Shell-shocked: Ocean acidification likely hampers tiny shell builders in Southern Ocean

Shell-shocked: Ocean acidification likely hampers tiny shell builders in Southern Ocean
Microscopic coccolithophores like this species, Emiliania huxleyi, among the ocean's most common phytoplankton, appear to be declining in the Southern Ocean, a possible result of a changing climate. Credit: Image courtesy Alison Taylor, University of North Carolina Wilmington Microscopy Facility/Wikimedia Commons

A University of Colorado Boulder study shows a ubiquitous type of phytoplankton—tiny organisms that are the base of the marine food web - appears to be suffering from the effects of ocean acidification caused by climate change.

According to the study authors, the single-celled organism under study is a type of "calcifying" plankton called a coccolithophore, which makes energy from sunlight and builds microscopic calcium carbonate shells, or plates, to produce a chalky suit of armor. The researchers used satellites tuned to observe the amount of calcium carbonate present in the surface of the Southern Ocean produced by Emiliania huxleyi, one of the most common species of coccolithophores in the region.

The coccolithophore E. huxleyi is important in the marine carbon cycle and is responsible for nearly half of all calcium carbonate production in the ocean, said lead study author Natalie Freeman, a doctoral student in the CU-Boulder's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC). The new study indicates there has been a 24 percent decline in the amount of calcium carbonate produced in large areas of the Southern Ocean over the past 17 years.

The researchers used satellite measurements and statistical methods to calculate the calcification rate - the amount of calcium carbonate these organisms produced per day in surface ocean waters. Across the entire Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, there was about a 4 percent reduction in calcification rate during the summer months from 1998 to 2014. In addition, the researchers found a 9 percent reduction in calcification during that period in large regions of the Pacific and Indian sectors of the Southern Ocean.

"This is the first study to use satellites to measure the change in the amount of and the calcification rates of the Southern Ocean," said Freeman. "Both have decreased in large portions of the Southern Ocean basin, which is what one might expect considering the ongoing acidification of the world's oceans."

A paper on the subject by Freeman and CU-Boulder Assistant Professor Nicole Lovenduski of ATOC was published online in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) funded the research.

The new study also includes data collected from ships to show that the observed decline in calcification occurs simultaneously with a loss in the amount of carbonate ions. Carbonate ions, a key ingredient in coccolithophore shells, are being significantly depleted via when the world's oceans absorb atmospheric CO2.

The Global Carbon Project, an international environmental organization, estimates roughly 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide from factories, cars, power plants and other human sources were absorbed in 2013 by the world's oceans. NOAA scientists have estimated that global oceans have become up to 30 percent more acidic since the Industrial Revolution.

"While we generally expect acidification to negatively impact coccolithophore calcification and growth, other environmental stressors such as warming may have influenced these processes," said Lovenduski. The two researchers, who also are affiliated with CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, used data collected by the SeaWiFS and MODIS satellite instruments.

"These results suggest that large-scale shifts in the ocean carbon cycle are already occurring and highlight organism and marine ecosystem vulnerability in a ," wrote the CU-Boulder researchers in GRL.

The Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic absorb more human sourced CO2 from the atmosphere than other oceans, and the Southern Ocean is particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification because of its naturally low numbers of carbonate ions. "This study has implications for how sensitive these coccolithophores are to a changing climate, and how their calcification might influence the ."

In a changing climate, the response of these organisms and the ecosystems they support is still unknown. But all signs suggest that acidification will likely place these organisms under increased pressure, threatening them in different ways, including the ability of some cocolithophores to build and maintain a shell, according to the CU-Boulder researchers.


Explore further

Ancient marine algae provides clues of climate change impact on today's microscopic ocean organisms

Journal information: Geophysical Research Letters

Citation: Shell-shocked: Ocean acidification likely hampers tiny shell builders in Southern Ocean (2015, March 25) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-03-shell-shocked-ocean-acidification-hampers-tiny.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
59 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 25, 2015
Relax, . . . the Koch Brothers say these things only produce half of our Oxygen and food, . . so what?

Where are the CO2 Deniers??

read Ocean Acidification: Natural Cycles and Ubiquitous Uncertainties http://landscapes...ies.html

Only after natural cycles of pH change are elucidated can we begin to attribute the residuals to rising CO2

Mar 25, 2015
Be fair gkam, some of us only deny CO2 induced GHE. I am in there with you on ocean acidification.

