed pH change from human CO2 emissions is pure conjecture; a WAG. An opinion, nothing more. The oceans’ practically infinite buffering capacity means that even if atmospheric CO2 doubled, and doubled again, there would be no detectable change in ocean pH. Consider:

    Ocean volume is ≈1.35 billion cubic kilometres. Human CO2 production is ≈27 billion tons per year. So if all human CO2 production was absorbed by the oceans, the oceans’ CO2 concentration would increase by only one part in 50 million per year. But the oceans only absorb about half of our CO2 emissions, so the actual increase [before consumption by marine organisms] would be only one part in 100 million per year. The current average ocean CO2 levels are ≈90 parts per million. Therefore, to increase this by one part per million would take about a century; 10 ppm in a millennium. Since CO2 makes up 15.1% of all gases absorbed in the oceans, vs only 0.039% of all gases in the atmosphere, it is obvious that the oceans’ ability to absorb additional carbon dioxide is enormous, even at much higher than current temperatures. The ocean can easily handle much more CO2 without altering its pH at all. It already contains well over 400,000 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, and it is far from capacity. “Ocean acidification” is just the latest scare. It fails under scrutiny.

    Out of all the hundreds of wild-eyed predictions of climate disruption, the [baseless] “acidification” scare, and the alarmism over the [natural, cyclical] Arctic ice decline — which has happened repeatedly prior to the rise in CO2 — are the only scares the alarmist crowd has left, and they cling to those false narratives like a drowning man clutches at a scrap of cardboard.

    There is no testable, empirical evidence supporting those conjectures. If there was, Julienne would certainly be posting the evidence instead of arguing basic chemistry and avoiding answering uncomfortable questions that falsify the demonization of CO2, eg: ignoring the fact that the rise in global temperatures both before and after the rise in CO2 follows the very same trend line over hundreds of years. There is no accelerating rise in temperature, despite the ≈40% rise in CO2. The inescapable conclusion is that the effect of the rise in CO2 is so small that it cannot be seen or measured… and the null hypothesis remains un-falsified.

    If the climate alarmist crowd didn’t ignore the scientific method, they would be forced to admit that their CO2=CAGW conjecture has insurmountable problems. But some folks can’t resist the lure of camera face time, and the constant expense-paid jaunts to vacation venues like Rio, Hawaii and Bali, and the easy entré into pal-reviewed publications, and being one of the go-to talking heads for news sound bites, and assured tenure, and preference for lucrative, no-questions-asked grants, and all the other perqs that skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientists] are, for the most part, denied.

  156. corporate message says:

    I’m wondering about the ethical considerations regarding choosing to give the one end extreme of 20 when a 70 year span was considered to be output from the models. Was it the most likely scenario ?

  157. corporate message says:

    Does “probably” from a scientist mean “almost certainly” to the young mind, I wonder.

    Dr ?

  158. Doug Proctor says:

    The synthesis of the failure of CAGW development becomes clearer and easier with time. Such talking points would destroy Gleick and others should they stumble into a public debate that did not allow pictures of polar bears on bergy bits.

    You can dodge bullets or facts for a while, but you can’t outrun them.

  159. Bill Illis says:
    Be objective. Has your own backyard’s climate changed in the last 40 years.
    ============================
    Well I remember excruciatingly hot summer days and lots of flies. Rarely happens these days. As little as 10 years ago I remember going swimming in the summer afternoons. Almost always too cool now to want to do that.

    Not exactly a scientific assessment of my regional climate, but then again, equivalent to much of what I read on this topic.

  160. Neil says:

    Will: I also have my own little BS detection system.
    Here’s how it works:-
    Pick a subject. Go to YouTube and look up a few videos on that subject.
    Go down to the comments and select the names of some of the commenters and pick those that are male, gamers and under 30.
    The truth is the opposite of their opinion.

  161. corporate message says:

    My child replies that if a scientist says “probably, I think so” it means it is almost for sure.

    I want the citations for proof, Julienne.

    The papers, please.

  162. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    ” … The research group (twenty-one scientists from nearly as many different universities) reviewed the evidence from past known or suspected intervals of ocean acidification. ….. They find that the current rate of ocean acidification puts us on a track that, if continued, would likely be unprecedented in last 300 million years…”

    I’m not sure I understand this statement. It seems to make the banal point that the rate is currently going up. It is certainly true that, if continued, a rate going up would end with a pH of 1 (and, if it were going down, 14). But this is a pointless thing to say! If a child kept growing they would eventually be taller than a house!

    Your comment suggests that you are interested in political alarmism rather than real science…

  163. Fredrick Lightfoot says:

    Smokey,
    as usual a wonderful read, I enjoy your posts.
    I would like to add that anybody, and I repeat ANYBODY, who thinks that they have a handle on numbers of the contents or behavior of the oceans ( whatever ) is not very well informed. If they have not sailed from New Zealand to Europe and every minute of there voyage realized that there is 2 to 6 km of water under their feet ( 6 – 8 weeks ) they should not be offering an opinion.

  164. Jimbo says:

    Why can’t global warming ever lead to good news? Oh, wait, it’s worse than we thought, we are all going to fry, ahhhhhh!

    v “…….a number of studies indicated a decrease in boreal fire activity in the last 150 years or so.”
    Source: Girardin, M.P., A.A. Ali et. al. 2009. Global Change Biology, 15, 2751–2769 [pdf]

    Decreasing frequency of forest fires in the southern boreal zone of Québec and its relation to global warming since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’ ”

    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/3/3/255.short

    Natural fire frequency for the eastern Canadian boreal forest: consequences for sustainable forestry
    Results showed a dramatic decrease in fire frequency that began in the mid-19th century and has been accentuated during the 20th century. Although all areas showed a similar temporal decrease in area burned, we observed a gradual increase in fire frequency from the west to Abitibi east, followed by a slight decrease in central Quebec. The global warming that has been occurring since the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850) may have created a climate less prone to large forest fires in the eastern boreal forest of North America. ”

    http://tinyurl.com/4nzcllh

    I’ve posted other stuff similar to floods etc. I’ll post if I can dredge up more from the Internet’s memory.

  165. Jimbo says:

    Here’s another

    Abstract
    There is argument as to the extent to which there has been an increase over the past few decades in the frequency of the extremes of climatic parameters, such as temperature, storminess, precipitation, etc, an obvious point being that Global Warming might be responsible. Here we report results on those parameters of which we have had experience during the last few years: Global surface temperature, Cloud Cover and the MODIS Liquid Cloud Fraction. In no case we have found indications that fluctuations of these parameters have increased with time.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021

    “Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.””

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

  166. wayne Job says:

    So in the end we have more lime stone and dolomite and the ocean and the critters live happily ever after. CO2 and O2 are life, they are tied to life, without either our world as we know it ends.

    Oddly we are dependent on many of the things that the global warmanist greens deplore,CO2 and ozone are up front and centre, we also depend on radiation and magnetism for the health and welfare of our planet and our existence. Radiation and ozone are a no no for the American EPA but without ozone we will have a nasty radiation problem, with ozone we will have a benefical radiation. Without which we can not survive.

    Take away our CO2 and the plants will suffer and the O2 will decline. The ocean is a vast chemical factory that processes the trace elements into concentrated forms that are then available to the future. It is a gold mine that far from being fragile, is robust to the extreme or life would never have been created.

