Ocean Acidification

[DarkAisling]

I just stumbled across a BBC News article that I found pretty interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8411135.stm

Basically, the PH of seawater is falling. While the change has been pretty minimal thus far, and the article doesn't mention a direct adverse affect on more complex marine life, it does indicate that This is likely to affect the capacity of organisms including molluscs, coral and plankton to form "hard parts" of calcium carbonate.

This is not so much about "global warming" (a subject of great contention, to be sure), but about the carbon exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans: more carbon in the atmosphere means more carbon in the oceans.

[Sundancefisher]

Once you understand that CO2 levels in the atmosphere has gone up and down over millions of years you get a better understanding of what such a small change actually means. The carbon is actually required for growth of plants that make up the plankton food chain.

A lot more studies need to be done to fully understand what is happening versus fear mongering studies that just seem to be promoting one fear after the other...and being released every time the public seems to need another shot in the arm... Strange...almost like it is a planned ideological agenda

[DarkAisling]

So, are you saying that the change in the PH of seawater is irrelevant?

I've never heard of this before, so I'm quite curious.

I'd really like to see the overall data set and the equipment used to get that data. I would guess the precision of pH measuring equipment used in the past (even today for most applications) won't even be consistently within the range of change they're discussing (0.1-0.3 pH). I know Alberta lakes where it changes by 1.0 pH seasonally depending on snow melt/ precipitation/ etc. The way they discuss the topic they keep it nice and vague as well. A reduction in pH could actually be a good thing in many aquatic systems. I just tried a quick google search to see what the Oceans pH is and they mention a change of pH 0.075 since 1751. I'm thinking equipment in 1751 was likely not even close to accurate enough to get that precise. And if they were to say they tested stored samples, pH changes in storage. Can only be accurately measured right after it's collected. I don't see it as being an issue we should be losing sleep over. If it goes below 7 we can start worrying.

[The Fish King]

First off it is necessary to understand that a change in pH of 1 is a tenfold change in hydrogen ions. This can have a significant effect on a water bodies ability to sustain organisms and its overall buffering capacity. It also means that if the ph is falling and therefore, hydrogen ions are increasing, that a water body is becoming acidic. As was mentioned in the article, it probably would most likely effect the ability of certain organisms to create objects out of things such as calcium carbonate, since this is a substance that is more abundant in basic systems, with a pH of greater than 7. So I would say that the author of that paper has the effect of a pH decrease spot on.

Now sundance fisher, you are absolutely correct that atmospheric carbon levels have increased and decreased throughout the history of the planet. However, the big problem that we will eventually have to face is that fact that animals have never had to deal with the presence of humans. Not only are we making atmospheric carbon levels higher than they have ever been, but we also actively destroy habitat and individual organisms for that matter.
In the past, if a climate changed, organisms were able to utilize new habitat. However, what we see now is that movement of organisms is often times impossible due to physical barriers that we have created or simply because humans have already invaded a specific area.

If we continue to increase atmospheric carbon levels, not only will we increase sea levels and decrease salinity, but we will also decrease oceanic pH. This decrease, as stated above, is not just detrimental to a species' ability to create a matrix out of calcium carbonate but since they cannot find more suitable areas, due to human expansion and exploitation of resources, they will most likely be extirpated from that area or go extinct completely.

As for fish species, it has been observed in many lakes in the industrial area of ontario, that fish cannot tolerate acidic water. They simply cannot withstand acidic conditions. Reproduction and feeding halt.

Ok so after all that..haha...basically the thought that a decrease in pH could mean that many species can not perform necessary tasks, such as shell building is completely probable, and will most likely happen if we continue dumping excess carbon into the atmosphere.


O and for all those wondering....I am a freshwater ecology major so this isnt just a bunch of crap I pulled outta my ass.

The pH of the Ocean is still around 8.1, supposably down from 8.18. We're not even close to talking about acidification.

[The Fish King]

True but a continued decrease still means that less calcium carbonate is availiable in a given system.
Also I would assume that ocean pH levels vary depending on where the sample was taken. Im sure that in some areas pH has been constant for many years, while others it has decreased at a much higher rate

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by The Fish King

First off it is necessary to understand that a change in pH of 1 is a tenfold change in hydrogen ions. This can have a significant effect on a water bodies ability to sustain organisms and its overall buffering capacity. It also means that if the ph is falling and therefore, hydrogen ions are increasing, that a water body is becoming acidic. As was mentioned in the article, it probably would most likely effect the ability of certain organisms to create objects out of things such as calcium carbonate, since this is a substance that is more abundant in basic systems, with a pH of greater than 7. So I would say that the author of that paper has the effect of a pH decrease spot on.