We are killing our oceans, they can't transform CO2, it stays in the water as H2CO3, acid, and badness ensues.

You know this is from farm run off. How difficult or expensive would it be to enclose our farms. Better than hydroponics. Probably less expensive within a few years.

Mar 25, 2015
WP, we do not need to enclose them, just mandate nutrient management programs. That means anaerobic digestion of farm animal wastes, which can also power the farm. The excreted nutrients can then be re-applied to the soil.

We can get 700Btu/ft3 biogas from dairy wastes.

Mar 25, 2015
This is what many of the AGWites like myself have been warning about for a while. This is actually a is relatively new study based on an old prediction of ocean acidification from excessive CO2 created by fossil fuel combustion. Ocean life with calcified shells would die off (and even go extinct) if we continued pushing more CO2 into the oceans. Of course we all learned in grade school that the fist link in the food chain were the microscopic creatures like the coccolithophores. If you break that like, the trickle-down through the food chain could result in an extremely bleak future for sea food stocks.

It's not just the calcified diatoms that will have difficulty with ocean acidification, other food sources like oysters, clams, conks can be devastated in their fetus forms of development. There are many other man-made problems with the oceans that we really need to addressed like the plastics beads pollution issue for example. Regardless it needs immediate attention.

Dug
Mar 25, 2015
Want less anthropogenic climate impacts like ocean acidification? Easy solution - reduce anthropogenic impactors by 80% over the next few hundred years. We can start to address this now, or wait and have it addressed for us by drastic climate and environmental shifts, and or those that practice proactive resource competition. Neither of which most of us will be able to adapt to or survive anyway.

Mar 25, 2015
Yeah, the Earth is so bountiful. You plant seeds and get wheat. They're even creating solar powered airplanes now.

Can you imagine, the dream of flight possible with the Sun.

I still say it is the dead zones we are creating that are destroying the oceans and creating the acidification, but the point is this:

Fossil fuels, poor farming practices, we don't need either of them. We can be masters of this world--and benign.

During the last deglaciation pH dropped from 8.4 to 8.1 as upwelled nutrient rich waters reached the surface. Periods of more upwelling generate lower pH but higher productivity.As organic carbon from that high productivity sinks and decays it creates high oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) . During the Little Ice Age equatorial productivity declined and shrank. Since 1850 oceans warmed, upwelling increased and the OMZ's expanded. Those dead zones are natural. But I would agree that dead zones created from wastes dumped into the rivers is a problem that needs to be cleaned up.

It's not just the calcified diatoms that will have difficulty with ocean acidification,


Diatoms are not calcified. They have siliceous shells. Also coccolithophores evolved over 200 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 was 2 to 3 times higher than today, so they must be very resilient and todays levels are not a problem. Lastly when coccolithophores, pteropods, foraminifera create their calcite shells, the process releases CO2 and increases local pH. Some researchers suggest formation of calcite shells evolved as a competitive adaptation to help secure for photosynthesis


Mar 26, 2015
Only after natural cycles of pH change are elucidated can we begin to attribute the residuals to rising CO2
@JIm Steele
we can differentiate between natural and man made CO2
http://info.ngwa....1933.pdf
http://www.bitsof...ng-5732/

and jim, if you are going to make claims, you should be linking references or supporting scientific evidence

some of us only deny CO2 induced GHE. I am in there with you on ocean acidification
@positum stultum prophetam/ALKIETROLL
and you are proving my point and showing your extreme ignorance

Mar 26, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Yeah, the Earth is so bountiful. You plant seeds and get wheat. They're even creating solar powered airplanes now
Wow - Earth is bountiful it its creating solar power air planes - didn't know that !

Obviously unfortunate choice of phrase NOT consistent with u having "4 technical degrees" as claimed !

Water_Prophet muttered
Can you imagine, the dream of flight possible with the Sun
I can imagine you MIGHT be able to qualify all your sporadic claims re CO2 being a "red- herring" but after several weeks you still have NOT.

1.5 W/m^2 is NOT in agreement with your claim of 0.00009 W/m^2

Water_Prophet dumb claims AGAIN
I still say it is the dead zones we are creating that are destroying the oceans and creating the acidification, but the point is this
No.

Unless you can prove your claim, show the comparative emissions of CO2, can U ?

Someone with 4 degrees incl Physical Chemistry SHOULD be able to easily ?