  167. Jimbo says:

    Global Malaria may continue decreasing.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09098

    Rate of sea level rise decelerated.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

    Is there something odd going on in Greenland. Maybe not.
    “The temperature and renewal of these waters indicate that they currently cause enhanced submarine melting at the glacier terminus.”
    Straneo et. al.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo764.html


    “Waters from warmer latitudes — or subtropical waters — are reaching Greenland’s glaciers, driving melting…”

    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=69134&ct=162


    “…the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.”
    Petr Chylek et. al.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml


    “The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”
    Jason E. Box et. al.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1


    “We found that northern hemisphere temperature and Greenland temperature changed synchronously at periods of ~20 years and 40–100 years. This quasi-periodic multi-decadal temperature fluctuation persisted throughout the last millennium, and is likely to continue into the future.”
    Takuro Kobashi et. al.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/n567324n1n3321h3/


    “The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades.”
    B. M. Vinther et. al.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf

    [pdf]

    1937
    “Particulars are given regarding the big rise of winter temperatures in Greenland and its more oceanic climate during the last fifteen years.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706327108/abstract


    “…glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end.” [January 2009]
    American Geophysical Union

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/323/5913/458a

  168. Jimbo says:

    Changes in Ecosystems
    There are studies showing responses to biota that are “consistent with” warming, but most of these are actually positive,…

    Yes indeed. Let’s look at a past warmer world with more co2, the results are fascinating.

    Science 12 November 2010 – Carlos Jaramillo et. al.
    Abstract
    Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation

    “Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6006/957

    Warmth as well as the toxin co2 are well known plant killers. Good luck you greenhouse growers. ;-)

  169. corporate message says:

    Hu McCulloch says:

    “pH is on a log 10 scale, not a natural log scale. So a decrease (not increase) of .1 units increases H3O by a factor of 10^.1 = 1.26, or about 30%”

    Hu,
    Does this mean that a shift toward acid condition is much less a difference than a shift the other way ?

  170. Jimbo says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 9:53 am

    Latitude and others, Scripps has been investigating the impacts of dissolved CO2 and pH both in the laboratory and in the oceans. They have a laboratory apparatus that enables studies on the effects of varying CO2 and oxygen levels on marine organisms in a controlled setting.

    The Oceans are not a lab. You can speed things up in a lab and see some terrible results, whereas in the Oceans it’s more gradual and organisms may adapt / evolve over time.

  171. Jimbo says:

    Latitude says:
    March 8, 2012 at 10:05 am
    ……………………
    spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years,…

    An excellent point, slam dunk?

  172. Gail Combs says:

    Juliene Stroveve, you will not get anywhere here on WUWT because most of us have scientific training of some sort, so the newest scare scenerio just isn’t going to fly. Heck we figured out “Ocean Acidification” was going to be the next big scare over a year ago when it became obvious “Global Warming” was growing rather stale.

    In short this is why you are being ignored:
    Chemical Laws for Distribution of CO2 in Nature: http://www.co2web.info/esef4.htm

    And of course this:
    “The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
    with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
    dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
    changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
    The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    ~ Club of Rome

  173. henryp says:

    Henry @corperate msg

    The pH is = -log [H+]. But at >7 the water is not acidic. Sea water is slightly alkaline. ca.8. Ph meters are not that accurate. An error of ca. 0.1 is easily obtained from one measurement to another. They drift and have to be recalibrated at fairly regular intervals, usually less than a day. As far as I know, the data where the results came from is only from about 2 places on earth, which is far too few to make an assumption that indeed a change of 0.1 from 8.2 to 8.1 has been caused by man already.
    Consider the pH changes from 8,2 to 8,1, which is applicable here.
    That means the H+ concentration changes from 10 ^-8,2 to 10^-8,1
    Somebody earlier already worked out earlier how much that change is in figures……
    I suggest you scroll back.

  174. corporate message says:

    Anything but ignored.

    If I take my child and her our dog to the Veterinarian’s office, and they too apply the same scientific arts, then this is what I see happenning:

    The Vet is going to give a modeled appraisal on our 2 year old dog’s life expectancy.

    The models give output saying from 3 months to sometime over 15 yrs till end of life.

    Our Vet says probably, she thinks so, our dog will last 3 only months more.

    My child screams.

    I want Julienne to justify her actions on the Green Girl show.

    She wants and demands funding to gain entry into my child’s mind, after all.

  175. Forward-CPH says:

    Craig Lohle clearly hasn’t been able to include the most recent and pertinent results:

    http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v2/n3/full/nutd20122a.html#bib20

    It is much worse than we thought: CO2 produces pear-shaped people.
    The paper has undoubtedly been pear-reviewed.

  176. corporate message says:

    Henryp,

    Thank you.

    Yes, indeed to ocean water not being actually acidic as in below pH7, and other points.

    However, if you look again, if you look at the log10 pH graph, on any section, does it not seem that shifts toward 1 comprise a much smaller actual difference than shifts toward 14 ?

  177. Smokey says:

    Julienne Stroeve probably won’t be back. She dodges uncomfortable questions from readers, and instead tries to sell her CAGW nonsense to people who know better. Ocean pH is outside her specialty. WUWT readers are more knowledgeable than Stroeve on that subject, and she knows she’s been cornered. Her CV brags that she took part in the climate alarmist crockumentary Seven Signs of the Apocalypse. That kind of populist propaganda is clearly over the top for any reputable scientist.

    These bought and paid for scientists are all the same: they ignore the scientific method, they hide out from answering relevant questions, they won’t debate, they base their falsified conclusions on their always-inaccurate models, they refuse to ever acknowledge that the planet is not acting as they predicted, and they do not believe in transparency. When they’re called on their misinformation, they disappear.

    So Julienne will go back to her ivory tower, where others on the grant gravy train will tell her what a great job she is doing disseminating their alarmist climate propaganda. The truth doesn’t matter to people like that, or they would engage in discussion, and answer readers’ questions. But as we see, Ms Stroeve cannot answer readers’ questions without admitting that her premise has been falsified. So I expect her to either disappear, or erect more red herring and strawman arguments. Because she certainly doesn’t have scientific evidence on her side. As Dr. Loehle states: Climate Change Impacts In The USA are Already (NOT) Happening.

    Prove me wrong, Ms Stroeve. Come back and answer the questions you have been asked, without dissembling or prevaricating. Tell us why the naturally rising temperatures since the 1600’s are still following the very same trend line, despite the recent 40% increase in “carbon”, and why global temperatures are not accelerating, as had been endlessly predicted by people like you. It’s a fair question, is it not? Why is the planet not doing what you predicted it would do?

  178. John West says:

    Brian H says:
    “Since plants have generated all the free oxygen in the atmosphere, and continue to pump it out as long as they get some sunshine, I’m curious about how they would go about knocking it down. A Flora Strike?”

    Good question! Glad you asked.

    There’s a line of thought that I’m particularly sympathetic to with regard to atmospheric CO2 increase. Basically, that the long term increased solar activity has produced a long term net heat gain into the entire system including the ocean; as the ocean gains heat the dissolution rate of CO2 decreases and that in turn increases the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the long term.

    While the oceanic DO (dissolved oxygen) decrease is in support, there is an evidentiary problem with this line of thinking:

    Why is atmospheric oxygen concentration decreasing with an inverse of the same seasonal pattern as CO2 increase?

    Especially in the face of increasing primary production, hence the (/sarc) tag.
    CO2 + H2O + UV → C6H12O6 + O2 (rather simplistically)

    Of course, I realize the atmospheric CO2 doesn’t have to be caused entirely by any one source, and this is why I remain in the camp that certainly remains skeptical of catastrophic AGW, and am skeptical that the AGW meme is 100% correct in that the entire increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic; but there is compelling evidentiary support for some portion of the increased CO2 being anthropogenic.

  179. Jaye Bass says:

    Say no more, say no more…now we know the influence…funding.

    While my research focuses primarily on Arctic climate change,

  180. HenryP says:

    Corperate msg says
    if you look at the log10 pH graph
    Henry @ cm
    I did not see this graph

  181. Jeff D. says:

    Smokey says:
    March 9, 2012 at 7:35 am

    Julienne Stroeve probably won’t be back.
    ___________________________
    That would suck… I really did want to know why the 2030 time frame is their new ice free date. I am hoping it would be something scientific and not just a way to buy time and $$ for retirement.

