Yep, it is the classic "That is bad, but don't look in my back yard". This is Leo DiCaprio flying around in a private jet protesting the tar sands or Madonna lecturing us on saving the earth while she owns two private jets and five houses. Who is going to make the sacrifice? Worst thing is that everybody tries to find a scapegoat. Today salmon farms, tomorrow sporties and day after that, seals and eagles. There r ways, but everyone is too busy blaming instead of rolling up the sleeves.
What Scientists Are Learning About the Impact of an Acidifying Ocean
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
Just as much data around that says we are going into a cooling period as there is for a warming period.
Notice how the high profile activists will tout that we all need to make sacrifices for our future, yet they live the most carbon intensive/wasteful lives? Well they seem to take the same mindset as Socialist politicians, which is "All you little people will make sacrifices but we at the top deserve the fruits of our labor"
Socialism is for the people, not politicians, and the same is true of hypocritical climate alarmists.
Notice how the high profile activists will tout that we all need to make sacrifices for our future, yet they live the most carbon intensive/wasteful lives? Well they seem to take the same mindset as Socialist politicians, which is "All you little people will make sacrifices but we at the top deserve the fruits of our labor"
Socialism is for the people, not politicians, and the same is true of hypocritical climate alarmists.
Their preliminary work, presented in May at a symposium on ocean acidification at the University of Washington, documents yet another way carbon dioxide emissions are messing with the world's oceans.
Chase Williams, a postdoc at the University of Washington, said changing ocean chemistry is making it harder for salmon to smell danger. Salmon use smell to navigate, to hunt and to avoid predators.
"They can smell predators themselves,” Williams said. "They can also smell a compound that’s released when a predator is eating one of their schooling mates.”
“In normal conditions, they would avoid the scent of danger,” he said.
But thanks to decades of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel use and deforestation, conditions aren’t normal anymore. In addition to trapping heat in sea and sky, the added CO2 has changed the chemistry of the oceans, making them more acidic.
In laboratory tanks, as scientists cranked up the carbon dioxide, turning the water more acidic, young salmon stopped avoiding the scent of predation. The UW and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers had added a compound that damaged salmon skin exudes as a warning signal to nearby fish whenever one member of a school is attacked.
Conditions as acidic as coho in this experiment faced are not common yet in the world's oceans, but some places, including Puget Sound's Hood Canal and upwelling zones off the Northwest coast, do experience them occasionally.
Seawater is already acidic enough at times in Northwest waters to harm oysters' ability to form shells.\
http://kuow.org/post/salmon-are-losing-their-sense-smell-thanks-carbon-emissions
there is also a nice video showing salmon smolts moving into predator water vs moving into safe water. there is also a ton of science that shows washington state losing 7.9 million chinook smolts every year to seals
Chase Williams, a postdoc at the University of Washington, said changing ocean chemistry is making it harder for salmon to smell danger. Salmon use smell to navigate, to hunt and to avoid predators.
"They can smell predators themselves,” Williams said. "They can also smell a compound that’s released when a predator is eating one of their schooling mates.”
“In normal conditions, they would avoid the scent of danger,” he said.
But thanks to decades of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel use and deforestation, conditions aren’t normal anymore. In addition to trapping heat in sea and sky, the added CO2 has changed the chemistry of the oceans, making them more acidic.
In laboratory tanks, as scientists cranked up the carbon dioxide, turning the water more acidic, young salmon stopped avoiding the scent of predation. The UW and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers had added a compound that damaged salmon skin exudes as a warning signal to nearby fish whenever one member of a school is attacked.
Conditions as acidic as coho in this experiment faced are not common yet in the world's oceans, but some places, including Puget Sound's Hood Canal and upwelling zones off the Northwest coast, do experience them occasionally.
Seawater is already acidic enough at times in Northwest waters to harm oysters' ability to form shells.\
http://kuow.org/post/salmon-are-losing-their-sense-smell-thanks-carbon-emissions
there is also a nice video showing salmon smolts moving into predator water vs moving into safe water. there is also a ton of science that shows washington state losing 7.9 million chinook smolts every year to seals
Yep - this is all true - as an advocate for salmon, I am most interested in focusing on what we can do that has the biggest impact. But, unfortunately, everybody just wants a scapegoat. I read somewhere that the Salish Sea Project claims 50% of salmon smolts are now eaten by seals. Is that true? How can the salmon farms kill 50% and the other 50% get eaten by seals? Seems like that means no smolts exist....
