Comments 1 to 31:

1. MattJ at 12:44 PM on 13 February, 2011
   Here in this article, you say the oceans absorb a quarter, but in the NOAA sites itself, http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean%2BAcidification, it says "one third", which is even more scary. The oceans might not turn completely lifeless, but they will be pretty barren pretty soon. Worse yet, people will still have videos of people eating sushi and other seafood, so they will know what we have deprived them of. So instead of the ancestor worship still common in the Far East, there will be a widespread cult of ancestor cursing.
   0 0
2. guinganbresil at 03:13 AM on 14 February, 2011
   When I first heard about 'Ocean Acidification' I did a little reading up and quickly came to the the conclusion that much (i.e. all I saw) of the hype was unwarranted. I found that the pH of the ocean water starts dropping (see Fig 3.) when you descend past the biologically active layer (~pH 8.1), and reaches a minimum of around pH 7.6 at around 800 meters. I did not see this important fact mentioned on the PMEL website. Near the coasts, this deep water upwells and mixes with the surface water, lowering its pH and bringing vital nutrients to the surface. The rate of upwelling is a function of the direction of coastal winds. So, in other words, measurement of pH in coastal surface waters is essentially measuring the effect of wind patterns on upwelling, not the effect of rising atmospheric CO2. As far as the impact of surface pH on ocean organisms, I found that the most alarming research (thin shells etc.) was done in areas of known upwelling. It is clear that living organisms will spread and populate the very edges of their tolerance - shellfish will live in low pH water that dissolves their shells IF there are sufficient nutrients to support them. Finding examples of critters at the edge of their tolerance is just a matter of selecting the right critter and the right locale. I am concerned that the PMEL website is showing a lack of objectivity when it repeatedly focuses on anthropogenic nature of ocean carbon cycle changes (in the mission statements) when there are large natural variations that should also be studied to gain a true understanding of the ocean dynamics.
   0 0
3. muoncounter at 04:14 AM on 14 February, 2011
   #3: "measurement of pH in coastal surface waters is essentially measuring the effect of wind patterns on upwelling, not the effect of rising atmospheric CO2." Rising atmospheric CO2 seems to be making an impact in more than just coastal waters: See prior ocean acidification threads; here's one for starters. See also McNeil and Matear 2008 Southern Ocean acidification via anthropogenic CO2 uptake is expected to be detrimental to multiple calcifying plankton species by lowering the concentration of carbonate ion (CO₃²⁻) to levels where calcium carbonate (both aragonite and calcite) shells begin to dissolve.
   0 0
4. michael sweet at 04:24 AM on 14 February, 2011
   guinganbresil: Although I like Sigourny Weaver as an actress, I do not value her scientific reputation. If you use the search box in the upper corner and search "ocean acidification" you will find about 20 threads on this site that will fill you in on this issue. I like here and here for starters. If you inform yourself about the science you will be able to put together an argument that others might listen to. When your primary scientific reference says that ocean acidification is a severe problem and you hand wave their conclusion off it is not a very good argument. These professionals have measured a change in pH in an important location for fisheries. This is a big problem. What data do you have that they are wrong? If this was not an important issue the PNAS would not publish their paper. An amateur saying professionals are obviously wrong does not get very far.
   0 0
5. Rob Painting at 06:25 AM on 14 February, 2011
   Guiganbresil - I did a little reading up and quickly came to the the conclusion that much (i.e. all I saw) of the hype was unwarranted Ah, so therein lies your problem. A little reading?. You're going to have to expend more energy I'm afraid. The global oceans are acidifying not just upwelling regions. Seriously, did you not think that scientists studying this problem gloss over the obvious?. You're asserting that upwelling itself is somehow increasing the acidity of coastal regions over the last couple of centuries. How does your novel mechanism work?. Citations?. Note how the scientific studies on climate show consilience?. For example: Continued fossil fuel burning leads to increases in atmospheric CO2 which in turn leads to more dissolved into the oceans via Henry's Law. Notice the the relationship here?.
