Please inquire into what acidification means. The oceans are a little over PH 8 which is alkaline not acidic. The PH must get below neutral at PH 7 before one can even talk about acidification of the oceans. They may be getting a bit less alkaline but not a bit acidic.
Please note in the article that the graph showing the cold spot in the Atlantic, that the Fahrenheit temperatures are the trend over about 100 years and just show that the temperatures there have been steady for the last century or so. They do not show a cold spot, though being north, it should be colder than the tropics.

So you have a layer of cool less dense water over a dense warmer water which loses heat to the cool top layer and gets denser and sinks keeping the current moving?

The key take a way and main threat to civilization is Food production. We need to grow food indoors, hydroponically and in each town and city for local consumption.

We don't need a model...we have observable cycles that have recorded the changes we can expect going 1000's of years back.
What we don't know is when multiple cycles occur at the same time...like having a magnetic shield that is 25% weakened, north and south magnetic poles moving around dramatically...these observable occurrences just might lengthen the 400 year cycle we've entered.

Seasonal changes occur in colder areas, (winter), due to the dormancy of plants and trees...so the available carbon is not utilized and just gets blown around...and that might be offset globally because down under (and visa versa) is in summer months.

I was thinking more in the line of everything else that isn't insulated with carbon threaded shells; ie. circuit boards, resisters, power sources/capacitors etc...maybe for wires and the entire circuit board, it would be better to coat them with polyethylene; which is another material to use for electrical shielding.

Good point.

Carbon threaded shells, however, most cases are used to insulate and protect, adding carbon would sort of negate that...

Move number 3 up to 1 and solve most problems, including ending the CO2 controversy...

I am sure that is in the Plan, somewheres....

If we would all just work together we could tax the trillions needed to start to slow down these nasty volcanoes. After-all, it is the politically correct thing to do.
/s

humm

The model I see that supports man made global warming is based on the uptake of the additional CO2 produced by human activity. The major flaw I see is that the model assumes CO2 uptake by vegetation is constant and does not include increased vegetation as a result of increased CO2 levels (even though the amount humans produce is tiny compared to that of planet earth production). My observation last fall is that I raked up a hell of alot more leaves than I have in previous years. I can't quantify it other than my sore back.
Cause and effect are difficult to determine when there are so many variables. I tend to look at the money trail for the answers.

Go to the Mauna Kea observatory web site and look at the graph of the Co2 they publish. That is the most uniform constant change of any natural phenomena on earth. How can there be a seasonal variation with no change in the annual increase? The Volcano peak is in the wind pattern from China, Korea, and Japan but their dramatic changes in CO2 emissions don't register at the observatory. There should be spikes and changes in annual growth but none. Are they falsifying the graph?

In simpler, less scientific jargon, predicting global weather is a crapshoot.
First of all, it doesn't happen on a human time scale. Ten thousand years, twenty million years, a billion years -- who cares?
If we are talking about less than 100 years or so, OK, people, go to it if you're bored and have nothing better to do, but leave the rest of us our more useful pursuits. If you want to create an agenda, here's my suggestions:
1. Cure cancer and heart disease.
2. Go to Mars (you're late).
3.Get fusion to work.
4. Teach rational thinking (history would
be good, too).
5. Add the thoughts of better Objectivist thinkers
than me.

One of the best materials for protection from solar and cosmic EMP's...even humanoid made ones, is...................CARBON? who'd a thunk!

Hmmm, it doesn't retain heat and it disperses electrical currents...think maybe we should be coating our electronics with this stuff?

I can believe that. Again, ocean acidification id probably the only real issue they would need to address fast, and they have not touched it except to use it as justification to screw everyone except India and China.

I do think there is some form of climate change, there is almost always some form in progress. To think we can stop it is pretty arrogant, at best the entire population could slow it down, just ask why there is no efforts at controlling it beyond slamming regulations and fees and money at it, if it was such a threat.-Their whole treaty was a bogus pile of steaming dung, as it allowed the 2 worst offenders to continue until 2030, and then they could decide to join, or not. If it is a crisis, all hands on deck, or shut up.

That is where there is the one issue of ocean acidification. That may be an issue that does need addressing.

There is still a group thinking we are entering a solar minimum which will cool the planet, and there is some things that seem to support it. I do think that there is one item that does fit into increased CO2, which is an increase in acidity in the ocean which is proven to be occurring. That does pose a problem, and could alter sea life drastically, making the CO2 thing something that does need addressing, but then we go back to why they allow carbon sinks to be destroyed without a word.

I will give you a concrete example of that effect, in making micro chips, you use containers which are saturated with carbon strings, specifically to dissipate static electric charges (the wafers will gather huge amounts of static from spinning, and it needs to be dissipated, or poof).

I do believe that the Ocean conveyor will break, given the current circumstances, and I also believe that it will result in a huge shift in climate over time that will make the northern and southern latitudes colder, the resulting snow and ice will increase albedo and cool the planet, until they start up again and the cycle resets. The physics make sense, the logic is sound and there is some evidence to say it has happened before several times. It seems to be the natural thermostat for the planet, but there is no money in it for the politicos who bought into it. CO2 may add to some of it, may change some of it, but I don't see how much. I also believe if they were so damn serious, they would be planting trees everywhere, and stopping destruction of the Amazon basin. For "ecologically sensitive" people they sure do ignore what doesn't pay money. That always makes me suspicious.

I agree, the CO2 thing is so suspect, as well as seemingly set up in one of those "your not smart enough to understand, so we will dumb it down for you" things, which allows for all kinds of manipulation and skew toward the desired goal. They then try to impose their rules and regulations and it ends up costing everyone huge amounts which get funneled away to special interests. Typical government corruption/corporate manipulation.

dutchmanii, I spent 20 years in submarines under water patrols, and I had an oceanographic installation specifically for gathering boatloads of data like temp, salinity, conductivity, etc. We never saw any specific changes to any ocean areas broadly, that we could relate to any volcanic activity, although we had several in the North Pacific. We are talking here about huge global bands of differentiated seawater, taking warm water from the south at the equator, and going north to the sub arctic. The issue is that if you melt a bunch of freshwater, it will make the water lighter and less likely to sink, this sinking pushes water along the deep ocean bottom to the south where it will upwell and warm, creating a conveyor belt like affair. This is what the Gulfstream does, and it warms Europe a lot, the theory is, break it, and Europe goes cold. (along with Alaska, Canada and Oregon/Washington. The manipulators would have us believe it is ALL because of CO2 and so they will apply their rules and laws and restrictions which will, of course, "fix it". There are other possibilities like increased solar output, changes in sunspot activity, even magnetic field changes, none of which anyone seems to want to discuss in the climate world (except a few "radicals"), because the money is all in CO2.

Very true. And scientists are now measuring the increased plant growth which has been resulting from the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Crop growth has been most measurably affected. (One should also point out that the CO2 levels are still percentage points below where they were during the prehistoric eras of the dinosaurs when life flourished prior to the Ice Age.)

Perhaps, but I have to believe that anyone on this site is still capable of using their brain.