It's cold.....brrrrrr

[write-stuff]

With 3 engineering degrees I've had some limited exposure to the scientific method. When a person questions a hypothesis and proposes alternatives, that is the definition of "good science". OTOH when people who question a theory are stifled and labelled "deniers" that is the opposite of good science - it moves into the realm of politics, religion, etc. Ironically, in the current "climate" the methodology used by the Catholic church to canonize a saint does a better job of meeting the definition of "good science" than does the prevailing approach to carbon religion.

Well thank the good lord that over here in the US, we have smart people like Jim Inhofe to step in and save us from our misguided dependence on science.

 

[denverpilot]

Well thank the good lord that over here in the US, we have smart people like Jim Inhofe to step in and save us from our misguided dependence on science.

You mean "science" that his political opponents bought and paid for?

Sounds like just another normal political day in 100-years-of-GDP debt-land, to me.

If The People let them have all that money to play with, they're going to play. It's such large dollar amounts *everyone* can be bought.

It's way easier politically if you buy in bulk.

Lots more voices who'll bend their data *just* enough to keep the mortgage paid.

Works equally well for both political Parties.

The People keep voting for their "side" to keep getting paid. Pretty much as simple as that.

 

[timwinters]

Tell the WI kids to spend all day outside during August in Houston and we'll revisit how tough they are.

True for many southern towns. In Houston though...they'd be laid out by the petrochemical stench long before the heat got to them, especially on the southeast side of town. They don't call it "Stinkydena" for nothing!

 

[denverpilot]

I always found the humidity in Houston to be the biggest problem. If the temps were what they are there without 90% RH, it'd be fine.

I'm used to this...

17%. I know. Some of you would dry up and blow away.

(And yeah, the thermostat really is set to 74. It's a night mode setting to raise the basement temp with the duct problems we're seeing in the system now that we have adequate airflow. Once we have that straightened out and probably tear up some ceiling to get to where we can run a proper return air duct from the basement, that'll be set much lower. This is currently just an experiment to see how even things are. There's about a five degree gap between basement and upstairs so 74 puts the basement at 69 at night. It's set much lower during the daytime. We're kinda "over-enjoying the new furnace. Ha. This photo actually reminded me to knock all the settings down a couple of degrees across the board to continue the experimentation. I have thermometers in every room right now. LOL!)

 

[N801BH]

I always found the humidity in Houston to be the biggest problem. If the temps were what they are there without 90% RH, it'd be fine.

I'm used to this...

17%. I know. Some of you would dry up and blow away.

(And yeah, the thermostat really is set to 74. It's a night mode setting to raise the basement temp with the duct problems we're seeing in the system now that we have adequate airflow. Once we have that straightened out and probably tear up some ceiling to get to where we can run a proper return air duct from the basement, that'll be set much lower. This is currently just an experiment to see how even things are. There's about a five degree gap between basement and upstairs so 74 puts the basement at 69 at night. It's set much lower during the daytime. We're kinda "over-enjoying the new furnace. Ha. This photo actually reminded me to knock all the settings down a couple of degrees across the board to continue the experimentation. I have thermometers in every room right now. LOL!)

Now that is a valid and accurate scientific excercise....

 

[CharlieTango]

Sorry, Charlie, but you're wrong on both accounts.

Second one first. The pH scale is a spectrum. There is nothing magic about 7.0. Any decrease makes the water more acidic. This is basic high school chemistry. The pH scale is logarithmic so that a tiny movement increases or decreases acidity/alkalinity by a much more pronounced amount. Ocean life, particularly those known as "calcifiers", are severely impacted by a decrease in pH. It doesn't have to reach some magic threshold such as 7.0

wattsupwiththat is hardly what anyone would call a professional and unbiased site. It is some retired TV weatherman's hobby website where he rants on with obviously cherry picked data.

Next, you complained about my comment "If it continues ... it is documented fact." Explain how that is "gibberish". There have been countless studies around oceanic vents where biology is analysed based on the local water's pH. Carefully measured pH effects do play havoc with a variety of ocean organisms. I'll repeat what I said. This is not speculation, it is documented fact.

I began keeping tropical marine invertebrates in closed systems in the 1970s and did so for over 30 years. PH stability is less in a 500 gallon system by a huge amount so observations of the effect of lowered PH have been easily observed. The oceans remain above 8.1, a PH at which the impact that you refer to exists only in the failed climate models.

Next you attack the messenger, good thinking.

Your gibberish translated: If the models turn out to be correct and bad things happen things will be bad, color me not impressed.

 

[write-stuff]

I began keeping tropical marine invertebrates in closed systems in the 1970s and did so for over 30 years. PH stability is less in a 500 gallon system by a huge amount so observations of the effect of lowered PH have been easily observed. The oceans remain above 8.1, a PH at which the impact that you refer to exists only in the failed climate models.

