Nothing definitive, but interesting. The area plot above is from NANSEN. The extent plot also shows a turn:
DMI also shows it…
Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) – Centre for Ocean and Ice – Click the pic to view at sourceBut JAXA does not….suggesting a difference in sensors/processes.
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC) – Click the pic to view at sourceOf course NSIDC has a 5 day average, so we won’t see a change for awhile. Time will tell if this is just a blip or a turn from the new record low for the satellite data set.
More at the WUWT Sea Ice reference page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There has also been very recent research released from Oregon that shows exactly the same behaviour that’s happening up here:
“The owners of Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery at Oregon’s Netarts Bay began experiencing a decline in oyster seed production several years ago, and looked at potential causes including low oxygen and pathogenic bacteria. Alan Barton, who works at the hatchery and is an author on the journal article, was able to eliminate those potential causes and shifted his focus to acidification.
Barton sent samples to OSU and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory for analysis. Their ensuing study clearly linked the production failures to the CO2 levels in the water in which the larval oysters are spawned and spend the first 24 hours of their lives, the critical time when they develop from fertilized eggs to swimming larvae, and build their initial shells.
“The early growth stage for oysters is particularly sensitive to the carbonate chemistry of the water,” said George Waldbusser, a benthic ecologist in OSU’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences. “As the water becomes more acidified, it affects the formation of calcium carbonate, the mineral of which the shell material consists. As the CO2 goes up, the mineral stability goes down, ultimately leading to reduced growth or mortality.””
And of course… this was all first predicted to happen back in the 1890s with Svend Arrhenius work on ‘carbonic acid’ and rock chemistry. But hey… who wants to listen to scientists from 120 years ago. Scientific Method is so YESTERDAY.
From Chris Alemany on September 9, 2012 at 6:45 pm:
http://projectwatershed.ca/baynes-sound-a-boon-to-the-valley/ (bold added)
Your “ocean acidification” is local pollution. Acid mine drainage, not CO₂.
[Snip. Policy violation. Again. ~dbs, mod.]
Chris, go to a local aquarium store and buy a kit to test the water yourself. In addition, there should be archival records for your area that record ph in the bay area. The ocean is not becoming acidic. It is still in the normal range for alkalinity. Really. Either the farmers have drunk the cool-aid, or they are pulling your chain.
Once again the credulous Alemany quotes an “ecologist” who is paid to find reasons that oyster farmers can use to get their fingers into taxpayers’ wallets. Now Alemany is letting an ‘ecologist’ do his thinking for him.
Rational folks, on the other hand, look at the situation and see:
1) The cost of oysters is not rising
2) There are likely other reasons, such as local pollution, for the farmers’ problems because it is not a worldwide problem
3) The maximum pH changes claimed are ≤ 0.2. But as shown above, the oceans’ pH fluctuates by orders of magnitude more than that every day
Oysters thrive in varying pH levels. A minuscule change of ≤ 0.2 would not even be noticable, nor is it measurable. The “acidification” scare is just another false talking point that credulous fools believe. The immense buffering capacity of the oceans precludes any measurable change in ocean pH. There is simply not enough CO2 in all the world’s fossil fuels to measurably alter ocean pH. You would already know that, if you had read the links I so helpfully provided.
But you do not want to know the truth. The resulting cognitive dissonance might make your head explode. And being ignorant is comfortable. But don’t try to convince the rest of us that you actually understand, when you admittedly allow others to do your thinking for you.
“Once again the credulous Alemany quotes an “ecologist” who is paid to find reasons that oyster farmers can use to get their fingers into taxpayers’ wallets.”
LOL! What the hell are you talking about. What “ecologists”? And please do show me where the BC or Pacific Shellfish Growers Associations asked for any taxpayer monies??
Now you are just making stuff up. Not suprising really when you don’t have a leg to stand on…why not just make one up yourself.
The science. You know.. that thing you do when you actually take physical things or organisms… test them in different physical conditions… and report the results… shows that the oysters in BC and Oregon are having a hard time adapting to the changes in CO2 levels in ocean waters.
