Hvorfor kommer jeg til at tænke på moho....

Det var nu ikke meningen. Rettet. Nul problemo. Troll? Nej. Prøv noget nyt. Der er noget der tyder på, at du ikke kan lide modstand.  Tilbage til trådens emne: Plasma dør IKKE, men vores verdenshave bliver brugt som losseplads af skibe og andre.

NEJ, men du læser jo kun HVAD du vil læse, for at finde noget som du tror kan bruges som noget negativt.  Clausewitz! Tror du på "eksperter" der vil bevise en IDÉ? Eller tror du på folk som arbejder ud fra hvordan naturen fungerer? Det er jo dig og mange andre som er fuldstændigt ukritiske overfor videnskab som ikke lærer af naturen!) Det er jo dér problemet ligger...Hvordan kunne det ske? Great Barrier Reef var jo døsdømt af IPCC! IPCC tog fejl! Her er beviset: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423100817.ht m (DE IPCC har ikke løst gåden. DE er rådløse!) Hvem løste gåden for to år siden?

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/fcl/index.htm#history

Spectacular Recovery From Coral Bleaching At Great Barrier Reef Marine Park In Australia

ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2009) — Marine scientists say they are astonished at the spectacular recovery of certain coral reefs in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from a devastating coral bleaching event in 2006.

Jeg forstår virkeligt ikke, at du ikke er mere kritisk overfor klima-ekspertisen, i de kilder du benytter:

• Clausewitz! Du overså noget!
• http://www.seafriends.org.nz/fcl/index.htm

• Here at Seafriends we believe that we can make a difference to the future of New Zealand's seas. In 1990 it was decided to build a centre that would earn enough to pay its way. Hence the combination with a restaurant/café. But finance was not available. None of New Zealand's banks wanted to fund even as little as $10,000! So we used our pension savings to convert the existing woolshed (a disused shearing shed). In December 1992 we opened under difficult circumstances. The next two years much more had to be built and improved upon. After that we could concentrate on the diving gear and curriculum needed to take schools from Standard 3 to Form 7 into the sea. In 1996 we embarked on an ambitious project to document the marine habitats of our country, which will be on-going. Then an Internet site with information about our seas, a Seafriends network of people, a charitable foundation and finally political action. Where could you fit in? Let us know!

  We see the process of saving our seas as a succession of steps, each of which challenging our present way of thinking. We must recognise that NZ's problems need to be solved with NZ solutions. First we need to acknowledge that we have problems that are getting worse at a disastrous rate. Then we need to know how these manifest themselves and what the underlying causes are. In the process we need to become familiar with the many creatures in our seas, many being unique to our little patch of the world, and what protection they need. Finally we may embark on a sustainable ecological solution that may take our country confidently into the 21st century and beyond, a vision that may be the envy of other nations.

• Tjaa, manden er jo bare en selvuddannet havbiolog med over 2000 dykkertimer bag sig. Mere end 60 timers FILM-dokumentation på VHS og DVD hentet op fra havet. Dertil kommer billeder og fossiler. I 1975 udvandrede denne hollænder til New Zealand, og han har presset på for et større maritimt reservat i New Zealand. Desuden fik han biologi ind med modermælken. Hans mor var? Biolog! Han ved sgu mere om de processer der finder sted i havet end du og jeg gør. Han er ikke statsansat, så han kan ikke styres af politikere! Hans dokumentation taler dog et meget tydeligt sprog. Der er tale om beviser på film og billeder, udover fossiler, og ikke beregninger foretaget på en computer. 40 års erfaring på det havbiologiske område, kan man ikke bare sådan feje under gulvtæppet. Naturen fortæller os sandheden i form af fossiler og billeder. Hvis man borer efter olie på en uforsvarlig måde som det tit er blevet dokumenteret, og vist på TV, kan vi se følgerne meget tydeligt. Det samme gælder udledning af olie og andre giftige ting i et stort omfang. Hvem husker ikke Sadam Husseins økoforbrydelse?  http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#cca

These scientists placed two times three plastic cages (mesocosms) of 1x1x0.5m under water at shallow depth. The advantage of this method is that the study mimics as closely as possible the natural situation, including day-night light rhythm. In one set of three they manipulated acidity to reflect a doubling of CO2 to 800ppm. Then they placed perspex cylinders in each to see what would happen. In the control set they were encrusted by crustose calcareous algae (CCA), whereas in the CO2-rich set they were encrusted by fleshy green algae. The differences between the two sets were quite dramatic as shown by the photograph and graphic. The conclusion is that man-made CO2 is bad, and that major ecosystem changes can be expected. A final blow to the acid ocean skeptics. End of debate. Period. ... Unless we examine the fine print and do some detective work.

