Donna Laframboise of No Frakking Consensus sums up the contents of a news report (based, she notes, on "a press release and a brochure") published in UK newspaper The Independent under the headline "The Acid Ocean: Arctic's soaring CO2 leaves fish and hunters gasping for life":
"Let's dial 911. People are worried about potential implications. Bad things could happen - a report suggests."
That's not caricature. Those italicized buzzwords are an apt characterization/summation of not just the report in question, but a lot of other reporting that gets passed off as "news."
Fish always "gasp" when Innuit pull them out of the water (presumably to save them from the soluble carbon in the ocean - not they are eating them or anything). Gasping landed fish!! OMG! Call 911!
Great Jupiter's taint you have to search hard to find more gullible dupes than metro Brits. They're so far isolated from nature and wilderness, you can sell any kind of environmental fairy tale. I bet they have former "birders" focusing their binos on the coast looking for stranded drowning polar bears.
The UK people are little more than mushrooms.
What a pack of lemmings!
This is a new low in environmental journalism.
Just can't wait for Harper and Co. to come out swinging against this blatant 'soaring CO2' BS!
Oh. Sorry. Not the time yet?
But all this environmental/AGW/carbon/safety crap is killing Canada. Can we at least get a little sign?
geez when did Ph of 8 become an acid. great journalism there
I should like to suggest that maybe a meteor could strike you right on the tippy top of your head right now -- or maybe now -- or maybe even now -- or possibly next Tuesday.
Also, exactly what species are they talking about and when did those species first appear in the fossil record and what was the atmospheric CO2 concentration at that time? I suspect that those species might like CO2 because they were practically raised on it.
It would come under the heading of grasping at any straw to keep this scam going. The gullible are legion and must be re-motivated. Suzuki needs the money.
There is another problem with this article. Ocean pH varies with season and even time of day. The natural variation of ocean pH can actually be quite spectacular. It is sort of like saying a 1 degree change in average global climate is going to incinerate you while temperatures might vary 10 degrees in a day or 50 degrees over the course of the year. It's just crazy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scripps-paper-ocean-acidification-fears-overhyped/
There are only two ways for CO2 to get into the ocean, either by absorption from the atmosphere or by the exhalation process of fish.
Fish use their gills as mammals use lungs. Oxygen is absorbed by the gills, sent to every cell in the body where it is used to oxidize the carbon in glucose (C6H12O6). The carbon dioxide produced is then transported in the bloodstream back to the gills and transferred into the water. Given these facts, is it not possible that rising ocean CO2 levels are because there are more fish and other marine life?
Given that Cabot described schools of cod so thick that they impeded his ship is it not possible that CO2 levels in the 16th century when mankind had no instruments to measure ocean CO2 content were much higher than today?
The one thing we must remember is that we have only just begun to measure the composition of the atmosphere and sea in the past few decades, which is an eye blink in the life of the planet. The thermometer was invented during the little ice age so the trend has been heating or the earth would still be in the little ice age. We couldn't measure ozone until the '70s so perhaps the 'ozone hole' that everyone was so scared about is a natural occurrence. Likewise we have no idea what 'normal' or 'optimal' CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans are.
If the oceans are warming as they claim, then they *must* be releasing CO2, not absorbing it because warmer water can not hold as much dissolved CO2. So the CO2 content of the water can not increase if the ocean is warming. One or the other can be true, but not both.
"There are only two ways for CO2 to get into the ocean, either by absorption from the atmosphere or by the exhalation process of fish."
Wrong.
White smokers emitting liquid carbon dioxide at the Champagne vent, Northwest Eifuku volcano, Marianas Trench Marine National Monument
http://hydrothermalvents.weebly.com/uploads/3/9/2/2/392223/1302046.bmp
Search> white smoker
These are hydrothermal vents from the earth's crust on ocean floors all over the world that vent huge volumes of liquid CO2 right into the ocean.
A year or so ago they actually talked about them venting liquid CO2 on Wikipedia but for some unfathomable reason that information has been scrubbed.
Used to be some vids on YouTube as well.
