New threat from ocean acidification emerges in the Southern Ocean

New threat from ocean acidification emerges in the Southern Ocean
Diatoms are unique phytoplankton in that they need silicic acid to produce silica cell walls. Under the microscope they look like beautiful glass jewellery boxes, but importantly, this dense, glass-like armour promotes sinking, which makes diatoms an important conduit for transport of carbon to the deep ocean where it can be stored for millennia. Credit: Katherina Petrou

The oceans act as a carbon sink and have already absorbed more than 40% of anthropogenic carbon emissions. The majority of this CO2 has been taken up by the Southern Ocean making these waters hotspots of ocean acidification (OA).

Lead author of the paper published in Nature Climate Change, Dr. Katherina Petrou from the University of Technology Sydney, said that although changes in pH have been shown to impact marine calcifying organisms, the consequences for non-calcifying are less clear.

"Previous studies reported a range of responses to OA [in phytoplankton] yet rarely considered how environmental pH shifts might affect silicification rates in diatoms," she says.

"Diatoms are unique phytoplankton in that they need silicic acid to produce silica cell walls. Under the microscope they look like beautiful glass jewellery boxes, but importantly, this dense, glass-like armour promotes sinking, which makes diatoms an important conduit for transport of carbon to the where it can be stored for millennia."

Diatoms are responsible for around 40% of ocean productivity which means they play a major role in supporting marine food webs, sustaining life for millions of creatures, including humans.

The research was carried out the Australian Antarctic base, Davis station, by a team of scientists from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Southern Cross University (SCU), the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) and the University of Tasmania. Using large 650 L experimental tanks, a temperature controlled 40-foot container and natural coastal water, their research was designed to investigate the effects of predicted future changes in ocean acidity on the community structure of the Antarctic phytoplankton.

"We were alarmed to find that diatoms were so negatively affected, with some species likely to have diminished silica production before the end of this century," says Dr. Petrou.

In the context of global climate change, these findings are important because they reveal that OA can notonly alter community composition, but also reduce ballast (sinking ability), adds SCU based Kai Schulz. Loss of silica production and thus ballast could mean that fewer diatoms end up on the , resulting in less atmospheric CO2 being removed from our atmosphere and transported for storage in the deep ocean.

"The only genuine way to circumvent this outcome, is to cut our greenhouse gas emissions and limit the acidification of our oceans," the researchers say.


Explore further

Algae-killing viruses spur nutrient recycling in oceans

More information: Acidification diminishes diatom silica production in the Southern Ocean, Nature Climate Change (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0557-y , https://nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0557-y
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Citation: New threat from ocean acidification emerges in the Southern Ocean (2019, August 26) retrieved 21 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-threat-ocean-acidification-emerges-southern.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.
1089 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 26, 2019
Publishing articles like this continues the impression that Earth is only just starting (maybe) irreversible warming in the form of altered chemistry in its most basic lifeforms.

Presumably because no one wants to hear how badly mankind has changed to course of life on the planet.

Is it too late to stop the changes? Are you truly stupid?

Aug 27, 2019
The silica goes to the bottom, the organic matter which contains the carbon does not. It is food for other organisms. Little, if any, of diatom cellular remains reaches the bottom, much less stays there. Diatomaceous cherts are good examples. The same is true for calcareous algae.

Aug 29, 2019
This is the first time I've heard the Southern Ocean referred to as a "hot spot." But, other than that humorous bit, this article & paper are a mess.

I doubt that 40% of anthropogenic CO2 has ended up in the oceans; it's probably under 30%. AR5 (Fig 6.1) estimates that the oceans are currently removing 26% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

It certainly isn't true that "the majority of this CO2 has been taken up by the Southern Ocean," either. The Southern Ocean comprises less than 6% of the Earth's total oceanic surface, so it obviously isn't absorbing >50% of the CO2 which is absorbed by the oceans.

The claim that diatoms could be threatened by elevated CO2, is implausible, too. They are extraordinarily diverse, and thrive in nearly every body of water in the world, regardless of pH. They've been around for at least 200 million years, and for most of that time CO2 levels were much higher than now, in fact much higher than they can plausibly reach due to fossil fuel use.

Aug 29, 2019
The pH of the oceans has been much lower in the geological past when CO2 was more than double what it is today. The carbonate-secreting plankton were not affected. The late Eocene pCO2 was above 760 ppm and the Tertiary period was mild. There are no algae other than the calcite-coccoliths that can affect CO2, long-term. They are all food for animals. Their tissues contain the "sequestered" carbon and it is recycled by aerobic respiration. Unless organic carbon is buried away from the oxygen it created it will be recycled. Carbonate biomineralization has done that job over billions of years. That's why the percentage ratio of oxygen to CO2 is 525.

Aug 30, 2019
@Broadlands.
The pH of the oceans has been much lower in the geological past when CO2 was more than double what it is today. The carbonate-secreting plankton were not affected. The late Eocene pCO2 was above 760 ppm and the Tertiary period was mild. There are no algae other than the calcite-coccoliths that can affect CO2, long-term. They are all food for animals. Their tissues contain the "sequestered" carbon and it is recycled by aerobic respiration. Unless organic carbon is buried away from the oxygen it created it will be recycled. Carbonate biomineralization has done that job over billions of years. That's why the percentage ratio of oxygen to CO2 is 525.
Your assumptions/conclusions are simplistic/incorrect, mate. The higher atmospheric CO2 would have made ocean/seas too warm to absorb much CO2. Also, consequentially higher Methane releases would also exacerbate warming/outgassing of/from ocean/seas waters. Please read/understand more deeply ALL the factors. Cheers. :)

Aug 30, 2019
Reality?? Read a few papers before making your ex-cathedra assertions about incorrect assumptions.

Nature 461, 1110-1113 (22 October 2009)
Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene–Oligocene climate transition
Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster, Bridget S. Wade
Geological and geochemical evidence indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene–Oligocene transition 33.5–34.0 million years ago. Modelling studies suggest that such ice-sheet formation might have been triggered when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fell below a critical threshold of ~750 p.p.m.v. During maximum ice-sheet growth, pCO2 was between 450 and 1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of 760 p.p.m.v.

Diatoms frustules are amorphous silica. The enclosing cellular material contains carbon. It is oxidized, recycled, and the silica goes to the bottom. No long-term sequestered CO2 is involved. All this has nothing to do with "acidification".


Aug 30, 2019
@Broadlands.

