The US National Climate Assessment, NCA4, 2017

Søren R Nielsen skrev:
Et pH-fald på ca. 30% skulle i flg. flere kilder, betyde et fald fra eks. pH 8 til pH 7,9. Altså et fald på ca. 0,1 i pH.

Declines in surface ocean pH due to ocean acidification are already detectable and accelerating. Measurements gathered at biogeochemical time-series sites around the world reveal similar decreasing trends in ocean pH (reductions between 0.0015 and 0.0024 pH units per year), but datasets are only available for the last few decades. To estimate earlier changes, scientists have used both models and data-based extrapolations. Both approaches converge to indicate that since 1860, the pH of the ocean surface has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1, corresponding to a 26% increase in H+. The present rate of change can be put into context by looking at the paleoclimatic record. The current change appears to be the fastest in at least 300 million years, with the fastest known natural acidification event – occurring 55 million years ago – being probably ten times slower.

The largest feedback of ocean acidification on climate (via atmospheric CO2) is chemical. Increases in CO2 reduce CO32-, which in turn reduces the ocean's capacity to buffer further increases in CO2. For a 1 part per million (ppm) increase in atmospheric CO2, today's associated ocean carbon uptake is only 70% of the capacity it had at the beginning of the industrial era. If atmospheric CO2 doubles from its pre-industrial level to 560 ppm, ocean carbon uptake will only be at 40%, and if it reaches 800 ppm, it will only be 26%. Other feedbacks are uncertain but much smaller.

Søren R Nielsen skrev:
Hvorfor er Ocean-Acidification-forskningen(fra NOAA) noget bras?

Kort svaret:
...
-Og fordi man ikke kan måle pH fornuftigt, da pCO2(pH) i havets øverste 200 m skifter voldsomt. -Så voldsomt at blot få meters dybde-forskel giver større udving end den totale stigning man mener at kunne beregne som globale udsving.

Niels K Sørensen skrev:
Så det kan måles, at pH ændres 0,002 pH pr år, hvis målingen foretages over 20 år.
Præcis også hvad wmo påstår.

kulden-varmen skrev:

Niels K Sørensen skrev:
Så det kan måles, at pH ændres 0,002 pH pr år, hvis målingen foretages over 20 år.
Præcis også hvad wmo påstår.

Surhedsgraden er også temperatur afhængig, foruden at de opløste stoffer udveksles med atmosfæren. Dette er ikke nogen nem opgave og dyrene må havde overlevet den slags før.

Niels K Sørensen skrev:
der findes måleudstyr, der måler saltvand pH med en nøjagtighed på 0,004 pH.
Vi taler om 0,002 pH pr år, der skal detekteres.
Hvad giver det på 20 år....
0,04 pH får jeg det til.
Så det kan måles, at pH ændres 0,002 pH pr år, hvis målingen foretages over 20 år.
Præcis også hvad wmo påstår.

Så du har intet vist, Søren Nielsen. Men antydet en masse du tror er tilfældet, og det er jo noget helt andet.

Søren Nielsen: Du veksler mellem person-angreb, propaganda, og noget der kan minde om videnskabelig diskussion.

Fra de nuværende pH 8, til pH 7,8(pH7,7)... OBS. Dette er kun beregnede tal, fra den mest groteske (RCP8.5) model...
Og har som jeg vil vise, ingen solide data til understøttelse.

-Og fordi man ikke kan måle pH fornuftigt, da pCO2(pH) i havets øverste 200 m skifter voldsomt. -Så voldsomt at blot få meters dybde-forskel giver større udving end den totale stigning man mener at kunne beregne som globale udsving.

pH-forskningen er i dag i knibe.
Der ledes efter nye metoder, der kan måle Global gennemsnits hav-pH.
Ingen er endnu kommet med fornuftige forslag eller smarte teknologier.

Kapitlet Ocean Acidification, er bygget på fejlagtige historiske data fra NOAA modeller.. og dagens ægte målinger foretages ikke.
Et stort matematisk trick, der skal få folk til at tro på "havet bliver til syre, og alt liv dør".
/ ikke godkendt.

WMO har som alle andre adgang til NOAA's beregninger, og de ganske få ulige fordelte målestationer der har opereret i ganske få år(<20 år), og som er behæftede med enorme usikkerheder, og meget store udsving.

"Så det er målbart verdenshavenes pH er faldende pga udledning af co2."

Nej Niels K. Det er ikke muligt at måle noget som helst. Det har jeg jo lige vist med citater, grafer, afsløringer, og logik.

WMO taler om 0,0015- 0,0024 pH-forskelle om året.
Man kan ikke måle så præcist. -Det er alle, selv NOAA, enige i.

