By Marc Morano, ClimateDepot
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.
“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”
Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.
Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”
But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”
“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)
“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.
“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]
“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.
Global Warming ‘a new religion’
Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.
“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”
Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty
“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.
“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.
“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”
“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.
On Global Temperatures & CO2
Giaever noted that global temperatures have halted for the past 18 plus years. [Editor’s Note: Climate Depot is honored that Giaever used an exclusive Climate Depot graph showing the RSS satellite data of an 18 year plus standstill in temperatures at 8:48 min. into video.]
Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures.
“They can fiddle with the data. That is what NASA does.”
“You cannot believe the people — the alarmists — who say CO2 is a terrible thing. Its not true, its absolutely not true,” Giaever continued while showing a slide asking: ‘Do you believe CO2 is a major climate gas?’
“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.
“How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree. I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? It’s ridiculous,” he added.
Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”
“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.
“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.
Extreme Weather claims
“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.
“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.
“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.
“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.
“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.
“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.” (See: Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends)
“What people say is not true. I spoke to a journalist with [German newspaper Die Welt yesterday…and I asked how many articles he published that says global warming is a good thing. He said I probably don’t publish them at all. Its always a negative. Always,” Giever said.
“They say refugees are trying to cross the Mediterranean. These people are not fleeing global warming, they are fleeing poverty,” he noted.
“If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills,” he added.
“Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.”
“Cheap energy is what made us so rich and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.”
“People say oil companies are the big bad people. I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies. General Electric makes windmills. They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it. But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil,” he noted.
Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.
In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’
Other prominent scientists are speaking up skeptically about man-made global warming claims. See: Prominent Scientist Dissents: Renowned glaciologist declares global warming is ‘going to be a big plus’ – Fears ‘Frightening’ Cooling – Warns scientists are ‘prostituting their science’
Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming: ‘We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated’
Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.
I have heard this before. I saw this documentary in which a collective of
200 of the worlds top scientists argued that global warming is not
happening. On the other hand there are numerous scientist who say it is.
The right argues that it is a way to generate research monies… just
put the words “climate change research” on it. It is hard to know.
Especially since the most of the conventional politicians also argue so
strongly against sustainable, healthier solutions for all in favor of
conservative economics (wealth for the rich). Governments, Researchers
and Organizations are in bed with one another most often. Which makes me
wonder about this guys background. This gentleman believes that oil and
gas should be the preferred energy solution of choice for economic
reasons, based on his theory. However, he leaves out a few important
important facts: 1.) Harvard has proven that Green energy is a
competitive economic performer. 2.) Oil and Gas are harmful to our
environments and health beyond climate change. I wont even get into how
Conservative Economics “Development” promotes the appropriation of
resources at the expense of the countries land and citizens where they
are extracted from. Let alone democratic rights or consensus being
exercised. I don’t think it is a religion substitute.Preservation of
life and health is sacred. Reducing it to a cult is arrogant Finding
fair solutions are important to people. On the reverse, I would argue
that most politicians and organizations make decisions based on money
for the rich as their religion.
I’d take a quality control sample of those “200 of the worlds top scientists” and test to see if they are scientists and if their field is in any way related to climatology or something that lets them talk meaningfully about climate change.
The consensus has been shown to be a complete fabrication time and time again – the only problem is that the President and the media refuse to investigate claims that go against their agendas.. it’s sick, and Orwellian…
Yes so let us directly spend this money, going on a Trillion dollars to help China and India scrub their air so we can all breath easier, not due to some ridiculous political scheme to tax the middle class of western nations out of existence so the “progressives” can maintain power – it’s like watching a damn circus… The media are almost completely in the government pocket – but what the FAR left does not seem to understand that fascism, once established, does not care about gay marriage or race rights, or harvesting baby parts without consent and for money, only keeping control..
Yet no national or international scientific body formally disagrees with the fact that global warming is real, is mostly caused by human activities, and will have significant costs. Many studies have shown scientific consensus on climate change (for example: Anderegg et al. (2010), Doran & Zimmerman (2009), etc.).
One scientist with a dissenting opinion, even if he has won a Nobel Prize, does not disprove climate change.
Truth is not decided by a majority vote. You can have 99 people wrong about something and 1 person be right.