You failed to note that during the Eocene it was HOTTER and the CO2 was more in the atmosphere than dissolved in warm waters. Not to mention that the biological processes resulted in vast sequestration' of carbon in the ocean sedimentary stratas (Methane/Hydrates etc/Oil) and in Coal/Peat beds on land. Ice sheet formation began at the END of the Eocene and was probably due to supervolcanism and/or asteroid strikes etc sending vast quantities of material into stratospheric levels which caused immediate winter conditions which then started a feedback mechanism due to the lowered CO2/Methane in atmosphere due to the CO2 drawdown/sequestration which was the feature of the increased biological activity whose remnants added up to all the vast coal/oil/gas 'reservoirs' we have been tapping into since INDUSTRIAL revolution.

Seriously, mate; while you can obviously read, you also need to fully understand the interplay/implications of ALL that you read. Complex. Good luck. :)

Aug 31, 2019
Reality?? The pH of the oceans was well below what you complain about today. The carbonate plankton were unaffected by the CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Please provide evidence for your unsupported statements...a scientific reference is usually required.

Aug 31, 2019
Reality?? The pH of the oceans was well below what you complain about today. The carbonate plankton were unaffected by the CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Please provide evidence for your unsupported statements...a scientific reference is usually required.

Yes, but it's been millions of years since the pH levels were this low and, previously, the climate changed slowly so organisms could evolve to survive. The current climate change is incredibly rapid, giving organisms no time at all to evolve (https://www.iucn....fication ). Previously, when the climate changed rapidly like it is now, massive extinctions took place. You can say that you don't care (although that would indicate a certain incompetence about yourself), but it is reality.

Aug 31, 2019
I also suspect that it's incorrect to say that the plankton were unaffected. I don't know about plankton, but corals are severely affected by lower pH levels (https://www.natur...-13.html ).

For plankton, there's evidence that acidification makes it less nutritious (https://journals.....0217047 ) and even toxic (http://www.planet...lankton/ ) so it's hard to see how anyone could make the claim that they're "unaffected".

Aug 31, 2019
@Broadlands.
The pH of the oceans was well below what you complain about today. The carbonate plankton were unaffected by the CO2 dissolved in the oceans.
Did you not understand the implications of what I advised in the last paragraph of my last post, mate? Consider. Before the Eocene, there were a certain set of biological and geological processes which sequestered a lot of Carbon into coal/peat/Oil/Methane reservoirs. Then the Eocene warming increased ATMOSPHERIC CO2 load to the point that Ocean waters could not absorb much more CO2 and became LESS 'acidic' due to CO2 outgassing from surface waters. The end of the Eocene (due to probable supervolcanism/asteroid strike etc) triggered transition to Ice age. During which transition the plankton processes recovered and created even more Carbon sequestration of Coal/Peat/Oil/Methane. You need to read AND comprehend ALL the subtle/complex interplays/implications, mate. Your 'reading/concluding' of the data is too 'simplistic'.

Sep 01, 2019
zz5555, I think you underestimate the speed with which evolutionary adaptation can proceed. The Russians turned wild foxes into thoroughly domesticated house pets in a few dozen generations, breeding just a few tens of thousands of individuals. http://doi.org/10...00800070 Diatoms have enormously greater populations, and they live less than a week, so they should respond to evolutionary pressure much more quickly than foxes do. (Corals are somewhere in between.)

You might also be unaware of the tremendous natural variation in pH which occurs in the oceans: variation over time, variation with depth, and even variation between ocean basins. Here's a graph, comparing pH v. depth profiles of the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans:
https://sealevel....epth.png

Of course, diatoms (and corals) thrive in both Atlantic and Pacific.

Sep 01, 2019
This one thinks "plankton" is a single species.

Sep 01, 2019
the pH of the oceans does indeed vary widely but is much higher now than in the geological past. There is no detrimental global-scale effect on the carbonate fauna. Nor, was there any in the past. Diatomites formed as did Radiolarian cherts. Vertebrates formed phosphate bone-beds. None of them stored CO2. Only limestones can do that. This biomineralization was very successful but took billions of years. That's why atmospheric CO2 is now a trace gas.

"The only genuine way to circumvent this outcome, is to cut our greenhouse gas emissions and limit the acidification of our oceans," the researchers say." Lilliputions on the world stage? Cutting emissions does not lower the level of CO2, now at 415 ppm.


Sep 01, 2019
@Broadlands.

You keep missing the elephant in the room, mate. It's not just biomineralisation of CO2, but also bio-sequestration of biologically sourced Carbon per se. Hence the coal, peat, oil, methane which nature sequestered in vast quantities and that we are rapidly accessing/burning NOW. That is the immediate problem. The biomineralisation continues as it ever has, since it is a natural cycle. Whereas OUR de-sequestration and burning of biologically sourced Carbon in the form of coal, peat, oil, methane NOW is undoing all the good work nature did when she originally sequestered it in such vast quantities. Regardless of your views, anyone who, believes that rapid de-sequestration and burning of such vast quantities of fossil fuels will not adversely affect us NOW and in the near future, is a danger to themselves and their families as well as all humanity. Have some common sense and human intelligence, and see that arguing and sophistry and denial are NOT 'survival tools'.

Sep 01, 2019
Mr. Reality? Biologically sourced carbon is temporary. The oxygen it created recycles it. Please tell us how much one part-per-million of CO2 weighs. You have told us we must get rid of some of it as a survival tool. CO2 is considered a "dangerous" polluting waste by-product of our energy? We will need to capture and store lots of it somewhere. How many tons are you talking about? The "elephant" in the global room needs to know. One ppm?

Sep 01, 2019
@Broadlands.
Biologically sourced carbon is temporary. The oxygen it created recycles it. Please tell us how much one part-per-million of CO2 weighs. You have told us we must get rid of some of it as a survival tool. CO2 is considered a "dangerous" polluting waste by-product of our energy? We will need to capture and store lots of it somewhere. How many tons are you talking about? The "elephant" in the global room needs to know. One ppm?
Seriously and with all due respect, mate, you should properly read, think and understand more before proceeding. How do you think all the coal, peat, oil and gas reservoirs we are now exploiting got there? By magic? Realise that nature provides acidic and/or low/no oxygen conditions/situations whereby biologically sourced Carbon is NOT 'oxidised'; and buried until we come along and undo all that good work nature did in sequestering Carbon and allow oxygen to remain in atmosphere at levels we can survive by). Get real, think and learn, mate. :)

Sep 01, 2019
RealityCheck, throughout history, drought-driven famine was one of mankind's great scourges, alongside war & epidemic — until now. E.g., the global drought & famine of 1876-78 killed ≈3.7% of world population.

A major reason famines are now rare is elevated CO2 (eCO2).

1. eCO2 has increased crop yields by an average of roughly 20%, thru "CO2 fertilization." It's just one of several factors that have contributed to higher crop yields, but it's important. Without that increase, mankind could approximately make up the shortfall by putting ALL of the world's rainforests to agricultural use.

2. eCO2 makes crops more water-efficient & drought-tolerant, by improving stomatal conductance relative to transpiration. It means eCO2 is especially beneficial where it's most needed: where drought threatens harvests.

