Saturday
Apr142012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The OK coral
Apr 14, 2012 Climate: WG2 Matt Ridley reports on a new paper in Current Biology, which finds that natural variations in pH along the Great Barrier Reef are larger than anything likely under global warming:
The good news from the research, says Professor Hughes, is that complete reef wipeouts appear unlikely due to temperature and pH alone.
"However, in many parts of the world, coral reefs are also threatened by much more local impacts, especially by pollution and over-fishing. We need to address all of the threats, including climate change, to give coral reefs a fighting chance for the future."
Reader Comments (162)
Great headline. In fact superb headline. No wonder they don't like you.
Soon be High Noon for the warmists and The Man With No Name. From The Far Country, North to Alaska, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (no names please) will mount their Blazing Saddles for the final showdown at The OK Coral
Good news. Along with the facts that the Emperor Penguin is thriving in Antarctica, Polar Bear populations are increasing, sea level is not rising and global temperatures are not rising you'd think the warmists would be happy and that we coud forget all about their moronic ideas and taxes.
Hedge your bets here: http://www.britishbookmakers.co.uk/locations/coral-betting-shops.htm
Lets not forget the consequences of this scare mongering on CO2 and pH, the vast sums being wasted on these scares are being diverted from the real problems we face, result is that the environment is deteriorating faster than if these resources were properly targeted on the real problems. Will the alarmists look back with regret, I doubt it.
Not good news for Ove Hoegh-Guldberg however.
Haha. This paper hasn't even been published yet!
Both Matt Ridley and yourself are miss-reporting a press release.
It doesn't FIND anything of the sort. This is already a well known phenomena. They chose a specific location to study BECAUSE of the natural Ph variations.
Matt Ridley says -
At no point in the press release does it say they are "greater" threats. Just that they are other threats to be considered. Again well known and widely discussed phenomena.
Also from the press release -
anivegmin: natural variations of 0.3 pH are common in the Humboldt current affected W coast of n America as upwelling water mixes with surface water.
The oceans can cope easily with increased CO2. one way is coccoliths which produce chalk. They got rid of much of the World's CO2. Another is the CO3 pathway in phytoplankton in nutrient sparse conditions.
mydogsgotnonose,
The oceans are acidifying at a RATE unseen for 100's of million's of years.
The natural processes will not be able to keep up with this.
So if plankton feeds on Co2 doesn't an increase on Co2 mean its beneficial for plankton and everything that feeds on it, like those endangered Whales?!?!?
Mailman
anivegmin:
"The oceans are acidifying at a RATE unseen for 100's of million's of years.
The natural processes will not be able to keep up with this."
The facts are otherwise. Go away.
The RANGE of natural variability VARIES between regions.
We are already exceeding that natural variation to varying degrees depending upon the region.
> The oceans are acidifying at a RATE unseen for 100's of million's of years.
Hmm, first time I've heard that one. What are they using as a proxy to determine the pH of the oceans over the last 100s of millions of years?
> The natural processes will not be able to keep up with this.
And you know this how?
Levelgaze,
maybe you could cite the wealth of papers in the field of oceanography that contain these facts?
TerryS,
You need to widen your use of the internet a little more. Instead of relying on the blog posts and comments of sites like this you could read the posts and papers of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS with EXPERTISE in the field.
See above.
Re: anivegmin
I am not aware of any papers that are using proxies to determine the rate of ocean acidification. You have made the claim that the rate is unprecedented so please point to your source.
I am also not aware of any papers that say the oceans natural processes will not be able to cope with increased CO2. You have also made this claim. Please point to your source.
@anivegmin
>maybe you could cite the wealth of papers in the field of oceanography that contain these facts?
I never did my children's homework for them and I'm not doing yours either. [Snip. Manners, please]
anivegmin -
Is Precision your second name?
anivegmin,
You wrote
Not technically published, but the paper is available from the journal website.
> read the posts and papers of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS with EXPERTISE in the field.
I do read them. I have not made made any claims as to whether you are correct or not. I have simply asked you for your sources so that I can read the papers.
@anivegmin
I missed out the "ignorant" between "your" and "lazy".
Homework for the lazy kids
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/EDIT.php
Regarding ocean acidification, perhaps I am missing something but I thought that as ocean temperatures rise, the ocean will outgas more and more CO2; the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increase of temperature.
If that is indeed the case, and assuming that the process continues, surely there will be a lowering of acidity not an increase.
Accordingly, GW should lead to lower levels of ocean acidity not greater levels. But perhaps the claims of anivegmin is illustrative of the many inconsitencies behind the cAGW alarmism.
anivegmin - "They chose a specific location to study BECAUSE of the natural Ph variations." From the Summary in Current Biology
132 specific locations cherry-picked over 1,740 km you're telling us.
Haven't you got something better to do other than embarrass yourself?