Crustose calcareous algae or pink paint as divers call it, is a group of the most astounding organisms on our planet. If you were told about stones that grew and replicated, you would disbelieve. Yet it is true. CCA is living limestone, physically a red seaweed but without any flesh or vessels. It grows in the shallows, exposed to ultraviolet and low tide, yet forming extensive rocky platforms with caves and tunnels in a mere 6000 years. On coral reefs it is the glue between corals, forever scraped and nibbled at by urchins and fish, yet surviving and growing. When algae peter out at the deep end of the photic zone, there is still CCA and at twice that depth too. A boulder in a rock pool may be turned by a storm, leaving its CCA cover buried in darkness. Yet turned back upright after two months, the bleached CCA soon turns pink again, resuming business as usual. When going from healthy waters to extremely degraded environments, CCA is one of the last to give up. So come-on, why can this sturdy creature not handle a little extra CO2? What is wrong we must ask? We have some serious misgivings about this work for a variety of reasons.

• Whenever a scientific article begins with 'anthropogenic emissions' and 'IPCC', it raises the hairs on my back because these people show to have a bias. Real science is about curiosity in about how things work; not about 'proving' an idea. The experiment took only seven (!) weeks (a student's summer holiday), immediately after which the results were published - and accepted! The experiment was not replicated; the cylinders were not swapped; mature CCA was not investigated and so on. Instead these people focused on replicating their publication: dial any of the authors (Kuffner or Jokiel will do) on Google and see how many references and duplications come up. Other publications were quick to refer to this shoddy work which is on a par with a school science project.
• For instance, it is equally interesting to see what halving CO2 levels does, because the claim of 250ppm pre-industrial level may be a myth. Why did the scientists not include a set of enclosures for testing this? Note that this is a general criticism of most studies of the effect of raised CO2.
• The raised level of CO2 was not achieved by adding CO2 to the water but a highly concentrated solution of hydrochloric acid (HCl) that was trickled into the treatment enclosures. This releases CO2 from the HCO3 species as discussed in the Bjerrum Plot above, but this is not like the real world as it also diminishes the shell-building CO3 ion. It also assumes various densities before diluting completely. And even if this happens in the water above the cylinders, it will still influence the plankton and spores and their settlement.
• The experiment was not about death or slow growth but about settlement. Algae have a two-phase life cycle: the mature plant makes asexual spores that hatch into male and female plants, too small to see, but these reproduce sexually, and their 'seeds' grow into the colonies observed on the perspex cores, after first some time in the plankton. Thus settlement is about the minute or hour that a 'seed' decides to attach or not; a flash in a CCA's life. And that is all this experiment was about.
• Settlement is an extremely fickle (not constant, uncertain) process. Put your plastic cores out, together with concrete tiles, and you will see different creatures settle on each type. Put them out today and it may be CCA that dominate. Next week could give barnacles. Next month green algae and limpets, and so on. Settlement experiments are almost impossible to replicate. Which means that they also have little relevance. In the bar chart above, you can see some of that unpredictability.
• Let me take you to the laboratory where these experiments were done, at Kaneohe, Hawaii (photo below). The water here is not blue as one would expect, but green. It is indicative of degradation from eutrophication. Now look at the pH curves in the graph next to it. The green curve shows the daily pH rhythm for the environment there. For starters, average pH is well below 8.2, a sure sign of degradation. The water here is already 50% more acidic than average ocean water. Now look at how pH changes from mid day to mid night -0.3 units or 2x more acidic, another sure sign of degradation. This is caused mainly by decomposing planktonic bacteria, who never sleep. The bacterial activity follows from the down slope of the curve in darkness, amounting to an RoA (bacterial Rate of Attack) of 20-40 hion (see our DDA method), an indication that the environment here is under significant stress. The point here is that all stresses add up, such that the extra stress caused by high CO2, is only part of the whole and cannot be singled out (see our principles of degradation chapter).

Summarising it all: a naive study in a highly stressed already acidic environment, using hydrochloric acid, not replicated and perhaps not reproducible, with the low relevance of a settlement experiment. Their far-reaching conclusions are not warranted by the experiment.

Declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef
Glenn De'ath, Janice M Lough, Katharina E Fabricius
Science, 2 January 2009: Vol 323 no 5910 pp 116-119 [cost US$15]
dissected by Floor Anthoni 18 January 2009

Abstract: Reef-building corals are under increasing physiological stress from a changing climate and ocean absorption of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. We investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Their skeletal records show that throughout the GBR, calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990, predominantly because
extension (linear growth) has declined by 13.3%. The data suggest that such a severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least the past 400 years. Calcification increases linearly with increasing large-scale sea surface temperature but responds nonlinearly to annual temperature anomalies. The causes of the decline remain unknown; however, this study suggests that increasing temperature stress and a declining saturation state of seawater aragonite may be diminishing the ability of GBR corals to deposit calcium carbonate.
As we mentioned in previous articles, when a scientific article begins with a reference to changing climate and increasing carbon dioxide, the authors show to have an agenda, a belief that is bound to affect their studies. The bottom line reaffirms this belief with increasing temperature stress and declining saturation state of seawater aragonite. Over 30% of this abstract is taken up by assertions that are not borne out by the experiment, reason for extreme caution. We begin our critique with this issue because it is exactly what the international press has latched onto, inferring that this experiment proves corals declining BECAUSE of anthropogenic carbon emissions, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. Google for "de'ath coral" to see the massive damage done by these statements that are irrelevant to the experiment.
To take this criticism one step further, these two statements secure the article a place in the 'prestigious' Science journal which over the years has shown itself a firm global warming advocate, together with other 'prestigious' journals such as Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist and a host of others. The two statements are also intended to secure continuation of funding. Reader beware!

What is Porites?
The species of Porites corals grow slowly outward as a thin peel around previous layers, thus slowly constructing 'massive' (meaning solid) coral bommies. Their polyps are small and they appear smooth, a 'friendly' coral amongs the many sharp and sometimes stinging corals.
 

f044811: a diver in front of a large 'massive' Porites coral in the clear waters of Niue island. The many christmas tree worms are hardly visible on this scale.

f044135: christmas tree worms on Porites coral. These beautiful fan worms are only a few centimetres tall, showing how small the Porites coral polyps really are. Porites corals often include other organisms like worms and molluscs in their matrix.

What was done?
Previous studies have drilled cores into the 'massive' Porites coral which can grow 'coral bommies' of several metres diameter and several hundreds of years old. These cores from the Coral Core Archive were re-analysed for their calcite (limestone) densities and growth rates, using state-of-the-art scientific techniques of X-ray and gamma densitometry and simple length measurements. Because corals live like plants, their growth rates depend on temperature and the amount of light, both causing yearly bands, much like tree rings. The cores investigated come from all over the Great Barrier Reef, allowing investigaters to also study the effect of average temperature.

What was found?
The main finding of the study is shown in this graph for extension (blue, growth rate) (cm/yr) and density (green, g/ml), interpretation of which is confusing. The increasing growth rate since 1900 suggests that the sea has been warming, but it is accompanied by a reduction in density. The product of the two is the calcification rate (red) with a flatter mid-range. Its hockey-stick appearance of dipping down steeply since the late-1990s has been cause for alarm, being clearly 'abnormal' as it has not occurred in 400 years (not shown here). Normal growth of about 1.4cm per year has suddenly dipped to less than 1.3cm/yr, a decline of 14.2% per year, and should this trend continue, the porites coral could disappear by the year 2050.

Conclusion:
The question is now what caused this sudden decline?

• Do all Porites corals always end in an extension dip for the past 6-8 years? After all, this is only 6x1.4= 8.4 cm into the coral and it would be foolish to assume that the live polyps end at 1.4cm depth, where they ended last year. In other words, at 8.4cm depth, calcification may still be on-going, extending the coral colony outward as well, and thus 'pulling' the hocky stick for extension up to 'normal' levels as time proceeds. It is logical that where the polyp occupies space, calcification is correspondingly less. Likewise one would not expect much woody tissue in the shoots of a tree, which also extend over time. Ironically, this suggestion has not been considered by the authors. In this context is is important to know whether exceptions have been encountered, corals that do not have a 'stunted growth' towards the present. See also the authors' comment in next paragraph, suggesting that no exceptions were found.
• Is it caused by degradation from run-off from the land? This possible cause is rejected out of hand by the authors even though coral reefs are severely threatened by human proximity [1]: "Terrestrial runoff and salinity, although potentially affecting inshore reefs, are also unlikely causes because calcification declines at similar rates on offshore reefs away from flood plumes". However, we discovered that eutrophication extends far beyond the reach of river plumes and visible runoff, reaching the outer boundaries of continental shelves. Furthermore, when the water is still deemed 'clear' (15m visibility), degradation has its worst effect on sensitive organisms such as found in healthy reefs. To disprove degradation as cause, coral cores must be extracted from areas remote from human settlement. Note also that the authors are still unaware of our recent discoveries about symbiotic decomposition and how corals derive growth in seas devoid of food (nutrients and phytoplankton).
• Is it caused by warming waters? The graph is contradictory as it confirms that corals do better in warmer water, and also the authors find no evidence along the temperature gradient from north to south along the Great Barrier Reef. Sudden temperature events could do it but these have to be frequent and would not produce a smooth decline as in the graphs.
• Is it caused by ocean acidification? Unfortunately the coral cores do not reveal ancient alkalinity (pH) and there exists no record of pH measurements over the past 100 years. Besides, acidification is supposed to have been a slow process, whereas the hockey stick suggests a sudden disaster that began less than 10 years ago. Furthermore we have shown that increased acidity benefits productivity in the oceans. No problem, let's then introduce the notion of 'tipping point', a gradual GOOD process suddenly becoming VERY BAD ??? Note that degradation can have a tipping point which is different for each species. The difference between thriving and dying is usually small (the tipping point); a company thrives when it makes a profit but goes bankrupt from small losses.