The 2017 study shows 87% Chinook smolts in SOG are eaten ,7.9 million. I think that is a Puget sound study. Cow river shows the 40-50% number pending what month and Coho or Chinook.
This is where you see whether the Eco-Warriors are living in the real world or not.
Can we cull a (abundant) cute animal to save the heart of our eco system?
I say do it. Not a bounty - but every noticeably problem one slurping up juvie Chinooks & cohos in the estuaries. FNs can do it legally. Seal is fairly unappetizing (IMHO) - but good leather there. Tell the IFAW to buckle-up cupcake - we don't need their permission. Maybe find a few key Hollywood players sensitive to FN issues onboard 1st to preempt the IFMP and SSS battle plan. Doesn't need to be on UTube. Taken care of a few problem ones myself already.
OH, you know Dave. Gotten then a 1-way bus ticket to Rebecca's home - where she houses them in her backyard pool and feeds them pizza w anchovies.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Real scientists say,
Dr. Christensen: Ocean acidification is science.
11:21 Dr. Willie Soon “Can I say something about ocean acidification? It’s a myth. … The ocean has something you can measure. Basically, it’s called ion of the hydrogen. It’s called [the] pH scale. You have 0 to 14. Seven is neutral. Seven to 0 is acidic. Seven to 14 is called basic. The ocean is right about 8.03, 8.04 [non-acidic]. But deep inside the ocean, about 2,000 meters down, it’s actually very acidic. If you wanna talk about ocean acidification – it’s one of the most dangerous myths that there is. A very radical one. It’s not sensible. Who created this myth, actually…?”
12:23 Dr. Jon Christensen “They call it [ocean acidification] science.”
12:25 Dr. Willie Soon “No, it’s not even science, excuse me, because… Do you know what the pH of rainwater is? It’s 5.5. (Wikihow.com: “Ordinary rainwater is naturally acidic with a pH between 5.0 and 5.5.”) … [T]hat means you have to outlaw all the [naturally acidic] rain that’s falling down? You want to outlaw all the slightly acidic water that is sitting on the bottom of the ocean?”
13:05 Dr. Jon Christensen “No….It’s not that hard to actually read the science. It can seem a little bit daunting but anybody who can read can work their way through many of these papers and you can see that there’s a wide variety of findings and results and conclusions… There is in science a fair degree of certainty on a lot of things. … What we know is that there’s a wide spectrum of results here and we need to look at the data and the whole big picture of the science and not just write it off one way or the other.”
15:08 Dr. Willie Soon “Jon, my whole point is that ocean acidification is an extreme. It is one of the most extreme things they could come up with because they are not able to find the fingerprint of the carbon dioxide warming of the atmosphere so then they started to come up with this new scheme [ocean acidification]. Next thing…they’re going [to claim] carbon dioxide is killing all of the polar bears. It’s going to melt all the ice sheets. It’s completely not even true.”
What the science says…
McElhany, 2017
“Documenting an effect of OA [ocean acidification] involves showing a change in a species (e.g. population abundance or distribution) as a consequence of anthropogenic changes in marine carbonate chemistry. To date, there have been no unambiguous demonstrations of a population level effect of anthropogenic OA [ocean acidification], as that term is defined by the IPCC. … t is important to acknowledge thatthere are no studies that directly demonstrate modern day effects of OA [ocean acidification] on marine species.”
Duarte et al., 2014
“[T]here have been a few claims for already realized impacts of ocean acidification on calcifiers, such as a decline in the number of oysters on the West Coast of North America (Barton et al. 2012) and in Chesapeake Bay (Waldbusser et al. 2011). However, the link between these declines and ocean acidification through anthropogenic CO2 is unclear.Corrosive waters affecting oysters in hatcheries along the Oregon coast were associated with upwelling (Barton et al. 2012), not anthropogenic CO2. The decline in pH affecting oysters in Chesapeake Bay (Waldbusser et al. 2011) was not attributable to anthropogenic CO2 but was likely attributable to excess respiration associated with eutrophication. Therefore, there is, as yet, no robust evidence for realized severe disruptions of marine socioecological links from ocean acidification to anthropogenic CO2, and there are significant uncertainties regarding the level of pH change that would prompt such impacts. [D]espite the strong mechanistic or physiological basis for a role of warming in coral bleaching and coral growth, a robust demonstration of a direct causal link between global warming and global coral bleaching over decadal time scales has not yet been produced.”
