Global Warming is good for Penguins

[genglandoh]

Nearly twice as many emperor penguins inhabit Antarctica as was thought.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17692025

[Flying Orca]

Nearly twice as many emperor penguins inhabit Antarctica as was thought.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17692025

Yes, there are more emperor penguins than previously thought. Where do you get the idea that "global warming is good for penguins", though? Certainly not from the article you linked, or from any serious climate science.

Oh wait, you're just making sh|te up again, aren't you.

[ChrisBen]

Where do you get the idea that "global warming is good for penguins", though?

Maybe they were trapped under all that ice that just melted. Ever think of that?

[ccmanuals]

If your a science denier then you don't need science to back up your arguments.

[Peerie Maa]

Is there any evidence that shows that


















genglandoh read any further than the title bar?

[McMike]

Sorry Geng but the article you linked simply doesn't support your thread title. Either you are lying or horribly misinterpreting the data and the story.

Either way, maybe an admission of error on your part is due?

[wardd]

maybe in 10 years their numbers will be down to the previous estimate

[LeeG]

How will that affect power outages?

[seanz]

Penguins don't live in the Antarctic because it's cold, they moved there to start an empire.

[The Bigfella]

I hear that they are all Republicans

[PeterSibley]

There may be more but in a while they will be hungry, very hungry if things continue as they are.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/n...-acidification
Krill face deadly cost of ocean acidification

Antarctic krill


13th October 2010
New research on the impact of ocean acidification on Antarctic krill has found increased levels of carbon dioxide kill their embryos.
The Australian Antarctic Division study exposed krill to different levels of carbon dioxide to assess the possible impact of acidification on the early development of krill.
Ocean acidification is caused by man-made carbon dioxide from the atmosphere being absorbed by the ocean.
Krill biologist, Dr So Kawaguchi, said most of the krill embryos exposed to higher levels of carbon dioxide did not develop and none of them hatched successfully.
“We used the Antarctic Division’s krill aquarium to set up three sea water tanks bubbled with the current (380 parts per million (ppm)), medium (1000ppm) and high (2000ppm) levels of carbon dioxide,” Dr Kawaguchi said.
“There was no change detected in the development of the krill embryos in the tanks with the current and medium levels, but in the tank with higher levels, none of the embryos survived to hatch.”

[The Bigfella]

.... and please explain to the kiddies what's needed to get to 2000ppm

[seanz]

.... and please explain to the kiddies what's needed to get to 2000ppm

Krill-joy.

[Soundbounder]

Such a peaceful, relaxing, Sunday morning

This message is hidden because genglandoh is on your ignore list.

[PeterSibley]

.... and please explain to the kiddies what's needed to get to 2000ppm

Increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere... do you envisage a reduction?

[The Bigfella]

Increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere... do you envisage a reduction?

Please quantify this increase.

Oh, btw... how does bubbling CO2 through the krill's tank equate to current ocean CO2 levels?

[PeterSibley]

So... just to use a bit of elementary logic, if the levels keep increasing, coal keeps being burnt, CO2 stored 20 million years ago continues indefinitely to be released ....what would you suggest?

[The Bigfella]

So... just to use a bit of elementary logic, if the levels keep increasing, coal keeps being burnt, CO2 stored 20 million years ago continues indefinitely to be released ....what would you suggest?

Oh, sorry, we've stopped discussing the red krillering have we?

I'd suggest we start a uranium processing and leasing industry in this country, linked to the deployment of some reasonable nuke power plants (Westinghouse AP1000s and the like).

[PeterSibley]

Do a referendum and get back to me.

As for krill, acidification is increasing and the logic is that it will eventually become deadly as there seems no interest in the stopping said increase .

At what point do you think it will stop by itself?

[The Bigfella]

No... you've put out propaganda that says that krill will die at 2000ppm CO2 bubbling through their midst. Total propaganda which you can't link to the real workd. Red herring extrordinaire.... then you want to run away from it....

[PeterSibley]

It's a fact, the point being to illustrate that the current path will lead to dead oceans .... but you refuse as per normal to concede said fact or to comment on the sure inevitability of the result. Steady as we go eh Ian?

[The Bigfella]

It's a fact, the point being to illustrate that the current path will lead to dead oceans .... but you refuse as per normal to concede said fact or to comment on the sure inevitability of the result. Steady as we go eh Ian?

How does it do that? What is the link between that absurd example and reality?

[PeterSibley]

A progression ..if you don't like the idea tell me when the acidification will stop.

[The Bigfella]

A progression ..if you don't like the idea tell me when the acidification will stop.

I just want to know how your example relates to reality

[PeterSibley]

I'm sure you can work that out Ian.The reality of an acidified ocean will be achieved if we continue as we are going .That's the reality .

Do you disagree?.

[The Bigfella]

I'm sure you can work that out Ian.The reality of an acidified ocean will be achieved if we continue as we are going .That's the reality .

Do you disagree?.

I don't agree or disagree. I'm not a scientist.... I was just asking about how a seemingly absurd experiment ties in to reality? If you want a similarly absurd example... Bubble saturated water vapor through your lungs and I bet your sperm count won't look too good in a week or two.