Liquid CO2 right into the ocean, looks just like goop from a lava lamp.
Now let's talk acidity.
Zombie worms:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0430/Zombie-worms-eat-whale-bones-with-acid
The world is an amazing place. Lots we don't know about it.
Of course its harder to learn things when political zealots scrub information that is already known and hide that info just to serve their political agendas.
"...it is particularly vulnerable to acidification because of a “triple whammy” of conditions, said the report, to which 60 experts contributed..." (emphasis mine)
snorg.... chuckle.... chuckle-chuckle... laugh... lol... ROTFLMAO!!
"The Arctic Ocean takes in the coastlines of the US, Canada, Russia, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland."
What morons.
(Neither Sweden nor Finland connects to the Arctic Ocean, neither does Denmark unless one counts Greenland.)
Arctic Ocean Saved!
Alkalinity being reduced!
In this era of Obamanomics and collectivist government overreach, it helps to gravitate our alarm at this escalation of American soviet austerity by recalling the warnings of a man (whom I consider to be the greatest American statesman of his time), Ronald Reagan. Here in this 1964 speech he denounces and warns us about all the big government machinations which plague America courtesy of the Pseudo-Marxist regime running the Democratic party now. Prophetic, inspiring, and amazingly pertinent today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
BTW: it is interesting to remember Reagan was a life long Democrat and classic liberal who bailed on the party when it saw an influx of Marxist academics who undermined the American populism of that party and replaced it with statist collectivism. And look - he writes his own speeches, thinks on his feet and has no teleprompter.
Sorry, I meant for the above post to go to the readers tips thread. Too quick with the send button.
What people don't understand is that most of the World does not think Canada owns the Arctic. From Russia to the USA, including Europe. Its all those fresh water lakes with resources they want. Si vilifying Canada is a way to de legitimise our Nation, to grab our land. Using propaganda lie this is normal for them. No matter how ridiculous. We will always be the bad guys no matter what, when thieves are out to steal.
In other Greenietard news. . . someone has figured out how the greenie grift works.
"Whatever the power of Big Oil in the past, it has been eclipsed by ‘Big Green’. The green lobby is in control of the Department for Energy (to the Treasury’s dismay), its objectives are enshrined in law, it dominates the EU, and it is institutionalised in Whitehall via the Climate Change Committee. These state bodies are egged on by powerful environmental NGOs, which are heavily financed by the EU (WWF receives €600,000 and Friends of the Earth Europe €1.2 million) and our government (we pay WWF £4.1 million) to create the semblance of popular support. These NGOs can deploy any uncorroborated scare story in their war against fossil fuels."
www.spectator.co.uk/features/8905731/the-only-way-is-shale/
Which is why the USA, China,Russia all consider it A OK to fund subversive agencies within Canada, to hobble economic growth and sovereignty.
It is legit as we are encroaching on "their" resources.
All the more reason to declare war on the UN, as enemies of world peace.
Donna's main kvetches are two --
that the conference presentations express uncertainty about ecological effects
&
that the materials are in a "news article" and a "brochure"; hence can't be peer-reviewed eh?
A conference is not a scientific paper -- it is where scientists outline current research, talk about future research, make connections, etc. Also there are people who report on the general state of some body of knowledge, future implications and the like. At the edge of current knowledge disclaimers of certainty are obviously in order.
The conference program shows the topics & activities
However, much of the work has or will be published in peer-review journals. An example --
// Selected presentations were previously published as peer reviewed papers in Aquatic Toxicology and Marine Environmental Research //
From the former --
Climate change and ocean acidification-interactions with aquatic toxicology.
Nikinmaa M.Aquat Toxicol. 2013 Jan 15;126:365-72. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2012.09.006. Epub 2012 Sep 21.
Abstract plus -- here
Donna's demand for peer-review doesn't really accord with one of her past efforts, in which being published in a list of journals which included the most important in science was regarded as suspicious.
You must admit, though, dizzy, that "Arctic's soaring CO2 leaves fish and hunters gasping for life" is quite obviously ridiculous, no?
It's a headline, no?