    She also stated that sea ice max was basically irrelevant and everything rides on the minimum, why? Both would seem to hold weight in the subject.

  182. corporate message says:

    henryp,

    I like to think of all things as they relate to real life and living organisms.
    So when it’s a log10 scale being considered, I’d look at it this way:

    I can take my little dog for a run at 10 mph.
    WIth log 10 categories, going slower means I reduce to 1 mph slow walk.
    One more column over I reduce to 1/10 mph
    and then when the dog is looking to poop, 1/100 mph
    3 shifts .
    Going the other way, however, I go from running at 10 mph, then going up to 100 mph, then 10000 mph then 10,000 mph.
    3 shifts.

    It seems different when you apply it to living organisms and systems, no ?

  183. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Jeff D says:
    March 8, 2012 at 4:20 pm
    Hi Jeff, of course I know that anything I say will be under attack, that’s the nature of WUWT. There are some on here who are sincerely interested in a scientific discussion, and others who will be in attack mode no matter what. A lot of them hide behind a fake name so I tend not to take them too seriously. And some resort to personal attacks, which I think reflects they are losing the argument and so it’s their last resort. Sadly the few that behave in this manner are a large reason why many scientists don’t bother to engage in discussions with those skeptical of human-induced climate change. I don’t always have time to come on here and discuss science, but I do feel it’s valuable for scientists to engage in discussions with climate skeptics.

    I’ve re-read through the comments and I find it interesting that not one person attacking me was able to counter the evidence that I presented (with references to papers) that the rise in atmospheric CO2 from human activities leads to not only by elevated dissolved CO2 and decreased pH but also decreased saturation with respect to calcium carbonate. Both laboratory and field experiments in the Ocean have shown this to be true. And it’s basic chemistry. I never stated that Ocean pH levels do not vary, sometimes by more than the projected values by 2100 from the models. And those stating that it’s impossible to measure a pH change of 0.1 may want to confer with an oceanographer or a chemist.

    As to your question on ice-free Arctic, I may have not been clear in my interview. Several years ago, I had no idea when the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free in summers. I knew the climate model projections, but I wasn’t convinced that such a huge climate shift would happen that soon. Then I did a comparison between the observed record of Arctic sea ice with the climate models from the CMIP3 archive (I used 18 climate models). When I did this comparison, the models were in qualitative agreement with the observations that the ice had been in a period of decline for the last 50 years. But none of the models were capturing how quickly the ice cover was disappearing (the observations were on average 30 years ahead of the multi-model ensemble mean). Since those models were showing ice-free conditions in September could happen as early as 2030 (with a mean of 2050), that led me to think that if the sea ice continues on its current trajectory, (and this was before 2007 happened), that ice free could be on the more extreme side of the climate model projections (i.e. 2030). Do I think that is still a possibility? Yes. But I also know that natural variability can oppose any external forcing signal and lead to temporary recovery. Several papers have discussed this including the recent Kay et al. 2011 paper (GRL). No one expects a constant linear trend without periods of unually high or low conditions. That’s the nature of natural climate variability.

  184. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Jeff, just saw your other comment. The winter extent expands to regions that are seasonally ice-covered and melt out every summer anyway. There could be some relevance in that if you have a smaller winter ice cover and the ice retreats earlier in summer, then you have the possibility for earlier and enhanced lateral and basal melting. But statistically there is no correlation between the winter and the summer ice extent (after you detrend the data).

    Note that we don’t expect ice-free conditions to happen in winter. It will still be cold enough for a long-time to come for winter ice to form. Rather it’s the summer ice cover that is projected to disappear if warming continues. It’s that the Arctic will become more like the Antarctic with seasonal ice cover rather than a perennial one.

  185. Hu McCulloch says:

    corporate message says:
    March 9, 2012 at 5:29 am
    Hu McCulloch says:

    “pH is on a log 10 scale, not a natural log scale. So a decrease (not increase) of .1 units increases H3O by a factor of 10^.1 = 1.26, or about 30%”

    Hu,
    Does this mean that a shift toward acid condition is much less a difference than a shift the other way ?

    A decrease of .100 pH units, followed by an increase of .100 pH units leaves you right where you began.

    However, an increase of 26% (of initial value) followed by a decrease of 26% (of new value) leaves you 7% behind where you started, since the base is now bigger. This is an advantage of using logarithmic pH units, rather than arithmetic % changes.

  186. Gail Combs says:

    Julienne Stroeve, here is your paper. It is longer than the quicki I originally posted. (see pg 9)

    Excuse me but I forgot that warmists always insist on “peer-reviewed” papers because the CAGW climatologists control the peer review process and can therefore make sure to kill any real science that does not support their dogma. A real win-win situation for your side isn’t it?

    http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

    Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.
    Tom V. Segalstad
    Mineralogical-Geological Museum
    University of Oslo
    Sars’ Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo
    Norway

  187. Smokey says:

    Jeff D,

    Julienne Strove is back — and still avoiding the hard questions. I have repeatedly asked her to explain why the long term trend line from the LIA is the same both before and after the rise in CO2.

    Since the naturally warming trend from the LIA has not changed following the rise in CO2, then the effect of CO2 is ipso facto too small to see or measure. And of course, the Antarctic ice cover, which is mostly sea ice, is steadily increasing. If global CO2 caused ice loss, it would affect both hemispheres. But it doesn’t, as we can see from a comparison of the Arctic and the Antarctic. Changing wind and ocean currents are the cause of declining Arctic sea ice. It is a natural, cyclical process, as anyone who understands the null hypothesis knows.

    Throughout the viewing the video posted by ‘corporate message’ above with “Green Girl” interviewing Julienne Stroeve, Stephen Schneider’s quote kept coming to mind:

    “Scientist should consider stretching the truth to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

    Ms Stroeve has made her choice: to be effective. She is offering up scary scenarios that are in fact fully explained by natural regional variability. Nothing unprecedented is occurring. But how can you get camera time by telling people the truth? The scary scenarios are what sells.

    Ms Stroeve has not made a credible scientific case here. The planet itself — the ultimate Authority — does not support her model-based narrative. The planet is just not doing what she claims it is doing. And she constantly emphasizes “change”, as if nothing had ever changed until she noticed the routine, natural changes that are always happening. As we know, the climate is always changing. Only Mann’s follwers believe that the climate had remained relatively static until humans began emitting harmless and beneficial CO2. Of course, Mann was proven wrong, which is why the IPCC can no longer publish Mann’s MBH99 chart.

    The concept of the climate null hypothesis still eludes Stroeve. The fact is that nothing unusual is occurring. It has all happened before. The past century and a half since the start of the industrial revolution has been a true “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right. The earth’s temperature has followed the same rising trend line since the LIA, warming a negligible 0.7K, from 288K to 288.8K over 150 years. That is an extremely minuscule change by the standards of the Holocene, and even smaller by geological standards, when abrupt temperature changes twenty times greater happened routinely. The conjecture that a 0.8K change can cause the disappearance of the Arctic’s ice cover is preposterous; the ice is tens of degrees below freezing. Wind and currents are the cause, not CO2 or a fraction of one degree warming.

    Stroeve is deceptively trying to alarm the general population over the completely natural changes that are always happening. The arctic has had less ice in the past than now. In the early 1800’s and more recently, in the 1920’s open water was reported over the North Pole. Only a half century ago the USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole.

    Stroeve has made the choice between being effective, and being honest. She is effectively spoon feeding false propaganda into the minds of impressionable school children, who are not given the opportunity to hear the opposing views of skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists]. The climate alarmist crowd had a clear choice:

    a) Tell the truth

    b) Sell their souls

    They chose Stephen Schneider’s ‘effective’ path. It got them fame and fortune, tenure and travel. But there’s always that questionable “b)”.