   0 0
6. BillyJoe at 21:31 PM on 14 February, 2011
   I suppose it is true to say that amateurs necessarily cherry pick but that they don't necessarily do so deliberately. They just aren't aware of, or don't have access to, the multitude of information that swamps their little cherry pick.
   0 0
7. guinganbresil at 15:26 PM on 15 February, 2011
   I did a little more reading... muoncounter (above) shows a shocking graph show "Oceanic CO2". It gives the impression that rising CO2 is impacting the ocean in general. Well PMEL has some data also: It seems to show some interesting features. First, it shows that the DIC is acually lower near the surface compared to the deeper waters - the opposite of muoncounter's graph. Why? muoncounter is looking only at estimates of anthropogenic CO2 - that means that the total (anthopogenic + nonanthropogenic) CO2 could be going up or down - you can't tell from his graph. The PMEL data shows 1993 on the top, then 2003, then the difference. We can see that there was an increase in DIC in some areas from 1993-2003. Does that mean that the increasing atmospheric CO2 impacted the oceans...? Perhaps. A quick look at the data will show that the surface temperature was a couple of degrees higher in 1993 than in 2003 over the latitude range 45N-55N. This qualitatively matches the region of largest increase. Could this explain the change in DIC in the PMEL data rather than atmospheric CO2 increases?
   0 0
8. Trueofvoice at 16:00 PM on 15 February, 2011
   "muoncounter is looking only at estimates of anthropogenic CO2 - that means that the total (anthopogenic + nonanthropogenic) CO2 could be going up or down - you can't tell from his graph". Non-anthropogenic CO2 doesn't just appear in the environment, it has to have a source. Natual carbon sources and sinks are in virtually perfect balance, that's why we've had thousands of years of stable climate. The only additional CO2 being added to the mix is coming from us.
   0 0
9. Rob Painting at 20:16 PM on 15 February, 2011
   Guiganbresil - "I did a little more reading..." Still not enough. "It gives the impression that rising CO2 is impacting the ocean in general" Declining coral growth rates and calcification in a few other species gives that impression too. "Well PMEL has some data also" Yes. Saw the graph. It shows the dissolved inorganic carbon in surface waters are increasing. And?. "First, it shows that the DIC is acually lower near the surface compared to the deeper waters" You expected carbonate shells from dead marine organisms to float up?. "that means that the total (anthopogenic + nonanthropogenic) CO2 could be going up or down - you can't tell from his graph" As per my previous post, you haven't postulated a mechanism whereby natural processes could increase CO2 dissolved in the oceans at the current rate. Nor explained why dissolved CO2 in the oceans parallels fossil fuel emissions. "will show that the surface temperature was a couple of degrees higher in 1993 than in 2003 over the latitude range 45N-55N" What about the other areas?. They are far more significant. "This qualitatively matches the region of largest increase." My eyecrometer disagrees with yours. "Could this explain the change in DIC in the PMEL data rather than atmospheric CO2 increases?" So where's all that fossil fuel CO2 going again?.
   0 0
10. guinganbresil at 01:23 AM on 16 February, 2011
    Rob Painting: Fair enough. Lets leave coral reefs out of this. I made a comment specifically about coastal upwelling and you made a statement that atmospheric CO2 is affecting the global oceans. I take a look at global data and you switch to coral reefs. Feels too much like Three Card Monty. As for my 'eyecrometer' (I love that term!)... I agree! I noticed that the bottom plot above showing the change in CO2 uses a different color spectrum. One that would enhance changes in the positive direction and obscure changes in the negative direction. I thought at first it was a coincidence, but the color spectra in the top two graphs are different... The plot below uses a more rational color spectrum and you can clearly see regions of decrease that would pretty hard to see using the pink scale as in the above plot. I pulled the data into Excel and plotted it. If you hover over the data points with your cursor you can 'see' pretty well! I admit that I just pulled data for a cruise that cover a similar track to the plots presented by muoncounter, so I haven't looked through all of them. Here is a plot running through a longitude line in the Pacific for comparison: It still doesn't look much like muoncounter's graph.
