“Actually, no they don’t, not by much. Mean sea water pH has dropped from 8.179 to 8.104 since pre-industrial times. At that rate, it would take 1,400 years to reach neutrality. The RS’s projection of a 0.5 unit drop by 2100 is based on the IS92a emission scenario which assumes 2xCO2 per century. Even if it were at all likely that the rate would not reduce in future, the present rate of rise is more like 1.36xCO2 per century. (380ppm/280ppm.) The observed rise of CO2 is actually quadratic rather than exponential. And pH is a logarithmic scale.”

I was pointing out that as sea water gets more acidic the shells of animals have a harder time forming. You go off on some tangent about how sea water won’t become acidic.

1 point off for moving goal posts.

On top of that I initially in an earlier post that sea water becomes more acidic, not that it becomes acid which is what you changed to. another point off for goal post shifting. This only thing I missed was your goal post shift.

2 off already. My my.

“China, actually. Estimated figures can be found from the UN’s FAO. I’m afraid you lose a point for not even trying to find out for yourself, but simply quoting the usual media-campaign’s press releases. Two-nil.”

But no actual link. sigh. another point off.

And too bad about the UN FAO Brazil page. Another point off.

““Riebesell showed figures that indicated that…”

But are his figures either relevant or correct?”

Well, you’ve done nothing to disprove them…aside from moving goal posts. 1 point off.

“The linked document says “basic chemistry says that the more CO2 that is present in the environment, the less efficiently these reactions will run” which is true (for animals), but doesn’t say how near we are to that point. Respiration stops when the partial pressure of excreted CO2 equals the partial pressure in the water. Land animals breath out CO2 at 40,000-50,000 ppm, I assume marine biochemistry is not that radically different. Doesn’t sound likely.”

Says…who? CO2 in water makes Carbolic acid. Move CO2, above animal respiration, looks to be a problem.

“There are cases of pure CO2 bubbling out of volcanic vents in the sea bed, with coral and sea weed growing around them. Over much of Earth’s history, coral has coexisted with significantly higher CO2 levels than today. The claims are the result of pessimistic extrapolation and hand waving, and contradict field observations. I think if you had evaluated the story as critically as you’re doing with me, you’d have noticed. Three-nil.”

Really. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7200/full/nature07051.html
talks about your situation and about the coral DISSOLUTION.

By the way, seaweed doesn’t have shells.

1 point off, and another off for the critical crack.

As for being critical…well…If you can’t handle it, c’ya.

You entered this conversation, now your complaining that someone is CRITICAL of you? More of the Denier faux martyr complex again.

“wait a minute. I wrote somnething like that. Odd.”

Is that any odder than you telling me about water vapour feedback after I had just talked about it?

“These guys beg to differ”

Actually, no they don’t, not by much. Mean sea water pH has dropped from 8.179 to 8.104 since pre-industrial times. At that rate, it would take 1,400 years to reach neutrality. The RS’s projection of a 0.5 unit drop by 2100 is based on the IS92a emission scenario which assumes 2xCO2 per century. Even if it were at all likely that the rate would not reduce in future, the present rate of rise is more like 1.36xCO2 per century. (380ppm/280ppm.) The observed rise of CO2 is actually quadratic rather than exponential. And pH is a logarithmic scale.

The problem with making Appeals to Authority rather than working through the evidence is that sometimes you miss important details that authors with an agenda have glossed over. One-nil.

“And maybe you can actually provide said figures on this? And where? Brazil, where a heck of a lot of rain of rainforest is being cut down yearly?”

China, actually. Estimated figures can be found from the UN’s FAO. I’m afraid you lose a point for not even trying to find out for yourself, but simply quoting the usual media-campaign’s press releases. Two-nil.

“Of course that was along time ago.”

So?