Those benefits have been proven by 1000s of studies, including studies of every major crop. There're no plausible harms from eCO2 which are of importance comparable to those benefits.

Sep 01, 2019
@ncdave4life.

You fall into simplistic error, mate. Global transportation/storage has improved enormously where before there was no hope of going to the rescue of populations under threat of famine. Other factor was wars and pestilence coinciding with poor environmental conditions. The reason so much food can be grown/distributed today is because of improved wide-acre and mechanised agriculture/fertilisers based on industrially produced/mined essential nutrients like phosphorus, calcium, nitrogen, potassium and trace elements thrown in. Your simplistic attribution of more food to CO2 'fertilisation' is missing those most important factors; as well as the critical factor that water availability determines how well, or not, plants can utilise that extra CO2. In any case, the previous 'tolerable' weather patterns and natural water/rain etc distribution are being de-stabilised to the point that any benefits from increased CO2 are far outweighed by detrimental consequences globally.

Sep 01, 2019
Broadlands asked, "tell us how much one part-per-million of CO2 weighs."

I maintain a handy page of "conversion factors" with answers to questions like that, here:

https://www.seale...ors.html

One ppmv of CO2 weighs about 8.053 Gt (billion metric tonnes), of which 12/44-ths or 2.196 Gt is carbon.

"GtC" is an abbreviation for "gigatonnes of carbon" (and "PgC" is a synonym, meaning "petagrams of carbon") so one ppmv CO2 = 2.196 GtC = 2.196 PgC.

Sep 02, 2019
RealityCheck, didn't you even read what I wrote?

I wrote that eCO2 is "just one of several factors that have contributed to higher crop yields." Your accusation that I simplistically attributed yield improvements to just CO2 fertilization misrepresents me.

Your claim that "The reason" crop yields increased is mechanized agriculture & chemical fertilizers is also wrong. They contributed, but they aren't the only reasons. Improvements are also due to improved cultivars, pest control, and eCO2. eCO2 contributed ≈20% improvement.

Your claim that "weather patterns and natural water/rain etc distribution are being de-stabilised" is nonsense. Drought incidence & severity are trending down slightly.

Your claim that "water availability determines how well, or not, plants can utilise that extra CO2" is exactly backward. Water availability determines whether plants can withstand being grown WITHOUT eCO2. eCO2 makes crops more drought tolerant, enabling successful harvests with LESS water.

Sep 02, 2019
NcDave... Your answer is close enough. How does global realism (reality) plan to lower and remove that amount of CO2 by 2050? One ppm of CO2 is ~8000 million tons. The best industrial CCS technology removes and stores CO2 in just a few millions annually. The Paris agreement calls for many more than just one ppm. Some people say 65 ppm to get us back to 350 ppm. That's half-a-trillion. Simplistic solution? Feed iron to diatoms? Plant trees? Ride a bicycle?

Sep 02, 2019
Broadlands, mankind is currently emitting roughly 10 GtC/year = 4.5 ppmv CO2 / year. But CO2 levels are only rising about half that fast. That's because natural processes (oceans & terrestrial biosphere) are currently REMOVING the CO2 much faster than natural processes PRODUCE it.

The higher CO2 levels go, the faster "negative feedbacks" such as accelerated terrestrial greening and accelerated dissolution in the ocean (per Henry's Law) remove CO2 from the atmosphere:
https://www.quora...Burton-2

If human CO2 emissions were merely halved, atmospheric CO2 levels would cease rising. If CO2 emissions were reduced by more than about half, CO2 levels would be falling, instead of rising.

Sep 02, 2019
@ncdave4life.
Your claim that "weather patterns and natural water/rain etc distribution are being de-stabilised" is nonsense. Drought incidence & severity are trending down slightly.
You can't be serious, mate! We here in OZ are experiencing the most severe, log lasting, deep, extensive and damaging droughts on record...and only getting worse!

Re extreme/unprecedented destructive events/patterns on the OPPOSITE END of the spectrum: Hurricane DORIAN makes it an unprecedented FOURTH YEAR IN A ROW that a Cat-5 Hurricane formed in the Atlantic.
Your claim that "water availability determines how well, or not, plants can utilise that extra CO2" is exactly backward. Water availability determines whether plants can withstand being grown WITHOUT eCO2. eCO2 makes crops more drought tolerant, enabling successful harvests with LESS water.
With NO water (severe/longlasting droughts) or with TOO MUCH water (unseasonal/devastating storms/floods) that is all moot. Get real, mate. :)

Sep 02, 2019
NcDave... The point, once again, is that ceasing our emissions will not reduce CO2 already in the atmosphere. Only permanent storage...safe geological burial can do that. Given the fact that one part-per-million of CO2 is ~8000 million tons, that is not likely. Yes, nature buried carbon (carbonate and biomass) but it took millions of years. Last year humans added almost 40 gigatons. And yes it is equilibrating naturally, but we are now at ~415 ppm. While we slowly transition globally to all the non-carbon alternatives we will have to keep using carbon (biofuels?) until the zero goal is attained. The cumulative amount added could make that 415 almost 500 ppm. Meanwhile, weather destruction, floods and droughts will continue. It always has. Get used to reading that a new CO2 record has again been set. It is unavoidable no matter what we do to complain and urge that action is taken.

Sep 02, 2019
RealityCheck, there are always droughts somewhere. Congratulations, it's your turn.

Globally, drought incidence & severity are trending slightly down.
https://www.natur...ata20141
https://sealevel....ig5c.png

Obviously, if there's NO water, no amount of eCO2 will save crops. But eCO2 absolutely reduces drought damage to crops.

Likewise, there's no increasing trend in hurricanes & tropical cyclones.
https://twitter.c...30407680
"there is no observational data to suggest [hurricanes] are any worse than they used to be. Not stronger or more frequent or producing more rain."
https://journals....7-0184.1
https://www.scien...18301549

Also, AR5 2.6.2.2 says, "In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale."

Sep 02, 2019
@ncdave4life.

Your referenced info is already out of date, mate. Since 2012 there has been increased severity/depth/extensive droughts all around the globe; the most recent in Europe and Australia which has made 'historical forecasting' moot now. It's the reality on the ground now, as we speak, that is the relevant info; and no amount of historical references will reverse the dire trending for immediate/medium term. And your likewise resort to 'historical forecasting' for storms/floods etc is likewise out of date; witness Hurrican Dorian being the fourth Cat-5 Hurricane in four years. Drop all the old/out-of-date approaches to reality now, mate; as the reality now is not what would be 'predicted' based on old datasets like you depend on for your arguments/assertions so far. Get real and get current. Good luck to us all. :)

Sep 02, 2019
Broadlands wrote:
ceasing our emissions will not reduce CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Actually, it would.