    0 0
11. Trueofvoice at 02:55 AM on 16 February, 2011
    Guinganbresil, The difference in the charts is that muoncounter's is tracking the increase in anthropogenic CO2 (the only source on the rise) dissolved in seawater whereas yours deals with total CO2, anthropogenic + non-anthropogenic. Anthropogenic CO2 resides mostly in the upper oceans because it is absorbed at the surface. In addition increasing temperatures create a more stratified ocean, acting as yet another barrier to transport of anthropogenic CO2 to the depths.
    0 0
12. michael sweet at 03:39 AM on 16 February, 2011
    Guinganbresil, You are doing a good attempt to look at the data, but I am not sure you have the graphs right. Muoncounters data is comparable to the bottom graph on your chart. His data is a summary of a bunch of graphs like your bottom chart. If I look at your bottom chart, it resembles Muoncounters graph. Muoncounters graph is more complete since it is a summary of a bunch of graphs. The points where the carbon goes down cancel out after averaging many graphs. The upper graphs on your chart show the normal carbon distribution, which is not what we are interested in. We are interested in the change due to humans. Be careful about criticizing others data if you are not sure what you are looking at. Remember that the scientists Muoncoumter linked to are professionals at looking at this data.
    0 0
13. muoncounter at 05:31 AM on 16 February, 2011
    Here's another reference for anthropogenic CO2 in the oceans: Sabine et al 2004 A number of key points: -- CO2 is not evenly distributed throughout the oceans. The highest vertically integrated concentrations are found in the North Atlantic. ... By contrast, the Southern Ocean south of 50°S has very low vertically integrated anthropogenic CO2 concentrations -- anthropogenic CO2 invades the ocean by gas exchange across the air-sea interface, the highest concentrations of anthropogenic CO2 are found in near-surface waters. Away from deep water formation regions, the time scales for mixing of near-surface waters downward into the deep ocean can be centuries Given that time scale, I'm not sure I get the significance of the pre-1994, post 1994 change. -- Globally, only 7% of the total anthropogenic CO is found deeper than 1500 m. The only place where large concentrations of anthropogenic CO2 penetrate to mid and abyssal depths is the North Atlantic --the ocean has constituted the only true net sink for anthropogenic CO2 over the past 200 years. Without this oceanic uptake, atmospheric CO2 would be about 55 ppm higher today than what is currently observed (~380 ppm). That's critical. If the rate of ocean uptake is decreasing (and Sabine makes the suggestion that it is), the result would be an acceleration of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Bad news all around. Here is a representative figure, highlighting the differences between 3 ocean basins. It is somewhat consistent with the figure from Key posted above, perhaps because Key is the 3rd author in the Sabine paper. This is obviously a complex and very dynamic problem. Hopefully the availability of the PMEL data will help sort out what's going on.
    0 0
14. Rob Painting at 05:56 AM on 16 February, 2011
    I made a comment specifically about coastal upwelling Yes, and you've been asked twice already, how this novel CO2 production line is supposed to work. Like all skeptic ideas it lacks coherence. It still doesn't look much like muoncounter's graph. Your eyecrometer "filter" is in need of adjustment. Muoncounter's graph appears to be that of dissolved CO2 in the oceans (given the concentration levels). The graphs you have linked to are for all forms of carbon dissolved in the oceans, which includes bicarbonates and carbonates (very important for shell/skeleton building marine critters). The salient point being that all graphs show carbon accumulating in the upper ocean, exactly as science expects. The large injection of fossil fuel CO2 is accumulating too fast for natural processes to mix it throughout the water column.