You really believe there is only one scientist who believes this is not a politically driven hoax. True men and woman of science deal in facts not manipulated models to push agenda based science…there are many scientists who believe this whole movement is ridiculous.
If not just one then who else?
Myself, Ph.D.,P.E. Chemical engineering
A complete LIE – you are omitting the articles purposely that disagree – I only have to point out that your assumption only one scientists disagrees is absurdity – in reality their is absolutely no consensus – drink more koolaid if you wish…. I know it’s a religion to you, but we are cycling through a normal warming period and are now cooling – this is what the DATA tell us – if you actually were prepared to look at the data yourself.
I know, and at one time all the governments of the world and their agencies agreed that the planet was flat.
That is a really intelligent argument. There is no science that is “settled” or incontrovertible. That the sun revolved around the earth was “settled” for over 2000 years, even after it was correctly found to be inaccurate by Copernicus. Galileo was convicted of heresy for proving that the earth revolved around the sun, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest as a result.
So… what else you got?
Water vapor is by volume the greatest greenhouse gas, thousands of times more than naturall occurring CO2. There are thousands of more times naturally occurring CO2 than man-made CO2. And the sun shines on it all. It is the cycles of the sun that control EVERY cycle on the earth. AGW is a wealth redistribution scam.
To iterate just how correct this statement is, let’s repeat the math.
CO2 x ppm is 2 x as strong a heat forcing mechanism than H2O, but…
H2O has an atomic weight of 18 and CO2 has an atomic weight of 44. So it takes 2.22 water molecules by weight to equal just one CO2.
This makes H2O about 122% more dangerous as a heat trapping GHG than an equal weight of CO2.
Now the fact is H2O by ppm is about 100 x as common in the A as CO2, and 40 x as common by weight.
So 40 x 122% means water is about 50 x as important a GHG as CO2.
What wasn’t mentioned is the fact that GHG is a relatively small reason the atmosphere is warm. Everyone seams to just skip over the Burneli laws of transferable kv, in fact most A:€kv derives therefrom. Yes, most €kv from earth, biomass and oceanic thermal masses goes back into the air through common absorption and is then re-radiated by convection processes back into the A just like it would effect ALL GAS and not just GHGs. The bottom line is that CO2 is only 1/50th of value of water and combined those GHG’S account for but 1/36th of the physical reasons atmosphere is warm. The €kv source is mainly the sun. CO2 accounts for1/50th /36 or about 1/100th of why €kv exists within the A at all.
A very belated THANK-YOU!
He’s well outside his field of physics and quantum tunneling. How good is he at climatology?
You should better ask this question to Al Gore, Obama, Greenpeace, the Pope and many others . . . And most of the IPCC-“climate experts”.
I don’t think anyone ever promoted Al Gore, Obama, Greenpeace, and the Pope as climate experts, so that smells of a strawman argument.
The math however is pretty clear. So take your Marx loving idiocy and bring back a real counter argument that deals with the chemistry and physics. You can’t because the math is pretty simple. I believe you to be far to simple minded to understand the higher physics.
Well let’s see….Physics, Burneli laws of thermodynamics and the transfer of kenetic energy (€kv) from one more dense thermal mass to a gas. ..yes I rather think he knows a hell of a lot more about AIR than the lack dumb sh__s putting together models on an atari.
Perhaps you should just look at the basic math, chemistry and physics of my post above and realize, real science isn’t crating a giant boggy man out of an inconsequential trace gas that acts as plant food.
Physics determines everything that happens in the atmosphere. I will take a physicist at his word a whole lot better than a climatologist.
Physics determines everything that happens in an automobile. That doesn’t make him a good mechanic.
I had no idea that climatologists were mechanics. But if physicists have no idea about climate then perhaps we should dimiss Mann (physicist, geologist, mathemarician) and Hanson too (physicist, mathematician, astronomer )
Neither have degrees in climatology or meteorology. However, the tools and knowledge gained from those fields apply nicely in climatology.