TerryS, apologies I was a bit terse before.
A recent paper from a paleoceanographer -
Honisch et al 2012 -
www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Hoenisch_etal_Science_2012.pdf
The final sentence from the paper -
United States National Research Council -
http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Ocean-Acidification-National-Strategy/12904
List of papers on ocean acidification -
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/papers-on-ocean-acidification/
GrantB, also apologies. I didn't phrase that very well.
LevelGaze, also apologies for having an ignorant, lazy arse.
richard verney,
Again we are talking about RATE of change.
My understanding is that the current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is overriding the decrease in solubility. At the moment more CO2 is entering the ocean in spite of decreased solubility due to warming, although this ability is steadily decreasing.
How come the pH is changing at an 'unprecedented rate', but the temperature is not?
Secondly,
The Science paper is a review, the quoted paragraph therefore, an opinion. Who knows,...it may be true,..
Capable of?
Potentially unparalleled?
Raising the possibility of?
This is science? Those statements are trivially true and scientifically meaningless.
James
@anivegmin
Science by press release works for the climate scientologists, so why not?
"...magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change."
Is this supposed to be because of CO2? Because it's puzzling that the CO2 during the Mezozoic 250-75 BP was at levels 50 times plus what they are today, so why no acidification over that period?
@anivegmin
'the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change'
Wow. A fact free sentence. No evidence presented anywhere for any of these scary scary predictions I guess? Thought not. Perhaps I don't need to cower behind the sofa quite yet.
But if you could somehow get The Daleks involved as well them I'm as good a fearty as the next seven year old.
I find it very reliable and I guess feeding your soul and faith is the most important.
Large range and variability of pH in aquatic ecosystems is common. In the UK, natural waters extracted for drinking water can be anything from around 7.2 to over 9. It's not uncommon to 'blend' waters to achieve an optimum for treatment. Both range and variability change quickly. The variability on the global scale in oceans is very small when compared with local changes, which is where the non-climate factors dominate.
Here we go. The "experts" on the philosophy of science march forward, carrying uncertainty as their banner, singing anti-scientific rhetoric as their anthem.
Scientific papers are awash with if's, but's and maybe's. That's the way scientists talk. They are very much aware of the uncertainties in science and couch their language to reflect this.
Trouble is it's very easy for people on blogs to then use this language to dismiss it all as meaningless.
"Scientific papers are awash with if's, but's and maybe's. That's the way scientists talk"
Silly me. I thought they talked about things like hypotheses, observations and standard errors...
You actually have to read the entire papers to find those ;)
anivegmin: You should understand that if people don't agree with you on a scientific topic you can'nt kill their views by telling them they're anti- science, why not point to the evidence, like predictions that support the science unequivocally and have come about. Meanwhile I love science and people who think they can call me anti- science in such an arrogant fashion are, to me at least, just poseurs trying to get their activist message across with ad Homs.
Meanwhile do you know of any papers that can explain why the paper you quoted can explain why the high levels of CO2 in the Mesophoic period didn't cause ocean acidification we're seeing today?
@anivegmin
Since paleorecords show this not to be the case, I am suggesting a new mechanism to account for such an alarming decrease in pH, namely troll dissolution, I will publish the results in due time.
Of course they won't -- the AGW movement cares nothing and has nothing to do with the environment; it is simply a convenient arena for the expression of malignant narcissism.
A psychiatrist explains:
With that knowledge in mind, all the actions of the AGW movement become transparent.
@rick,
That is a very good and fitting description, would you mind to tell us the author?
anivegmin, ocean pH is mostly controlled by the deep ocean. Where the deep ocean upwells there is lower pH (lower than the man-made drop in surface waters). Also the total historical manmade drop (about 0.1 pH units) is about the same in most locations as the seasonal variation. Likewise the yearly manmade drop is roughly the same as the daily variation in most locations. The plants and animals are used to these kind of variations and lowest pH extremes are all caused by natural upwelling, not man-made CO2.
"Scientific papers are awash with if's, but's and maybe's. That's the way scientists talk. They are very much aware of the uncertainties in science and couch their language to reflect this."
Here, let me complete that for you:
Scientific papers are awash with if's, but's and maybe's. That's the way scientists talk. They are very much aware of the uncertainties in science and couch their language to reflect this. It is upto to us to pick out all the ifs and maybes and present a simplified message.
----------------
Scientists use ifs and maybes, but that doesn't have to prevent us activists for using their message for our own purposes, does it?
"You actually have to read the entire papers to find those ;)"
I was focused on the vacuous parts you highlighted ;)
J
Ok enough fun...
You make this claim
"The oceans are acidifying at a RATE unseen for 100's of million's of years."
Can you provide a scientific paper that tests this hypothesis and calculates a significant p-value? If not, can we agree you were just blowing smoke?
mdgnn says:
"The oceans can cope easily with increased CO2. one way is coccoliths which produce chalk. They got rid of much of the World's CO2."