    0 0
15. Rob Painting at 06:02 AM on 16 February, 2011
    Hopefully the 2nd to last paragraph makes sense. Looking at it now it's a bit ambiguous discerning fossil fuel CO2 from total carbon forms in the oceans (DIC).
    0 0
16. RickG at 06:10 AM on 16 February, 2011
    Rob, have you looked at the topic Why ocean heat can’t drive climate change, only chase it?
    0 0
17. guinganbresil at 16:02 PM on 16 February, 2011
    On coastal upwelling see Feely et al 2008. The salient measurements were made in May and July of 2007: "The central and southern coastal region off western North America is strongly influenced by seasonal upwelling, which typically begins in early spring when the Aleutian low-pressure system moves to the northwest and the Pacific Highmoves northward, resulting in a strengthening of the northwesterly winds (Hickey, 1998; Pennington and Chavez, 2000). These winds drive net surface-water Ekman transport offshore, which induces the upwelling of CO2-rich, intermediate depth (100 to 200 m) offshore waters onto the continental shelf. The upwelling lasts until late summer or fall, when winter storms return." I should point out that although this paper alleges to show exacerbation of low ph due to anthropogenic sources: "Although seasonal upwelling of the undersaturated waters onto the shelf is a natural phenomenon in this region, the ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has increased the areal extent of the affected area." This was not done through time series measurements showing the increase in affected area. It was shown by applying a model that assumes increasing pH to their essentially single temporal data point taken in May-July 2007. This is a classic case of 'begging the question' - applying a model that assumes increasing pH to essentially a single temporal data point to show that pH increases. This paper does, however, show that the coastal regions are subject to upwelling of low pH water which would result in pH stressed organisms. Here is an excellent example of sad shellfish studied in an area of documented upwelling. I hope this provides some coherence for Rob Painting... not so novel... Does all this disprove the assertion that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a risk to ocean health through increasing pH? No. On the other hand, it shows that there are more factors than just atmospheric CO2 at play here and some in the popular press (back to Sigorney Weaver) are playing fast and loose with the facts.
    0 0
18. Rob Painting at 18:26 PM on 16 February, 2011
    guinganbresil - "On coastal upwelling see Feely et al 2008" Yup, marine scientists are well aware that ocean pH is not homogeneous, and that there are regions of upwelling. Note the flux of CO2 to and from the ocean surface from this NOAA PMEL graph: You still haven't explained your novel mechanism, in fact you continue to evade the question, dancing around the issue . How does the ocean become acidified if not from fossil fuel emissions?. Remember those graphs of total DIC in the ocean you posted at comment Nos.7 & 10.?. Where's that extra carbon coming from?. You understand it has to be coming from outside the oceans right?. See what I mean about coherence?. guinganbresil - .....are playing fast and loose with the facts. Typed, no doubt, without the slightest inkling of self-awareness.
    0 0
19. Rob Painting at 18:33 PM on 16 February, 2011
    Rick G @16 - not really the same argument, although the logical fallacy is similar.