Niels K, hvordan kan du så afslutte med stædigt at påstå:

"Så det er målbart verdenshavenes pH er faldende pga udledning af co2." -Når du selv leverer kilden(WMO) der modsiger dette ?? -Dine tolkninger af egne kilder er forkerte, eller også har du ikke selv læst dem.

Tak for WMO-citatet. Det vil jeg bruge i min næste debat om de falske tal i pH-forskningen.

Niels, du er virkelig ikke videnskabelig, -og jeg er glad for ikke at diskutere med dig på det plan. Hold du dig til at Google sager, og post dem med hovedet under armen.

Niels, du skal holde hvad du lover dig selv, at undlade at diskutere videnskabeligt. Du ydmyger dig selv hver gang. Hold dig til propaganda-links.

Jeg har personligt arbejdet med pH-metre.(glas-elektrode)

This period was characterized by the establishment of global ocean carbon hydrographic surveys and long-term time series stations that yielded high-quality measurements at highly-resolved temporal and spatial scales. As the greatly improved spectrophotometric pH methods were refined in the early 1990s, there was renewed interest in making high-quality pH measurements. The scientific community had greater trust in these measurements because the measurements could be compared to and validated against the independent measurements of total carbon, pCO2 and total alkalinity from these large community evaluated data sets compiled as previously described. Finally, starting with the WOCE-JGOFS era, we were able to collect high-quality data using standard protocols and validated with reference materials with enough temporal and spatial resolution that would allow us to determine scientifically defensible mean annual oceanic surface water trends. The resulting data from 1989 to the present have been published in many peer-reviewed scientific articles and assessments, culminating in the recent assessment published in the recent IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 Report Chapter 3 (see Rhein et al., 2013).

Alarmisternes darling "RCP8.5" er ved at smuldre, og kun de mest enøjede forsvarer stadig denne højdramatiske og urealistiske forudsigelses-model..

RCP 8.5 is certainly implausible. But without that, the alarmist scenario and the SCC arguments disappear. Poof!
Along with that Poof! goes hundreds, if not thousands, of non-climate papers that use or assume that fake RCP8.5 climate fairy-tale as a baseline for their "research." If RCP8.5 goes Poof!, then so does a lot of other strap-hangers-on papers."

A new book on the origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the global warming movement reveals that the 1995 discovery of 'discernible' evidence for a man-made influence on climate was a response to demands of politicians keen to regulate energy usage.
It was only when the IPCC was threatened with alienation from the climate treaty process that it suddenly concluded "a discernible human influence on global climate".
Based on interviews with many of the key participants, author Bernie Lewin shows how climate science never was a driver of the policy movement and then how in 1995 policy demands began to drive the science...

Kosmos skrev:

RCP 8.5 is certainly implausible. But without that, the alarmist scenario and the SCC arguments disappear. Poof!
Along with that Poof! goes hundreds, if not thousands, of non-climate papers that use or assume that fake RCP8.5 climate fairy-tale as a baseline for their "research." If RCP8.5 goes Poof!, then so does a lot of other strap-hangers-on papers."

- interessant ny bog om IPCC:

A new book on the origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the global warming movement reveals that the 1995 discovery of 'discernible' evidence for a man-made influence on climate was a response to demands of politicians keen to regulate energy usage.
It was only when the IPCC was threatened with alienation from the climate treaty process that it suddenly concluded "a discernible human influence on global climate".
Based on interviews with many of the key participants, author Bernie Lewin shows how climate science never was a driver of the policy movement and then how in 1995 policy demands began to drive the science...

Based on interviews with many of the key participants, author Bernie Lewin shows how climate science never was a driver of the policy movement and then how in 1995 policy demands began to drive the science...

...The submission was written by Robert Watson, a British chemist who had recently taken up a position in the White House. When previously at NASA, Watson had been at the centre of an earlier scare – over destruction of the ozone layer – where he had shown a deft hand in public relations, keeping scary stories in the headlines so as to maintain pressure for a complete ban on CFCs. By 1989, concern over an ozone 'hole' in remote Antarctica had waned, but just before a big 'Save the Ozone Layer' conference, Watson declared that Arctic ozone was 'primed for a large destruction' in coming days.
Watson knew very well that there was almost no chance of a northern 'hole', but his warning had the desired effect, winning headlines around the world and undoubtedly influencing the European's decision to wind up all production of CFCs

Kjeld Jul skrev:
Den nu pensionerede tyske klimaforsker og medforfatter til WG2 i AR5,Hans von Storch var en af de største kritikere af sammenblandingen af videnskab og politik.
I forordet i sin bog " Die Klima Falle",skriver han :
Das Buch erzaehlt vom Aufstieg der Klimsthematik und vom Suendenfall der Klimaforscher ,die in Sorge um die oeffentliche Meinung begannen,aus Kurven Symbole und aus Wissenschaft Politik zu machen.