  188. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Gail, I don’t have time at the moment to read the paper you just sent, though I will when I get a chance and if you have some specific questions about that paper you want to ask, I’ll do my best to answer them. And Smokey, I think it’s time you start using your real name and stick to the discussion at hand, which in case you forgot was about the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 and how that impacts Ocean pH levels. Until you stop with insults and innuendos, I won’t engage in any more discussions with you.

  189. HenryP says:

    Julienne says
    I’ve re-read through the comments and I find it interesting that not one person attacking me was able to counter the evidence that I presented (with references to papers) that the rise in atmospheric CO2 from human activities leads to not only by elevated dissolved CO2 and decreased pH but also decreased saturation with respect to calcium carbonate.

    Henry@Julienne
    I have given you several pointers, but obviously I am wasting my time. You have already made up your mind (not to engage with me in a discussion).
    e.g. I have said
    1) more CO2 is better, it is a natural gas like O2 and it promotes/stimulates more greenery

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

    2) the increased warming of earth is due to natural reasons, i.e. more sunshine, and/or less clouds and/ or less ozone shielding, etc.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    3) the error of measurement at pH 8 is too big, it sometimes exceeds the value given as your decrease, of 0.., between two individual measurements. The problem actually is the probes. With time they drift and need to be continually re-calibrated.
    4) the no. of places with continuous recording of pH is only 2 (as far as I know), which is too few to make any general assumptions on a global scale….
    5) I have also pointed out that the reactions you propose are completely incorrect;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/08/climate-change-impacts-in-the-usa-is-already-not-happening/#comment-916468

    indeed if you want more CaCO3 for your coral reef we need more CO2 dissolving, but that it is not happening at the moment, especially in the SH. The opposite is happening, due to the warming of the SH waters.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    I have given you all the info that you need. No papers. I don’t need them. If you were a great scientist you would not have any need for them either.
    Of course, if you WANT to believe the opposite of what the truth is I cannot help you.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/what-was-that-what-henry-said-3

  190. Jeff D. says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 9, 2012 at 9:03 am
    And those stating that it’s impossible to measure a pH change of 0.1 may want to confer with an oceanographer or a chemist.
    _______________________________________
    What I said was that I know that the whole of the ocean cannot be measured accurately to determine a decline of pH within 0.1. The natural variability of geography, light, biological process, local availability of buffers, currents, up-welling, volcanic vents, depth, thermocline, and long-term accuracy and calibration of the sensors preclude any possibility of this measurement being made. The only way this number 0.1 could be stated is with a model. Please forgive us skeptics but we have seen models so tuned and twisted to project a preconceived final outcome that absolute zero trust is placed in them. This I am afraid is your biggest hurdle.

    I do not envy your particular field of study choice. As you stated earlier their is not much data available for the Arctic that is older than 50 years. Making estimates when so many natural cycles can determine the outcome would seem to almost be a leap of faith when we still have not completed some of the cycles.

    Again thanks for engaging, given enough time I think we can even make a skeptic out of you :)

  191. Craig Loehle says:

    Julienne: this thread was about how in the USA people claim impacts are already happening and use this to sound the alarm. You are talking about model projections for 30 to 100 years from now and the in the arctic in about 20 posts. That is called hijacking the post. It is rude. You have not addressed anything related to the topic.

  192. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Craig, with all due respect I started out with asking you to comment on a recent paper published in Science on Ocean Acidification that evaluates the current and future projections with the last 300 million years. I thought given that’s what you started out with, that you were prepared for an in depth discussion on the topic. And I responded to a comment by Latitude on how CO2 is dissolved in ocean water. You were making the claim that the change in Ocean pH is dubious, that it hasn’t changed by 30% (it’s actually 26%). That is what I started addressing. The Arctic discussion started after corporate message posted a video of me talking the Arctic.

  193. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Craig, I am curious, since you were talking about the US in your story, why you neglected the study done off the West Coast in terms of changing Ocean pH levels? Have you read this paper?

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1490.abstract?HITS=10&maxtoshow=&resourcetype=HWCIT&RESULTFORMAT=&FIRSTINDEX=0&searchid=1&hits=10&fulltext=acidified%20water

  194. Fredrick Lightfoot says:

    Craig Loehle,
    I suggest that you use words of one syllable, it is obvious from her 20 odd posts that she can write but not read,
    ( i bet she is the only one that can pronounce her name )

  195. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Jeff says “What I said was that I know that the whole of the ocean cannot be measured accurately to determine a decline of pH within 0.1.”

    As far as I understand it, large-scale Ocean pH is measured using acoustic waves. A decline in pH for example of 0.3 causes a 40% decrease in the intrinsic sound absorption properties of surface sea water. Of course there are also ship measurements and there are some coastal networks, as well as other individual field campaigns. And then there are paleoclimate approaches to mapping pH levels.

    I would defer to a scientist actually measuring pH levels in the ocean though for more information, since you do raise a good question as to how much of the ocean was mapped to arrive at that number.

    My point was simply that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 does impact Ocean pH levels, and for some reason, some people argue that it doesn’t without showing any proof that it doesn’t.

    Jeff what I’m skeptical about is how all the feedback processes will impact future climate under a background warming signal. There could be negative feedbacks that kick in to modulate the warming, increased snowfall is one of those feedbacks I’m interested in. I think the observational record remains too short to state with confidence that the trend towards more open water in September is linked to enhanced snow-fall over Siberia (or that it induces a negative AO state that results in more snow-fall over the eastern US and over Eurasia). But modeling studies (and paper’s like Judy Curry’s new paper are stating there is a link – this is despite forecasts of overall decline in NH snow-cover as the climate warms).

  196. corporate message says:

    The metaphorical Veterinarian just walked out, after giving our dog 3 months to live. She wouldn’t say why she only gave us what is the most extreme value of all the model projections.

  197. corporate message says:

    “Julienne: this thread was about how in the USA people claim impacts are already happening and use this to sound the alarm. You are talking about model projections for 30 to 100 years from now and the in the arctic in about 20 posts. That is called hijacking the post. It is rude. You have not addressed anything related to the topic”

    Craig, I’d beg to support Julienne’s right to respond to the huge interest. It just turned out that a hot nerve was hit with your point # 1, and this is the way that cookie crumbled. SHe needs to provide some answers, now that it’s “out there”.

    Won’t you agree ?

  198. corporate message says:

    Hu McCulloch says

    “A decrease of .100 pH units, followed by an increase of .100 pH units leaves you right where you began.

    However, an increase of 26% (of initial value) followed by a decrease of 26% (of new value) leaves you 7% behind where you started, since the base is now bigger. This is an advantage of using logarithmic pH units, rather than arithmetic % changes.”

    Hu, you’ve really given a good explanation here for me, as well as pointing out the distinction between the two means of expressing changes.

  199. Jeff D says:

    corporate message says:
    March 9, 2012 at 12:47 pm
    Craig, I’d beg to support Julienne’s right to respond to the huge interest. It just turned out that a hot nerve was hit with your point # 1, and this is the way that cookie crumbled. SHe needs to provide some answers, now that it’s “out there”.
    Won’t you agree ?
    _______________________
    Kind of agree with corporate here but for a slightly different set of reasons.

    We got a warmist to come out and play, that doesn’t happen all that often here. While not 100% on topic to ” Within the United States, the claim that bad climate effects can “already” be detected is a totally subjective and unsupported hypothetical.” the root of the discussion is the topic. Julienne’s interactions here to me are subjective and unsupported on both subjects we have breached. The pH claim and the prediction of total loss of sea ice I think fit.