    0 0
20. guinganbresil at 23:30 PM on 17 February, 2011
    Rob Painting: I think I understand why I have such trouble with muoncounter's graph from Key above. By limiting the graph to anthropogenic carbon, it gives the impression that the oceans are getting 'acidic' from the surface, and therefore that the increase of anthropogenic carbon is a serious problem. Here are some facts: Anthropogenic carbon has a slightly different isotopic ratio, but in all significant ways behaves identically to natural carbon. If carbon is introduced to the atmosphere by man, it will enter the carbon cycle with all the other natural carbon sources. The atmosphere-ocean carbon cycle operates on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years so it is not surprising that anthropogenic carbon has not been distributed through the whole system. In fact, the Key graphs above are really just showing the propagation of recent carbon through the cycle. If one were to prepare a similar graph showing the non-anthropogenic carbon distribution in the oceans since the beginning of the industrial revolution the graphs would be very similar - the scales would shift due to the different rates of emission and the edges might be a bit more distinct since the non-anthropogenic carbon emission isn't ramping up over time. Fundamentally carbon is carbon, and anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic carbon will move through the system identically. The Key graphs above are insidious in that they induce a Fallacy of Composition(1) in people who have not been exposed to details of ocean composition or who do not exercise critical thinking. Here is the truth: The surface of the oceans are alkali due to biological activity. The deep oceans have significantly lower pH and higher CO2 than the surface. A result of this Fallacy of Composition(2) is the idea that a drop in pH in the ocean surface can only be due to increasing anthropogenic CO2. Here are a few 'novel mechanisms' that can reduce surface CO2: Upwelling of lower pH water from below, decrease in biological activity at the surface, difference in CO2 surface transfer due to local wind and temperature - I am sure there are more... It is a lot more complicated than just anthropogenic CO2. Another result of this Fallacy of Composition(3) is to assume that increasing concentration of anthopogenic CO2 in the ocean surface since the beginning of the industrial age results an increase in total CO2 in the ocean surface over time. I am not saying that anthropogenic CO2 is not affecting the environment - I am saying that we should critically analyze the data and results. avoid the insidious fallacies and not play fast and loose with the facts.
    0 0
21. michael sweet at 04:01 AM on 18 February, 2011
    Guinganbresil, The Feely paper you reference shows by direct measurement that anthropogenic CO2 is lowering the aragonite saturation level of the North Pacific ocean. They do not use a model. They measure undersaturation of the surface water on one transect. They state that it was not expected to measure surface undersaturation until 2050. They calculate that without the anthropogenic carbon put into the water 60 years ago it would not be undersaturated now. You suggest that the profesional scientists you have cited are wrong and overlooked other possible mechanisms of increase of CO2. Setting aside the fact that you have not read everything the scientists wrote about this subject in the past, can you suggest where the CO2 is coming from that you propose is now upwelling and changing the surface composition? Why is it different from what was measured in the past? If it was just coming up from deeper water, the deep water would be deficient in CO2 now compared to the past. That is not consistent with what has been measured, so the CO2 cannot come from deeper water. The scientists have considered the alternatives you have suggested and ruled them out. You have just not read those discussions in the past. You hand waving and saying the professionals are wrong is not a convincing argument..
    0 0
22. muoncounter at 05:39 AM on 18 February, 2011
    guinganbresil: I appreciate your giving me credit for these graphs, however undeserved. To label a graph as 'insidious,' however, is a tad strong. "to assume that increasing concentration of anthopogenic CO2 in the ocean surface since the beginning of the industrial age results an increase in total CO2 in the ocean surface over time" Assumption? Not at all. Quay et al 1992 showed by isotopic measurement (delta C13/C12) that from 1970-90, ocean uptake of CO2 amounted to approximately 40% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. They also account for biospheric uptake of anthropogenic CO2. This is not the normal carbon cycle; this is the excess CO2 from anthropogenic emissions. A number of studies have shown that land CO2 sinks are losing their capacity to take up as much CO2 as atmospheric composition increases. As ocean pH drops, the ability of the ocean to absorb atmospheric CO2 may likewise suffer. And so shall we all.
