Sentences with phrase «acidification so»

However, it is carbon dioxide in particular that has been the biggest contributor to global warming and ocean acidification so far.

Not exact matches

Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, ocean acidification, more extreme climate, tropical diseases near the poles, and so on are greatly exaggerated.

So this work provides a glimmer of hope that coral reefs can attenuate the effects of ocean acidification.»

Because GABA is so ubiquitous, Munday fears that ocean acidification could cause sensory and behavioral problems for many sea creatures if global CO2 levels continue to rise.

Previous CO2 rises on Earth happened so slowly that the accompanying ocean acidification was relatively minor, and ammonites and other planktonic calcifiers were able to cope with the changing ocean chemistry.

Says the very same person who literally believes that climate change is causing 30,000 species a year to go extinct... even though only 1 species has been confirmed to have gone extinct since 2000 (a mollusc), and that ocean «acidification» is happening so fast that marine species can not adapt.

It is your claim that the rate of acidification (i.e., pH lowering) since the beginning of the anthropogenic influence is so fast that marine species can not adapt to it.

Lord Monckton totally botched his discussion of ocean acidification, revealing that he doesn't understand ocean circulation, the significance of pH in aqueous systems, and so on.

Nonetheless, ocean acidification might weaken the foundation of these communities so rich in species and colours created by Lophelia pertusa.

As it does so, it oxidises to CO2, dissolving in seawater or reaching the atmosphere as CO2 which causes far slower warming, but can nevertheless contribute to ocean acidification.

So we expected that ocean acidification - driven changes in ocean biogeochemistry in the water column can also be reflected in the microlayer.

You can have a differential impact on biology and chemistry, so if you really want to assess what will be the status of calcifying organisms in 2100 there is one part, the chemistry, for which the organisms have no control but for the biology they can perhaps adapt and there might be a way for the organisms to mitigate the negative impacts of ocean acidification.

As ocean acidification proceeds, carbonate becomes less and less abundant, so at one point the carbonate concentration in the water is limiting the precipitation of calcium carbonate and organisms have a harder time to make their shell and skeleton since one of the bricks needed to make the wall is becoming less and less abundant.

We are pioneering this data fusion approach so that we can observe large areas of Earth's oceans, allowing us to quickly and easily identify those areas most at risk from increasing acidification,» says Jamie Shutler from the University of Exeter, who is leading the research.

Members of the OAIE can share resources and engage in online discussions, and, in doing so, will enhance stakeholder interactions and build well - informed communities working to respond and adapt to ocean acidification.The OAIE invites anyone working on ocean acidification to join, including but not limited to government, tribal, and academic research scientists, citizen scientists, experiential and formal educators, NGO employees, marine resources managers, policy makers, concerned citizens, aquaculturists, people in the fishing industry, technology developers, and data managers.

«So far it's completely unclear how these productivity hotspots are affected by ocean acidification and what are the impacts on the oceanic food web.»

Raised CO2 in aquatic systems can also lead to physiological stress, difficulty in building calcareous shells etc. (as will happen if atmospheric CO2 continues to build up beyond around 700ppm - the so called ocean acidification effect).

In Wignall's work, I noticed these papers on extinction events are missing the so - called evil twin of climate change, ocean acidification.

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].

This disaster is just as devastating as the oily sheen that dominated the news after the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and I am so grateful to Wendy and XPRIZE for identifying acidification as the next big ocean priority the U.S. must address.

However, this in itself is not enough to define what level of warming is «dangerous,» especially since the projections of actual impacts for any level of warming are highly uncertain, and depend on further factors such as how quickly these levels are reached (so how long ecosystems and society have had to respond), and what other changes are associated with them (eg: carbon dioxide concentration, since this affects plant photosynthesis and water use efficiency, and ocean acidification).

That applies not only to the Australian drought, but to all aspects of climate change, whether it be loss of sea ice, loss of glaciers and ice caps, acidification of the oceans, desertification, mass migrations due to sea level rise, and so on.

Ocean - acidification mitigation schemes seem far - fetched to me, so I wasn't considering them.

I think the inflation would be a consequence of that fact that (except for some things), in so far as the efficient market hypothesis applies, we would be operating optimally now except for global warming and ocean acidification; applying the tax pulls us away from that optimum, the economy will then not be as efficient (ignoring externalities); but we should want to do this because the economy is now more efficient when including the externalities.

While we might HOPE FOR THE BEST — that there will be a cooling trend (less sun irradiance, etc) to exactly counteract our AGW trend (even so there is the negative effects of CO2, even without the warming — ocean acidification, crop loss to weed, etc)-- we should then be trying to AVERT THE WORST with even more drastic GHG cuts.