    So as the old saying goes I think we should give her a little rope :) But this is your thread and if you wish to drop the matter I will concede.

  200. Bill Illis says:

    At the end of every ice age cycle, CO2 increases from 185 ppm to 270 ppm.

    Just think of unacidic the oceans are during the ice ages. How do the marine organisms survive the reduced unacidity during the transition.

    And when CO2 was 1500 ppm just 32 million years ago, how did the marine organisms manage the increased acidity.

    And then there would have been a time, during when life first evolved, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 300,000 ppm. The ocean would have had a pH of 1.0 .

    Someone needs to do the actual math in this debate because one can reach illogical conclusions like the above without it.

  201. Smokey says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:

    “Smokey, I think it’s time you start using your real name and stick to the discussion at hand, which in case you forgot was about the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 and how that impacts Ocean pH levels.”

    Oh, I see. OK, my name is Don Diego de la Vega. I only wear my Zorro mask here, when I’m fighting the rich establishment on behalf of the overtaxed common folks who are being scammed by the false demonization of “carbon”.☺ Actually, Anthony knows exactly who I am, and that’s all that matters. He knows my name, my email address, my home address, my phone number, we’ve met a number of times over the past few years, and we occasionally correspond. But enough about me, it’s the science debate that we should be having. Unfortunately, you’re still dodging my repeatedly asked question, which I’ll get to after I’ve answered your questions – again.

    I’ve posted numerous links that show conclusively that the “ocean acidification” conjecture is scientifically baseless speculation. You really ought to read them to get up to speed on the subject. We’ve been discussing that same subject at WUWT for the last couple of years, and there’s no “there” there. It is evidence-free speculation, intended to alarm the populace. Ocean “acidification”, like natural Arctic ice cycles, is simply a weak fallback position for the alarmist crowd, which cannot provide testable, empirical evidence measuring the effect, if any, of CO2 on global temperature. The best correlation we have is that ΔCO2 follows ΔT. Effect cannot precede cause, so the most likely explanation is that much of the rising CO2 is due to ocean outgassing from the LIA and the MWP. Sure, human activity adds CO2. But it’s all good. Warmer is good; cold kills. Warmer means more farmland. More CO2 means more crops. And there is no verifiable global harm from CO2 going from 0.00028 to 0.00039 of the atmosphere. CO2 is a harmless trace gas. More is better. The biosphere is starved of harmless, beneficial CO2.

    As I’ve pointed out several times now, the ocean holds well over 400,000 times more CO2 than the atmosphere’s paltry 0.00039. The ocean controls the atmosphere, not vice versa. The tail doesn’t wag the dog. And the oceans have the capacity to hold orders of magnitude more CO2 than they already do with no problem.

    So once again, here is my basic question: I have shown that there has been no change in the long term warming trend line since the Little Ice Age. The warming trend began in the 1600’s, and – here’s the critical point – the trend line has not turned up. Warming has not accelerated, despite a ≈40% rise in CO2. There is no testable, measurable effect due to human CO2 emissions. Therefore, the conjecture that CO2 is causing runaway global warming and climate disruption is falsified. CO2 is, if anything, a bit player. So after spending more than $90 billion in tax money on something that isn’t there, should we not promptly cut off all spending on “climate change”, until and unless it can be shown that CO2 has any measurable effect?

  202. AdolfoGiurfa says:

    I would suggest to a warmist alkaline lover to swim in a pool at a pH >8,0 for at least 1 hour…..just to prove their point.

  203. Jeff D says:

    AdolfoGiurfa says:
    March 9, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    I would suggest to a warmist alkaline lover to swim in a pool at a pH >8,0 for at least 1 hour…..just to prove their point.
    _____________________

    I am a little confused by this statement. My water out of the tap is hard and has a pH of 8.6. I bath, shower, drink it with no adverse effects. Swimming in it can burn the eyes just a bit and can cause scale on a pool liner so when we had a pool I would add Muratic acid to get it to around 7.

  204. Gail Combs says:

    Latitude says: @ March 8, 2012 at 11:19 am

    …. Take an open container holding one gallon of distilled water at sea level with an atmosphere pressure say give or take 14 psi. How acidic will the water in the container become with just the CO2 available in the atmosphere and how long would it take? If we double the CO2 what will the pH do?
    _____________________________________

    The answer as usual is it depends.

    Here is a paper on Carbonic Acid Chemistry http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/global_cycle/vol%20I/cht_i_09.pdf

    It covers fresh and salt water.

  205. Gail Combs says:

    AdolfoGiurfa says:
    March 9, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    I would suggest to a warmist alkaline lover to swim in a pool at a pH >8,0 for at least 1 hour…..just to prove their point.
    ________________________
    You are nasty. I still have the scars from getting an NaOH solution under my wedding ring. It was the last time I wore jewelry.

  206. corporate message says:

    please STOP !
    Julienne does do Chemistry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qll2VRmXZWM

  207. Reg Nelson says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:

    “I would defer to a scientist actually measuring pH levels in the ocean though for more information, since you do raise a good question as to how much of the ocean was mapped to arrive at that number.”

    ******
    Hi Julienne,

    I am an admitted lurker and laymen here, but shouldn’t this be the first and most important question?

    If the data is incomplete, or inaccurate, then the results are surely meaningless, aren’t they?

    That doesn’t seem to matter much to the policy pushers (and Climate Scientists), but it does to me. The actual data (and quality of) seems irrelevant. If data doesn’t fit the model, blame the data and find another proxy data that fits the end (desired) result.

  208. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh, and one more nip at the Troll Bait about shell fish and dissolving at depth…. The assertion was made that at some particular depth, shells just can’t form, and it’s not that far down. Just a tiny be more acid and “POOF” those shell fish will be dissolving before our eyes. Yet, as pointed out above, there are Black Smokers and White Smokers pumping out loads of CO2 at the center of the bottom of the oceans. Even the pH is shifted toward acid at those vents (though quickly neutralized back to alkaline a ways away from the vents.

    And what do we FIND at those deep hot acidic vents? Far beyond the hypothetical supposed ‘depth horizon’? Clams. Mussels. Shrimp. Crabs. All sorts of shellfish.

    And do they go running from those hot acid vents? Nope.

    They snuggle up just as close as they can get so as to get a better meal of the very special bacteria that eat things like poisonous Hydrogen Sulphide…

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    March 8, 2012 at 11:36 am

    There is a critical concentration of carbonate ions in seawater (the saturation concentration) below which CaCO3 will start to dissolve. Because CaCO3 solubility increases with decreasing temperature and increasing pressure, the critical concentration occurs at a depth, the
    ‘saturation horizon’, below which seawater is undersaturated and CaCO3 will tend to dissolve
    and above which seawater is super-saturated and CaCO3 will tend to be preserved. Because the CaCO3 mineral calcite is less soluble than the form aragonite, the aragonite saturation
    horizon is shallower. Because added CO2 decreases the carbonate ion concentration, the saturation horizons will become shallower with increasing releases of human-derived
    CO2 to the atmosphere.

    So, here we see the stereotypical “Launch a hypothetical theoretical and run” tactic. Followed either by “change of subject”, or “ignore explanations of defects in the argument” (often followed by more divergent hypothetical theoretical troll bait), or even the favorite “attack the messenger”…

    So, in response, I give you “the existence proof of the contrary”:

    This is just ONE of hundreds of links you can find detailing all the interesting flora and fauna of the Ocean Bottoms and life found at the vents there.

    http://www.fathom.com/course/10701050/session6.html

    They are almost always associated with the crest of the mid-ocean ridge system at depths of between 2,000 and 3,000 metres. The existence of such leaks of hot water through the ridges had been predicted by geophysicists for many years, but in this session we will discover why the form they took, and particularly the remarkable animal communities associated with them, took everyone totally by surprise.

