Sentences with phrase «acidification gets»

Ocean acidification gets a lot of attention here in the Pacific NW.

Not exact matches

Schneider: When you're covering climate change, you don't get somebody from a deep ecology group to tell you we're near the end of the world and then somebody from the Competitive Enterprise Institute who's going to tell you carbon dioxide is a fertilizer while forgetting about ocean acidification.

If acidification proceeds, «we may never get a chance to develop the next wonder drug,» Canadian coastal economist Jack Ruitenbeek says.

Now, Fabry said, the question is not whether acidification is happening, but how bad it will get — which depends on future CO2 emissions.

Vital marine ecosystems are threatened by ocean warming and acidification, yet get a tiny fraction of climate finance, E3G research shows

Since you state that a decrease in net calcification could result from a decrease in gross calcification, an increase in dissolution rates, or both, you distinguish between these responses and get to the conclusion that the impact of ocean acidification on a creature's net calcification may be largely controlled by the status of its protective organic cover and that the net slowdown in skeletal growth under increased CO2 occurs not because these organisms are unable to calcify, but rather because their unprotected skeleton is dissolving faster.

I suppose that if all uncertainties are resolved in the direction of lower risk, we just might get away with BAU for the next few decades without a complete disaster (though continued sea level rise, ocean acidification and 2 degrees Celsius actually sound pretty risky to me, and the risk that there are other factors in play seems to be reinforced by paleo data on glacial - interglacial transitions).

(In the bargain we get some plankton - harming ocean acidification, something not anticipated originally).

So that's the end of the process and, here's the point, I don't think we have a clue about whether the acidification will get us there any earlier or later.

Ocean acidification is a continuing problem that will get worse though.

I found Mr Alder's testimony that «acidification» can be an ambiguous and misleading term compelling and so we need to clear this matter up right from the get - go.

The anthropogenic influence on atmospheric CO2 is about as solid as science gets, supported by multiple lines of evidence — simple accounting, ocean acidification, ocean CO2 increasing at the surface (by Salby it would have to be decreasing), decreasing atmospheric O2, isotopic balances, etc..

The data would indicate that you've got it right (on the purported ocean «acidification») and Webby is wrong.

But if you mean by «global warming» all the crap about renewable energy and sealevel rise and «acidification» and the end of civilsation as we know it and 50 million climate refugees and the end of glaciers by 2035 and hockey sticks and «unprecedented» and drowning polies and the whole tranche of wacko ideas that have got attached to the simple climatical observation that its a bit warmer than it was in 1912, then I'm very very sceptical and there are is very little reliable evidence for any of it.

As these SRM techniques are also largely unproven, require a mostly peaceful world to be deployed in, require the bending of judiciary systems, may backfire climatologically and do «nothing» [considering ocean temperature feedbacks they actually do do something] to abate ocean acidification — the simple notion that it is cheap [again, policy thinking] makes geoengineering so dangerous, possibly undermining cooperation behind the world's mitigation attempts, under the UNFCCC, the hard route that we need to go anyway * [as CDR geoengineering lacks the potential to get carbon concentrations back to safe levels, also for marine life — and isn't much cheaper / is costlier anyway].

Sceptic comments that get through now tend to be from newcomers and get less support, and the discussion between true believers is frequently surreal, («we're all going to die from ocean acidification!»

How do we get back all that money we've had taken from us by our governments and spunked on their cronies at Solyndra and BrightSource or thrown casually into grants for junk science research like «ocean acidification» or squandered on shysters at tainted institutions like NASA, NOAA and the Royal Society or wasted on anti-capitalist bureaucracies like the EPA and the Department of Energy and Climate Change?

Williamson — who is attached to the University of East Anglia, home of the Climategate emails — got very upset about some articles I'd written for Breitbart and the Spectatorpouring scorn on his junk - scientific field, Ocean Acidification.

The evidence that Ocean Acidification represents any kind of threat is threadbare — and getting flimsier by the day.

You hit on one of the reasons I get irate at people using ocean acidification and impact to shell fish as a justification to reduce CO2 emissions.

A new report identifies regions where the shellfish industry is likely to get hit hardest by ocean acidification — and some ways to fight the future.

Last week, those efforts got a giant boost: XPRIZE has announced the $ 2 million Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health XPRIZE for breakthroughs in acidification monitoring.

Subsistence fishermen face an uncertain future, marked by climate change and ocean acidification and global overfishing, and they suspect things are only going to get worse.

But with CO2 levels soaring, the scientific community is getting worried about acidification harming marine life.

Note that you would have to increase the ocean temperature a lot to get 100 ppm of CO2 as we have in the past century, so we can be sure it is not ocean - warming alone that can account for this (beside the acidification being the wrong sign for the ocean to be the source).

Climate change impacts including increased wildfires, drought, flooding, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and changes to agriculture threaten the state today, and will get much worse unless we take action.

Because, if it ain't ocean acidification that will kill of marine life, then for sure it's got ta be the speculative oxygen starvation that does the job, donchaknow!

Efficiency is very important in the case of fossil fuel power stations because fossil fuels are a finite resource — once we use them they are gone — and when burned they produce carbon dioxide and other substances that kill people and cause climate change and ocean acidification; so it is very important to get as much electricity as we possibly can per tonne of fossil fuel.

All you get now is all their research on Ocean Acidification.

Ocean «acidification» is not the ongoing decrease in ocean pH. At most, you [and Wiki] can only say honestly that a decrease in ocean pH is approaching neutral — but it will never get to 7.0.

When CO2 ends up in the ocean, you get acidification, which can damage coral reefs and shellfish.

Given that, if one wants freedom of choice and an efficient market, shouldn't one accept a market solution (tax / credit or analogous system based on public costs, applied strategically to minimize paperwork (don't tax residential utility bills — apply upstream instead), applied approximately fairly to both be fair and encourage an efficient market response (don't ignore any significant category, put all sources of the same emission on equal footing; if cap / trade, allow some exchange between CO2 and CH4, etc, based CO2 (eq); include ocean acidification, etc.), allowing some approximation to that standard so as to not get very high costs in dealing with small details and also to address the biggest, most - well understood effects and sources first (put off dealing with the costs and benifits of sulphate aerosols, etc, until later if necessary — but get at high - latitude black carbon right away)?

While corals are getting most of the attention right now, acidification is changing marine life everywhere.

Acidification of the oceans (to get closer to the topic of the post) is different.

«Reducing the amount of sunlight we get is really problematic... it won't do anything about [other climate effects like] ocean acidification,» she said.

As far as I can see, one of the things that others have been trying to get at in this thread is that, owing to chronic reductions in crop yield, acute crises from droughts or flooding, and (in the case of ocean acidification) reduced productivity of ocean biomes exploited for food sources, starvation is a potential (if not yet 100 % certain) climate impact, especially in tropical / subtropical regions.

Take what you have learned from the scientists and imagine the world in a few decades from now, a few degrees warmer, with all the extreme weather, desertification, ocean acidification, mass migration, conflict over energy supplies, fresh water and so on, that have already begun, and that will only get worse the more we destabilize our climate system with greenhouse gases.

Droughts, fires, more extreme weather, sea level rise, ocean acidification... these are just the primary, direct consequences as our planet gets hotter.