Mauna Loa CO2 is currently about 411 ppmv:
https://sealevel.info/co2.html

If anthropogenic CO2 emissions ceased today, CO2 levels would fall below 350 ppmv in about thirty years:
http://www.drroys...-budget/

Broadlands continued:
Only permanent storage...safe geological burial can do that.

Not so. Transfer of carbon from the atmosphere to other carbon reservoirs, like the biosphere, soil and oceans, also reduces CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (Note: there's nearly 50x as much CO2 in the oceans as in the atmosphere.)

Broadlands wrote:
Last year humans added almost 40 gigatons [of CO2 to the atmosphere].

Right. But 40 gigatonnes of CO2 is (40/8.053)=4.97 ppmv. Yet over the last ten years atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by an average of only 2.40 ppmv per year.

Where do you think the rest went?

Sep 02, 2019
Broadlands, if CO2 emissions were reduced by 20 Gt (=2.48 ppmv), the year-on-year CO2 increase would obviously be reduced by 2.48 ppmv.

The current average rate of annual CO2 increase is about 2.40 ppmv/yr. (That's averaged over ten years.)

2.40 ppmv/yr minus 2.48 ppmv/yr is slightly negative. Do you recognize that means that merely halving CO2 emissions would cause CO2 levels to cease rising?

Sep 02, 2019
RealityCheck, you're mistaken in your apparent belief that long term trends can be deduced from just 4-6 years of data. We have good CO2 measurements back to 1958. Annually averaged CO2 levels increased every year. If you want to know what effects those increases have had, you can't ignore 90% of that period.

Do you have a citation for your claim that, "Since 2012 there has been increased severity/depth/extensive droughts all around the globe"?

Up-to-date U.S. data does not support your claim:
https://www.ncdc....et-dry/0

A GIDMaPS goal was to provide "near real-time drought information."
https://www.natur...ata20141
https://sealevel....ig5c.png
However, Prof. AghaKouchak informed me last year thaty they unfortunately lost funding to continue the project. So that graph (through 2012) is still their latest. It shows droughts on a slightly decreasing trend, albeit with many fluctuations.

Sep 03, 2019
@ncdave4life.

I've been through all that you have mentioned many times in past years, mate. I don't have time or inclination to do so again, as I am v. busy with more pressing matters on/off line. So I'll leave you with the following observations:

1) the planet is already in transition towards a 'new normal'; the signs are that pests/diseases and animals, birds and fish etc are changing/expanding their ranges towards the poles.

2) that transition is already producing record/unprecedented events which make the stats of the 'old normal' effectively irrelevant, as a new dynamics establishes.

3) it's a complex system globally; your narrow focus on past stats/limited parts of the globe is compromising your conclusions; because 'new normal' is bringing a host of other factors (wildfire seasons, flooding extremes, all sorts of unseasonal ice/wind etc) into a whole new dynamic/range of their own.

Dorian is an indicator of 'new' frequency/severity etc; take heed. Bye for now. :)

Sep 03, 2019
Further evidence of extreme weather, "new normals", droughts and floods, fish and birds moving around, with constant and repetitive warnings. This has been going on for decades, even back to the cooling from 1938-1975. "We must take quick action!" What is ALWAYS missing: Realistic action to take. Every agency has urged the rapid removal of carbon as a source of energy, not just reduce its use until zero is reached, but to use negative emission technologies to take huge amounts from the atmosphere...up to 65 ppm.

That's where the plan meets reality. No technology can take even one part-per-million directly from the air and store it safely by 2050. No plan can stop emissions instantly. CO2 will continue to rise until alternative energy sources are ready to replace carbon. That will take many years. The numbers are clear. One part-per-million is ~8,000 million tons. Do the math for 12 or 30 years.

Sep 03, 2019
@Broadlands.

You're still being too simplistic in your reading, data analysis, thinking and concluding, mate. There is always 'transient swings' within a long-term trending parameter; eg, 'transient cooling' is more local, due to local/regional events, such as volcanism, world wars involving sudden vast burning of coal/oil for war industries, steam trains, naval ships, munitions etc sending vast quantities of ASH/SOOT into atmosphere. Global temp TREND increasing as the accompanying vast increase of CO2 thus emitted spread around the globe while the ash/soot settled.

Realistic action? Transition (to approx 75% renewables and 25% gas) as fast as technically/feasibly possible given developing green technologies/sources/infrastructure. The savings in increased health, economic and energy-security, as well as less 'oil wars' etc, makes such a transition not only referable but inevitable. The delay/sabotage campaigns from vested interests is criminal as well as stupid. Complex. :)

Sep 03, 2019
Check your reality please. Simplistic? Renewables do not take CO2 from the atmosphere. They provide energy for the CCS technology that is trying to do that. In the absence of the carbon that concerns you, they will be your only source of energy. Even biofuels will add CO2, 90% of which is from fossil carbon. Solar and wind are being heavily subsidized and will have to be replaceable over time, not renewable. Some already are. The critical CCS technology operates in the millions of tons a year. The scientists are urging you to take billions of tons out of the atmosphere...as soon as possible. Delaying it will keep some fossil carbon in the ground when it will be needed in the future but will not take it out of the air while we continue to use it until the zero goal is reached. That will increase it. This is reality, Mate. Continuing to warn us of weather "armageddon" is counterproductive.

Sep 03, 2019
RealityCheck wrote, "Realistic action? Transition (to approx 75% renewables and 25% gas) as fast as technically/feasibly possible..."

Time for a reality check. Unless there's a true revolution in energy storage technology, THAT will never be possible.

Generation of electricity must match consumption, every minute of every day. There is no alternative. When the sun sets and the wind is still, renewables generate no energy. 100% of power demand must still be generated at those times, not just 25%, and renewables cannot do it.

If you cut off people's heat on cold, clear, windless, northern winter nights, millions of desperate people will either find something to burn, or die.

If you believe that CO2 emissions are a problem (I don't), then you'd better get on board the nuclear train. Nuclear energy (perhaps thorium) is the only currently available technology which can provide the power we need, in the quantities needed, without producing CO2.