    0 0
23. Rob Painting at 06:18 AM on 18 February, 2011
    guinganbresil - By limiting the graph to anthropogenic carbon, it gives the impression that the oceans are getting 'acidic' from the surfaceand therefore that the increase of anthropogenic carbon is a serious problem Yes, precisely. Scores of scientific papers say the same thing. If carbon is introduced to the atmosphere by man, it will enter the carbon cycle with all the other natural carbon sources. The atmosphere-ocean carbon cycle operates on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years so it is not surprising that anthropogenic carbon has not been distributed through the whole system. Good so far. Here are a few 'novel mechanisms' that can reduce surface CO2: Upwelling of lower pH water from below, decrease in biological activity at the surface, difference in CO2 surface transfer due to local wind and temperature - I am sure there are more. Doh!. You're just repeating the assertions you made above. Again look at the graph you provided at post 10. Note the first and second figures. See those values down deep?. They are unchanged. If the deepwater upwelling is causing a change in ocean surface pH, why isn't the deep ocean DIC value changing?. Remember we are talking about a massive change in ocean pH, 0.1 units or almost a 30% increase in acidity since pre-industrial times. Here's an analogy: take a jug of water from out of a swimming pool. Walk to the other end of the pool and pour the water back into it. You are claiming that the water level in the pool has now risen. I say it has remained the same. I am saying that we should critically analyze the data and results. avoid the insidious fallacies and not play fast and loose with the facts. Sorry but rhetoric doesn't hide the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Just to be clear; the pulse of CO2 that humans have injected into the atmosphere is likely unprecedented in 300 million years. We know that ocean acidification events in the deep past, have pretty much decimated life in the oceans, the Permian extinction eliminated over 95% of marine life. There are genuine reasons to be concerned for the future. Invoking some incoherent mystery mechanism doesn't cut it.
    0 0
24. guinganbresil at 01:22 AM on 19 February, 2011
    Rob Painting, muoncounter, and michael sweet - thanks for the spirited debate - I have learned a lot. michael sweet - you have a good point about the Feely et al 2008 paper. I am not so sure about the linearity of the simple subtraction of the 31 umol/kg anthropogenic CO2 component. I expect that removing the signal is not the same as having not produced the anthropogenic CO2 in the first place. "One woman can bear one child in nine months, therefore nine women can bear one child in one month..." muoncounter - I agree 'insidious' might be strong. I understand the actual meaning of the graph and agree that it as I would expect it qualitatively. I have no reason to suspect that the researchers have 'gamed' it in any way. The 'insidious' part is that it is so easily misinterpreted - I suspect that the general public actually believes that the oceans are more 'acidic' (you know why I put it in quotes...) near the surface because of the CO2 dissolving from the atmosphere. Rob Painting - I will go out on a limb and say you are way off base saying that upwelling can't cause surface pH drops because the deep water is not showing a pH (or DIC) change. I don't think you understand the magnitude of the numbers here. we are talking about mixing pH 7.6 deep water with pH 8.1 water at the surface - that is a 0.5 pH unit difference... Compare that to the 0.1 pH difference from the whole industrical revolution... You could use the percent increase trick (nobody I know measures pH like this-and I won't) to figure out the % difference in pH between the shallow and deep water. Keep in mind that I am not saying that upwelling is causing all of the changes observed - just some of the drastic effects reported (sad shellfish etc.) A good example is that the 'hot spot' on the graph above between 45N-55N - if you look at the data behind these measurements you will see that the ocean surface temperature was 3C cooler oin the first trip than the second over this region...
    0 0
25. Rob Painting at 07:04 AM on 19 February, 2011
    Guinganbresil - Rob Painting - I will go out on a limb and say you are way off base saying that upwelling can't cause surface pH drops because the deep water is not showing a pH (or DIC) change. How do you propose this can happen?. If you take carbon from deep water on a global scale and shuffle it up to the surface, then carbon down deep (DIC) will change. There's no getting around this, hence my swimming pool analogy. we are talking about mixing pH 7.6 deep water with pH 8.1 water at the surface - that is a 0.5 pH unit difference... Compare that to the 0.1 pH difference from the whole industrical revolution You still don't appear to be grasping this concept of ocean acidification. Re-arranging the placement of dissolved carbon in the oceans doesn't change to total amount of carbon. Note that the addition of carbon dioxide dissolving into surface waters is what is causing the increase in total carbon in the ocean (DIC). pH is a reflection of the chemical reactions which dissociates more hydrogen ions from water molecules. I think your confusion stems from failing to understand this point.
