Not to worry though, there will be a mass human die-off which will correct things for the next 1000 years or so.

I still have a book stashed somewhere predicting we were entering a new Ice Age. Some of the leaders of that scare are leaders in this scare. To many of them are making money off their claims.

Weather changes, climate changes. The modals all have holes in them you could drive a super tanker through.

“Perhaps. However, there is indication that they had no idea they were looking at climate numbers. So, perhaps you missed the point that they could not possibly be biased.”

“Funny. I thought we were concerned with surface temperatures, being a surface bound species.”

Funny, what makes you think that satellite data doesn’t represent surface temperature? Satellites not only read surface temperature, they read vastly more area, giving a vastly more accurate mean temperature, instead of a relatively few selected pinpoints that are often affected by local man-made environments.

“That graph is not very detailed around the present. There is also no source and no indication of what the present date is. Did you make it yourself? Please post the article from which you got the graph. A little context would help.”

For someone who is so dedicated in pushing the “man-made” global warming agenda, I am shocked that you haven’t seen this chart MScott. It’s everywhere, and used by pro and con opinions alike. Some sources and biased applications…

http://tiny.cc/Givrh
http://tiny.cc/7mCsN
http://tiny.cc/7fvOL

“Lastly, do you dispute that CO2 is what keeps our planet at a balmy 15C rather than a frigid -18C? CO2 is the blanket that keeps our planet at a comfortable temperature. How could increasing it from 280 to 385 ppm not be having an effect? It simply makes no sense.”

Take a look at the first chart above, which I point out is on your side. look at the CO2 spike. It’s enormous (if in fact it’s true).
look at the effect it’s had on the graph. You would have to zoom in on a magnitude of 100,000,000 times to notice an effect! To think that humans could cause more than that is pure hubris.

As for the acidification of our oceans, CO2 is the culprit, and man is contributing for sure… but buy how much? The earth’s climate is changing… as it is constantly, and forever will.

Are pockets of methane being released because of these changes? Permafrost thawing on the ocean floor are loosening the cap on large pockets of methane stored deeper down.
http://tiny.cc/RwAKp
We are back to the cause of the thawing of course, and I don’t believe man is the cause…. maybe a helping nudge, but not the cause.

If you want to talk about air pollution and the air we breathe, or water pollution, overpopulation, food source manipulation… that’s a whole new scenario. We are affecting our necessities of life. We should all move away from the f#kn shore grow some food, develop clean transportation and stop being such gluttons and wasteful assholes! Unfortunately, the focus is off that problem, and way too many resources and money are being thrown at a red herring.

You can believe man can change the course of earths climate on the scale of Chart 1 above, for the sake of a few shore huggers… or you can try and change the minds of 6 billion people to reject selfishness and all chip in for the greater good of mankind.

History will take it’s course because we are who we are. Artificially trying to control the masses through scare tactics and intimidation (the IPCC) is folly, not to mention hurtful, demeaning, insulting and disgustingly wasteful on many levels.

Here is a very good explanation for what happens when CO2 is absorbed in water.

Sea chemistry

This may have slowed global warming, but it also led to a change in seawater chemistry.

According to Richard Feely, of NOAA, and his colleagues, that might make life pretty hard for some shell-forming marine animals.

Corals, pteropod molluscs and some plankton (single celled organisms) pull carbonate ions from the seawater to produce their calcium carbonate shells.

But, as the CO2 concentrations in the water increase, the carbonate ion concentrations decrease.

This means the animals lack the materials with which to build their shells.

And in areas where CO2 concentrations are particularly high, Professor Feely’s team claim, the animal’s shells can actually begin to dissolve.

“Based on our present knowledge, it appears that as seawater CO2 levels rise, the skeletal growth rates of calcareous plankton will be reduced – as a result of the effects of CO2 on calcification,” said co-author Victoria Fabry, of California State University, US.

Atmospheric acid does not occur until the base, such as sulfer, comes in contact and absorbs moisture. This then falls as Acid Rain. CO2 reacts the same way.

#76, The point you miss is the oceans are absorbing only half the CO2 produced. The remainder is still in our atmosphere where it is acting to retain the planet’s heat. While ocean absortion may reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, it doesn’t eliminate it.

I see your point that there are carbon sinks in the world, and thus far, they are still absorbing carbon.

What I don’t see is why you think this means we can continue to dump ever increasing levels of carbon into the atmosphere.

Point 1: The atmospheric carbon is still increasing despite the carbon sinks.