GHGs have been good to us. They are only a small procentage of the atmosphere, yet they have made this planet is inhabitable and warm. This is fairly basic research that were made already in the 1800s (Fouriers 1827, Tyndall 1865, Arrhenius 1896) and has never really been challenged. (Or let me know by who and where? Sorry LouiseD, I need something more solid than your knowledge of math;) In a simplified version it is not difficult to understand. The atmosphere lets quite a lot of the “light radiation” (shorter wavelength) from the sun come through to the earth, but the GHGs (mostly water vapor or CO2) stops parts of the “heat radiation” (longer wavelength) from leaving the atmosphere. And we need to trap a certain amount of heat from the sun to have a nice climate on the surface of the earth so we don’t become an ice planet. Is that something we can agree on? Giever asks how come global warming always is labeled as “bad” in the media… and of course it isn’t negative for everyone. The people living on Greenland have for example been able to start upp more sheep farms now when the summer season has become longer. But just like it is good for some, it is also bad for others. But in the text above at least Giever doesn’t either challenge that GHG are warming us – he just says that its not going to be that bad.
So, I don’t quite understand… Do you mean that it is the basic research of the last 200 years that is a scam – or is the scam how this sience is being used in politics?
Scam in that we are being totally screwwed and taxxed by the devil himself over stuff that happens anyway and that is so big there is no way to control!!!!!! The emperor..no, the Fuhrer has no clothes!!!!! Total bunk. There has always been climate change. Man is not big enough to make a difference. When you consider all the facts and the science you will understand why we suddenly have a new science:”climatology” that is filled with duckbills serving the politicos. That is not science, that is lying, and it is selfish harmful lying because it costs so much to satisfy the “climatologists” demands for climate change and “sustainability”. Those selfish fools think that man can control the entire planet? Not by a looooooooong shot, and it is not merely the planet Earth, it is also the sun. NO WAY. And no pay this tax. Instead jail the lying traitor!!!!!
As usual Leftists, suffering from emotional diarrhea, are running around screeching about the sky falling and that if only all the industrialized countries would invest half their GDP in green energy projects in the third world we could save the planet!! What they conveniently forget is that the planet’s climate has fluctuated for its existence AND if they insist we talk averages, the longest “AVERAGED” periods indicate the planet “should” be considerably warmer than it is now with significantly higher levels of Co2 and water vapor etc. Nobody talks about that. They also refuse to acknowledge the fact that temperatures have fluctuated from high to low and back long before industrialized man came along. NATURAL processes like solar activity, forest fires (before suppression some fires burned all summer), vulcanism and related gases/soot and a million other factors that science has yet to get a handle on determine our planetary climate. To think that the paltry changes our socialist alarmist friends insist on will accomplish anything is naive at best. In truth it will do nothing but squander the world’s wealth, not on helping the impoverished, but on lining the pockets of socialist dictators and tribal war Lord’s. But, hey: they’ll feel better about themselves the next time they fly half way across the world for some extravagant vacation with the family!
If the Government says there’s Global warming then ,IT MUST BE A LIE
Global Warming and Climate Change is a natural process. The world as been warming since the last age ice and the Climate has been changing every 30 years.
Seems like the world government wants to put all of us into an ice age instead.
The climate scam is yet another fraud that will allow governments to impose sanctions on our freedoms. Whether it’s science or religion, the control freaks cannot help control their addiction to control others.
All the sun’s orbital planets are slightly heating up. As the sun converts hydrogen to helium, it burns hotter.
You’ve become a very wise old man, Dr. Giaever . I’ve been fighting for over 35 years on this hoax and the media perpetrating it as well . I was called “old school” by some colleagues , I said that anthropogenic is too big of a word to be bandied about so freely. I had to practice proper scientific method and procedure , where I could postulate a theorem but I could’nt state it as being a fact as the global warming crowd was doing. And David Suzuki stated that if we did’nt agree with him , then we were’nt credible scientists . Well things have changed around and they were caught contriving data . Very dangerous to dumb down people . The solar system is much too big for them to control it or even understand it thoroughly, as of yet . A cash cow for bad politicians and their friends . Was corruption involved ? Most definitely .
Let’s look at the molecular mass of some of Earth’s major atmospheric gasses including water vapor, WV.
Gravitational Separation by Molecular Weight.
Gas, MW, %
WV, 18, 4%
N2, 28, 78%
O2, 32, 21%
CO2, 44, 0.03%
We would expect some gravitational separation of gas concentration with respect to altitude.
At the higher altitudes where radiation scattering is more significant than convection, the concentration of lighter WV with respect to heavier CO2 should be much larger than the average concentration.
