Landlubbers!!...look to the oceans!

[doodle]

Most people look to the atmosphere for evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Yet, the answers to our questions regarding this ongoing event probably lie in the oceans.

I found this article: http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/12/19/s ... ng-oceans/ over at skepticsblog.org. I would like to hear what the Climate Change deniers think in light of the evidence presented in this article.

Here is a snippet:

We have 700 million years of ocean history recorded in the fossil record, especially in the deep-sea cores that record the past 100 million years in great detail. We can analyze the carbon isotopic composition of shells of planktonic microfossils and show how the ocean chemistry has changed. We can look at the patterns of diversity and extinction of acid-sensitive marine fossils, and find out when the ocean has experienced this kind of “acid bath”? before. As a recent article by Hönisch et al. (2012) pointed out, the current episode of mass extinction and rapid acidification of the ocean has no precedent. The closest we can come to is the worst mass extinction in earth history, the “Great Dying”? at the end of the Permian Period, about 250 million years ago. The extinction was so severe that about 95% of marine species vanished, and a similar number of land species as well. Although the complete causes are complex and still under discussion, there is a clear signal from the chemical isotopes that there was a global warming event, as well as too much carbon dioxide in the seawater (hypercapnia). It is thought to have been driven by the largest volcanic eruption in earth history, which occurred in northern Siberia. As these eruptions released greenhouse gases, they drove the delicate chemical balance in the oceans to supersaturation in carbon dioxide and highly acidic conditions. Between the toxicity of hypercapnia and the effects of dissolving shells, nearly every group of animals in the oceans vanished 250 million years ago.

[WildAboutHarry]

I would like to hear what the Climate Change deniers think in light of the evidence presented in this article.

You might get more serious responses without the pejorative "Climate Change deniers".  Nevertheless...

The coastline of California was located at the Farallon Islands (about 30 miles off San Francisco) not too long ago, geologically speaking.  I will listen more closely when the models for climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise, can explain how we got from there to here.

[doodle]

This isn't an issue of oceans rising or falling though, it is massive coral reef die off and the effect this has on ocean ecosystems...

The oceans are becoming warmer and more acidic as they absorb the excess heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turn it into carbonic acid. For a long time, some people argued that we didn’t need to worry about carbon dioxide, because the oceans would serve as a big buffer and absorb it all. Well, if that were ever true, it is no longer. The evidence is overwhelming that the acidity of the ocean is changing faster than it has in 300 million years. This, more than any other factor, is responsible for the world-wide dying of the tropical coral reefs. Known as “bleaching,”? it occurs when the individual coral polyps (which look like tiny sea anemones) cannot tolerate the environmental conditions, such as excess heat or acid ocean waters, any longer. They shed their symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae), which in normal times help them metabolize carbon dioxide and build their skeletons, and thus lose their color. Eventually, the coral polyps die off, leaving their huge stony skeletons behind which gradually turn white.

[WildAboutHarry]

It is obviously a bit more complex an issue than anthropogenic increases in CO2.

And what do you suppose happened to ocean chemistry when sea levels fell 400' at the peak of the last ice age?  And what happened to ocean chemistry during the subsequent sea level rise in a geologic blink of an eye?

[Gumby]

I used to be a strong believer in climate change, but now I'm not so sure. I'm unconvinced that anyone has all the mysteries of the world figured out. Scientists make their careers trying to prove their own hypotheses. But as we have seen time and time again, most cutting-edge scientific hypotheses are just overly simplified and flawed explanations for highly complex problems. Say them enough times and mainstreamers believe they are proven facts — when in fact they are just still hypotheses that need more work and study. If I've learned anything it's that correlation does not equal causation.

I've said this before, but go back at any point in human history and the best scientists of the time have often been wrong about their correlative/observational theories. We snicker as we look back at these scientific errors, but we have the gall to assume that we know everything today.

It's more than presumptuous to assume that today's top scientists have suddenly figured everything out when we already know that most scientific studies have huge flaws in them.

[MachineGhost]

I used to be a strong believer in climate change, but now I'm not so sure. I'm unconvinced that anyone has all the mysteries of the world figured out. Scientists make their careers trying to prove their own hypotheses. But as we have seen time and time again, most cutting-edge scientific hypotheses are just overly simplified and flawed explanations for highly complex problems. Say them enough times and mainstreamers believe they are proven facts — when in fact they are just still hypotheses that need more work and study. If I've learned anything it's that correlation does not equal causation.

The original debate was never about whether global warming exists (it does), only whether or not it was anthropogenic.  Over time the issue has evolved into a twisted pretzel to keep the chattering classes and academics occupied and funded.  Boring.

[doodle]

That is why the oceans are probably a better issue to focus on as the data traces back 700 million years. Whatever the cause, the dying of the oceans ecosystems would be highly problematic. All the money in the world won't be able to buy you a yellowfin tuna steak if the present trend continues. There was a documentary called Jiro Dreams of Sushi about the most famous Japanese sushi chef. He lamented towards the end of the movie how hard it is becoming to find good fish whereas only 30 years ago they were abundant in the fish markets.

[WildAboutHarry]

There was a documentary called Jiro Dreams of Sushi about the most famous Japanese sushi chef. He lamented towards the end of the movie how hard it is becoming to find good fish whereas only 30 years ago they were abundant in the fish markets.

Don't you think increased demand for sushi-grade fish and subsequent over-fishing was the cause?  It is sadly ironic that a sushi chef would lament a problem he may have been partially responsible for.

Agree, though, that it is foolish to destroy ecosystems needlessly.

[doodle]

Overfishing certainly is an issue, but there are measurable chemical changes happening in ocean waters that are killing huge amounts of coral reefs and affecting the health of ecosystems.

Is the solution to this to sell off the ocean to private interests? It's kind of sad to think that every square inch of land and sea will be someone's private property. One won't even be able to explore the planet without trespassing on someone's land or water rights....seems like such a sad castration of mans exploratory nature.

[MachineGhost]

Is the solution to this to sell off the ocean to private interests? It's kind of sad to think that every square inch of land and sea will be someone's private property. One won't even be able to explore the planet without trespassing on someone's land or water rights....seems like such a sad castration of mans exploratory nature.

As opposed to the sad castration of the ecosystem where no one cares about property rights and the food chain?  In this technological age, there are bound to be ways around the inconvenience of having to deal and negotiate with multiple property owners for right of way.  It's only an obstacle to those with no vision or optimism.  The best approach is outlined in the article I posted on how to deal with property on the moon, i.e. have all legal systems enforce property rights globally but do not get involved in parceling it out.

The problem with government is it has far expanded past the nature of itself.  That is why there is so much corruption andi injustice in the world.

[doodle]

Is the solution to this to sell off the ocean to private interests? It's kind of sad to think that every square inch of land and sea will be someone's private property. One won't even be able to explore the planet without trespassing on someone's land or water rights....seems like such a sad castration of mans exploratory nature.

The problem with government is it has far expanded past the nature of itself.  That is why there is so much corruption andi injustice in the world.

Corruption and injustice stem from the nature of unenlightened men. Government is only one vehicle through which this nature is expressed. If it weren't for government, men would certainly find some other means to exploit and oppress. An anarchist libertarian / objectivist world is simply one where might = right.

I've never understood how the non aggression principle could be enforced in the absence of the state.