That mean nothing unless you know how the rate at which coccoliths 'produce chalk' compares to the rate of acidification. Please quantify.
"Another is the CO3 pathway in phytoplankton in nutrient sparse conditions."
Please give us a reference to this 'CO3 pathway in phytoplankton'. While you are at it please add something to the Wikipedia entry on CO3 which has nothing to say about such a pathway
eric (skeptic) said:
"anivegmin, ocean pH is mostly controlled by the deep ocean"
Over what timescale? How fast can changes in surface pH be neutralised by deep ocean waters? Please give a reference.
"Also the total historical manmade drop (about 0.1 pH units) is about the same in most locations as the seasonal variation. Likewise the yearly manmade drop is roughly the same as the daily variation in most locations."
Your argument is specious. If the normal variation of pH is between 8.1 and 8.2 (Wikipedia says it is now around 8.14: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification) and you reduce it by 0.1, it will be varying between 8.0 and 8.1. If an organisms can tolerate pH of (say) down to 8.1, they are not going to be happy with 8.0. The observed drop of 0.1 is equivalent to a 30% change in "acidity" (H+ ion concentration) - quoting from Wikipedia.
geronimo,
My comment was not aimed at you, it was aimed at james and Latimer Alder. So no need to take offence.
Patagon,
A cursory glance through the paper you link to tells me it does not back up your statement. It is also very "alarmist" in it's conclusions.
eric (skeptic),
You are making a similar mistake to those who confuse weather and climate. Short term and long term fluctuations are not the same thing and do not have the same effects.
shub,
Haha. Carry on with the uncertainty meme.
James,
Erm. No. To put it bluntly. I haven't got the time to trawl through all the papers on the subject to ascertain their statistical significance or otherwise.
I will amend my previous statement to - The oceans MAY be acidifying at a rate unseen for 100's of million's of years - if this makes you happier.
I'm not an expert in the field and I am just going on what the REAL experts are saying. If that means I am "blowing smoke" then so be it.
Oh dear, so many people not paying attention to the evolution of our alarmist insights.
We may have told you that the snows of Kilimanjaro and Chipping Sodbury were things of the past. We may have told you the polar bears are all but destroyed already. We may have told you that the glaciers of the high Himalaya were retreating so fast that modern snapshots of them are all blurred. We may have told you that accelerating sea level rise will swamp island after island state faster than you could build a new airport. We may have told you that round about now the streets of Manhattan would be awash with the foaming briny, and yellow-painted gondolas would be plying over Times Square. We may have told you that hurricanes of uncommon fierceness and frequency were going to follow hot on the heels of Katrina. We may have told you that Antarctica was disappearing, and the Arctic ice and the Greenland ice were worth going to see before it was too late. We may have told you that the Great Barrier Reef was being destroyed by global warming. We may have told you that drought was the new permanent Big Dry across the way from that big piece of crumbling coral. We may have done all that and much much more, but what we simply forgot to add was that all these things will be hidden from sight for a few decades. It's all in the models - we can rake through the heaps of output anytime you like to find anything we like as and when we need it so don't you dare challenge us on that score.
But the point is this. Although the dark forces of Natural Variability are obscuring from you the signals that the anointed can currently see so very clearly, they are there. They are growing. And on that awful day of judgement, mere decades away, there will be a great toing and froing, vapours and photons and thermal vibrations of a physical kind will rise from the deeps and smite right left and centre! And all of our prophecies will come true. We just got the timing a bit wrong is all.
@anivegmin
'My comment was not aimed at you, it was aimed at james and Latimer Alder.'
Still no evidence then? Just idle speculation. Nothing to back up the scare-mongering.
Nor any Daleks? Perhaps they have fallen foul of the best defence from Earthlings...stairs.
PS: Cybermen would be marginally acceptable as the bogey figures but are not nearly as terrifying as the real things from Skaro
Re: anivegmin
I've had a very quick look at the paper and they only consider 9 periods of time to support their assertion.
The first one is obviously the current time period of 160 years, but the other time periods range from 6200 years to 35million years in length. None have anywhere near the time resolution required to compare to the current 160 year time period.
I couldn't find any evidence, in the article, for the seawater pH for 5 of the time periods and a 6th was from geochemical modelling. That leaves just two time periods, the last de-glaciation and the last 900,000 years of the Oligocene-Pliocene. I don’t know what the evidence is for these because it is in other papers and I'll have to look at them to find out.
John Shade,
Nice bit of satirical agit-prop John. I sincerely hope that any predictions about future climate will be as well off as your little ditty is well crafted ;)
Latimer Adler,
If you're not interested in seeking out the knowledge of real experts or reading the literature in the links I provided, then yes, you can just carry on with your "idle" quips about Daleks.