Reader, as you can see, the study does not justify its conclusions:

"Laboratory experiments and models have predicted negative impacts of rising atmospheric CO2 on the future of calcifying organisms. Our data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the GBR are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records reaching back 400 years. If Porites calcification is representative of that in other reef-building corals, then maintenance of the calcium carbonate structure that is the foundation of the GBR will be severely compromised. Verification of the causes of this decline should be made a high priority. Additionally, if temperature and carbonate saturation are responsible for the observed changes, then similar changes are likely to be detected in the growth records from other regions and from other calcifying organisms. These organisms are central to the formation and function of ecosystems and food webs, and precipitous changes in the biodiversity and productivity of the world’s oceans may be imminent."

These scientists have discovered an interesting phenomenon but have not been honest to the public. They did not disclose doubt and uncertainties, and neither did they disclose any exceptions in the data (any exception may prove the assumptions wrong). They knowingly and deliberately raised the scare for ocean acidification and climate change, whereas their experiment does not support this in any way.
 

[1] Mora, Camillo (2008): Coral reefs threatened by human proximity - Humans Have Caused Profound Changes In Caribbean Coral Reefs. [free PDF] Proc. R. Soc. B (2008) 275, 767–773 doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1472 Published online 8 January 2008

---

Ocean acidification and its potential effects on marine ecosystems
John M. Guinotte and Victoria J. Fabry
Ann NY Acad Sci 1134:320-342 (2008)
http://www.nyas.org/annals/pdf/v1134_guinotte.pdf [free PDF]
dissected by J Floor Anthoni (Jan 2009)

Since this is one of the most quoted papers, using the information of other scientists to invoke an enormous scare, it is necessary for us to subject it to a critical dissection. This paper is similar to that of the British Royal Society, dissected before. Note that the authors believe that the predictions (scaremongering) of the IPCC are correct, and that they base this paper entirely on this assumption. The many experiments cited, done in laboratories and mesocosms all fail to mimic the natural situation, as explained above in scientific fraud. Some of the research quoted has even been debunked by us on this page. In all, this paper sounds like a political manifesto.

Abstract
Ocean acidification is rapidly changing the carbonate system of the world oceans. Past mass extinction events have been linked to ocean acidification, and the current rate of change in seawater chemistry is unprecedented. Evidence suggests that these changes will have significant consequences for marine taxa, particularly those that build skeletons, shells, and tests of biogenic calcium carbonate. Potential changes in species distributions and abundances could propagate through multiple trophic levels of marine food webs, though research into the long-term ecosystem impacts of ocean acidification is in its infancy. This review attempts to provide a general synthesis of known and/or hypothesized biological and ecosystem responses to increasing ocean acidification. Marine taxa covered in this review include tropical reef-building corals, cold-water corals, crustose coralline algae, Halimeda, benthic mollusks, echinoderms, coccolithophores, foraminifera, pteropods, seagrasses, jellyfishes, and fishes. The risk of irreversible ecosystem changes due to ocean acidification should enlighten the ongoing CO2 emissions debate and make it clear that the human dependence on fossil fuels must end quickly. Political will and significant large-scale investment in clean-energy technologies are essential ifwe are to avoid the most damaging effects of human-induced climate change, including ocean acidification.

Reader, as you can see, most of the abstract is scaremongering and is not supported by the uncertainties in the research reviewed.
 

