I didn't disagree that oceans are acidifying. The claim that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 is completely wrong. The level of CO2 that we output contributes to ocean acidification, but it isn't the cause of it (because it makes little difference to how much CO2 gets absorbed by the ocean). With no human activity present, the carbon emitters still outbalance the carbon sinks, this is due to the ocean absorbing less CO2 now then it did in the past. Thus it's untrue to say that ocean acidification is anthropogenic - it happens anyway.

Again, the carbon cycle is unbalanced as it is without anthropogenic activity. The oceans are not overly responsive to increased atmospheric CO2 (in terms of how much they absorb).

As for the ice-core data, you already know that CO2 lags behind the temperature. Don't pretend they go hand-in-hand.

(January 20, 2013 at 10:11 am)Aractus Wrote: Again, the carbon cycle is unbalanced as it is without anthropogenic activity.

How do you know that?

(January 20, 2013 at 10:11 am)Aractus Wrote: The oceans are not overly responsive to increased atmospheric CO2 (in terms of how much they absorb).

Indeed, they are not. They saturate, and they are reaching the saturation point, disturbing the whole food chain in the ocean, which in turn disrupts the land based food chain.

(January 20, 2013 at 10:11 am)Aractus Wrote: As for the ice-core data, you already know that CO2 lags behind the temperature. Don't pretend they go hand-in-hand.

Pretend? The plot shows data. There may be a lag, but they do correlate.
Of course, "correlation doesn't mean causation".... but it's a good starting point.

(January 20, 2013 at 10:24 am)pocaracas Wrote: How do you know that?

Cause I read the science of the carbon cycle in 2011. The emitters outbalance the sinks without anthropogenic CO2.

Quote:Indeed, they are not. They saturate, and they are reaching the saturation point, disturbing the whole food chain in the ocean, which in turn disrupts the land based food chain.

Have you considered that over-fishing may be a greater cause to ocean acidification than atmospheric CO2 levels? CO2 levels have some effect, I agree, but it's only minor overall to the total effect of ocean acidification.

Quote:Pretend? The plot shows data. There may be a lag, but they do correlate.
Of course, "correlation doesn't mean causation".... but it's a good starting point.

CO2 lags behind temperature by 4/5th of a millennia on average! You know as well as I do that CO2 did not drive natural climate change, but rather CO2 levels are responsive to it.

(January 21, 2013 at 6:08 am)Aractus Wrote:

(January 20, 2013 at 10:24 am)pocaracas Wrote: How do you know that?

Cause I read the science of the carbon cycle in 2011. The emitters outbalance the sinks without anthropogenic CO2.

Care to share a link to that work?
But, if there is an imbalance without anthropogenic CO2, then this imbalance only gets worse with anthropogenic CO2.
OR do you have data that supports that anthropogenic CO2 has a negligible contribution to the plot I showed in a previous post?

(January 21, 2013 at 6:08 am)Aractus Wrote:

Quote:Indeed, they are not. They saturate, and they are reaching the saturation point, disturbing the whole food chain in the ocean, which in turn disrupts the land based food chain.

Have you considered that over-fishing may be a greater cause to ocean acidification than atmospheric CO2 levels? CO2 levels have some effect, I agree, but it's only minor overall to the total effect of ocean acidification.

Over-fishing? It may be one more factor to be thrown into the pot.
From what I remember of reading about this in that National Geographic article I linked before, the main CO2 absorbers in the ocean are shellfish, with a big impact on plankton.
Global ocean acidification may be affected by over-fishing in areas where plankton doesn't get replenished... but I'm not convinced the lack of fish would lead to lack of plankton.... If anything, I'd imagine it would lead to a (at least temporary) increase of plankton. But I have no data either way, so I have nothing to substantiate it. Do you?

(January 21, 2013 at 6:08 am)Aractus Wrote:

Quote:Pretend? The plot shows data. There may be a lag, but they do correlate.
Of course, "correlation doesn't mean causation".... but it's a good starting point.

CO2 lags behind temperature by 4/5th of a millennia on average! You know as well as I do that CO2 did not drive natural climate change, but rather CO2 levels are responsive to it.

In the past, maybe... Right now, not so sure. Do note the spike in CO2 in the last few data points of the plot in the previous post. I'm not sure those points are outliers.

(January 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm)pocaracas Wrote: But, if there is an imbalance without anthropogenic CO2, then this imbalance only gets worse with anthropogenic CO2.
OR do you have data that supports that anthropogenic CO2 has a negligible contribution to the plot I showed in a previous post?

Well, we don't expect it to be balanced, as your ice-core graph shows we expect CO2 to either be building up in the atmosphere or dissipating.

Quote:Over-fishing? It may be one more factor to be thrown into the pot.
From what I remember of reading about this in that National Geographic article I linked before, the main CO2 absorbers in the ocean are shellfish, with a big impact on plankton.
Global ocean acidification may be affected by over-fishing in areas where plankton doesn't get replenished... but I'm not convinced the lack of fish would lead to lack of plankton.... If anything, I'd imagine it would lead to a (at least temporary) increase of plankton. But I have no data either way, so I have nothing to substantiate it. Do you?

Not on hand, but I thought scientists generally agree that ocean acidification is mostly due to the effect of overfishing on the bio-system?

Quote:In the past, maybe... Right now, not so sure. Do note the spike in CO2 in the last few data points of the plot in the previous post. I'm not sure those points are outliers.

TBH, I actually don't have a hard time accepting anthropogenic EGHG's being responsible for about 0.2 - 0.3 degrees of the trend. If true it points to CO2 being directly attributable in and of itself to 0.1-0.16 degrees. That's such a tiny amount though that I can't see the reason why we are so worried about it. And I have a hard time accepting that it will be a significant impact in the future. The global climate is always changing, we are always experiencing climate change, at least a few tenths of a degree per century.

If the theory on water-vapour feedback was rock-solid and proven, I'd accept AGW theory. But I see this as the biggest problem with the theory.

Some pseudo-science needs to be a given a chance to gain evidence and become proper science... however, sometimes, it just goes far too fucking far.