Wei et al., 2015
“It is worth noting that the errors of these estimates are fairly large with RSD of 65% for that these two time-series do not show significant decreasing trend for pH. Despite of such large errors, estimated from these rates, the seawater pH has decreased by about 0.07–0.08 U over the past 200 years in these regions. … The average calculated seawater pH over the past 159 years was 8.04 [with a] a seawater pH variation range of 7.66–8.40.”
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/08/...-the-climate-apocalypse/#sthash.dYqszOuS.dpbs
Dr. Christensen: Ocean acidification is science.
11:21 Dr. Willie Soon “Can I say something about ocean acidification? It’s a myth. … The ocean has something you can measure. Basically, it’s called ion of the hydrogen. It’s called [the] pH scale. You have 0 to 14. Seven is neutral. Seven to 0 is acidic. Seven to 14 is called basic. The ocean is right about 8.03, 8.04 [non-acidic]. But deep inside the ocean, about 2,000 meters down, it’s actually very acidic. If you wanna talk about ocean acidification – it’s one of the most dangerous myths that there is. A very radical one. It’s not sensible. Who created this myth, actually…?”
12:23 Dr. Jon Christensen “They call it [ocean acidification] science.”
12:25 Dr. Willie Soon “No, it’s not even science, excuse me, because… Do you know what the pH of rainwater is? It’s 5.5. (Wikihow.com: “Ordinary rainwater is naturally acidic with a pH between 5.0 and 5.5.”) … [T]hat means you have to outlaw all the [naturally acidic] rain that’s falling down? You want to outlaw all the slightly acidic water that is sitting on the bottom of the ocean?”
13:05 Dr. Jon Christensen “No….It’s not that hard to actually read the science. It can seem a little bit daunting but anybody who can read can work their way through many of these papers and you can see that there’s a wide variety of findings and results and conclusions… There is in science a fair degree of certainty on a lot of things. … What we know is that there’s a wide spectrum of results here and we need to look at the data and the whole big picture of the science and not just write it off one way or the other.”
15:08 Dr. Willie Soon “Jon, my whole point is that ocean acidification is an extreme. It is one of the most extreme things they could come up with because they are not able to find the fingerprint of the carbon dioxide warming of the atmosphere so then they started to come up with this new scheme [ocean acidification]. Next thing…they’re going [to claim] carbon dioxide is killing all of the polar bears. It’s going to melt all the ice sheets. It’s completely not even true.”
What the science says…
McElhany, 2017
“Documenting an effect of OA [ocean acidification] involves showing a change in a species (e.g. population abundance or distribution) as a consequence of anthropogenic changes in marine carbonate chemistry. To date, there have been no unambiguous demonstrations of a population level effect of anthropogenic OA [ocean acidification], as that term is defined by the IPCC. … t is important to acknowledge thatthere are no studies that directly demonstrate modern day effects of OA [ocean acidification] on marine species.”
Duarte et al., 2014
“[T]here have been a few claims for already realized impacts of ocean acidification on calcifiers, such as a decline in the number of oysters on the West Coast of North America (Barton et al. 2012) and in Chesapeake Bay (Waldbusser et al. 2011). However, the link between these declines and ocean acidification through anthropogenic CO2 is unclear.Corrosive waters affecting oysters in hatcheries along the Oregon coast were associated with upwelling (Barton et al. 2012), not anthropogenic CO2. The decline in pH affecting oysters in Chesapeake Bay (Waldbusser et al. 2011) was not attributable to anthropogenic CO2 but was likely attributable to excess respiration associated with eutrophication. Therefore, there is, as yet, no robust evidence for realized severe disruptions of marine socioecological links from ocean acidification to anthropogenic CO2, and there are significant uncertainties regarding the level of pH change that would prompt such impacts. [D]espite the strong mechanistic or physiological basis for a role of warming in coral bleaching and coral growth, a robust demonstration of a direct causal link between global warming and global coral bleaching over decadal time scales has not yet been produced.”
Wei et al., 2015
“It is worth noting that the errors of these estimates are fairly large with RSD of 65% for that these two time-series do not show significant decreasing trend for pH. Despite of such large errors, estimated from these rates, the seawater pH has decreased by about 0.07–0.08 U over the past 200 years in these regions. … The average calculated seawater pH over the past 159 years was 8.04 [with a] a seawater pH variation range of 7.66–8.40.”
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/08/...-the-climate-apocalypse/#sthash.dYqszOuS.dpbs
Last edited:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Is this the same guy? Paid to play a starring role in the denial sphere.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