From the conclusion
"The scientific knowledge base surrounding the biological effects of ocean acidification is in its infancy and the long-term consequences of changing seawater chemistry on marine ecosystems can only be theorized." ...."In contrast, the potential effects ocean acidification may have for the vast majority of marine species are not known. Research into the synergistic effects of ocean acidification and other human induced environmental changes (e.g., increasing sea temperatures) on marine food webs and the potential transformative effects these changes could have on marine ecosystems is urgently needed." ..... "Future ocean acidification research needs include increased resources and efforts devoted to lab, mesocosm, and in situ experiments, all of which will aid in determining the biological responses of marine taxa to increased pCO2. Mesocosm and in situ experiments may simulate and/or provide more natural conditions than single-species lab experiments, but they have thus far used abrupt changes in seawater chemistry which do not allow for potential acclimation or adaptation by marine organisms." [or for the carbonate ion to develop].... "The shallow continental shelves are some of the most biologically productive areas in the sea and are home to the majority of the world’s fisheries, but accurate carbonate saturation state data do not currently exist for most coastal regions." ..... "The overwhelming volume of scientific evidence collated by the IPCC documenting the dangers of human-induced climate change, of which ocean acidification is only one, should end the lingering CO2 emissions reduction debate."...."The global CO2 experiment which has been under way since the Industrial Revolution and the potentially dire consequences this uncontrolled experiment poses for marine organisms and indeed, all life on Earth, leave no doubt that human dependence on fossil fuels must end as soon as possible. International collaboration, political will, and large-scale investment in clean energy technologies are essential to avoiding the most damaging effects of human-induced climate change."  [sigh . . are we detecting a bias here?]
 

What is the study about?
Taking a hand-picked IPCC projection as an unwavering fact, the authors have hand-picked studies that show a decline in calcification for a wide range of organisms, in higher concentrations of CO2 but not in lower concentrations. To give an indication of their assumptions, study the table below which has been taken in its entirety from the paper, in order to avoid making any mistakes.
 
 

The table is based on our present knowledge of the ocean carbonate chemistry [1,2], superimposed on the IPCC scare scenario. As we have seen before, both are subject to considerable doubt and the ocean's carbonate chemistry is also influenced by life. The columns represent milestones in the time scale from glacial through preindustrial to the present and beyond. The important rows are:

• pCO2 in seawater: the IPCC myth of glacial CO2 concentrations of 180ppm, an equally mythical preindustrial concentration of 280ppm to the present 380ppm (the only point with certainty), and from here on extrapolated to twice and three times present concentration. If the first two assumptions are wrong, the others just amplify the error.
• temperature: from a glacial average global temperature of 15.7ºC (perhaps) through a guessed at preindustrial temperature to the present 19.7ºC and beyond by extrapolation. Notice the disastrous 3ºC global warming!
• total pH: sinking from an extrapolated 8.32 through the present 8.05 to a future 7.76. These figures follow from pCO2 in seawater (above) and are thus equally shaky.
• carbonate ion: decreasing as if inside a laboratory test beaker from an extrapolated 279 through the present 182 to an extrapolated future of 115. The effect of the vast amount of buffering not taken into account and Le Chatelier's principle flouted.

How did species react?
The way species were subjected to increased levels of CO2 in the laboratory (fraudulent science) gave alarming results:

Shell-building phytoplankton organisms (Emiliana huxleyi, Gephyrocapsa, Calcidiscus) -8% to -66% calcification.
Foraminifera (Orbulina, Globigerinoides) -4% to -20% calcification.
Scleractinian corals (Stylophora, Acropora, Porites, Pavona, Fungia, Galaxea, Turbinaria) -14% to -55% calcification
Coralline red algae (Porolithon gardineri) -25% calcification.

None of the tested species reacted positively by increasing their calcification rates. Other alarming results were noted for fishes, molluscs and cold water corals. Only sea grasses and fleshy algae thrived. In all a very alarming litany (listing) of bad news.

What are the uncertainties?
Every scientific account should honestly mention doubts and uncertainties, but this paper mentioned only "but they (scientists) have thus far used abrupt changes in seawater chemistry which do not allow for potential acclimation or adaptation by marine organisms". Yet the whole paper is based on the very shaky predictions by the IPCC, mythical values for the past and extrapolations based on these, a large uncertainty about ocean chemistry, 'fraudulent' tests and selective 'bad news' publications. In other words, the publication was meant to be alarming from the beginning. We wonder when a more balanced account may surface.
 

[1] Marsh, Gerald E : Seawater pH and anthropogenic carbon dioxide. www.gemarsh.com. "In 2005, the Royal Society published a report titled Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.  The report’s principal conclusion—that average ocean pH could decrease by 0.5 units by 2100—is demonstrated here to be consistent with a linear extrapolation of very limited data.  It is also shown that current understanding of ocean mixing, and of the relationship between pH and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, cannot justify such an extrapolation."
[2] There are two conflicting 'knowledges' of ocean chemistry: Pearson&Palmer hold the total of all CO2 species constant whereas Caldeira&Berner hold the CO3 ion constant, resulting in radically different relationships between CO2 concentration and pH. To make matters worse, Le Chatelier principle holds that all CO2 species change, and on top of it all, life has its own influence (growth and decay).  Der er MEGET mere!