Next you attack the messenger, good thinking.

From National Geographic:

"On the pH scale, which runs from 0 to 14, solutions with low numbers are considered acidic and those with higher numbers are basic. Seven is neutral. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day. Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected."

Here's similar commentary from the Scripps Institute:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/3253

If you'd like a more scholarly and in-depth report here's this:
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf

Your gibberish translated: If the models turn out to be correct and bad things happen things will be bad, color me not impressed.

What I described are not simulations or models. They are actual measurements and observations. Lower the pH and the broad range of marine life whose shells and exoskeletons are based on CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) are impacted. These organisms can generally regrow shell, but if the rate of chemical erosion outpaces the organisms' ability to react, they die.

You can be as unimpressed as you wish, but these are observable facts.

 

[dell30rb]

Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

You think that maybe volcanoes have anything to do with that? The amount of underwater volcano activity accounts for 80-90% of all volcanic activity. And massive eruptions happen all the time without anyone noticing. We don't even know half of what is going on.

May 20, 2000 - Reuters

Marine geologists have reported that a newly discovered undersea volcano east of Samoa is erupting, sending out a five-mile cloud of "smoggy" water from its summit.

Local students recently named the volcano, located 28 miles east of Taiu Island, 'Vailulu'u'. The volcano rises up more than 16,400 feet from the seabed to within 2,000 feet of the ocean's surface.

Scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution first mapped the volcano during a research cruise in 1999. They returned this spring to find the volcano erupting. Anthony Koppers, a scientist at Scripps who studies undersea volcanoes, said the find was exciting because so few of the world's undersea volcanoes are accessible to study. He said, "We have access to the buildup of a volcano that will eventually become an island."

Here are some fun facts lol
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/underwater-volcano-facts.html

 

[Matthew]

From National Geographic:

"On the pH scale, which runs from 0 to 14, solutions with low numbers are considered acidic and those with higher numbers are basic. Seven is neutral. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day. Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected."

Here's similar commentary from the Scripps Institute:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/3253

If you'd like a more scholarly and in-depth report here's this:
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf



What I described are not simulations or models. They are actual measurements and observations. Lower the pH and the broad range of marine life whose shells and exoskeletons are based on CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) are impacted. These organisms can generally regrow shell, but if the rate of chemical erosion outpaces the organisms' ability to react, they die.

You can be as unimpressed as you wish, but these are observable facts.

I looked at those reports - a lot of it is over my head. I was trying to figure out how ocean pH is determined. Is it averaged over xxx square miles based on readings yyy miles apart? Extrapolated? Interpolated? How much variation from reading to reading?

I was most curious about the statement, "Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2." and how that was determined. I think it's an estimate based on atmospheric CO2 and absorption rates into seawater, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, then that is based on assumptions of what atmospheric CO2 levels were 300m years ago. I didn't see an explanation of that, but I might have missed it, there was a lot of info to sort through.

 

[write-stuff]

I looked at those reports - a lot of it is over my head. I was trying to figure out how ocean pH is determined. Is it averaged over xxx square miles based on readings yyy miles apart? Extrapolated? Interpolated? How much variation from reading to reading?

I can't answer that either. I'd guess you could contact some of the authors and they could explain their methods.

The studies have not involved averages. A variety of marine organisms were placed at varying distances from oceanic vents and monitored over time to determine the effects on their shells. These experiments have been conducted by numerous parties at different locations over the globe.

 

[Matthew]

I can't answer that either. I'd guess you could contact some of the authors and they could explain their methods.

The studies have not involved averages. A variety of marine organisms were placed at varying distances from oceanic vents and monitored over time to determine the effects on their shells. These experiments have been conducted by numerous parties at different locations over the globe.

But where did the water or gas from those vents come from? Is subterranean chemistry is affected by atmospheric CO2?

Dunno - there's a lot to this world that I don't know.

What I do know is that I bought an extra pair of long johns last week.

 

[write-stuff]

But where did the water or gas from those vents come from? Is subterranean chemistry is affected by atmospheric CO2?

No, no implication that submarine vented gas composition is impacted by atmospheric CO2. The experiments were only to learn what happens to "calcifiers" under varying conditions of pH.

I'm sure that similar experiments have been done in laboratory settings, but these in particular were done in situ.

 

[Matthew]

No, no implication that submarine vented gas composition is impacted by atmospheric CO2. The experiments were only to learn what happens to "calcifiers" under varying conditions of pH.

I'm sure that similar experiments have been done in laboratory settings, but these in particular were done in situ.

Ahh, OK.

 

[CharlieTango]

You can be as unimpressed as you wish, but these are observable facts.

Lets see if I have this right. If the source is drinking the cool-aid then their talking points are facts. If the source counters the argument of the 97% that is not 97% then forget the argument and condemn the source.