Y not u ?

Stumpy I linked to an essay on the matter which contain numerous links to peer reviewed research http://landscapes...ies.html

Second you misunderstand the issue. It is not about subterranean release of hydrocarbons so your links or off point. Upwelling raises CO2 that the biological pump concentrated and stores at ocean depths. The oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. This is well established science.

Mar 27, 2015
Stumpy I linked to an essay on the matter which contain numerous links to peer reviewed research http://landscapes...ies.html
@jim
i don't visit personal sites
if you can't link journal references, then it doesn't exist as far as i am concerned
Too many trolls suck data (Phishing) that way and they can get personal info as well by logging IP addresses (even though i cover that base well, i am still not going to your personal page)
Second you misunderstand the issue.
ASSumption
what makes you think i misunderstand the issue?
I simply follow the science (from reputable peer reviewed sources, NOT from personal sites... zephir has linked to personal sites too, as well as alkie/profit above... doesn't make it legit, it makes me suspect you and your intentions)

legit links only or i won't open them
That was and is my point

don't read something into it that isn't there

my argument with alkie re: CO2 is long and you are not aware of everything
don't make ASSumptions

stumpie,

I am not making assumptions. You are undeniably WRONG and clearly do not understand the issues governing ocean acidification. You can link to whatever literature you choose, you can read or avoid whatever, it still has nothing to do with how confused your understanding is,

Mar 27, 2015
Jim,
Captain Stumpy is all about inane-ing people off the site. He's just here to run intelligent folks of the site. I've seen it many times, he's not alone either. Save your brains.

For example, I think your pH 8.1 comment is interesting, a oH that high would cause a lot of mutation, usually not good mutation, but do you think that might be relevant?

Mar 27, 2015
You can link to whatever literature you choose, you can read or avoid whatever, it still has nothing to do with how confused your understanding is
@jim
that reference is stupid.. i was specifically talking about YOUR reference, but you already knew that

You and i have had this conversation before
my point: just because you SAY you are a(n) (insert claim here) doesn't mean you ARE, on the net
just because you SAY something is peer reviewed and published in a Journal, doesn't mean it is
and i will NOT open links to private sites to "check out how legit" you are
THAT is self reference and makes you no different than the trolling idiot kohl and his pheromone perfume

And asserting someone is "undeniably WRONG and clearly do not understand the issues governing ocean acidification" is simple stupidity as a whole on your part, and clearly a TROLL comment

ya wanna make your point
LINK a REPUTABLE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL study, even if yours
not a PERSONAL site link

Mar 27, 2015
blah blah blah He's just here to run intelligent folks of the site. I've seen it many times, he's not alone either
@the IDIOT alkie/positum stultum prophetam
Making baseless claims is right up YOUR alley
maybe you should argue with each other then?

you both have SIMILAR argument style: argument from self authority
NO reputable links (OR links to personal sites)
intentionally ignoring empirical evidence as well as proven studies
making sweeping arguments without proof or evidence
making CLAIMS with no proof/evidence

you are like TWINS without a brain

thanks for playing

the only time intelligent people leave PO is because TROLLS and IDIOTS who continue to make baseless claims WITHOUT EVIDENCE flood the site with stupidity, like you both are doing right now

personal site links are like toilet paper: you can find it ANYWHERE, but it doesn't mean there is a toilet with it, nor does it support your assertions


Mar 27, 2015
I am not making assumptions. You are undeniably WRONG and clearly do not understand the issues governing ocean acidification
@JimTROLLING
one last point to you (and to positum stultum prophetam ALKIE too)

ANYONE who CLAIMS to have a peer reviewed paper, then LINKS to a PERSONAL site, but cannot provide a link to the original REPUTABLE JOURNAL proving it is a valid peer reviewed study, is simply trying to pass of BULLSH*T as science

Zephir has done this more than once... and the "peer reviewed" study that he linked was found, after researching it, to be RETRACTED because of bad science and false claims

i put you into THAT category UNTIL YOU CAN PROVIDE PROOF OR EVIDENCE

until you can link a legit site that we can query about the actual status of said study or validate your claims, then you are simply posting TROLL comments and LYING

nice to see you completely FORGOT that whole lesson from last time
at least then you linked a legit study after your stupid rant

Mar 27, 2015
See what I mean?