---

• Gary Novak, der har arbejdet med svampe og fået publiceret 4 sider i sit liv. Han har nok også spist nogen af dem - han mener i.h.f. at have fundet fejl ved en af Einsteins formler. Det er simpelt hen for sjovt, at du kan tage ham som seriøs klimaekspert http://nov55.com/abt.html 
• Jeg har ikke skrevet at jeg betragter ham som klimaekspert. Men som mikrobiolog ved han vel mere om organismer der lever af CO2 end du og jeg gør? Måske hælder han mere til Darwin end Einstein? Hver gang du udånder, udånder du CO2! Nej, det er ikke noget Einstein opdagede. Desuden sagde Einstein, at han tog fejl i 99% af alle tildfælde. Læs bogen: Lev livet uden bekymringer. Forfatter: Dale Carnegie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Carnegie 
• Jeg vil virkeligt STADIGT anbefale dig at læse denne:

http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/blogs/klimabloggen/hvad_er_vi denskab

før dit næste indlæg . Jeg har læst det hele, og der er en del mudderkastning. Der er også nærmest religiøs fanatisme.

[/QUOTE]

Fede billeder? Fortæller de os noget?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177886/Creat ures-living-violent-undersea-volcano-climate-change-survival -clue.html

Her er en afsindig voldsom VIDEO af en undersøisk vulkan der viser naturen i sin rå form:

http://data.gns.cri.nz/hazardwatch/gsblogs/heidi.html Jeg vil anbefale dig at se den til ende og i fuld billede. Det er fantastisk underholdning.

http://www.gns.cri.nz/news/release/20090226_kerm.html

(Hun er vidst vild med undersøiske vulkaner). Den blå planet?

Det er en skam at spildevand fra alverdens fabrikker, IKKE får megen opmærksomhed i medierne. Affald og kemikalier der bliver dumpet i verdenshavene bliver der heller ikke talt meget om i medierne. Undersøiske vulkaner kender man ikke meget til på DR og TV2. Eller måske vil de bare ikke vide, hvad der sker i havets dybder? Måske de bare ikke vil have at VI skal vide noget? Godt vi har internettet. 

Tilbage til trådens emne: Plasma dør IKKE! Måske om nogle år, HVIS vi får super OLED skærme i de rigtige størrelser, og til en fornuftig penge.

Redigeret af Firebird - 27-Maj-2009 kl. 17:35

clausewitz skrev: Firebird skrev: Har Per A. Hansen løjet om noget? Jeg har ikke brugt tid på at vurdere hans indlæg. De links, han har valgt i hans indlæg, er da ikke brugbare til det. Der er kommet et svar til hans kommentar: "Der er ikke en eneste af dine fremdragne skeptikere, som kommer med blot antydningen af en kvalificeret alternativ hypotese til de klimaændringer vi iagttager. På den baggrund forekommer det en anelse anstrengt, krampagtigt at blive ved med at benægte de fundamentale forhold vedrørende AGW, og de faktorer som afstedkommer dem." Firebird skrev: Nå? Der er stor forskel på meninger og beviser. Ellers kunne man jo bare tro blindt på folk. Er vi ikke enig her - at der er stor forskel på meninger og beviser?!   Firebird skrev:   Det globale klima? Det lokale klima er det globale klima. Det lokale klima? Klimaet i Danmark, Canada, Brasilien, Australien, Japan, Rusland, Indien, Panama, Alaska, Californien, Mali, Ægyten, Geogien, Kina, Mongoliet, Indonesien osv... Det globale klima? Nordpolen, sydpolen, verdenshavene, solen, månen, El Nino, La Nina..., osv... bortset fra vulkaner, de spiller ingen rolle. Det er der jo ingen beviser for. Slet ikke undersøiske vulkaner. Dem bagatelliserer man bare. Bare luk øjnene. Smart.  Var vi ikke enige om, at det var det Globale Klima vi diskuterede. Du har jo tidl. skrevet: Firebird skrev: Bare fordi temperaturer stiger nogle steder det ene år, er det ikke ensbetydende med at temperaturerne ikke falder andre steder samtidigt. Da jeg henviste til denne: http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/klimaudviklingen_og_solaktiviteten_lae gger_afstand_til_hinanden

Det viser jo bare at man slet ikke tager højde for havstrømmene. Nogensinde hørt om f.eks golfstrømmen? Hov. Det er jo bare én af mange mægtige havstrømme. Hov. Den blå planet!  Hvad sker der når vand som er blevet kogt af undersøiske vulkaner bliver blandet med koldt vand via havstrømmene? Hvad med fordampningen fra verdenshavene?