“Riebesell showed figures that indicated that…”

But are his figures either relevant or correct?
The linked document says “basic chemistry says that the more CO2 that is present in the environment, the less efficiently these reactions will run” which is true (for animals), but doesn’t say how near we are to that point. Respiration stops when the partial pressure of excreted CO2 equals the partial pressure in the water. Land animals breath out CO2 at 40,000-50,000 ppm, I assume marine biochemistry is not that radically different. Doesn’t sound likely.

There are cases of pure CO2 bubbling out of volcanic vents in the sea bed, with coral and sea weed growing around them. Over much of Earth’s history, coral has coexisted with significantly higher CO2 levels than today. The claims are the result of pessimistic extrapolation and hand waving, and contradict field observations. I think if you had evaluated the story as critically as you’re doing with me, you’d have noticed. Three-nil.

“So far, out of 2, your batting 0.”

How independent is the referee here?

“Increased CO2 appears to induce plants to grow. However, this does not mean their nutritional quality increases”

Never said it did. You appear to be playing balls that I haven’t bowled. Four-nil.

“Last map I saw showing the new growing areas had the new grain belt on the Canadian Shield.”

Then the last map you saw was inaccurate.

“It’s hard growing grain on ROCK.”

It wouldn’t be rock for long. Soil grows.

And it isn’t hard, actually, if you use artificial fertilisers.

“Does this take into account expansion ofthe water due to heating? Somehow I don’t think so.”

On what basis don’t you think so? Are you just guessing?

If so, you guessed wrong. This is taking into account the expansion due to heating.

And you completely failed to answer the point, which was that even the official IPCC estimate (and there are oceanographers who dispute it as being too high) is not going to send billions on the march due to rising oceans. This claim doesn’t come from the science, it has been simply made up.

Five-nil.

“Move home? You make people losing their homes so..sterile.”

Have you never moved home? The point of moving, generally, is to gain a better home. You make people gaining homes sound so miserable. Six-nil.

“Tell me, where is Bangladesh going to go?”

Under the Himalayas. It’s in a tectonic subduction zone.

Oh, sorry, you meant the people in Bangladesh? They’re not going anywhere. Bangladesh is a river delta, it’s level is controlled by river deposition, and it will very likely continue to grow in area. As I just said.

Seven-nil.

“But they live within 100 cms of the sea level.”

Thank you for agreeing with me. Eight-nil.

“But is this new area higher than 23 cm?”

It will be.

The silt deposits where the water slows down because it has hit the sea. That’s how river deltas form. Sea level controls land level. If past floods have placed the land a metre above sea level, future floods will too.

“Why yes, he did. It’s also slow. So, unless these coral islands get a major boost from the mantle soon, this little fantasy will not save your idea.”

You’re guessing again.

The rate of sea level rise projected for next century is roughly the same as it was last century, and far slower than it has been since the ice retreated a mere 10,000 years ago. Coral is nevertheless not extinct. However did it manage to survive the Holocene optimum?

Coral can grow at at least twice the rate it needs to. No volcanic boosts needed. Nine-nil.

“…told the inhabitants of Tuvalu that coral uplift will save their islands…”

Tuvalu is in no danger. Tuvalu’s problem is too much water extraction to supply tourism. The sea level there has been monitored for the past thirty years and has not increased detectably. But if they think they can guilt-trip rich countries into paying them compensation, I’m sure they wouldn’t say no.

A nice, round, ten-nil.

Thankyou for playing.

Seriously, we could argue like this for days, but is there any point? You have not expressed a single concession to any part of my argument. You don’t appear to be critically evaluating your own beliefs; for example, to see whether they fit observations like evidence of past warm periods or times of high CO2. The argument seems to be political/rhetorical, and the aim seems to be not to jointly determine the better argument, but to conclusively win, by showing the opponent to be wrong on every point.
As with most politically-polarised issues, nobody is going to change their minds on the basis of such a discussion, and many will just find it annoying. I can play this game, but I consider it a waste of time.

I expect matters to resolve themselves as the political fashions shift over the next few years, and I expect this will go the way of Paul Ehrlich’s predictions of imminent doom in the 1960s. But no doubt there will be a new doom to replace it. Until then.