Sep 03, 2019
@ncdave4life.
Realistic action? Transition (to approx 75% renewables and 25% gas) as fast as technically/feasibly possible...
Time for a reality check. Unless there's a true revolution in energy storage technology, THAT will never be possible.
Did you miss the operative word, "transition", mate? Anyway, your arguments are based on old/earlier status when renewables had no storage/backup options. The situation is changing fast, as more commercial/industrial/domestic renewables installations include electric-battery and/or hydro-storage systems. As for grid stability/matching, here in OZ (in the State of South Australia) there was a situation where the electric-battery system helped the grid avoid instability much much more quickly than the Coal power stations could 'ramp up' to do. Please don't rely on outdated/ill-informed 'spiels' from vested interests for your information/understanding re the current/evolving status re renewables-with-storage' capabilities. Cheers. :)

Sep 03, 2019
@Broadlands.
Renewables do not take CO2 from the atmosphere. They provide energy for the CCS technology that is trying to do that. In the absence of the carbon that concerns you, they will be your only source of energy. ..... Solar and wind are being heavily subsidized and will have to be replaceable over time, not renewable.
You keep making unfounded assertions about the situation, mate. No-one claimed that renewables took CO2 from the atmosphere, so your argument there is a silly straw man. And no-one has ever said that renewables should supply the energy for proposed CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage), because CCS proposal is effectively dead in the water; due to exorbitant costs for CCS in both energy costs and opportunity costs (that money could have been invested in straight-out renewables that make CCS irrelevant). Historically, govt subsidies/land grants etc for fossil fuel stations, mining, transportation, set-up-tax-breaks/royalties-offsets were HUGE. Fair go, mate. :)

Sep 03, 2019
Have to go now. Back in a couple of days if I can. Cheers. :)

Sep 04, 2019
RealityCheck wrote, "your arguments are based on old/earlier status when renewables had no storage/backup options. The situation is changing fast [due to] electric-battery and/or hydro-storage systems."

Wrong. Renewables have NO "storage/backup options," & that's NOT changing.

The Tesla battery in Hornsdale, SA is biggest battery in the world. But it's NOT for significant energy storage. It's for "frequency regulation" (FCAS), and to help cope w/ grid destabilization problems due to fluctuating "renewable" energy.

Australia uses ≈ 10 MWh electricity / capita,
population ≈ 24,130,000,
total electric use ≈ 240,000,000 MWh/yr.

The battery's capacity = 129 MWh.

That'd be a 4 minute electricity supply for SA (if the battery could discharge that fast), or 18 seconds for all Australia.

https://www.power...5839000/

https://www.2gb.c...al-rate/

Sep 04, 2019
Professor of Reality? CCS is dead in the water? How do you plan to remove permanently hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere? You have warned us more than once about all the devastation and catastrophic damage that the waste product of the energy we use is already doing and will cause even more if we keep adding it. What is your "simplistic" plan?

Sep 04, 2019
Broadlands asked, "CCS is dead in the water?"

Yes, CCS was always a crackpot scheme. As you noted, 1 ppmv of CO2 masses >8 Gt. Just the carbon in it is ≈2.2 Gt.

Almost the most compact form in which carbon can be stored is as coal. So sequestering carbon from burning coal requires at least as much storage as the coal took. Even if it were possible to capture & store it, there'd be no place to put it.

Broadlands asked, "How do you plan to remove permanently hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere?"

I already answered that: there's no need.

Even if CO2 were harmful (it's not; see https://sealevel....earnmore ), there'd be no need. Negative feedbacks ALREADY remove >5 GtC from the atmosphere per year, equivalent to about 20 Gt of CO2. If CO2 emissions were merely halved, atmospheric CO2 levels would be declining, rather than rising.

THAT would be a problem, because falling CO2 levels reduce agricultural productivity and make crops more vulnerable to drought.

Sep 04, 2019
NcDave...No need? You better call a press conference. Everyone else says that billions of tons must be removed, not because it is harmful, but because the models predict that it will become catastrophic! And you can't store it as dry ice or in cans of soda or beer. Even biofuels get quickly used (and they are 90% fossil). Those pesky diatoms don't even have any to store. The whole plan is absurd.

Sep 05, 2019
Broadlands, there's no evidence that CO2 levels could ever "become catastrophic." The models don't predict that, and "everybody" doesn't say that.

During the lush Cretaceous, CO2 levels are believed to have averaged around 1500 ppmv, i.e., nearly three times the current average outdoor level. That's MUCH higher than we can ever hope to drive CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels.

During the Jurassic, CO2 levels were even higher.

Optimum CO2 level for most plants is ≥1500 ppmv.

It's doubtful that mankind will ever get outdoor CO2 levels even up to 700 ppmv.

Studies show CO2 levels elevated to more than 8× current outdoor avg are harmless to humans & animals. CO2 level in the International Space Station is kept @ ≈5400 ppmv. Levels in submarines are often even higher.

The best evidence is that manmade global warming is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful. Here's a list of some resources to learn about it:
https://sealevel....ore.html

Sep 05, 2019
NcDave.... Agree with everything you said. I posted the late Eocene data (August 30th). The problem, of course, is that the global community is demanding quick action to prevent climate "catastrophe". The politicians are climbing over one another to take "bold" action....($$$$) even as they don't understand it. But, CO2 will continue to rise as "we" try to eliminate all CO2 emissions. That will be unavoidable. The rapid rise in global temperatures has slowed over the last 20 years. The total rise after increasing CO2 by 45% is less than one degree C. "We" have been taken hostage by climate models that forecast climate armageddon.

Sep 05, 2019
@ncdave4life.

The 75%renewables25%gas is a ballpark target for the overall global 'plain vanilla' situations where the availability/feasibility of insolation, wind, hydro, biofuels and geothermal (including also in-ground domestic/neighbourhood 'heat pump' systems for heating/cooling year-round) resources can replace the wasteful/expensive burning of fossil fuels). The 'niche' situations can be catered for by coal if needed (no-one in their right minds ever wanted to stop coal power stations for intractable/special circumstances).

Renewables have NO "storage/backup options," & that's NOT changing.
How wrong can you be. Don't you keep abreast of developing/implementation news on these fronts?

there's no evidence that CO2 levels could ever "become catastrophic." The models don't predict that,...
Incorrect on both. You're also dangerously naive; as 'Tipping Point' will trigger even more vast releases of long naturally sequestered) CO2/Methane. You're not for real.

Sep 05, 2019
@Broadlands.
CCS is dead in the water? How do you plan to remove permanently hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere? You have warned us more than once about all the devastation and catastrophic damage that the waste product of the energy we use is already doing and will cause even more if we keep adding it. What is your "simplistic" plan?
The expedited encouragement/supporting of transition to renewables will prevent CO2 emissions; and if this is done apace we will be spared the final 'tipping point' scenario which we would not have been able to recover from or adapt to. That is the first priority. The second priority is to further improve the efficiencies of what we do already so that renewables will be even more economically/ecologically preferable. Then there is reforestation; and ocean-seeding with just enough critical nutrients to encourage algal CO2 'drawdown' faster than currently happens naturally. There is no need for silly CCS 'boondoggle' . :)

Sep 05, 2019
One more time Mr. Reality... Renewables do NOT lower CO2 already in the atmosphere. Biofuels even add to it. There is nothing humans can do that can do that, even "boondoggle" CCS technology... certainly not by 2050. The other things you mention are short-term. As this entire discussion has revealed, "algal drawdown" is very short-lived. Algae are food. The silica of diatoms is one waste product.The other waste product of all other algae is CO2. So is that of trees. It has been happening for billions of years. The boondoggle has been those who think and promote the view that we can manipulate the Earth's climate by moving CO2 around.