The idea that CO2 may have forced the initial creation of some WV early in earth’s history is meaningless because once the WV concentration consistently exists, it will forever swamp the effects of CO2 for all future.
Latent Heat and Water Vapor Flux
Another issue is the concept of latent heat and the fact that water vapor, unlike other atmospheric gasses, is in constant flux of creation and destruction (forced by the sun and WV’s own existence rather than CO2). WV absorbs latent heat at the earth’s surface when created and rises to higher altitudes where it condenses and releases that latent heat; at higher altitudes that heat is more likely to be radiated out to space.
Have you ever noticed that you find more snow than trees above the alpine tree-line? Could CO2 concentration play a part?
There are many details to be considered in the AGW controversy and those details are conveniently distorted and glossed-over in the UN-media push for hysteria, regulatory control and taxation.
Radiant Atmospheric Transmission and Absorption
CO2 may contribute to a tiny amount of warming but its effects are swamped by water vapor. I don’t buy the claim that the effects of CO2 are multiplied by convoluted forcing arguments.
Let’s look at what average percentages of gasses are actually in the atmosphere. Note that Methane is more miniscule than will be estimated and can almost be ignored and yes there are other GHGs that are ignored for simplicity.
Referring to this graph: Google Image:
CO2 is passive and merely absorbs and re-radiates existing energy it receives; it does not create heat. CO2 only scatters heat. Water-vapor and CH4 do the same thing. If the frequency of scatter is in the sun’s radiation bandwidth, some of the sun’s heat is redirected back into space due to scattering and if the frequency of scatter is in the earth’s radiation bandwidth, some of the Earth’s radiated-heat is redirect back into the atmosphere due to scattering.
As shown in the referenced graph, the absorption frequency bandwidths for CH4 are very narrow and there are only three of them; two of them are outside the earth’s radiative frequency band. The approximate average CH4 atmospheric concentration is 0.00018%. CO2 is well within the earth’s radiative frequency bandwidth and has a wider absorption bandwidth but the concentration is still low at the approximate average of 0.04%. If you look at the water-vapor absorption bandwidth, you will see that it is significantly wider than CO2 and covers some of the same frequencies as CO2 and has many peaks. Some of the narrower water-vapor peaks are in the sun’s radiative bandwidth but the majority of water-vapor absorption bandwidth is in the earth’s radiative bandwidth. Atmospheric water-vapor concentration was estimated by NASA to be approximately 3 to 4% and one water-vapor molecule is 50% more effective at absorbing radiation than one CO2 molecule. There is 100 times more water vapor than CO2 and 27,777 times more water-vapor than CH4.
Total GHG absorption estimate for CH4, CO2 , and Water Vapor:
GHG total = 4% x 1.5 + 0.04% + 0.00018%= 6.04018%
WV = (4% x 1.5) / 6.04018% = 0.993 degree
CO2 = (0.04%) / 6.04018% = 0.006622 degree
Ch4 = (0.00018%) / 6.04018% = 0.00003 degree
0.993 + 0.006622 + 0.00003 = 1 degree
CO2 = (0.04%) –(0.03%)/ 6.04018% = 0.00166 degrees
If there were a 1 degree change in surface temperature caused by existing greenhouse gasses, a thumbnail estimate indicates that approximately 0.993 degrees was caused by water vapor, 0.007 degrees was caused by CO2 and 0.00003 degrees was caused by CH4. Human CO2 contribution is 0.0017 degrees per degree above the natural temperature (whatever that is).
At higher elevations, the concentration of lighter WV with respect to heavier CO2 should be much larger than the average concentration making the anthropogenic contribution even less.
The last major El Nino was in 1997-1998 and it followed a sun-spot minimum. The recent major El Nino followed a sun-spot maximum so it was expected to be naturally warmer than 1997-1998. The AGW alarmists glossed over that fact and instead pushed hysteria with claims of CO2 induce hottest years on record. Let’s watch the rebound if NASA doesn’t further corrupt our climate history data.
ocean nino index
CO2 KILLING CORAL?
The date of the following quoted article is from 2012. The article refers to the last major El Nino in 1997-98.
