Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's some real sciency stuff for you...from real science type folks
BTW.....more CO2 in the ocean makes plankton with calcium carbonate skeletons grow better and faster...just like plants
CO2 does not make the ocean acid....
Phytoplankton calcification in a high-CO2 world.
Abstract
Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world's oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate.
Thanks. However, it needs to be remembered that not all organisms will adapt like that. Here's another study relating to coccolithophores:
Coccolithophores are unicellular marine algae that produce biogenic calcite scales and substantially contribute to marine primary production and carbon export to the deep ocean. Ongoing ocean acidification particularly impairs calcifying organisms, mostly resulting in decreased growth and calcification. Recent studies revealed that the immediate physiological response in the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi to ocean acidification may be partially compensated by evolutionary adaptation, yet the underlying molecular mechanisms are currently unknown. Here, we report on the expression levels of 10 candidate genes putatively relevant to pH regulation, carbon transport, calcification and photosynthesis in E. huxleyi populations short-term exposed to ocean acidification conditions after acclimation (physiological response) and after 500 generations of high CO2 adaptation (adaptive response). The physiological response revealed downregulation of candidate genes, well reflecting the concomitant decrease of growth and calcification. In the adaptive response, putative pH regulation and carbon transport genes were up-regulated, matching partial restoration of growth and calcification in high CO2-adapted populations. Adaptation to ocean acidification in E. huxleyi likely involved improved cellular pH regulation, presumably indirectly affecting calcification. Adaptive evolution may thus have the potential to partially restore cellular pH regulatory capacity and thereby mitigate adverse effects of ocean acidification. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24827439
Note too that my study has a more recent date than yours...although neither study seems to disagree with the other.
Note too my prior post on how ocean acidification through the oceans absorbing more C02 removes calcium carbonate from the oceans, making it difficult for many organisms that build shells, and other organisms. //www.city-data.com/forum/55765074-post76.html
Maybe it already started last year. It's very interesting for how very long Oklahoma City has had below normal temperatures. Every month since July 2018 was below normal in temperatures! July 2019 is running below normal with Oklahoma City expecting a record low of 60 on Wednesday morning. But that is only the mid section of the country. Will this phenomenon become global in nature in coming years. We don't yet know.
the point is...I and others have already debunked the idea of "global warming" becoming a "distant memory" due to any oncoming Grand Solar Minimum. It sounds like the anticipated temperature decrease is 0.3 degrees Celsius by the year 2100...and nothing has pointed to any global cooling recently. It just all keeps getting hotter. Note that that's not saying it'll become 0.3 degrees cooler than it is now. It's saying it'll become 0.3 degrees cooler than it'd be without that cooling effect. That's just a chip off the anticipated few degrees warming between now and 2100.
Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year – from January through September, with the exception of June – were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record – in all three cases, behind records set in 2015. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...ecord-globally
They are so slippery with the wording..you have to give them credit for that...
press release 2016 - 35 years = ~1980
"most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years"...
..and the recent 35 year period is no different than the 35 year period from 1910 to 1945...which temps increased slightly faster
Why not cherry pick another 32 year period....1944 to 1976...when temperatures fell 0.1 degrees
...because they would have to explain to people that where they started their recent increase in temps...1980...was following a 40 year period of no increase in temps at all
if temps have been increasing for 140 years...the only shock would be that recent dates are not warmer
..then they say it's X above the anomaly of the base years...without saying the actual measured temperature increase is 1/100th of a degree warmer
They are so slippery with the wording..you have to give them credit for that...
press release 2016 - 35 years = ~1980
"most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years"...
..and the recent 35 year period is no different than the 35 year period from 1910 to 1945...which temps increased slightly faster
Why not cherry pick another 32 year period....1944 to 1976...when temperatures fell 0.1 degrees
...because they would have to explain to people that where they started their recent increase in temps...1980...was following a 40 year period of no increase in temps at all
if temps have been increasing for 140 years...the only shock would be that recent dates are not warmer
..then they say it's X above the anomaly of the base years...without saying the actual measured temperature increase is 1/100th of a degree warmer
BTW..using NASA's own graph....the total of global warming...in 140 years....has been 1 degree C
...that's 0.007 degrees a year
That's not cherry picking. The fact that most of the warming took place in the last 35 years is relevant because at some point you'd assume that if industrialization is a major cause of global warming, we'd see a steeper-than-in-the-past, steady upward incline begin...because the first vehicle to be mass-produced (the Ford Model T) wasn't even mass produced until 1913, so it would have taken some time for the ball to get rolling. Apparently that warming started about 1975 and has continued every since. Notice how much more steady the modern warming is than that period from 1910 to 1945 or so. When you have humanity pumping out steadily more C02...you're going to get that kind of steady increase, because there's not much really altering human C02 output, and there'll be feedback loops that continue it on for awhile even after we slow it down.
It's not going to be mostly natural unless we see a big drop sometime, like we did before the last 40 years or so. That's not what anybody is predicting. At best, they're hoping for a decrease in the increase that the Earth warms each year. I guess we'll see. We're just not going to see any major reduction in C02 output until we invent fusion power or something anytime soon...unless some major changes happen that I don't expect.
Here's a couple graphs from the Royal Meteorological society that goes back to somewhere before 1860. Note how sporadic stuff is. Now, I'd say we have a straiter line of ascent. 40's to 70's cooling, CO2 rising? — OSS Foundation
And here is one possible explanation for the cooling period between 1940 to 1970 or so:
After World War II, the industrial economies of Europe and the United States were revving up to a level of productivity the world had never seen before. To power this large-scale expansion of industry, Europeans and Americans burned an enormous quantity of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). In addition to carbon dioxide, burning fossil fuel produces particulate matter—including soot and light-colored sulfate aerosols. Dr. James Hansen suspects the relatively sudden, massive output of aerosols from industries and power plants contributed to the global cooling trend from 1940-1970.
“That’s my suggestion, though it’s still not proven,” Hansen said. “There is a nice record of sulfates in Greenland ice cores that shows this type of particle was peaking in the atmosphere around 1970. And then the ice core record shows a rapid decline in sulfates, right about the time nations began regulating their emission.” (Sulfates cause acid rain and other health and environmental problems.) 40's to 70's cooling, CO2 rising? — OSS Foundation
C02 output really doesn't start increasing much until about 1950 or so. You got to figure it'll take a few years for everything to start building up too.
In 1980, 87.2 percent of American households owned one or more motor vehicles, 51.5 percent owned more than one, and fully 95 percent of domestic car sales were for replacement. Americans have become truly auto-dependent. https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/automobiles
However:
By the time the Model T was withdrawn from production in 1927, its price had been reduced to $290 for the coupe, 15 million units had been sold, and mass personal “automobility” had become a reality. https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/automobiles
and the number of people in America in 1980 was 227 million, with a much larger percentage of people owning vehicles, and about half owning more than one...so humanity's C02 output has skyrocketed between those two periods. We're just going to see a period of time beginning sometime before that 1980 period when we just weren't producing nearly as much C02 as we are now.
of course it's cherry picking.....temperatures increased at a faster rate earlier
When there was a whole lot less things emitting CO2
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