Sep 05, 2019
RealityCheck, the long mid-Holocene Climate Optimum was apparently warmer than our current climate, as was much of the Eemian. Geologically speaking, they were quite recent. So, if the hypothetical CH4 "tipping point" were real, why didn't it "tip"?

Further back in time, through most of Earth's history, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than fossil fuel use could possibly drive them now, yet the Earth still doesn't resemble Venus.

Permafrost CH4 releases are slow despite warming:
https://agupubs.o...GL069292

Warming permafrost may even be a net CH4 SINK:
https://www.natur...ej201513

Likewise, researchers report that CH4 released from clathrates on the Arctic Ocean floor never reaches the atmosphere:
https://www.nilu....-summer/
https://agupubs.o...GL068999
https://agupubs.o...RG000534

Sep 05, 2019
The bottom line is we have both good news and bad news:

The GOOD NEWS: There's no "methane tipping point," and rising CO2 levels are not harmful or dangerous. On the contrary, anthropogenic warming is modest and benign, and rising CO2 levels have major proven benefits for agriculture, and for natural ecosystems.

The BAD NEWS: Fossil fuels are finite, and mankind will eventually need to meet more of its energy needs from other sources. Despite long, intensive research, energy storage technology which could plausibly enable wind and solar to meet baseload power needs does not exist, and probably never will. In most places, the only proven alternative to fossil fuels which can provide reliable baseload power is nuclear power.

Sep 05, 2019
@Broadlands.

Yes, algae/plankton are food; and most of their carbon content has a long 'dwell time' within the ocean biomass as it slowly passes up the 'food chain' into the higher consumers/predators. The calciferous/silicaceous shell-forming plankton that are not eaten fall as the now-long observed 'ocean snow' reaching the lower ocean depths where marine organisms/processes within the sedimentary layers trap/store the carbon and the shells there (hence the vast undersealed reservoirs of oil/gas/limestone/silicon naturally sequestered by nature over the ages). The rest of your arguments, against the rest of what I outlined for your benefit, are equally misinformed/naive. It will require takes a concerted/co-ordinated effort globally; but it is less costly and more sure than CCS will ever be in preventing us getting to 'tipping point' situation. Get fully informed and get objectively real, mate; the fate of human (and much of life) as we know it depends on it. Good luck to us all.

Sep 06, 2019
@ncdave4life.
RealityCheck, the long mid-Holocene Climate Optimum was apparently warmer than our current climate, as was much of the Eemian. Geologically speaking, they were quite recent. So, if the hypothetical CH4 "tipping point" were real, why didn't it "tip"?
That was an anomaly mainly affecting Polar regions, NOT the mid-lower latitudes (where mean temps hardly changed). It was probably due to local ocean current/air circulation etc events which 'trapped' heat at those high latitudes/polar regions. And of course, that many thousands of years back the forests and ocean algae storing/drawdown capability for CO2 at all latitudes would also have reabsorbed much CO2 during that epoch.

So your opinion, that there's NOW no danger from 'tipping point' triggering of vast CO2/Methane releases from vast clathrates/hydrates and permafrosts, is not quite sound. Not to mention the drier conditions leading to more wildfires/underground peat/coal fires and deforestation. Complex. :)

Sep 06, 2019
RC, WHAT do you think "was an anomaly mainly affecting Polar regions"? The mid-Holocene Climate Optimum, or the Eemian, or both?

And what is your basis for believing that to be so?

We know from ice cores that CO2 levels were much lower than now during both the Mid-Holocene Climate Optimum (circa 7,000 BC to about 3,000 BC), and most of the Eemian (circa 128,000 BC to roughly 113,000 BC). But temperatures were nevertheless apparently warmer.

It's my understanding that the conclusion that those periods were warmer than now is based on a variety of proxies, including tree lines, pollen studies, isotope studies, etc. I'm no expert, but I've not seen anyone else claim that those warm periods were confined to very high latitudes, though it is true that the tropics have more stable temperatures than higher latitudes, even now.

That's one of the reasons for thinking global warming is benign: because the warming occurs disproportionately at high latitudes, which are too cold, anyhow.


Sep 06, 2019
@ncdave4life.
RC, WHAT do you think "was an anomaly mainly affecting Polar regions"? The mid-Holocene Climate Optimum, or the Eemian, or both?
Just the mid-Holocene Climate Optimum.

As for the Eemian period, it may interest you to know that temp/CO2 situation re the current period we are in (ie, continuing Holocene) is that the temps NOW have surpassed the temps in the Eemian; and the proportion of CO2 in atmosphere NOW is much greater than in the Eemian (so your "Eemian" based arguments would actually be counter to your intended purpose).

Anyhow, since the answers to your question re these epochs are easily had by doing your own reading/research of the period/subject matter in question, I will again love you to study/cogitate further until your knowledge base has expanded enough to allow you to connect all the dots and come to a consistent conclusion based on all the facts and factors involved.

ps: I again have to leave for a couple days. Good luck meantime, mate. :)

Sep 06, 2019
NcDave...It is clear that Mr. RC is not impressed with scientific facts and prefers to make up his own. He continues to make unsupported assertions along with his misunderstandings. His last effort showing that current levels of CO2 (and temperatures) have EXCEEDED those in the Eemian is supposed to make us further scared to race out and lower CO2. What it shows is that the climate today is not "catastrophically" hotter than it was back then, nor was it in the late Eocene.
Mr. RC is very good at telling others to get the facts, get real and not be naive. He should take his own advice. Good luck on that.

Sep 08, 2019
@Broadlands.
NcDave...It is clear that Mr. RC is not impressed with scientific facts and prefers to make up his own. He continues to make unsupported assertions along with his misunderstandings. His last effort showing that current levels of CO2 (and temperatures) have EXCEEDED those in the Eemian is supposed to make us further scared to race out and lower CO2. What it shows is that the climate today is not "catastrophically" hotter than it was back then, nor was it in the late Eocene.
Mr. RC is very good at telling others to get the facts, get real and not be naive. He should take his own advice. Good luck on that.
It is patently clear that you are now resorting to blatant misrepresentation of what I have said and what the facts I pointed out objectively imply on their own that contradicts the claims/assertions/gambits earlier made by @ncdave4life.

Do better for yourself, your family, humanity and science: eschew whatever misinformation/biases led you to this.

Sep 08, 2019
I simply asked Mr. Reality Check for scientific references to check his representations.