    So a few kilometers down…

    The temperature of the water coming out of the vents ranges from a modest 10-30° Celsius to a staggering 350-400°C. Because of the very high pressure, this superheated water does not boil and turn to steam as it would in air. Instead, it simply gushes out of the vent and mixes with the surrounding water, usually cooling more or less to the background temperature (2-3°C) within a few metres.

    Hot. Chemically rich in acid forming chemicals.

    Many vents are surrounded by fantastic communities in which life may be hundreds of times more abundant than on the adjacent sea floor. This is because the vent animals have their own rich source of food, which is totally independent of the input from the photosynthesizing plants in the overlying surface waters. The food is produced by special bacteria which can make the complex chemicals the animals need. But instead of using the energy in sunlight, like plants, they get their energy from some of the chemicals in the vent water in a process called chemosynthesis. Some of these bacteria are free-living and are eaten by other vent-dwellers; they can be so abundant that they form thick mats around the vents and even over the animals living there. Others live in close association with the animals, sometimes even inside their bodies, in a strange partnership from which both partners benefit.

    The foundation of the food web is bacteria. Bacteria that NEED the chemicals from that hot acid forming water. We find these bacteria INSIDE the bodies of the animals around the vents. Some have even given up digestion, simply becoming symbiotic with these bacteria, so are OBLIGATED to live in the hot acid forming vent stream.

    Giant worms and monster clams
    There are many hundreds of bivalve molluscs, such as mussels, oysters and cockles, in the deep sea but almost all of them are tiny, no more than a few millimetres long. So in the late 1970s scientists were amazed to see photographs from the deep eastern Pacific which showed the sea floor strewn with empty bivalve shells up to 25 centimetres long. These turned out to be the remains of vent communities that had died when the vent stopped working. Later, scientists in submersibles examining animal communities in the vicinity of living vents observed hundreds of bivalves crammed into crevices, and often several deep. The bivalves were of two distinct types, one related to the shallow-water mussels, the other to clams. The mussel, later named Bathymodiolus thermophilus, sometimes occurs in enormous numbers, up to 300 per square metre.

    So, not only do we find LIVE ones, we also find a load of the dead shells from those that expired when the vent stopped feeding them.

    There’s more at the link, including some nice pictures. Life simply looks at your hypothetical theoretical and says “Sfuff it. We don’t care. We LAUGH in the face of hot acidic vents.”

    Or, to paraphrase someone else “And yet, life moves!”

    That is a picture of a gorgeous Vent Mussel…

    The caption reads:

    Giant vent mussel Bathymodiolus elongatus, from a hydrothermal vent in the central Pacific at a depth of 2,800 metres. These animals obtain most of their nutrition from chemosymbiotic bacteria contained in their gills. These bacteria oxidise hydrogen sulphide emanating from the vents.

    Are these just visitors? Just there for a little while? Nope. Mussels attach to rock with strong fibers and tend to stay put. (Though some can move a little). But even more certainly tied to those hot deep acidic vents:

    The giant clam, Calyptogena magnifica, which grows even bigger than the mussel, also has a rich bacterial population associated with its gills. Unlike the mussel, it moves about quite actively, using a large, fleshy foot, which is pushed out from between its shells to either anchor the clam into a crevice or pull it along to a new location. Whereas when Calyptogena’s shallow-living relatives move in this way when searching for food, the vent clam is probably searching for the best conditions to grow its gill bacteria. The clam has lost all trace of a gut and seems to be totally dependent upon its bacterial garden for its food.

    So those giant clams are actively seeking out that environment. It has no choice, having lost all ability to digest other food and depending entirely on symbiosis with the chemosynthetic bacteria.

    I think that kind of trumps any hypothetical theoretical…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_smoker#Black_smokers_and_white_smokers

    In contrast to the approximately 2 °C ambient water temperature at these depths, water emerges from these vents at temperatures ranging from 60 °C up to as high as 464 °C.[2][3] Due to the high hydrostatic pressure at these depths, water may exist in either its liquid form or as a supercritical fluid at such temperatures. At a pressure of 218 atmospheres, the critical point of (pure) water is 375 °C. At a depth of 3,000 meters, the hydrostatic pressure of sea water is more than 300 atmospheres (as salt water is denser than fresh water). At this depth and pressure, seawater becomes supercritical at a temperature of 407 °C (see image). However the increase in salinity at this depth pushes the water closer to its critical point. Thus, water emerging from the hottest parts of some hydrothermal vents can be a supercritical fluid, possessing physical properties between those of a gas and those of a liquid. Besides being superheated, the water is also extremely acidic, often having a pH value as low as 2.8 — approximately that of vinegar.

    Oh dear… don’t think CO2 can make it as acidic as vinegar… it leaves solution at those acidities…

    But the biological communities of those vents cozy up as close as they can get to that water, with the tube worms often quite hot and the shrimps sometimes getting their whiskers burned off by the heat.

    I think your hypothetical theoretical needs to figure out how to cope with the reality of life, with shells, at both great depths and in hot acid…

  209. David A says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:

    “I would defer to a scientist actually measuring pH levels in the ocean though for more information, since you do raise a good question as to how much of the ocean was mapped to arrive at that number.”
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Yes Julienne, let us do that. CO2 science does a good job with the literature. The main problem with your supposition is you have not provided any details on how they came to their estimate of ocean disaster, or when the disaster will occur. Most CAGW studies make “projections” of disaster in the future. Let us see what the real studies show…
    From CO2 science…
    In the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted of experimental studies that have explored the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations on marine biota, Hendriks et al. (2010) assembled a database of 372 experimentally-evaluated responses of 44 different marine species to ocean acidification that was induced by equilibrating seawater with CO2-enriched air. This they did because, as they describe it, “warnings that ocean acidification is a major threat to marine biodiversity are largely based on the analysis of predicted changes in ocean chemical fields,” which are derived from theoretical models that do not account for numerous biological phenomena and have only “limited experimental support.”
    Of the published reports they scrutinized, only 154 assessed the significance of responses relative to controls; and of those reports, 47 reported no significant response, so that “only a minority of studies,” in their words, demonstrated “significant responses to acidification.” And when the results of that minority group of studies were pooled, there was no significant mean effect. Nevertheless, the three researchers found that some types of organisms and certain functional processes did exhibit significant responses to seawater acidification. However, since their analyses to this point had included some acidification treatments that were extremely high, they repeated their analyses for only those acidification conditions that were induced by atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm or less, which latter limiting concentration had been predicted to occur around the year 2300 by Caldeira and Wickett (2003).

    In this second analysis, Hendriks et al. once again found that the overall response, including all biological processes and functional groups, was not significantly different from that of the various control treatments, although calcification was reduced by 33 ± 4.5% and fertility by 11 ± 3.5% across groups, while survival and growth showed no significant overall responses. And when the upper limiting CO2 concentrations were in the range of 731-759 ppm, or just below the value predicted by the IPCC (2007) for the end of the 21st century (790 ppm) — calcification rate reductions of only 25% were observed. What is more, the three researchers say that this decline “is likely to be an upper limit, considering that all experiments involve the abrupt exposure of organisms to elevated pCO2 values, while the gradual increase in pCO2 that is occurring in nature may allow adaptive and selective processes to operate,” citing the work of Widdicombe et al. (2008) and noting that “these gradual changes take place on the scale of decades, permitting adaptation of organisms even including genetic selection.”
    Yet even this mitigating factor is not the end of the good news, for Hendriks et al. write that “most experiments assessed organisms in isolation, rather than [within] whole communities,” and they say that the responses of other entities and processes within the community may well buffer the negative impacts of CO2-indced acidification on earth’s corals. As an example, they note that “sea-grass photosynthetic rates may increase by 50% with increased CO2, which may deplete the CO2 pool, maintaining an elevated pH that may protect associated calcifying organisms from the impacts of ocean acidification.”