To make this post stronger, it would help to distinguish this acidification scenario from the concerns about acid rain that were so prominent about twenty years ago.

From the («lay - scientist», real scientist wanna - be) guy who you Honored by re-enforcing my — much decried by the other bloggers — observation that, by using SO2 to «Geoengineer» our way out of having to use Good Sense to solve our Most Pressing of Planetary Issues, would only lead to more Acid Rain, Ocean Acidification, and — ultimately, or so I conjectured — the loss of our Primary source of the Oxygen that we all need to Breathe — Phytoplankton; I must say that I TRULY APPRECIATE what you do!

When you suggested in an reply to a comment of mine in an older post that the planet was resilient and also mentioned the coral reefs, I thought it useless to reply in rebuttal, because the science so clearly already showed that persistent high water temperatures and the increasing acidification of ocean waters were highly likely to do away with coral reefs during our lifetime.

If acidification is accepted terminology for this situation, then so be it.

Re «acidification» here and some comments in other strings, if this is really about the science, then let's say exactly what we mean so as not to give any reason for contrarians to distract folks from the main, coldly scientific conclusion.)

So using «acidification» to indicate a decrease in pH, particularly from a current «normal» state, seems correct and with an important connotation as well.

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.

The fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years.

The acidification of oceans may well be the most insidious and pervasive threat to life in the oceans everywhere, simply because so many different plants and animals that play key roles in ecosystems will likely be affected — coccolithophores, pteropods, corals, mollusks (clams, mussels, oysters, snails), echinoderms (urchins, seastars), arthropods (lobsters, crabs, shrimp), etc., etc..

It so happens that a process which reduces the pH of a solution is by convention called «acidification».

JC comment: So whose view of the ocean acidification is correct: Doney's or Idso's?

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.

So, to obscure the propaganda, some on thiss board want to argue the defintion of acidification — when really, the term is used for emotional effect.

So, acidification may be the best we can do, even though it is misleading.

If not then we have nothing to do with the so - called acidification (more properly called neutralization).

The 2009 State of the Climate Report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tells us that climate change is real because of rising surface air temperatures since 1880 over land and the ocean, ocean acidification, sea level rise, glaciers melting, rising specific humidity, ocean heat content increasing, sea ice retreating, glaciers diminishing, Northern Hemisphere snow cover decreasing, and so many other lines of evidence.

As it does so, it oxidises to CO2, dissolving in seawater or reaching the atmosphere as CO2 which causes far slower warming, but can nevertheless contribute to ocean acidification.

In fact it is a very risky target for all of us: so far, temperatures have increased by just.8 degree Celsius and we are already experiencing many alarming impacts, including the unprecedented melting of the Greenland ice sheet in the summer of 2012 and the acidification of oceans far more rapidly than expected.

Oil — > Transport, Electricity — > 1) C02 and 10x stronger or so CH4 in air — > Global Warming — > Draughts, Hurricanes, Floods — > Lost crops, forests, homes — > CO2 fixing potential lost, Starvation, Diseases, More ressources / energy needed 2) C02 and 10x stronger or so CH4 in air — > Global Warming — > Ice caps and glaciers metling — > Earth natural climate stabilizers lost + massive CH4 release from pergelisoils & ancient ice melt 3) CO2 in water — > Oceans acidification — > Destruction of centennial / millenial coral reefs — > Loss of oceans» filters / pulmons / incubators / biodiversity reservoir — > Food shortage

It hasn't done so while ocean acidification threatens its fishing industry.

My code so far would be «C +2 S3.0 s1.5 a +1 L75 B - 1 R +2 T - 2 r +2 H +1 D - 2 G - 2 g - 2», fully convinced CO2 rise is anthropogenic, IPCC range of climate sensitivity, acidification will be a problem, sea level rise something like 75 cm.

Extremely conservative cost / benefit analysis (no costing of ocean acidification, for example, no consideration of reef loss) indicates that this would be better than break - even, we would make (some, not a lot) money doing so, from new industries and investments.

«Ocean Acidification» is highly questionable as a threat and even if so, is so far down the rankings were one to list the threats as to be not worthy of mention.

In the first, Woods Hole Oceanographic researchers Justin Ries et al. found that crabs, shrimp and lobsters build more shell when exposed to acidification and that hard clams and corals slowed formation of shells at very high CO2 levels, while soft clams and oysters did so at lower levels.

Most organisms that have been investigated display greater sensitivity at extreme temperatures, so as ocean temperatures change, those species that are forced to exist at the edges of their thermal ranges will experience stronger effects of acidification.