Sep 09, 2019
RealityCheck, I wrote, "We know from ice cores that CO2 levels were much lower than now during both the Mid-Holocene Climate Optimum (circa 7,000 BC to about 3,000 BC), and most of the Eemian (circa 128,000 BC to roughly 113,000 BC)."

Yet you replied, "...it may interest you to know that... and the proportion of CO2 in atmosphere NOW is much greater than in the Eemian..."

No, THAT is not interesting. I told YOU that.

What I'd like to know is the answer to the question you did NOT answer: "And what is your basis for believing that" [the mid-Holocene Climate Optimum was an anomaly mainly affecting Polar regions]?

Also, why do you think "temps NOW have surpassed the temps in the Eemian"?

That's an unconventional belief. This graph (from NOAA) shows the Eemian peaking 3°C warmer than the Holocene, in Antarctica (based on isotope proxies from ice cores):
https://sealevel....cene.png
(I added the annotation in green; the rest is NOAA's.)

Sep 12, 2019
@ncdave4life.
And what is your basis for believing that" [the mid-Holocene Climate Optimum was an anomaly mainly affecting Polar regions
The phenomena of unusual heating of the polar regions is a common enough one that is driven (today) by the changes in ocean air current patterns which effectively 'bottled up' heat in the polar regions, leading to buildup of heat there that is not readily dispersed by the usual air/ocean currents that did that job when the patterns were different. Then you just need to realise that over the many millennia the tectonic and other changes would have been a great contributor to long-duration changes in air/ocean current patterns due to continental drift causing re-routing of such circulatory systems.

the long mid-Holocene Climate Optimum was apparently warmer than our current climate, as was much of the Eemian.
Global extrapolations from Antarctic Ice Cores is too simplistic, due to the very phenomena already explained above. Cheers. :)

Sep 13, 2019
Is it too "simplistic" to ask where the Earth's natural variability has been controlled by human additions of CO2? The jet streams, the El-NinoSO, the NAO, volcanic activity.

Sep 13, 2019
I asked, "what is your basis for believing that... the mid-Holocene Climate Optimum was an anomaly mainly affecting Polar regions?"

RealityCheck replied:
...long-duration changes in air/ocean current patterns due to continental drift...


So, RC, you think the HCO (circa 7,000 BC to about 3,000 BC) was mainly warm at the poles because... "continental drift."

It's time for a reality check. According to this site...
https://hypertext...ng.shtml
...the highest estimate for fastest rate of continental drift is 10 cm/yr. So in 7000 years the fastest-drifting continent could have moved at MOST 700 meters.

That would have a negligible effect on air & ocean current patterns.

RC has no basis to dispute the conventional view, that the HCO peaked several degrees warmer than the current climate optimum, as shown in this graph:
https://sealevel....cene.png
and this one:
https://www.ncdc....e-change

Sep 13, 2019
@ncdave4life.

You failed to realise that there are always tipping points in any slowly changing dynamics. That is what the long used term "the last straw" is all about. In any dynamics, once the conditions set up a train of feedbacks and transition trajectories in many factors (air/ocean currents, changed 'choke points' which can no longer compensate for constricting floes by accelerating said flows, etc). It's not as simplistic as you and @Broadlands seem to think. Then of course there are the usual changes due to ice ages and warm periods 'swings' which also can affect ocean/air currents and convection/cyclonic phenomena/patterns etc. Again, its complex, not simple as you and @Broadlands appear to think judging by the simplistic 'all or nothing' arguments based on 'this or that' selected detail while ignoring the whole wider systemic complexity I both factors and consequences across time and geography. Anyway, good luck in your future discourses with others here. Cheers. :)

Sep 13, 2019
@Broadlands (and @ncdave4life if you're reading this).

@Broadlands, please also see my post to @ncdave4life.

To both of you, I have to concentrate on other matters on and off line for a few weeks; so can only spend the occasional few minutes here and there for posting here during that time. Please excuse me for not engaging further with you both re this particular subject, as have said all I wished to say on this subject at this time (especially since I have been pointing out all these things and more for years now during exchanges with many others; so am no longer inclined, nor can I spare the time, to rehash it all any more). I thank you for your contributions to this sites discussions, and wish you well with your further discussions with others on whatever subject you are most interested in which affects science and humanity. Cheers, and bye for now. :)

Sep 13, 2019
You failed to realise that there are always tipping points in any slowly changing dynamics. That is what the long used term "the last straw" is all about. ............ Cheers. :)

Uh huh. Yet again, you fail to realize that you tipped your points a long time ago RC. Hence the meds. As for "the last straw". The nurses in your psych ward, knows exactly what that's all about. Cheers. :)

Sep 14, 2019
@antigoracle.
You failed to realise that there are always tipping points in any slowly changing dynamics. That is what the long used term "the last straw" is all about. ... Cheers. :)

Uh huh. Yet again, you fail to realize that you tipped your points a long time ago RC. Hence the meds. As for "the last straw". The nurses in your psych ward, knows exactly what that's all about. Cheers. :)
Sounds like your bot-program is running out of pre-programmed denialist spiels, mate. Anyhow, to paraphrase an old Chinese proverb: give a bot a 'pre-programmed spiel' and it will be able to engage in 'human' conversation for a day; but give a bot real intelligence and real knowledge it will be able to synthesise real intelligent, erudite conversation forever. Seems like your programmers at the Russian/GOP/Fossil funded Troll Factory are still stuck at the 'pre-programmed spiel' stage. So sorry to see your bot evolution/programming is still at such a primitive/retarded level, mate. :(

Sep 14, 2019
@ncdave4life. …there are always tipping points in any slowly changing dynamics

Wrong. For >98% of Earth's history CO2 levels were higher than we could ever hope to drive them by burning fossil fuels, yet Earth still doesn't resemble Venus.


That is what… "the last straw" is all about.

No, "the last straw" is about you trying our patience.


…once the conditions set up a train of feedbacks and transition trajectories in many factors (air/ocean currents, changed 'choke points' which can no longer compensate for constricting floes by accelerating said flows, etc).

That's not a sentence, but I think it means you think climate feedbacks are primarily positive (amplifying). They aren't:

https://sealevel....cks.html

…due to ice ages and warm periods 'swings' which also can affect ocean/air currents…

We're discussing your claim that the HCO was mainly warm in polar regions. The "H"stands for Holocene. There've been no new ice ages since the HCO.

Sep 14, 2019
"Seems like your programmers at the Russian/GOP/Fossil funded Troll Factory are still stuck at the 'pre-programmed spiel' stage. So sorry to see your bot evolution/programming is still at such a primitive/retarded level, mate."

RC has again resorted to ad hominem personal attacks instead of scientific references to support his many opinions. Socrates understood that approach. "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser." No further dialog with RC is needed.