As I said above I have kept animals that you refer to in closed systems with less stable PH than the ocean provides and my observations are that drops in PH below 8.0 mean little to fish and invertebrates that are generally sensitive to water quality. My observations don't count because you don't agree with me, no facts here.

Please explain how a drop from 8.179 to 8.104 represents a 25% increase in acidity? How does that math work? You can even use your rounded numbers 8.2 to 8.1.

 

[write-stuff]

Neither my numbers nor my math, Charlie. Contact National Geographic if you disagree. Regarding your own studies that seem to contradict a variety of scientific studies conducted by reputable research organisations - I think you should publish a paper and show them that their studies, using advanced methods and reproduced by others, are flawed.

 

[CharlieTango]

On one hand you quote Nat Geo and say the Oceans range from 8.1 to 8.2 and that is slightly basic. On the other hand you say that 8.1 is 25% more acidic than 8.2. Both numbers represent a basic solution. If neither is acidic one cannot be more acidic than the other.

Gibberish - facts

 

[write-stuff]

On one hand you quote Nat Geo and say the Oceans range from 8.1 to 8.2 and that is slightly basic. On the other hand you say that 8.1 is 25% more acidic than 8.2. Both numbers represent a basic solution. If neither is acidic one cannot be more acidic than the other.

Gibberish - facts

Ok, now I see your mistake. Acidity/alkalinity is a spectrum. Less alkaline = more acidic. It's the same thing. I'm guessing you never took chemistry?

It's only gibberish to you because you don't understand it. I'm pretty sure most of the rest of us do.

 

[CharlieTango]

Ok, now I see your mistake. Acidity/alkalinity is a spectrum. Less alkaline = more acidic. It's the same thing. I'm guessing you never took chemistry?

It's only gibberish to you because you don't understand it. I'm pretty sure most of the rest of us do.

Any lowering of PH is termed acidification even if it results in an alkaline solution. The shift from 8.179 to 8.104 is a good example. This shift is termed acidification but it doesn't result in an acidic solution it results in a basic solution.

You may be able to call it acidification, that is the practice but you cannot deem it to be 25% more acidic if it is in fact not acidic.

 

[write-stuff]

You may be able to call it acidification, that is the practice but you cannot deem it to be 25% more acidic if it is in fact not acidic.

You're going to be an awfully lonely voice out there in the chemistry circles. But ok, how 'bout we say less alkaline? Would that suit you? It has no affect on the chemistry which is quite well documented. Reduced pH harms marine organisms known as "calcifiers".

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/12/21/rspb.2010.2404

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/08/22/3297891.htm

Since you don't agree with anything I've said, I suggest you take this up with our resident biologist, Steingar. I'm sure he can explain it a lot better than I can.

 

[CharlieTango]

how 'bout we say less alkaline? Would that suit you?.

Which of the two sensationalize the claim of acidification?

representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

or

less alkaline?

-----------------

last comment, your statement

Reduced pH harms marine organisms known as "calcifiers".

Becomes true at some point but in my experience 8.1+ calcifiers are doin fine.

When you sensationalize with the 25% nonsense then state that any decrease in PH causes harm you are stating a false catastrophic scenario.

You only need to use the word 'fact' and go after me personally again.

 

[N801BH]

You think that maybe volcanoes have anything to do with that? The amount of underwater volcano activity accounts for 80-90% of all volcanic activity. And massive eruptions happen all the time without anyone noticing. We don't even know half of what is going on.........

\

You are on the right track....


We don't know 1/100th of what is going on...

Under water volcanos erupt every day ....of every month, of every year.... Been doing that for hundreds of millions of years.. The toxic gasses bubble up to the surface and NO one notices.....

Use common sense guys.. It is reality...

 

[write-stuff]

Which of the two sensationalize the claim of acidification?

representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

or less alkaline?

I don't think "dealkilinization" is a word. That doesn't leave us much other than "acidification". That is what is commonly used by chemists and biologists.

Becomes true at some point but in my experience 8.1+ calcifiers are doin fine.

Like I said. Write a scholarly paper describing your experimentation and how you came to your results. Show up the entire marine biology community and probably make a lot of money in the process. Go for it, bro.

When you sensationalize with the 25% nonsense then state that any decrease in PH causes harm you are stating a false catastrophic scenario.

I suspect that you would stand alone among other researchers. In spite of your assertions, carefully conducted research by people who make such things their life's work would disagree with your conclusions.

When you were doing your research with mollusks, crustaceans, corals, and whatever else you were studying, what methods did you use to measure shell mass over time? How did you conduct the complicated chemistry? And what controls did you use? Would other professional researchers have approved of your methods? Do you have any advance training in biology, chemistry, and statistics?