“Scientists have witnessed a “promising” recovery in the coral reefs around the Maldives, a recent survey has revealed. The results show that some reefs now have more live coral cover than before the catastrophic El Niño bleaching event in 1998, which killed 95 percent of the country’s reefs – a key attraction for foreign tourists.”
Coral Reefs Begin to Recover in the Maldives, NOV. 11/12
Coral Reef seawater was found to vary in pH from 8.17 to 7.87 and vary in temperature 3.5 C on a daily basis. Other areas have larger fluctuations over a wider ranges and longer periods. So, change in seawater pH and temperature is normal and expected.
Global-average-ocean temperature-change and pH-change are too small to measure with acceptable confidence within modern times.
“High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison”, Gretchen E Hofmann, 2011
“Patterns in Temporal Variability of Temperature, Oxygen and pH along an Environmental Gradient in a Coral Reef”, Òscar Guadayol, 2014
“Coral-algae metabolism and diurnal changes in the CO2-carbonate system of bulk sea water”,
Paul L Jokiel, 2014
EXOSKELETONS AND ACIDIC OCEANS
The reason that much is known about the Cambrian period of 500 million years ago is because of the strong exoskeleton remains of creatures that thrived in the higher acidic oceans of the Cambrian period. This contradicts the claim that acidic seawater will not support exoskeletons. In addition the warmer 25 C surface temperature yielded oceans teaming with life. Much of the ocean carbonate store came from this period.
“A Mid Mesozoic Revolution in the regulation of ocean chemistry”, Andy Ridgewell
Look at Figures 4b, 5b, & 6c. (It is hard to find references for this Cambrian ocean pH data.)
“History of Seawater Carbonate Chemistry, Atmospheric CO2,and Ocean Acidiﬁcation”, Richard E. Zeebe
Look at the graph under “The Cretaceous Is Not an Analog for the Near Future”.
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION & CO2
The ocean contains the majority of earth’s carbon storage. There is 60 times more co2 dissolved in the ocean than can be found in the atmosphere. Ocean life and sediments of ocean death are also a huge store of CO2. Natural lakes of liquid CO2 exist on the ocean floor below 3000m depth. Most of the CO2 can be found in solid carbonate deposits; there is 40,000 times as much carbon in carbonate sediments than in all organic life on earth. What are carbonates? We often purchase carbonates under the following trade-names:
Tums = calcium carbonate
Rolaids = calcium carbonate
Alka-Seltzer = Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate, Potassium Carbonate
Bisodol = Calcium Carbonate, Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate, Light Magnesium Carbonate
Yes, most of the ocean floor is covered with huge deposits of solid carbonates (antacids) down to a depth of 2.8 miles and freshwater runoff continues to increase the store. In addition, most Ocean water is saturated with dissolved carbonates (antacid)! Every solid carbonate molecule can potentially neutralize acid when dissolved. The solubility of carbonates increase rapidly as water becomes more acidic keeping the ocean buffered at an average PH of approximately 8.2 though the ph of local seawater can vary widely with depth and location. Any rapid changes of ocean ph are usually due to changing ocean currents.
MORE on CO2 and ACIDIC OCEANS
If there is less calcium and carbonate in seawater, there are less nutrients available for sea life. The more acidic the water, the greater the water demands and holds calcium and carbonate in solution which in turn neutralizes the acid. As water becomes less acidic and more basic, calcium and carbonate will precipitate out of the water leaving less soluble mineral nutrients for sea life. This provides some explanation as to how sea life in the more acidic oceans of the Cambrian period (500 million years ago) accumulated such abundant exoskeletal remains. Acidic sea water only exists until it can make contact with the vast carbonate deposits of the ocean floor at depths of 2.8 miles or less; there it rapidly assimilates calcium and carbonates into solution. Seawater that remains at mid-depths for extended periods may be slow to take up carbonates. Ocean currents move acidic mid-depth seawater to near shore locations; such natural exposure of acidic (lower pH) seawater to the ocean floor allows uptake of calcium, carbonates and other minerals. Seawater, again saturated with carbonates, allows sea life to extract these minerals from the ocean water; it is a natural ageless cycle. While the average ocean pH is typically 8.2, there exists large local seawater extremes from 2.8 pH to 11 pH. On occasion, when changing ocean currents bring abnormally acidic seawater near shore it can temporarily extract nutrients from some exoskeletons of sea life as well as the ocean-floor. Such temporary periods of local decalcification have been exploited by AGW-enthusiasts falsely claiming that these temporary local changes were due to manmade global CO2 contributions; there is little or no publicity when ocean currents change again and the problem disappears. If sea life is exposed to more acidic seawater over longer periods of time, it adapts by developing immunity to the more acidic seawater.