“No, but it does dissolve out.”

That sounds familiar. WHere did I hear that before…

‘And while water does seem to absorb it, ‘

wait a minute. I wrote somnething like that. Odd.

“Sea water isn’t acid, it’s slightly alkaline. And at the current rate of progress, it won’t be actually acid for several thousand years.”

These guys beg to differ

http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249

“If you check the figures, you’ll find forests are re-growing at roughly the same rate they’re being cut down.”

And maybe you can actually provide said figures on this? And where? Brazil, where a heck of a lot of rain of rainforest is being cut down yearly?

” And shell-making animals can withstand far more acidic conditions than are now extant (they evolved during a period when CO2 was far higher than today).”

Of course that was along time ago. And then there’s this

“The second reason for concern is for animals that rely on calcium carbonate for skeletal elements, as this mineral will dissolve in acidic media. Although this will impact shellfish and echinoderms, the big loser here is coral. Riebesell showed figures that indicated that, by 2070, its likely that the optimal growth conditions for warm-water coral will simply no longer exist, and about 60 percent of the environment for cold-water coral will be gone. ”

from http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/02/aaas-that-other-carbon-problem-ocean-acidification.ars

“The only actual experiments I’m aware of indicated that CO2 had a net fertilising effect on such biota, but that’s not something I claim to know anything about.”

So far, out of 2, your batting 0. How about land? Increased CO2 appears to induce plants to grow. However, this does not mean their nutritional quality increases…http://pages.unibas.ch/diss/2005/DabsB_7188.pdf

0 for 3.

“But it could destroy our world. Shifting weather patterns destroying food producing areas.”

Or create them”

Where? Last map I saw showing the new growing areas had the new grain belt on the Canadian Shield. It’s hard growing grain on ROCK.

““People displaced by rising oceans waters”

Twenty three centimetres? Over a period of a century?”

Yes. 0.23 meters. Or 0.75 feet. Does this take into account expansion ofthe water due to heating? Somehow I don’t think so.

And of course this seems to be an old figure. It’s projected to be…more.

““How much will it cost when a few million (or billion) humans need to migrate just to live.”

Nothing. People move home all the time. Over a period of a century, almost everybody moves. Even if any movement was necessary.”

Move home? You make people losing their homes so..sterile. Tell me, where is Bangladesh going to go? How are migrating people going to be fed when growing areas become desert, and growing zones move into rocky parts of continents?

“There are certainly not billions living within centimetres of sea level,”

But they live within 100 cms of the sea level.

and those that are tend to be on river deltas or coral reefs where the silt deposited by flooding or coral growth maintains the land level precisely where it is. The land will rise to meet the sea, as it always has. (Bangladesh, for example, is actually increasing in area.) ”

But is this new area higher than 23 cm? If not, so what?

“The mechanism of growth of coral islands was one of Charles Darwin’s discoveries on his voyages.
”

Why yes, he did. It’s also slow. So, unless these coral islands get a major boost from the mantle soon, this little fantasy will not save your idea.

I hope you told the inhabitants of Tuvalu that coral uplift will save their islands…someday.

“Solenadon: Your facts are way out-of-date. The much-publicized claim that most of the warmest years recorded were since 2000 was the result of mathematical errors. NASA has revaluated the data and now it looks like this:

“The new top 10 warmest years are, warmest first: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

By decade, you can see that the 1930’s (dust bowl years) had 4 of the warmest years of the century while the 1990’s had three and the 2000’s has had only one year in the top ten warmest so far. ”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541 /nasa_admits_that_1934_not_1998_was.html
”
Nice little link there. Only one little problem. It states…

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen’s well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S.

Wait a minute? The U.S.? Since when does the U.S. equal the world?

Nice try there.

On to other things

Strictly speaking Steve O…you devolved into grandstanding first. see your post at February 24th, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Lets just say I feel no inclination to pander to your faux martyr attitude.