Mar 28, 2015
See what I mean?
@positum stultum prophetam/alkie/greggieT
you still haven't posted a SINGLE link proving or producing evidence that you have debunked those studies that i linked to you
should i link them again?

they're NOT altered, deleted, retracted or in any other way changed from the original publication, therefore, logically, anyone can see you are a liar and not able to prove your claims

but that is nothing new to anyone posting here

you have YET to be able to provide proof of ANY claim you've made
from your own education to the debunking of the studies to your brass bowl to your delusional beliefs

here is a reason WHY you cannot comprehend or even see the science
blinded by your delusions
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 28, 2015
Water_Prophet muttered
See what I mean?
You have great trouble communicating ANY sort of meaning, you constantly show yourself up, so sad & deluded u are !

What do u call those refuting your claims who don't agree with you ?

Haven't U called them goons ?

Y shouldn't we call those who refuse to prove their dumb feeble claims like u - goons ?

Y are your blurts NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

Y don't U seem to have any integrity Water_Prophet ?

so sad Water_Prophet :-(

Apr 05, 2015
Actually posting miles of inane drivel to hid contrary information is a form of information warfare.

Apr 05, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Actually posting miles of inane drivel to hid contrary information is a form of information warfare
There are NO 'miles' only 5 posts & ALL by YOU which YOU somehow had the capacity & Time to edit within the requisite 3 short mins to make more stupid claims !

Are u sane, your tactics r so overwhelmingly obvious. I live in Perth, Western Australia, many years ago 2002, struck up association with a local private investigator to advise of electronic surveillance recorders re power use. Whilst on 'site', we chatted a lot, he's an ex FBI profiler, suffice to say I learned immense amount on various jobs with nothing but time to talk & compare notes, mine with product development & shady commercial partners - him with FBI procedures & stake-outs for 2 decades before he moved to Australia, semi-retiring whilst setting up his home in the hills 30Kms from Perth with great views, even crafted his own concrete heli-pad. U dick Water_Prophet - LOL !

Jim,
Captain Stumpy is all about inane-ing people off the site. He's just here to run intelligent folks of the site. I've seen it many times, he's not alone either. Save your brains.

For example, I think your pH 8.1 comment is interesting, a oH that high would cause a lot of mutation, usually not good mutation, but do you think that might be relevant?


Stumpy has nothing to add but insults and cherrypicks what evidence he will listen too. My guess is Stumpy has absolutely no science background as I do, otherwise he would be able to assess contradictory evidence without all his blather.

Apr 05, 2015
Actually posting miles of inane drivel to hid contrary information is a form of information warfare.
@ALKIE/pfft
then quit posting it

Stumpy has nothing to add but insults and cherrypicks what evidence he will listen too
@jim
wrong again... i follow the evidence
and i will NOT trust anyone who refuses to validate a claim, like you have done repeatedly
that is for suckers and Con Men marks... and i am neither

you STILL haven't provided legitimate links to the studies you claim are peer reviewed, and i am waiting
you've provided those in the past, and i accepted those studies until there was better information (which is why you seem to think i cherry pick..... it is called going with the better evidence)

So jim, where is the empirical evidence in the form of REPUTABLE studies published in a peer reviewed journal which refute my linked studies to alkie or even you?

so far, all i've gotten from you is personal links

Apr 05, 2015
Stumpy has absolutely no science background blah blah blah
@little jimmie
by the way... nice distraction as well as redirect into a straw man argument...
it will fail, of course, because i am still not going to deviate from the main topic

IF you are going to make a CLAIM, then support it with valid, reputable scientific studies posted to reputable peer reviewed journals etc...
Not to personal links to your own site
not to your conjectures or documents that can be made to look official... that is the work of pseudoscience as well as con men, which i think you are being a little of both at times

it doesn't take a scientist to spot STUPID, either... it takes a logical approach as well as the ability to research evidence
and evidence coming from a personal site is NOT legit, scientific or anything other than conjecture until it can be proven to be validated

your claim, your responsibility to prove it

still waiting

Apr 05, 2015
Jim, right you are sir.
Unfortunately, he is either the same person, with many usernames, or part of a pack of cyberbullies.They can usually be id'd by their support of a site called skepticalscience.com.

It is written at the level of an intelligent highschooler, but omits exactly the right data to draw the spurious conclusions of the site's bias.