    0 0
26. guinganbresil at 11:28 AM on 21 February, 2011
    Rob Painting - I see that your graphic is missing respiration and photosynthesis: It appears that respiration and photosynthesis drives the CO2, O2 and pH profiles of the oceans...
    0 0
27. Rob Painting at 18:11 PM on 21 February, 2011
    guinganbresil - I see that your graphic is missing respiration and photosynthesis Yes. Coral and phytoplankton don't drive SUV's.
    0 0
28. guinganbresil at 00:59 AM on 22 February, 2011
    So anthropogenic = causative... I think I am understanding now. Is it really right to gloss over factors just because they are non-anthopogenic? I sense a pattern here.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with the comments policy here. This post is sailing very close to the wind, I suggest you take a different tack. If you have no scientific point to make, another site may be better suited to your input.
29. guinganbresil at 04:00 AM on 26 February, 2011
    Dikran Marsupial - If you interpret my statement that non-anthropogenic factors are 'glossed over' as an accusation of deception, it was not intended as such. The 'pattern' I sense is as follows: 1 - Some parameter 'A' causes 'XYZ' which is not desireable. 2 - Parameter 'A' consists of a collection of major non-anthopogenic sources (B + C + D +...) and a collection of minor anthropogenic sources (q + r + s +...) 3 - Since we are mostly concerned with the most salient non-anthopogenic factor (due to funding, scope of research, ability to affect the factors, whatever...) we re-arrange the equation to: q = A - (B + C + D + ...) - (r + s + ...) 4 - We now prepare plots and graphs where we remove the major non-anthopogenic facctors and less salient anthropogenic factors (look up in this thread for examples!) 5 - Armed with our graphs and plots of non-anthropogenic factors we now conclude that we can mitigate 'XYZ' by reducing the non-anthropogenic factor 'q' 6 - There is an unstated conclusion that 'q' causes 'XYZ' - this is applying a 'Fallacy of Composition' It is clear that 'q' could cause 'XYZ', but 'XYZ' could be, and in my opinion, is most likely, caused by one of the other major non-anthopogenic factors. In the specific case of Feely et al 2008 they concluded that: "...the ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has increased the areal extent of the affected area." They did not consider the effect of changes in the other major factors, specifically upwelling. They came to this conclusion by taking essentially one temporal measurement and projecting the change in areal extent by subtracting the anthopogenic signal. They have no measurements of the affected area from pre-industial times. This is a great example of the 'pattern' I am sensing. No deception - just wrong.
    0 0
30. Rob Painting at 06:17 AM on 26 February, 2011
    guinganbresil -and in my opinion, is most likely, caused by one of the other major non-anthopogenic factors. Yes, but that's just an opinion. And word-smithing doesn't hide the critical flaw in your hypothesis. They did not consider the effect of changes in the other major factors, specifically upwelling Again - see comments @ 23 & 25. You linked to those DIC graphs without actually understanding what they revealed. That's your bad. If you don't want to accept what the science says on this topic, then fine. But please don't be selling us an alternative ocean acidification mechanism that doesn't even make sense.
    0 0
31. guinganbresil at 14:12 PM on 26 February, 2011
    Rob Painting... saying that it is my opinion that 'XYZ' is more likely caused by a major non-anthropogenic factor than a minor anthropogenic factor is not going out on a limb. It is like hearing hoof beats at a racetrack and looking for horses - you are looking for zebras... Please detail the critical flaw in my reasoning - as I have done for you. Note that I did not say that upwelling causes total ocean pH decrease (that would be a strawman) - I stated that local upwelling is the direct cause of the ill effects such as low pH stressed shellfish. I also went on to say that local CO2 concentration is a function of water temperature, with more CO2 in colder water. Also please take a look at the the change in CO2 for the CLIVAR Repeat Section P06 I think it will be revealing...
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.