    In describing another phenomenon that benefits corals, the researchers write that “seasonal changes in pCO2 are in the range of 236-517 ppm in the waters of the northern East China Sea (Shim et al., 2007),” and that “metabolically-active coastal ecosystems experience broad diel changes in pH, such as the diel changes of >0.5 pH units reported for sea grass ecosystems (Invers et al., 1997),” which they say represent “a broader range than that expected to result from ocean acidification expected during the 21st century.” And they remark that these fluctuations also “offer opportunities for adaptation to the organisms involved.”

    Hendriks et al. additionally state that the models upon which the ocean acidification threat is based “focus on bulk water chemistry and fall short of addressing conditions actually experienced by [marine] organisms,” which are “separated from the bulk water phase by a diffusive boundary layer,” adding that “photosynthetic activity” — such as that of the zooxanthellae that are hosted by corals — “depletes pCO2 and raises pH (Kuhl et al., 1995) so that the pH actually experienced by organisms may differ greatly from that in the bulk water phase (Sand-Jensen et al., 1985).”

    Last of all, the insightful scientists note that “calcification is an active process where biota can regulate intracellular calcium concentrations,” so that “marine organisms, like calcifying coccolithophores (Brownlee and Taylor, 2004), actively expel Ca2+ through the ATPase pump to maintain low intracellular calcium concentrations (Corstjens et al., 2001; Yates and Robbins, 1999).” And they say that “as one Ca2+ is pumped out of the cell in exchange for 2H+ pumped into the cell, the resulting pH and Ca2+ concentrations increase the CaCO3 saturation state near extracellular membranes and appear to enhance calcification (Pomar and Hallock, 2008),” so much so, in fact, that they indicate “there is evidence that calcification could even increase in acidified seawater, contradicting the traditional belief that calcification is a critical process impacted by ocean acidification (Findlay et al., 2009).”

    In summation, Hendriks et al. write that the world’s marine biota are “more resistant to ocean acidification than suggested by pessimistic predictions identifying ocean acidification as a major threat to marine biodiversity,” noting that this phenomenon “may not be the widespread problem conjured into the 21st century” by the world’s climate alarmists. We agree, having reached much the same conclusion back at the turn of the last millennium (Idso et al., 2000). Hence, we are happy to endorse Hendriks et al.’s conclusion that “biological processes can provide homeostasis against changes in pH in bulk waters of the range predicted during the 21st century.”

    Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
    There you go Julienne, all your assertions answered, even ASSUMING the EXTREMELY limited data of CO2 PH change in the ocean is correct, likely there is no problem, all from these sources.
    References
    Brownlee, C. and Taylor, A. 2004. Calcification in coccolithophores: a cellular perspective. In: Thierstein, H.R. and Young, J.R. (Eds.), Coccolithophores. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 31-49.

    Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425: 365.

    Corstjens, P.L.A.M., Araki, Y., and Gonzalez, E.L. 2001. A coccolithophorid calcifying vesicle with a vacuolar-type ATPase proton pump: cloning and immunolocalization of the V0 subunit c. Journal of Phycology 37: 71-78.

    Findlay, H.S., Wood, H.L., Kendall, M.A., Spicer, J.I., Twitchett, R.J. and Widdicombe, S. 2009. Calcification, a physiological process to be considered in the context of the whole organism. Biogeosciences Discussions 6: 2267-2284.

    Hendriks, I.E., Duarte, C.M. and Alvarez, M. 2010. Vulnerability of marine biodiversity to ocean acidification: A meta-analysis. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86: 157-164.

    Idso, S.B., Idso, C.D. and Idso, K.E. 2000. CO2, global warming and coral reefs: Prospects for the future. Technology 7S: 71-94.

    Ivers, O., Romero, J. and Perez, M. 1997. Effects of pH on seagrass photosynthesis: a laboratory and field assessment. Aquatic Botany 59: 185-194.

    IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.

    Kuhl, M., Cohen, Y., Dalsgaard, T. and Jorgensen, B.B. 1995. Microenvironment and photosynthesis of zooxanthellae in scleractinian corals studied with microsensors for O2, pH and light. Marine Ecology Progress Series 117: 159-172.

    Pomar, L. and Hallock, P. 2008. Carbonate factories: a conundrum in sedimentary geology. Earth-Science Reviews 87: 134-169.

    Sand-Jensen, K., Revsbech, N.P. and Barker Jorgensen, B.B. 1985. Microprofiles of oxygen in epiphyte communities on submerged macrophytes. Marine Biology 89: 55-62.

    Shim, J.H., Kim, D., Kang, Y.C., Lee, J.H., Jang, S.T. and Kim, C.H. 2007. Seasonal variations in pCO2 and its controlling factors in surface seawater of the northern East China Sea. Continental Shelf Research 27: 2623-2636.

    Widdicombe, S., Dupont, S. and Thorndyke, M. 2008. Laboratory Experiments and Benthic Mesocosm Studies. Guide for Best Practices in Ocean Acidification Research and Data Reporting. EPOCA, France.

    Yates, K.K. and Robbins, L.L. 1999. Radioisotope tracer studies of inorganic carbon and Ca in microbially derived CaCO3. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 63: 129-136.

  210. corporate message says:

    Julienne says:

    “Jeff says “What I said was that I know that the whole of the ocean cannot be measured accurately to determine a decline of pH within 0.1.”

    As far as I understand it, large-scale Ocean pH is measured using acoustic waves. A decline in pH for example of 0.3 causes a 40% decrease in the intrinsic sound absorption properties of surface sea water. Of course there are also ship measurements and there are some coastal networks, as well as other individual field campaigns. And then there are paleoclimate approaches to mapping pH levels.

    I would defer to a scientist actually measuring pH levels in the ocean though for more information, since you do raise a good question as to how much of the ocean was mapped to arrive at that number.”

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L19601, 5 PP., 2008
    doi:10.1029/2008GL034913

    ….Under reasonable projections of future fossil fuel CO2 emissions and other sources a pH change of 0.3 units or more can be anticipated by mid-century, resulting in a decrease in α by almost 40%. ”

    Julienne, it would seem that you have defered to abstracts, but cannot be depended on to even get that really right.

  211. boat2 says:

    Julienne Stroeve says:

    March 9, 2012 at 11:12 am

    And I responded to a comment by Latitude on how CO2 is dissolved in ocean water.
    =========================
    Julienne, I linked you to two papers that said the exact opposite of what you claimed they said.

    Julienne, it’s a simple question….You’re busy calling everyone else out, how about an answer

    I asked you a direct question, more than once, here it is again…

    Do you understand that there are natural biological processes in the ocean…that produce magnitudes more acid…..than CO2?

  212. corporate message says:

    Don’t miss the howlers Julienne puts out near the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl52kdHBhZE

    credibility = suboptimal

  213. Latitude says:

    internet is wonky…..boat2…..is me!

  214. Steve Keohane says:

    “corporate message says: March 10, 2012 at 5:03 am ”

    The video is hard to believe, rather I’d like to not believe this is the sort that we have to depend on to understand the climate. If so, we are lost. Since that came out in 4/08, she may not have heard NASA’s determination that unusual wind and currents produced the 2007 minimum, I’ll give a pass on that. I’d put credibility at hovering about zero.

  215. Latitude says:

    Smokey says:
    ==============
    March 9, 2012 at 6:18 pm
    Julienne Stroeve says:
    “Smokey, I think it’s time you start using your real name and stick to the discussion at hand, which in case you forgot was about the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 and how that impacts Ocean pH levels.”
    ==================
    Smokey, just ignore her when she does that…..she’s a game player and that’s one of her fall back positions…….when she’s not claiming victim status

  216. Keith Sketchley says:

    Thankyou Craig for a concise summary, that I can refer people to.