Stumpy has nothing to add but insults and cherrypicks what evidence he will listen too
@jim

so far, all i've gotten from you is personal links


Just as I said, Stumpy has nothing to offer but insults. Just as in any peer reviewed study, the author presents his interpretation and supports it with evidence from other published papers. All the links to support my argument are there in my essay. If you are afraid to read it, or to respectfully discuss it, that's your choice. It is clear you have absolutely no science background or understanding of the science being discussed to engage in any meaningful discussion. Your your irrelevant links and personal attacks only demonstrate your total ignorance. You can try to cover your butt by attacking me with blather, but I have no doubt that, other than the blind devotees of climate alarmism, your insults only reveal your lack of skill, not mine.

Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Jim, right you are sir
Wrong. Captain Stumpy offers studies & citations whereas u Water_Prophet have NEVER qualified ANY of your claims !

Water_Prophet claimed
.. usually be id'd by their support of a site called skepticalscience.com
Irrelevant. Why can't u prove ANY of your claims ?

Water_Prophet claimed
It is written at the level of an intelligent highschooler, but omits exactly the right data to draw the spurious conclusions of the site's bias.
This is YOU to a Tee !
Your 'interpretation' re WV & then claim is not even high school level, its totally devoid of understanding of heat flow mechanisms especially radiative learned in High School !

U omit CO2 calcs !

btw: I'm told.
Helipad in my last post was only used once in 2004 as part of attempt to garner approval as base for scenic flights, that area has since used only to park a motor home - still a great view of Perth city though :-)

Water_Prophet Y r u here ?

CO2 calcs ?

Apr 06, 2015
@Jim,
Your enemies are mine, it seems. As is anyone who posts anything reasonable.

They just run them off the site with inanity.

Look at Mikey's post above, for months he keeps challenging me to figure out CO2's contribution, so when I show that CO2 is feeble compared to any relevant phenomena, (Sun, atmospheric mixing, etc.). Of course that's not good enough. He can't say what is, lacking the education, but he can whine about it.

It turns out he didn't even graduate from high school and he's throwing stuff at us! Really the man is amazing.

Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Look at Mikey's post above, for months he keeps challenging me to figure out CO2's contribution, so when I show that CO2 is feeble compared to any relevant phenomena, (Sun, atmospheric mixing, etc.). Of course that's not good enough. He can't say what is, lacking the education, but he can whine about it
You havent show ANY figuring out !

U made up a FAKE no. that's 16,666 times LOWER than physicists, scientists & graduates !

Odd thing is u don't know how bad u appear because, u claimed your FAKE 0.00009 is
in "great agreement" with wiki's of 1.5

How is that ANYWHERE near possible ?

I say again, openly & publicly Water_Prophet, you are a LIAR & CHEAT & not ever to be trusted !

Water_Prophet claimed
It turns out he didn't even graduate from high school and he's throwing stuff at us! Really the man is amazing
Prove it.

U asked my credentials & I proved them; Curtin University in Western Australia, Student 07602128, ph them asap !

Apr 06, 2015
No, look at them, you didn't even do that great a job with your "transparent tricks," you're a very desperate pretender.

Where as you, pathetically and invasively dived into my life and discovered I've done amazing things, acknowledge by academic, institutional, military and professional institutions, plainly and unbiased on the web. This isn't good enough for you and so I am supposed to bow down to your substanceless criticism whose only originality comes from my own posts!

I'll get right on that.

:oD :oD :oD

Mikey, I think you just need some kind of acknowledgement, ignored as a child or something, worked very hard with no ability and nothing to show, and now here you are polluting environmental sciences.

Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
No, look at them, you didn't even do that great a job with your "transparent tricks," you're a very desperate pretender
What tricks, teh EVIDENCE is clear I have reminded you OFTEN to prove your claims - Y can't YOU ?

Water_Prophet claimed
.. discovered I've done amazing things, acknowledge by academic, institutional, military and professional institutions, plainly and unbiased on the web
Beg pardon ?
What 'amazing things' have you done, show me ONE - no claims, actual factual evidence - Y can't U ?

Water_Prophet claimed
This isn't good enough for you and so I am supposed to bow down to your substanceless criticism whose only originality comes from my own posts!
ALL I ask is u prove your claims !

Water_Prophet claimed
..acknowledgement, ignored as a child or something, worked very hard with no ability and nothing to show, and now here you are polluting environmental sciences.
ALL I ask is you prove your claims !