[PeterSibley]

As usual, no answer and sliding sideways. Night Ian .

[genglandoh]

Nearly twice as many emperor penguins inhabit Antarctica as was thought.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17692025

Obviously I posted this as a joke to point out how silly it is to use studies like this to prove anything.

Every time you hear that a new count of animals in the wild is lower than the earlier count people blame it on Global Warming or Man.
So I used this story as a way to reverse the thought process and just to show how silly it is.

As to the Penguins
In the past the count was estimated at about 300K this new study using better methods ESTIMATES the count at about 600K.
So this only shows a better way to estimate the number of Penguins.
Does anyone really think the actual number of Penguins has changed?

So now think about his the next time you are told the estimate of Polar Bears are down and this is because of Global Warming.

Do you really think we have a good starting estimate of the number of Polar Bears from 100 Years ago?
The North Pole was discovered in 1909
The South Pole was discovered in 1912

[Peerie Maa]

The North Pole was discovered in 1909
The South Pole was discovered in 1912

Had they been hiding?

[Soundbounder]

There are more deer in New England than when Columbus came...

When was Columbus in New England?

[leikec]

It's called the predator/prey relationship, Jamie. But you know that, don't you?

Jeff C

[wardd]

There are more deer in New England than when Columbus came... Global Warming, I suspect. Emperor penguins I suspect, have huge ego. Each emperor has to have its own country.

you sure it's not because they aren't hunted all year now?

[wardd]

When was Columbus in New England?

can't you read, he came when there were fewer deer

[Soundbounder]

can't you read, he came when there were fewer deer

You know me...I'm very ignorant. I am no match for Jamie's piercing logic.

[seanz]

There are more deer in New England than when Columbus came... Global Warming, I suspect. Emperor penguins I suspect, have huge ego. Each emperor has to have its own country.

Silly. Emperor Penguins have to have an empire. If all they had was a country, they'd be King Penguins.

[wardd]

Or queens, seanz.. Bloody Chauvinist.And wardd, there may have been fewer deer in 1492., more predators too. Hey, I was trying to be nice to you, shouldn't have been surprised at your snarky comment. Same to you Sound.

i don't recognize you when you're nice

[wardd]

as i said they are not being hunted for food

[The Bigfella]

As usual, no answer and sliding sideways. Night Ian .

Afternoon Peter. As usual, you put up a theory that you've since not managed to support. What relevance to the argument was some lackey's experiment involving concentrations of carbon dioxide 500% greater than exist in our atmosphere past the noses of some organisms?

Meanwhile, there's a technical discussion of ocean acidification on wiki. It finishes with this:

.... it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO₂ with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO₂ leaves the atmosphere for the ocean

[PeterSibley]

No doubt, unfortunately a lot of those carbonates form the shells of a variety of life forms, often those at the bottom of the food chain. They will be extinct before the chemistry self corrects. You're no zoologist mate .

[The Bigfella]

No doubt, unfortunately a lot of those carbonates form the shells of a variety of life forms, often those at the bottom of the food chain. They will be extinct before the chemistry self corrects. You're no zoologist mate .

I never claimed to be, but I see you are possessed with something, presumably predictive foresight?

This from wiki. Perhaps you can explain your claim against the history?



Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day

[PeterSibley]

Wot are you trying to prove Ian ? That carbonate shells don't dissolve in acid?

Go have a beer or something useful .

[The Bigfella]

Wot are you trying to prove Ian ? That carbonate shells don't dissolve in acid?

Go have a beer or something useful .

Sorry Peter, I just saw some stupid claims on this thread... and I asked for them to be substantiated. They haven't been.... they appear to be nothing more than p!ss on the wall

[PeterSibley]

Claims? That acidification will continue to toxic levels? Nothing outrageous there Ian.
That acidification is fatal to krill, yes, but it will dissolve their shells and make them inviable far sooner .

[varadero]

I have posted this before, and if you want more info on the subject of using sulfuric acid as a nuetralising agent in sea water I will try to assist. Not all acids are the same.