Pamela: Or perhaps they’ve done the test themselves and were able to come to that conclusion! Oh.. but then they’d be wrong because you disagree with them… their oysters dying in normal sea water be darned. lol.
You guys are really REALLY funny.
Alemany writes:
“LOL! What the hell are you talking about. What ‘ecologists’?”
From your own quote above:
“…George Waldbusser, a benthic ecologist…”
So? Is Ecologist a bad word?
You do realize that a “benthic” ecologist is just someone who studies the bottom of the sea floor… right? You do know where oysters grow right? They don’t just appear on your dinner plate.
Chris Alemany says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:06 pm
====================
I give you the benefit of the doubt, and it gets thrown back in my face.
KD:
Nice try. The Acid mine drainage is from mining that stopped 60 years ago and so has been a reality in the watershed for longer than that. Indeed it is a problem but Amazingly, the shellfish growers association and the researchers accounted for that… you see… they’ve been producing oysters for over 60 years. Baynes Sound oysters actually end up on the dinner plates of of patrons in some of the best restaurants in America. Yet just in the last few years they’ve been having problems with the acidity. So sorry, it ain’t the AMD.
I am not often wrong, but when I am I admit it. It is a characteristic of the alarmist crowd that they can never admit they were wrong. Because if they did their whole charade would come crashing down around their ears. And the more ignorant they are, the more intransigent. Alemany is a textbook example.
Ecologists are akin to sociologists in the scheme of science education. The only relevant degrees are in the hard sciences. An ecologist was not selected because he knows much, but because for pay he will write what his paymaster wants. See, it’s all about the money in climate pseudoscience. If he wouldn’t go along, they would simply get someone else.
Alemany’s backing and filling in multiple posts over his being caught out by his own quote merely digs his hole deeper.
Oh Smokey, I feel for you. It must be terrible to have to resort to denigrating scientists based on their title rather than acknowledge the empirical evidence they as well as the lay-workers in the business show.
It must be a terrible world for you to have to believe that they are all payed off to be able to come up with such data.
Sorry Smokey. The evidence speaks for itself. Acidification from Human CO2 emissions (note: from 50 years ago…as that is the time it takes for the waters to upwell along the Pacific Coast of NA from wherever they started) are the only explanations scientists and businesses have been able to come up with to explain the mortality of their stocks.
But here’s some good news:
Websters dictionary has this as their definition for ‘ecologist’ or ‘ecology’… hopefully it restores your faith a little bit:
“a branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments”
“the totality or pattern of relations between organisms and their environment”
Oh wait, sorry.. there I go “parroting” again. Cuz I just don’t know any better. And worse… from ENGLISH scholars. Now there’s a soft science.
Chris Alemany says:
LOL. So are you disputing the fact that shellfish farmers here are unable to grow their oysters in ocean water due to the acidity?
I did actually click on all your links. I especially like the first one though that declares “CO2 MAKES OCEANS MORE NEUTRAL”
——————————————————————-
Chris, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself here, please read the wikipedia entry for pH:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH
You can take it from this Chemistry Ph.D. that the oceans are not acidic, and a pH change from 8.2 to 8.1, whether or not caused by CO2, is indeed an approach to neutral pH (which is 7.0 or very close, depending on temperature and other factors).
Since your posts above require brainpower approximating that of a parrot, I’m not expecting much here, but have you considered why CO2 would have such specific effects in such specific locales, but yet spare the rest of the world’s population of oysters ??
Alemany,
I only denigrate those who deserve it. Facts matter to me, nothing else, so your emotional response is a non-starter. It just doesn’t matter to anyone but you.
Respond to my points above. Explain why the imagined oyster shortage — which would be affected by all the planet’s oceans — has not resulted in rising oyster prices.
Explain why one company blames all its problems on CO2, when most other companies are doing fine.
Explain why the minuscule pH changes [for which there is no verifiable scientific evidence] should destroy the oyster stock, when natural pH fluctuations are many times greater on a daily basis.
Give it your best shot, Alemany. Lots of folks are reading this.
From Chris Alemany on September 9, 2012 at 6:49 pm:
The studies whose papers were so tragically flawed they were rejected for publication, will stand in such glorious regard?