Y can't U ?

Apr 06, 2015
Mikey, you know that no proof will satisfy you and Albert Einstein would fail your criteria.
But you! everyone on the site should bow down to you, everything you have done is amazing, and you post it for everyone to see! as well, how magnanimous!

..acknowledgement, ignored as a child or something, worked very hard with no ability and nothing to show, and now here you are polluting environmental sciences.
ALL I ask is you prove your claims !


This, at least is easy.

Post an original thought.

Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Mikey, you know that no proof will satisfy you and Albert Einstein would fail your criteria[/qNo. Name of Institute and year started each of your "4 technical degrees" ?

Water_Prophet claimed
...everything you have done is amazing, and you post it for everyone to see!
No. You asked & one other dick here for proof and I have responded - thats it - doh ?

Where is YOUR proof ?

ALL I ask is you prove your claims !

Water_Prophet claimed
This, at least is easy.
Post an original thought.
I work, you obviously don't, Its easy to find if you are on welfare, you did know that didn't you ?

Name of Institute & years started each of your "4 technical degrees" please ?

Apr 06, 2015
That's personal information to someone who has demonstrated they are untrustworthy.

And all I ask from you is just one original thought.

Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
That's personal information to someone who has demonstrated they are untrustworthy
YOU have SHOWN many times you make arbitrary idle claims which are NOT ever proven or even qualified in the slightest !

Where is there ANY proof of:-
1. Your "4 technical degrees"
2. Your CO2 claim re 0.00009W/m^2
3. Its in "great agreement" with wiki ?
4. Business uses your results ?

Where - any, even one of the above

Water_Prophet claimed
And all I ask from you is just one original thought.
On what topic & why when YOU have STILL to prove your claims, none of which are in 'agreement' or cognisant of Physics !

Even your pathetic water bowl which all it does for primary school kids is show ice melts - doh !

U want something original, check out my later web page:-
http://niche.iinet.net.au

I design electronics products and have done so for decades, many are not for public view, this one is, its dead simple even you might understand the principle !

Apr 06, 2015
Just ONE original thought.
It is pretty clear you make up, making up electronics products for decades. Your name is just all over it.
NOT so much. I see alot of vanity press when I look you up, consistent with a very sorry persona.

So you know my name, what happens when you google it? Any vanity press? or is it all from institutions? Unbiased sources.
You lose again Mikey.

Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
It is pretty clear you make up, making up electronics products for decades
Its called Design - u ignoramus !

There is nothing on ANY of your facebook pages to show what U do - Y is that ?

What do u do please ?

I am open with public, I am an electronic design engineer, see my resume & referees ?

Where r yours - anywhere ?

Water_Prophet claimed
So you know my name, what happens when you google it?
No. My data (so far) shows there are at 6 "Gregory M Tyler" in USA (at least), 3 are not contactable yet, 3 have been sent email & facebook msgs & on through a publisher.

Do u really claim to be the particular "Gregory M.Tyler" directly mentioned on this specific wiki page:-
http://en.wikiped.../RiskAoA

Yes or No ?

Its a simple question & must be answered directly with responsibility !

Apr 06, 2015
You already know it's true, that is on my public facebook, why have you been dancing around it? Just searching for a way to defame it? I can't wait.

Actually that wiki is horribly out of date.

Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
You already know it's true, that is on my public facebook, why have you been dancing around it? Just searching for a way to defame it? I can't wait
Your facebook page here ONLY shows you have high school exposure, not whether you passed and NOTHING re employment or ANYTHING in any way at all related to your claimed "4 technical degrees" and NOTHING re any of your claims here re "Predictive analysis" - nada, zero, zilch !

Water_Prophet claimed
Actually that wiki is horribly out of date.
That is possible as its clear the ppm for CO2 has risen, runrig gave you the formula but you ignored it WHY ?

As a claimed "Physical Chemist" why on Earth would you ignore a formula re radiative emissions ?

You NEVER challenged it.

You NEVER offered any critique.

You NEVER offered any rationale.

You NEVER countered with ANYTHING ever to show WHY your figure is 16,666 times LESS than wiki.

Why is that, do you have ANY university training at all ?

Apr 06, 2015
Well, mikey, if it is indeed true, then I have changed the world with only a HS diploma. That would be much more amazing, don't you think?