Hov. Så er der lige de varme vinde. Men de betyder heller ikke noget.

Bliver vores planet måske også varmet op indefra? Varme fra jordens indre?

Hvad var det nu lige jeg skrev tidligere? Noget med at tal ikke altid fortæller sandheden?  Fortæller de offentlige myndigheder sandheden om CO2?

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#cca

Ocean acidification

Are oceans becoming more acidic and is this a threat to marine life?

By Dr J Floor Anthoni (2007)
www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

As the oceans absorb more and more CO2, they may become more acidic. Recent measurements suggest that this is somewhat the case and that grave consequences can be expected. But what is the story? Should we be alarmed? How much is known and how much is not? Is ocean acidification another hoax, a swindle, or do we need to pay serious attention? What are the threats to the oceans? How does ocean acidification work? What is the carbon cycle? In this chapter we will try to foster an in-depth understanding of the CO2 processes in the ocean and where present science fails.  Scientists' overwhelming consensus about ocean acidification is deeply disturbing, as if there exists no doubt; as if there are no uncertainties; as if we know it all. It is equally worrisome that this chapter is the ONLY place in the world where doubts and uncertainties are raised. Our ignorance exceeds knowledge by a wide margin. It's never time not to be skeptical.

The bit missing at the beginning is that CO2 (atmosphere) <=> CO2 (sea water) or in other words, that the carbondioxide in the air is in balance with that in the surface water.

If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises, then more of it will dissolve in the water, working all the way through the chemical reactions, to an increase in acidity and an increase in carbonate CO3. Scientists believe that the sea in pre-industrial times was 'saturated' relative to dissolved limestone, and that recent increases in CO2 have 'desaturated' the sea (beginning in the antarctic sea), with possible dire consequences for sea life. But we have observed that calcium skeletons dissolve back into what scientists call 'saturated' CO3.

Conclusion It is assumed that you have read part 2 carefully and part 3 cursorily (superficially) before reading the conclusion here, so read it again later.

When I am teaching about the sea, in class or standing on the intertidal rocky shore, I am faced with the question of what is the most important thing to remember about the sea. What is the most important thing I learnt in 40 years?

40 ÅR?

Nothing in the sea works as expected:
its physics, chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, biology and ecology do not work as thought;
truth is often opposite to intuition.
The sea is weirder than we can possibly imagine.
To learn about the sea, forget what you were taught at school, open your mind and begin from scratch.

It is an important message that I want you to take home and keep in the back of your mind whenever you read about marine science or planet science. It is a message for scientists too.
 

Dead planet thinking: most oceanographers, physicists, chemists treat the planet as a dead planet, where every force, every process can be described and captured in an equation, and then simulated by a computer. But life frustrates every attempt, as it corrupts equations, while also adapting to changing circumstances. Of all these, the sea is the worst with its unimaginable scale, complexity and influence. We may never be able to unravel the secrets of the sea.

Opening with these thoughts, the (bio)chemistry of the sea is so complicated and unknown that the scare for acidic oceans is entirely unjustified. It is true that humans should act from a position of humility and prudence, adjusting to nature while never exploiting more than 30% of the environment but we have gone far over that limit. Today nature is adjusting to us and we cannot change that without a much smaller human population and much less waste (CO2 is part of human waste). Well, that is not going to happen. So we have to accept that nature is now changing. An important part of that is an increase of the life-bringing gas carbondioxide. With higher CO2 levels, plants will produce more. Hopefully the world will become warmer too, and all this is welcome to the starving billions. As oceans become more acidic, they will become more productive too, adjusting to the new scenario. There will be no 'tipping points' but there could be some unexpected and unforeseen surprises. The world has been changing and adapting to major changes since it came out of the last ice age, and the changes caused by fossil fuel will be relatively small.

As far as the science of ocean acidification goes, there are some major errors and conflicts, and the amount of missing knowledge is much larger than what we know. Scientists have uncritically accepted the findings of the IPCC with critically low 'pre-industrial' levels of CO2, but has anyone tried to grow plants and seedlings at 180ppmv CO2?