Sep 14, 2019
@ncdave4life.
For >98% of Earth's history CO2 levels were higher than we could ever hope to drive them by burning fossil fuels, yet Earth still doesn't resemble Venus.
To start with, insolation is much greater for Venus than for Earth system; also, life/biological feedbacks could not establish on Venus as they did in suitable 'goldilocks range' of temps here. You must treat respective planets according to the applicable factors/parameters if you are to avoid such silly 'arguments'.

No, "the last straw" is about you trying our patience.
Your smart Aleck 'comeback' does not address the science/logic point made.

I think it means you think climate feedbacks are primarily positive (amplifying).
No. It means that there is a duration of changed circumstances. No more.

We're discussing your claim that the HCO was mainly warm in polar regions. The "H"stands for Holocene. There've been no new ice ages since the HCO.
Again, beware simplistic labels/assumptions. :)

Sep 14, 2019
@Broadlands.
Seems like your programmers at the Russian/GOP/Fossil funded Troll Factory are still stuck at the 'pre-programmed spiel' stage. So sorry to see your bot evolution/programming is still at such a primitive/retarded level, mate
RC has again resorted to ad hominem personal attacks instead of scientific references to support his many opinions. Socrates understood that approach. "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser." No further dialog with RC is needed.
Relax, mate. That was 'in kind' response to a longtime AGW-denialist paid troll. In the past I have many times given that troll the benefit of the doubt and answered/refuted his denialist/biased 'bot-spiels' with polite, factual, logical, scientific responses. It did no good; because it is a troll, not a genuine seeker of knowledge/enlightenment via science/logics. Hence my response 'in kind' to his latest trolling comment. Please acquaint yourself with the protagonists before jumping in. :)

Sep 15, 2019
... your programmers at the Russian/GOP/Fossil funded Troll Factory ...
... longtime AGW-denialist paid troll.
Such conspiracy ideation is rampant among climate activists.
https://www.googl...otypy%29

Sep 15, 2019
RC doubles down on his personal attacks. His name-calling does not substitute for scientific references to support his "simplistic" opinions and assumptions.

Sep 15, 2019
@ncdave4life
@Broadlands.

Do you two ever check the posting records of those you are opining about? If you had, you would have realised that the relevant comment was an 'in kind' response to a trolling comment made by the well known longstanding anti-climate-science troll, @antigoracle. Please in future be more circumspect and fair, based on facts and posting histories before opining about protagonists here. Thanks. :)

ps: I find it amazing that, in this age of Internet News/Information at one's fingertips, posters (such as yourselves) can be so naive and/or uninformed about the social media campaigns waged by all sorts of political/national and/or mercenary/religious vested organisations/interests aimed at influencing/obfuscating issues for the purpose of delaying/sabotaging action by govts/individuals that would threaten the profits/power of said vested organisations/interests. All sorts of Troll Factories (Russian/Fossil/GOP/Chinese etc) are active. Inform yourselves asap. :)

Sep 15, 2019
...all sorts of political/national and/or mercenary/religious vested organisations/interests aimed at influencing/obfuscating issues for the purpose of delaying/sabotaging action by govts/individuals that would threaten the profits/power of said vested organisations/interests. All sorts of Troll Factories (Russian/Fossil/GOP/Chinese etc) are active. Inform yourselves asap. :)
Suuuure they are, RC. They're all out to get you. And you probably think GMOs and fluoridation are evil corporate/gov't plots, 9-11 was an "inside job," they exploded the WTC Towers with controlled demolition or micro nukes or something, and the 31,000 scientists who signed the Global Warming Petition were all paid shills for the Koch bros. Uh huh.

Sep 15, 2019
Mr. RC keeps reminding us of what others have said, trolls, vested interests, governments, officials. Yet He himself has not yet provided a single scientific reference to support his own trolling. In the meantime, those poor diatoms are still becoming food for the animals in the ocean, spitting out the silica. Time's up RC.

Sep 16, 2019
@ncdave4life.
...all sorts of political/national and/or mercenary/religious vested organisations/interests aimed at influencing/obfuscating issues for the purpose of delaying/sabotaging action by govts/individuals that would threaten the profits/power of said vested organisations/interests. All sorts of Troll Factories (Russian/Fossil/GOP/Chinese etc) are active. Inform yourselves asap. :)
Suuuure they are, RC.
Are you seriously admitting to the forum that you are unaware of such well-reported, exposed, proven social media manipulation activities by vested interests and nation states using troll-factory setups? Not good, mate.

And you probably think...9-11 was an "inside job," they exploded the WTC Towers with controlled demolition or micro nukes or something, ...
My (old PhysOrg) posting history shows I scientifically/logically REFUTED 'demolition etc' conspiracy claims. So much for your due diligence re your interlocutors before opining. Not good, mate.

Sep 16, 2019
@Broadlands.
Mr. RC keeps reminding us of what others have said, trolls, vested interests, governments, officials. Yet He himself has not yet provided a single scientific reference to support his own trolling. In the meantime, those poor diatoms are still becoming food for the animals in the ocean, spitting out the silica. Time's up RC.
Been there, done that already for years now, mate. You're a bit late to the party; and your arguments have been gone over by many before you. I now have more pressing matters to spend my time on rather than rehash it all yet again with yet another 'Johnny come lately'. You would do better to research previous discussions in order to acquaint yourself with the arguments already had here covering the points/issues you raise. Good luck. :)

Sep 16, 2019
Mr. Reality... Just a reminder that unlike your politics, science requires references, peer-reviewed usually. You have not provided any here. Your opinions are yours, but your facts are lacking...Mate. Simplistic? Been there? Where are the references? The diatoms cannot wait, their silica is sinking along with your ad hominems. Neither is sequestering any carbon. Yours is releasing it as blowhard CO2.

Sep 16, 2019
...I scientifically/logically REFUTED 'demolition etc' conspiracy claims.
Well, I'm glad my speculation was wrong about your belief in one of those crazy conspiracy theories, anyhow.

If you need an answer to refute the 9-11 truther crackpots, who attribute the WTC Towers' "free-fall speed" collapse to imaginary "demolition etc." explosives, I made a web page for that:
https://burtonsys...ticvdyn/

However, it is just as crazy to think that pushback against irrational climate catastrophism is due to a vast imaginary right-wing conspiracy of:
"...all sorts of political/national and/or mercenary/religious vested organisations/interests aimed at influencing/obfuscating issues for the purpose of delaying/sabotaging action by govts/individuals that would threaten the profits/power of said vested organisations/interests. All sorts of Troll Factories (Russian/Fossil/GOP/Chinese etc)..."
The pushback is because of EVIDENCE, like this:
http://sealevel.i...ore.html

Sep 17, 2019
The usual response from climate alarmists to such evidence is more ad hominems... "a troll factory" funded by vested interests, especially oil or coal.

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