Apr 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Well, mikey, if it is indeed true, then I have changed the world with only a HS diploma. That would be much more amazing, don't you think?
No. There is ZERO evidence you have 'changed' the world for the better by LYING & CHEATING and obfuscating Science by FAKING CO2's radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2.

Whats worse is you claim your low figure is in "great agreement" with 1.5W/m^2

This PROVES you are immensely deluded and especially so making a stupid claim you are the same person who has contributed technical work to the US defence department !

So sad, Water_Prophet FAILS again !

btw:
Just where & when did you get your "4 technical degrees" you publicly claimed on phys.org ?

Apr 07, 2015
in my essay
@jim
and again, an essay is NOT the same thing as a scientific study, otherwise you would be linking to a scientific STUDY from a reputable journal, not to your personal site
afraid to read it
and again, until it is presented on a REPUTABLE site then i am not visiting your personal site: phishing, etc
It is clear you have absolutely no science background blah blah blah meaningful discussion
what is actually clear is that you are intentionally dodging the respectable science and reputable journals as well as studies
for what reason?

you keep making this argument personal when it is simply about the evidence
you have none that is NOT personal, and i require validated studies, or at least STUDIES that are linked to reputable sites

we CAN engage in discourse, but not until you can provide valid studies linked to reputable sites
everything else is conjecture
might as well link this: http://tylervigen...id=28709

Apr 07, 2015
Your your irrelevant links and personal attacks only demonstrate your total ignorance
@jimmie
how are ANY of the studies linked irrelevant to climate change? You still haven't answered any of my questions
You can try to cover your butt by attacking me with blather
i am not attacking you, i am pointing out the fallacies with which you are trying to argue a point

conjecture is not equivalent to scientific studies, and neither are essays, no matter how well written or researched

i will reiterate for you: this argument is about logic as well as sources

you choose to state that your source (you) is somehow more valid than the scientific community and the linked studies with your repeated argument sans reputable links

you provide no valid studies supporting said conclusions
this is typically called Dunning-Kruger

the ONLY thing that differs between you & a preacher is your name

faith =/= reality

Apr 07, 2015
so far, all i've gotten from you is personal links
Just as I said, Stumpy has nothing to offer but insults
@jim
i do find this very interesting, from a psychology POV
why do you think i am offering you an insult with the above quote?LOL

you are still trying to distract away from the main topic between us: the validity of your essays and why you think they should be considered substantial or equivalent to the data found in studies

you have made a conjecture and linked your personal site and an essay (rule 37)

you've provided NO studies or empirical evidence that can be validated

you are claiming that we are wrong for ignoring said claims because you are somehow educated beyond all of our abilities and, of course, this proves we are all substantially beneath you in education, etc

how does this validate your link or claims?
why should we believe YOU over the studies and the overwhelming science?

take your time in answering, please
and please elaborate

]Stumpy lies "what is actually clear is that you are intentionally dodging the respectable science and reputable journals as well as studies for what reason?"


Stumpy you make up whatever you want to fit your weak attempts to denigrate views you can not understand. The essay is a synthesis of several peer reviewed papers from reputable journals. But of course you wouldn't know that because you are afraid t read my synthesis.

The real question is why do you blather on about stuff you never read? Its hard to see you as anything more than a mean spirited internet sniper with no scientific background.

Using stumpy-logic , why should we believe or even read anything from Stumpy until he shows us peer-reviewed papers he has written in order for us to know if he has any scientific skill or is he just pulling words from the bowels of is knowledge.

Apr 07, 2015
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles claimed
..essay is a synthesis of several peer reviewed papers from reputable journals
Claiming your particular words are in some way properly related in terms of content, context or has foundation in salient issues re concentration equilibria & distribution gets a major hit in the head with your unsubstantiated claim, on your site:-

"..But the ever-changing conditions of surface waters exert far more powerful effects."

Implies the essential understanding of equilibria, mixing, diffusion & its resultant chemistry of any CO2 below the surface is instantly changed & cannot be understood integrated by your "..ever-changing conditions..."

Can't u see this is NOT particularly credible ?

Simply because the surface region is a very small part of the vast volume of the oceans & you seem to ignore immense propensity for CO2 to be distributed approaching equilibria.

Please qualify "..far more powerful effects" as key invalidating etc

Apr 07, 2015
Jim, so I showed Mikey that I was indeed a renown scientist, after he essentially cycber stalked me to discredit me. Now I need to show him my degrees. What do you think criticism will be after that?