Point 2: There is a limit to the carbon sinks even if we haven’t hit it yet.

So, what exactly is your point? Can we keep burning all the coal and oil faster than ever or not?

I think not.

Scott, no it isn’t acid being added to the ocean it is CO2. As you say, the CO2 then forms acid, but that is quite different from acid being added to an ocean.

How so?

In either case, we add something to the water that makes it acidic. In either case, the pteropods can’t form their shells and die. In either case, the ocean PH falls. In either case, most of the ocean food chain is destroyed.

What difference does it make whether we dump CO2 into the ocean that then forms carbonic acid and causes this to happen or whether we actually dump in a whole bunch of already formed carbonic acid?

Well it only came out last night. SO give it time, or perhaps it will make the list of under-reported stories on this blog for next year.

I’m going through some of the e-mails right now. You can download them yourself. Just search for FOI2009.zip, I got mine from megaupload.com

In 1959 there was .95 ppm CO2 added to the atmosphere. Actual carbon emissions were higher than this, about 2 ppm.
CO2 emissions have been increasing, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing as well, roughly in step with each other.

So we can say that in 1959, the oceans, forests, etc absorbed the equivalent of 1.05 ppm CO2.
Then in 2007, the carbon emissions were much higher, the equivalent of 4.5 ppm CO2.
So if nature absorbed 1.05 ppm CO2, then that would cause an annual increase of 3.45 ppm CO2, but instead the increase was just 2.2 ppm, the same ratio as before.

Only the ppm CO2 numbers were accurate in the above example, as I have to find the paper. I suspect their methods were a bit more complicated, as the Mauna Loa numbers change wildly year to year.

Ralph, the calcium carbonate is being shedded all the time, and gets rebuilt with more CO2. The shells are not built once in time like limestone buildings, then being worn away.

When you do “your own research” if a google hit count can be called research, you might at least try Google Scholar.

http://scholar.google.com/

Using ordinary google will get people’s opinions that, just like your own, are worthless.

The rest of your post further shows your own ignorance. The ocean is not boiling. The sun is accounted for in climate models (high solar activity has been responsible for about 5-15% of the warming we’ve observed, the other 85-95 is us).

The Co2 (and acidity) levels of the oceans are approaching what they were by some estimates, 100 million years ago. -If I recall, this “discovery was made back in 2006-2007.

Um … I think you mean either 55 MYA or 250 MYA. 55 MYA was after the KT extinction. Once the temps began to cool from then, we got an explosion of life. 250 MYA was the P/T extinction, the worst this planet has seen.

Warm periods are strongly associated with and recently being proven to be the cause of mass extinctions with the exception of the most recent which was due to cometary impact. Though, even in the last, note that the number of species did not bounce back ’til the earth cooled.

So, how much warming does it take for mass extinction? The worst of all was the P/T extinction with a temperature just 6C warmer than today, well in line with our worst case estimates for anthropogenic climate change.

And, keep in mind, humans have never survived a warmer period than today. We don’t know that we can. It is warmer now than for all 200,000 years of human history.

Let’s just see how warm we can take it. It’s not as if our lives depend on the outcome … oh wait … it is.

Oh, and when the popular press says scientists are baffled, that’s code for “we need more readership”. They do the same thing with other sciences as well. Some minor detail is questioned like whether our common ancestor with chimps was more chimp like or whether chimps also evolved a lot since 6-7 million years ago, and they report that evolution is in question.

Re#46, Mis Scott, Your post #29 Is as much BS as any of the charts I posted. There is no indication of the original source of the data, who the independent statisticians were, and if they were arms length from the IPCC, or NASA. The data was presented from the Associated Press. Very scientific and trustworthy. (Not)

Perhaps. However, there is indication that they had no idea they were looking at climate numbers. So, perhaps you missed the point that they could not possibly be biased.

“Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.”

Satellite data gives cooler temperatures, so let’s NOT use that data because it might screw up our unbiased high temperature data.

Funny. I thought we were concerned with surface temperatures, being a surface bound species.

Your lack of comment on the real trend as shown in my second posted chart in post #44 speaks volumes on your biased agenda.

That graph is not very detailed around the present. There is also no source and no indication of what the present date is. Did you make it yourself? Please post the article from which you got the graph. A little context would help.

Lastly, do you dispute that CO2 is what keeps our planet at a balmy 15C rather than a frigid -18C? CO2 is the blanket that keeps our planet at a comfortable temperature. How could increasing it from 280 to 385 ppm not be having an effect? It simply makes no sense.