Note: some understanding of chemistry (approximately A-Level) is necessary to understand this post. The theory behind the ‘toxic ocean acidification’ scam proceeds like this: as the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere increases, the concentration in the oceans also increases due to dissolution [true – all other things being equal]. CO₂ dissolved in water reacts with water to form carbonic acid, making the seas acidic [a half truth – they become very slightly less basic]. This acidity dissolves the shells of marine life causing mass extinction [an utter falsehood].
As a matter of fact, seawater is alkaline and basic. Dissolving the carbon dioxide from all the world’s known fossil fuel reserves would never make the sea acidic. The climate alarmists coined the phrase “ocean acidification” to make it sound alarming, whereas the process is actually what is known as neutralization. The term ‘acidification’ of course sounds more scary than talking about the oceans becoming slightly less basic or a little more neutral.
To put this into perspective, the pH of seawater is, on average, around pH 8.2. Pure water is pH 7.0, and clean rainwater is pH 5.6. What is more, seawater is a highly buffered solution – it can take up a huge amount of dissolved inorganic carbon without significant effect on pH. There is not the slightest possibility that the oceans could approach the neutral pH of pure water even if all the fossil fuel reserves in the world were burned, so all talk of ‘acid’ oceans is utter nonsense. What sort of change are we talking about? Possibly a change of pH of 0.2 units this century, say from 8.2 to 8.0. That would mean by definition that the concentration of the ‘acidic’ H⁺ ions would still be no more than 10% of their concentration in pure water.
The so-called science behind this ‘acid ocean’ scare is highly questionable. Firstly, an increasing concentration of CO₂ in the water improves the efficiency of photosynthesis in the oceans (as it does on the land), and so increases the growth of plant life in the ocean, including phytoplankton, upon which ‘graze’ zooplankton, which is food for a vast range of sea animals, including whales.
Secondly, it’s not possible through lifeless inorganic chemistry to predict what is happening with living processes. Fish pump huge quantities (hundreds of millions of tonnes annually) of available carbonate in the oceans as a byproduct of the systems that enable them to survive in high salinity. This is using the energy of life processes to buck the normal dissolved inorganic carbon equilibria. The calcium carbonate of dead calcifying organisms dissolves naturally in seawater. What stops a sea creature’s shell from dissolving away is the living creature’s continually producing more calcium carbonate, just like a land animal continually produces skin cells to replace those that are lost to the environment.
Thirdly, an increasing concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon (e.g. dissolved carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ions, carbonate ions) makes the process of laying down calcium carbonate in shells efficient. This is because there is a far greater supply of calcium ions (441ppm) in seawater than dissolved inorganic carbon (90ppm) and any increase in dissolved carbon dioxide simply pushes the reactions towards the production of more bicarbonate and carbonate ions. The reactions are reversible and in equilibria:
CO₂ + H₂O <=> H₂CO₃ <=> H⁺ + HCO₃^- <=> H⁺ + H⁺ + CO₃^2-
Add more CO₂ at the left and the reaction proceeds to a greater or lesser extent to the right. Most of the additional carbon ends up as bicarbonate. Note that as the reaction is driven to the right by the dissolution of additional CO₂ there is increased production of H⁺ ions, so acidity is increasing (= decreasing pH).
Fourthly, the situation is completely different from the case where pH is artificially lowered by adding, say, hydrochloric acid, where there would be no addition of dissolved inorganic carbon. Unfortunately, many scientists have failed to understand this basic chemistry and have conducted crude experiments on shellfish by adding mineral acids to seawater. Whilst this duly lowers the pH, it drives the equilibrium reactions in the opposite direction, so is completely invalid as an experimental model. In the equilibrium equation above, introducing mineral acid (which introduces no additional dissolved inorganic carbon) adds H⁺ ions on the right of the equilibrium equation, which drives the reaction to the left. The increase in H⁺ ions (equivalent to lower pH), arises because the experimenter is tipping in mineral acid and is thereby forcing the reaction drastically to reduce carbonate and to increase dissolved carbon dioxide, which will come out of solution into the atmosphere as bubbles, decarbonizing the seawater. But if increasing atmospheric CO₂ is the driver, the reaction is forced the other way; if mineral acid is the driver, the pH goes down and carbonates and possibly bicarbonates also go down. Looking at pH alone tells us absolutely nothing about the concentrations of carbonates, bicarbonates, dissolved CO₂, equilibria, reaction rates or reaction directions. At the very least we also need to know the amount of dissolved inorganic carbon. Moreover, calcium carbonate dissolves in alkaline seawater (pH 8.2) 15 times faster than in pure water (pH 7.0), so it is silly, meaningless nonsense to focus on pH.
At pH 8, seawater is supersaturated with carbonate. Why does this excess carbonate not precipitate out as calcium carbonate, since there are so many free calcium ions in the water? This seldom happens because of the presence of magnesium ions in seawater that preferentially ion pair with the carbonate in solution. With ion pairing, the reaction moves further to the right than would be the case without magnesium ions, yet without precipitation of magnesium and calcium carbonate salts, and this ensures there is an abundance of dissolved carbonate ions available for living organisms in spite of the low alkalinity. Moreover, phosphorus and dissolved organic compounds permit high levels of carbonate to exist without precipitation. Seawater is a truly marvelous and complex chemical system, which includes non-volatile borate, phosphate and silicate buffers.
Increasing CO₂ partial pressure in a CO₂/carbonate equilibrium will always drive the reaction towards the production of more dissolved inorganic carbon, irrespective of any associated reduction in pH arising from the shift in equilibrium itself. So if atmospheric CO₂ increases, leading to increased dissolution of CO₂, we can be sure that there will be a higher concentration of available carbon – the complete opposite of what the scare mongers are telling us. It seems that those creating the ‘ocean acidification’ scare would like us to believe that a reduction in pH is analogous to tipping mineral acid in the oceans, which would indeed be damaging, and would liberate CO₂ from the oceans and decarbonize it, whereas the effect of increasing dissolution of CO₂ is beneficial both to marine plants and animals.