Anyway, so I have a few crazy ideas that just get attacked by morons on this site, yet in 30 years have well predicted climate change.

Since you're new to the site, and seem open minded I expose you to them, with the understanding it is a conceptual and iterative model.

The simple model is that, if we assume the same principles are at work on Earth as they are in a simple system, we can predict climate change.
1. The Earth's bulk equilibrium changes slowly; rationale, people can argue about global change.
2. Since it changes so slowly, we can assume changes happen in "text book" equilibrium.

Well that's to start. Let me know if you're game.

Apr 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Jim, so I showed Mikey that I was indeed a renown scientist, after he essentially cycber stalked me to discredit me
U r not funny u r tragic Water_Prophet, u don't know how u appear to all as so deluded - sad !

Water_Prophet claimed
Anyway, so I have a few crazy ideas that just get attacked by morons on this site, yet in 30 years have well predicted climate change
Others ahead of u LONG before u were even born !

Water_Prophet claimed
The simple model is that, if we assume the same principles are at work on Earth as they are in a simple system, we can predict climate change
U still FAILED to prove ANY of your claims:-

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Grow up or go away !

Please

JIm Steele claimed
"..But the ever-changing conditions of surface waters exert far more powerful effects."


Mike says "Can't u see this is NOT particularly credible ?


Huh???

Challenging the credibility of that statement, suggests you are unfamiliar with basic oceanography. All researchers would agree with my statement.

The consensus

1. CO2 enters or leaves the ocean depending on pCO2 gradient

2. The atmospheric pCO2 changes relatively slowly compared to the ocean

3. The oceans contain over 50x more CO2 and is increasingly concentrated to deeper depths via the biological pump. Without pump, CO2 would be diffusing from the ocean.

4. Biological pump lowers surface pCO2, so that CO2 can enter

5. But where ever deeper waters are upwelled, the surface water pCO2 increases, often becomes 2x greater than atmospheric pCO2, Therefore CO2 outgasses.

6. Oean surfaces requires 1-2 years to reach equilibrium with atmosphere. Sometimes 10 years

stumpy says, "you are still trying to distract away from the main topic between us: the validity of your essays


ROTFLMAO. Stumpy, You have not discussed nor read my essay. SO the only one trying to distract the discussion away from the essay's validity is Stumpy and your endless blather and psychobabble.

Do you really want to discuss the validity of the essay then quit the personal BS. The validity of the essay is not determined appealing to nebulous authority. It is based on evaluating the evidence and the mechanisms.

Apr 07, 2015
Jim,
I didn't believe 1. or 2. , until I read the rest. Who would believe, off the cuff, that liquid changes faster than gas. That really is an excellent discussion/presentation.

I know I am going to be mocked for saying so...

So, if the ocean's photosynthesis process are dying, this means that ocean acidification is more likely a result of that, than any increase in atm. CO2.

Apr 09, 2015
Stumpy you make up whatever you want
@jim
you are the one posting conjecture and making the suggestion that it somehow is equivalent to studies... not i
The real question... stuff you never read?
why read someone's personal opinion on a subject, especially if it is contradicted by the science?
Its hard to see you as anything more than a mean spirited internet sniper with no scientific background
yep! a LOT of the trolls and pseudoscience hacks here say the exact same thing when they cannot produce any REPUTABLE evidence or studies supporting their conjectures
why should we believe or even read anything from Stumpy until he shows us peer-reviewed papers he has written in order for us to know if he has any scientific skill
and again, you are demonstrating that you cannot follow simple logic
it is not about the individual at all, it is about the quality of the link and the study
IOW-the SCIENCE

con't

Stumpy attempts to denigrate "why read someone's personal opinion on a subject, especially if it is contradicted by the science?


ROTFLMAO You are talking out of your butt stumpy. If you never read what I wrote, then how do you know it is "contradicted by science"??!!?? You are just out here sniping with dishonest words.

Everything I wrote is supported by peer reviewed science and driven by a sincere attempt to have a scientific discussion. Links to all the science are provided.

Everything Stumpy writes is psychobabble based on his imagination, and the delusion he is the protector of science despite the fact he has provided absolutely no relevant evidence, and driven by his obsession to smear all skeptics that threaten his virtual reality.

Stumpy you defile the scientific process!

Apr 09, 2015
Or Stumpy is at least partially a bot.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more