Whoops, I made a mistake, BEST pushed out five papers, not four.
So that was FIVE papers rejected for publication.
Quite an auspicious record. BEST is sure to be remembered for that. As “the most comprehensive study about the link between CO2 and AGW that there is”, not so much.
Plus, as you can see by looking at the BEST Project objectives, studying a relationship between CO₂ and AGW was never one of them. So why would you think BEST was a study about that link?
Chris Alemany says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:46 pm
“Oh Smokey, I feel for you…….”
—————————–
Thanks for that last one, mod’s.
Feelings are only that.
Smokey,
I have data for my postulation. If you can provide some hard data (not graphs) for your cycle postulation, then I can have at least some facts with which to formulate/test a conjecture.
kadaka,
Sanity from someone at last! Good on you.
Yes, my construction on that sentence was clumsy, thanks for clipping it.
As far as I can glean, you are saying that the declining trend in Arctic sea ice from 1979 is a result partly of natural cycles (PDO), and partly from black soot. You are also making a prediction of imminent cooling. Can you describe the minimum condition when you think that your prediction would be falsified? (For example: the globe and the Arctic warms over the next ten years, and sea ice continues to decline at the current rate – would that suffice, or something less stringent?)
You have moved our side-discussion forward from probability to attribution.
As a skeptic, I would ask you to demonstrate that the PDO has an influence on Arctic sea ice. Statistical correlation is a good starting point, but the clincher will be physical evidence. For example, how do PDO changes alter heat transport to the Arctic? Why wouldn’t the Arctic Oscillation have a stronger influence on Arctic sea ice coverage/volume?
By all means, cite scientific studies corroborating your position, and if you know of any that counter it, it would be great to see them linked too, in case we are able to discuss the relative merits. I’ll have a trawl for information when I have some time.
Chris Alemany:
At September 9, 2012 at 6:47 pm you write
No! That is a lie and a smear. And it is not surprising that you lie and smear because warmists always lie and smear when they are shown to be wrong.
You say you want to constrain the use of fossil fuels.
I explained (September 9, 2012 at 11:42 am) that constraining the use of fossil fuels would certainly kill billions of people mostly children.
You have persisted in saying you want to constrain the use of fossil fuels.
I yet again ask, WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL THE CHILDREN?
And at September 9, 2012 at 7:33 pm you ask Smokey
At the Annual Oyster Festival here in Falmouth, UK, none of the oyster fishermen or oyster business people have any concerns about the matter. The concerned “shellfish farmers” whom you mention probably exist only in the minds of people inhabiting warmist web sites.
But even if the oysters and oyster fishermen were suffering, then I would still care more for the children. So, I stress that I want an answer to the question,
WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL THE CHILDREN?
Richard
Richard:
Aside from the fact that right after you told me I’m a liar and am smearing you by saying you seem to think spending money kills children. (on constraining fossil fuel use and replacing it with something else).
Then you tell me that I want to kill the children. I don’t think you are a liar. But you most certainly are a hypocrite in the first degree.
I’m not talking about British oyster farmers Richard I’m talking about farmers on the West Coast of North America. Yes, the pH is different in all sorts of different places around the ocean. None of that means that in one (fairly large) area, the acidification from CO2 emissions cannot be contributing to the death of juvenile oysters.
“The concerned “shellfish farmers” whom you mention probably exist only in the minds of people inhabiting warmist web sites.”
Wrong Richard. Phone them up yourself if you have the guts. http://bcsga.ca These are real people. The BC Shellfish Growers Association represents a $37 Million industry providing 1000 full time, year-round jobs in my region. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions (from 50 years ago) are causing them to have to change the way they do their work… I do not look forward to what they will have to be doing 50 years from now to keep providing their customers with the food they want.
What an alarmist view of a completely unquantified mitigation scenario.
Smokey says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Richard Carlson says:
“Now under 4 million square km and still plummeting. It’s a train wreck.”
1) Run in circles waving your arms
————————————————————————————————————-
Hmmm, I’m one of those hated mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, flat earther “deniers.” Doesn’t matter, because what’s happening to the Arctic still isn’t good.