  217. corporate message says:

    I’d like to be able to see a quick summary of the questions which the combatants feel have not been answered properly yet.

    It’s too early to presume that Julienne will run away from the challenge she knows she is already involved in. However, I would like to see her represented most fairly.

    One thing I’d like to say at this point is that it was not her fault that the topic went a bit off track to another of her interests ( arctic ice). It cannot be considered hijacking when it was not introduced by her, but incidentally by the video I showed of her prediction given to the children.

    Arctic ice predictions ARE on the topic of how the…call them “Catastrophists” …how they operate.

    Was Julienne using the common alarmist style in giving the most extreme result possible, from her imagination, instead of giving forth more suitable information ?
    In any case, Julienne’s criticisms of our responses should be listed and properly attended to, also.

  218. Smokey says:

    corporate message says:

    “I’d like to be able to see a quick summary of the questions which the combatants feel have not been answered properly yet.”

    I have done my best to answer Julienne’s questions. All of them. But I keep asking her my one central question, and never get an answer from her. Like a squid facing danger, she emits a cloud of ink and disappears.

  219. corporate message says:

    Craig, I hope you don’t mind terribly, but I feel it’s very important to get to the bottom of the issue.

    Julienne, I’m approaching your argument first looking to see how you used the words, and to see if you know what you’re talking about. Starting out with:

    “Latitude you are correct that when CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic…”

    Acidic seawater ? Julienne, it just isn’t. Perhaps you would like to change that to “more acidified” or some other way of saying “acid”, when it just isn’t “acidic” by any stretch.

    I’m looking at your word choices here.
    Let’s look at this another way then:

    You have Hydrogen ions released, and so your “Acidity rise”, when Carbonic Acid dissociates. However, do you not also have more carbonate and bicarb released ?

    “…but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land.

    However, the rise in atmospheric CO2 from human activities leads to not only by elevated dissolved CO2 and decreased pH but also decreased saturation with respect to calcium carbonate.”

    Julienne, buffering does not take long time scales. The buffering goes on and on…yes, for long time scales (.forever ).

    Now to your word choice; you could have made the plain claim that elevated atmospheric CO2 can or may lead to an increase in CO2 dissolving into nearby surface seawater.

    Instead you chose to insert “this is being done by man” into the sentence. You are offering loaded arguments, you see. If you are trying to get agreement on a basic process, and meanwhile you will not desist on agitating for your cause, then you’re less believable.

  220. corporate message says:

    Smokey says:

    “I have done my best to answer Julienne’s questions. All of them. But I keep asking her my one central question, and never get an answer from her. Like a squid facing danger, she emits a cloud of ink and disappears.”

    I think that Julienne does not know the greatness of what she does not know. I think she cannot see the significance of comments. I have not studied her CV. I have seen no evidence that she has any special skill set or any knowledge about any of this..I’m trying to figure out what her affinity for this subject really is. Does she like Biology ? Apparently ignorant. Chemistry ? Ha ha. What is it that she uses as a base to verify anything ? Does she do stats ?
    I’m enjoying puzzling over what her interests are, since she displays not a bit of intimate knowledge of what she is talking about.

    From this perspective, I want to engage her interest.
    She’s trying to be the Lucy to our supposed Lionels. What’s that about ?

  221. corporate message says:

    Julienne claims it has been shown that:

    “coral reef organisms do not acclimate to decreasing carbonate saturation states over several years.”

    Julienne has shown no such thing. Julienne seemingly cannot help herself from making these “errors” throughout her arguments.

  222. Chris D. says:

    Would this post qualify for a link on the Climate Fail page?

  223. corporate message says:

    Steve McIntyre clarifies an issue.
    In her Green Girl show appearance, Julienne stated that Arctic sea ice is kinda like the new poster child for AGW.
    I find it to be a very fitting simile.
    Julienne is kinda like the new Michael Mann.
    She comes equipped with a hockey stick of her own making.

    McIntrye on Climate Etc.

    “One of the ongoing climate science issues comes with press releases, which often are more promotional than the articles themselves. The scientists all too often disown responsibility for the press release, blaming the university press officer, and fall back on the fine print of the article. This is not permitted in mining promotions. Press releases are scrutinized just as carefully as qualifying reports and must be passed by an independent qualified person (“peer reviewed”, if you prefer).

    Also, if someone wishes to be credible with investors, it’s always a good idea to under-promise and over-perform. This is easier said than done. But it seems to me to be worthwhile for the climate community to reflect on how they would be perceived by objective third parties in this respect.”

  224. Brian H says:

    Shellfish love acid. It keeps the calcium more mobile and available. They evolved when CO2 in the atmosphere was super-high, in any case.

  225. Chris Moran says:

    An omission in the fire-climate debate is the often cited paper by Westerling et al.:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.short

    While they more or less dodge the fuel buildup and management issues, which is unfortunate, its hard to argue their analysis. Therefore to say their is no documented change in fire regimes is largely false.

    Mike D: Most of the major wildfires you refer to: the Hayman, Rodeo-Chediski, Biscuit, Wallow, etc. were suppressed as much as possible (which obviously failed) because the potential for extreme spread was too great for any wildland fire use.

    I’d like to pose a question though: is it better to be under-prepared or over-prepared? While I don’t advocate for a total overhaul of our civilization, many of the benefits of mitigation are not related to climate, and if there is unforeseen negative feedbacks, which I sorely hope for but have yet to see (maybe someone could help), we will still be better off for having done something.

  226. Chris Moran says:

    I can’t let another important omission get by: what about the enormous outbreak of mountain pine beetles in western NA?

    Raffa et al 2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: dynamics of biome-wide bark beetle eruptions. BioScience.

    One could have a weak argument that it isn’t climate related but what about the beetles completing two life cycles when they would previously complete one?

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/uoca-spb031412.php

    The effects are here people.

  227. thisisnotgoodtogo says:

    Chris Moran says:

    “I can’t let another important omission get by: what about the enormous outbreak of mountain pine beetles in western NA?

    Raffa et al 2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: dynamics of biome-wide bark beetle eruptions. BioScience.

    One could have a weak argument that it isn’t climate related but what about the beetles completing two life cycles when they would previously complete one?”

    Chris, these kinds of differences can be seen all thoughout nature. It can occur when one of the available phenotypes is more suited to present conditions than former conditions. I did not see that the study authors properly discerned that this kind of life history alternate phenotype arising or showing itself, has not been happening before.
    They mentioned an assumed “single” life history. Do you find differently ?

    Eugene Balon on ontogeny

    “Embryos with insufficient endogenous food supply (yolk) to build a definitive phenotype directly need the transient form of a nutrient-gathering larva. They represent an indirect development. In contrast, a large endogenous supply of nutrients enables the definitive adult phenotype to develop directly, avoiding an intervening larva and the cost of metamorphosis. The larger and more advanced an individual at the onset of exogenous feeding, the better are its chances to survive. This can be achieved by heterochronies related to feeding. Different types of feeding during the early ontogeny of fishes — endogenous, exogenous, absorptive, and a combination of all (mixed) — are demonstrated and integrated into the life-history model.”

    The trouble with your “Then what about this?” approach, is that we seem limited in knowledge by our purpose in learning. .

    So we get headlines; like ” Human Induced Global Warming Makes Cannibal Tadpoles”, from this:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689646/

    As you see, one phenotype eats the other in an ongoing dance…both are needed for survival of species during highly differing sets of conditions from year to year – or to big differences once in a long while..

    So while it’s entirely possible that humans have never seen the beetles do this behaviour, that it has existed before, and also possible that it was touched off by …GW?AGW?CC?CD? Rising local temp ? Not rising global temp, that won’t work.

    Therefor “what about these beetles” is an interesting question.

Comments are closed.