So why is acidification considered a problem? This brings us to some questionable science that was looking for an excuse (Victoria Fabry in James C Orr et al. 2005). By examining certain shell forming plankton species like pteropods (wing-foots, pelagic snails that swim with their foot), it was found that some had minor damage to their shells. Apart from being inconclusive, these results were then hailed as proof that higher acidity in the sea would dissolve shells faster and that eventually the snails would not be able to make their shells fast enough, and that this would lead to extensive ecosystem changes and extinction of species. Also coral reefs would dissolve and weaken and combined with global warming, disappear from the face of the ocean. Oops. Correct me from being wrong, but there is something very fishy here. It is known that CO2 dissolved in rain water, makes it more acidic (pH=5.5-6), thus capable of dissolving limestone at a very slow rate, which takes a dripstone stalagmite thousands of years to grow a few kg.  CO2 + CaCO3 + H2O => 2(HCO3)- + 2Ca2+ (note the one way reaction => because water is transported away)So it is thought that more CO2 in ocean water would do the same. Apart from the fact that a pH=6 has 100 times more hydrogen ions than a pH=8, and does not seem to worry freshwater snails in lakes, sea water is almost saturated with calcium (Ca).

Remember the CO2 equilibrium equations that end in carbonate CO3^2- of 0.12 mmol/kg compared to that of Ca²⁺ of 10.4 mmol/kg? This means that there is not enough carbonate in the water to combine with the free calcium, and any increase in CO2 would mean that laying down a limestone skeleton becomes easier rather than more difficult. An increase in carbonate leads to calcification of CaCO3, just the opposite of what is being claimed! In other words, the vast store of calcium in the oceans has a buffering effect. Notice in this respect also the way salts precipitate when making table salt from sea water (/oceano/seawater.htm), with CaCO3 the first to settle out, followed by gypsum CaSO4.

Sarma et al. (1971) reported an increase in alkalinity of about 11 µmol/kg when DIC (CO2 species as Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) increased by about 20µmol/kg, which should create some inconvenient doubt.
 
 

Calcite and aragonite saturation There is a vast discussion going on and many experiments focusing on 'aragonite saturation', meaning that normal sea water should be in balance with the limestone in sea shells, oversaturated even. However, in practice all sea shells dissolve back into sea water, which means that the concept of aragonite saturation and calcite saturation may live only in our minds. Here is what's behind this idea:

 

On the surface of the ocean all dissolved gases are in balance with those in air. But in the water, with the help of sunlight, plants produce oxygen while consuming CO2. So oxygen concentrations are higher and carbon dioxide concentrations lower than in air. As one goes deeper, the beneficial effect of photosynthesis decreases, and CO2 increases due to breathing and decomposition. In theory at least, the water becomes more acidic with depth, to the point that the thin skeletons of plankton critters (coccolithophores, pteropods, foraminifers, etc) could begin to dissolve. This is called the aragonite saturation horizon (0.5-2.5km). Below it, the shells dissolve, whereas above it, they supposedly don't. As we have shown above, this is a dubious concept (Sarma et al, 1971). There is likewise also a calcite saturation horizon (1.5-5km). The concept explains why clay deposits without limestone occur deeper than those with limestone as carbonate ooze. The diagram shows actually measured values for the carbonate ion CO32-  versus depth (red line). Below 2km the concentration is rather static although it decreases further with pressure. Where it crosses the (hypothetical) aragonite saturation horizon, sea shells will be dissolved gradually, and below where it crosses the calcite horizon, calcite will dissolve as well. It is thought that increased CO2, and thus acidity is the cause of this. Sadly actual pH is missing from this graph (why was it not measured?).

Redigeret af Firebird - 26-Maj-2009 kl. 16:14

Har Per A. Hansen løjet om noget?

Nå? Der er stor forskel på meninger og beviser. Ellers kunne man jo bare tro blindt på folk.

Det globale klima? Det lokale klima er det globale klima. Det lokale klima? Klimaet i Danmark, Canada, Brasilien, Australien, Japan, Rusland, Indien, Panama, Alaska, Californien, Mali, Ægyten, Geogien, Kina, Mongoliet, Indonesien osv... Det globale klima? Nordpolen, sydpolen, verdenshavene, solen, månen, El Nino, La Nina..., osv... bortset fra vulkaner, de spiller ingen rolle. Det er der jo ingen beviser for. Slet ikke undersøiske vulkaner. Dem bagatelliserer man bare. Bare luk øjnene. Smart.

Redigeret af Firebird - 26-Maj-2009 kl. 01:56

Clausevitz!

Spiller det en rolle? Kan det ikke være ligemeget, hvem der mener hvad? Det afgørende må vel være beviser som der ikke er blevet manipuleret med i computerprogrammer? Nu mangler vi lige at du benægter, at undersøiske vulkaner har en effekt på vores klima.

http://www.dr.dk/DR2/VidenOm/Ugens+Viden/Maj/20070511100931. htm