“Life in liquid carbon dioxide – Life”, Unbounded, Scientific American Blog Network
“A Mid Mesozoic Revolution in the regulation of ocean chemistry”, Andy Ridgewell
Look at Figures 4b, 5b, & 6c. (It is hard to find references for this Cambrian ocean pH data.)
“A Simplified Guide to the Relationship Between Calcium, Alkalinity, Magnesium and pH”, Randy Hlmes-Farley
“History of Seawater Carbonate Chemistry, Atmospheric CO2,and Ocean Acidiﬁcation”, Richard E. Zeebe
Look at the graph under “The Cretaceous Is Not an Analog for the Near Future”.
“The in situ pH of hydrothermal fluids at mid-ocean ridges”, Kang Ding
“Oceanography, An Introduction to Marine Science”, Tom Garrison
A NASA Chief Scientist claims that we will all go hungry as all the food production decreases because of global warming and because photosynthesis is less efficient at higher temperatures.
Here is the Truth: Photosynthesis at 27C or 50.6F is about the same as it is at 50C or 122F and photosynthesis is more efficient at all temperatures between. Why do you suppose a ‘NASA Chief Scientist’ would be so incompetent or deceptive? Does NASA have priorities other than scientific truth?
“If we continue on our current course, it’s going to be hard to feed this planet because it’s so hot”, Ellen Stofan, NASA’s Cheif Scientist
“photosynthesis … declines rapidly at temperatures above about 95 degrees Fahrenheit”, Ellen Stofan, NASA’s Cheif Scientist
“NASA satellites reveal something startling about the future of food on Earth”, Business Insider, October 19 2015, Tanya Lewis
“Photosynthesis – factors affecting the rate – Doc Brown’s”
With regard to crossing some foreboding limit of CO2, after which, thermal runaway or the Venus Syndrome was falsely claimed; It was a lie and the geo-record proves it.
carboniferous period temperature CO2 graph
Those Carboniferous graphs show huge amounts of CO2 with respect to the present without thermal-runaway and with very long term declining temperatures contrary to James Hansen’s thermal-runaway scare quote or the similar scare quote from Stephen Hawking. There was no thermal runaway and no Venus Syndrome.
“If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there’s a substantial chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”, James Hansen, 2009, Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, 1981 to 2013
“The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can.”, Stephen Hawking, August 16. 2006
Such AGW socialist fanaticism could easily grow into something less innocent such as this concept: “Saving the planet is more important than the life or wellbeing of any individual or group of individuals; therefore… “.
After Hitler paid a large number of Scientists to publically state that Jews were an inferior race and a genetic threat to the future of the Aryan race, an entire nation began to make legal decisions based on that claim that resulted in the in impoverishment, torture and then eventual murder of 11 million people.
The activists of AGW/CC, Conservationism, Animal Rights and similar ‘causes’ are so full of their own cause and righteousness at times that there is little room in their psyche for the consideration of other individuals or perspectives. A perfect example can be found in the actions of Earth Day activist and cofounder Ira Einhorn who murdered his girlfriend Holly Maddux in 1977, mutilated her body and put it into a trunk in the closet to compost. Another example can be found in the two conservationists and animal rights supporters Hermann Göring and Adolf Hitler whose political party murdered 11 million people.
This Earth Day,
Remember Holly Maddux, The Holocaust and other Victims of Government Zealots
Google the dangers:
Ira Einhorn, Murderpedia
Animal welfare in WWII Germany
Google the victums:
Holly Maddux Memorial Page
GLOBAL WARMING: read to bottom….
> The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
> places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
> Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.
> Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical
> change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the
> Arctic zone.
> Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far
> north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
> Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
> Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the
> report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely
> Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast
> shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north,
> are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
> Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will
> rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
> * * * * * * * * *
> I must apologize.
> I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as
> reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 93 years ago.
> This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions!
Similar already it is not actual