Now sundance fisher, you are absolutely correct that atmospheric carbon levels have increased and decreased throughout the history of the planet. However, the big problem that we will eventually have to face is that fact that animals have never had to deal with the presence of humans. Not only are we making atmospheric carbon levels higher than they have ever been, but we also actively destroy habitat and individual organisms for that matter.
In the past, if a climate changed, organisms were able to utilize new habitat. However, what we see now is that movement of organisms is often times impossible due to physical barriers that we have created or simply because humans have already invaded a specific area.

If we continue to increase atmospheric carbon levels, not only will we increase sea levels and decrease salinity, but we will also decrease oceanic pH. This decrease, as stated above, is not just detrimental to a species' ability to create a matrix out of calcium carbonate but since they cannot find more suitable areas, due to human expansion and exploitation of resources, they will most likely be extirpated from that area or go extinct completely.

As for fish species, it has been observed in many lakes in the industrial area of ontario, that fish cannot tolerate acidic water. They simply cannot withstand acidic conditions. Reproduction and feeding halt.

Ok so after all that..haha...basically the thought that a decrease in pH could mean that many species can not perform necessary tasks, such as shell building is completely probable, and will most likely happen if we continue dumping excess carbon into the atmosphere.


O and for all those wondering....I am a freshwater ecology major so this isnt just a bunch of crap I pulled outta my ass.

You brought up a number of topics.

The IPCC says the oceans "may" rise up to 4 feet of which 1/3 of that rise could be attributed to man. They don't explain how or why the other 2/3 of the "natural" rise is occuring. To understand the full dynamics I would also like more information.

Carbon in the water gets converted to plants. The acidification problems in Ontario was due to acid rain which is a chemical reaction of Sulpher dioxides in the atmosphere released by industry. That precipitation was very easy to understand. SO2 is not natural.

CO2 on the other hand is and has been higher in the past.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm

The biggest problem we are facing in all of this is what we are hearing really reliable and credible.

Since these papers are only getting peer reviewed by those that ideologically believe strongly in global warming...not just climate variability...we see build in bias to what is currently getting reported. Hopefully that will change and news agencies will start to report with a less biased approach.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375406.stm

When the BBC stops saying "everyone" believes...then maybe cooler heads will prevail.

After all we have been cooler in the 11 years than the IPCC predicted. So they can produce computer models that predict weather accurately 3 days from now let alone 10 years, 20 years or 100 years. But they keep suggesting they can and most people believe them cause they are very trusting of the "science".

[superspud]

The pH of the Ocean is still around 8.1, supposably down from 8.18. We're not even close to talking about acidification.




Its hard for one to say this. In tidal areas where the amount of water and temperature of water changes rapidely during the day, small changes can have a larger effect.

[rellum]

kingFish I think you need to go back to Chemisrty Class 101.

No 1 - you decrease the pH you increase the solubility of calcium carbonate, therefore you would have more is solution.
No. 2 and the point I find absolutely out to lunch by the environmentalist and you kingfish is that if you are seeing an increase in the ocean water temperature, how can you decrease the pH with CO2. basic chemistry shows that as water temperature heats up you lower the CO2 (gas) content. Just start boiling some water and what do you see, bubbles of gases leaving the water. (Henry's law).
It just amazes me how everything gets blamed on global warming (oops climate change). I wish people would start thinking for themselves.
Just 1 questions too you tree huggers, how does giving billions to Africa, India and China reduce CO2 production and your so called climate change?
The primary reason for changes in pH levels and water quality between winter and summers is ice cover, 1 you do not have runnoff, no dilution and 2 you cannot aborb atmospheric gases in the winter (ice cover) and therefore high pH in winter.

[The Fish King]

Sundancefisher you are absolutely right about the bias on peer reviewed journals and I agree with you completely on the nessecity to there being more information.
I however think that increased carbon levels in the atmosphere are increasing the global warming effect. Now as you said, the levels have been higher in the past, but I also believe that its not the absolute levels are affecting species but the rate of this increase. I am absolutely sure that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is greater than than that of any previous records..which is my main concern. I think that resilience of species is at risk and that this is a direct result of habitat destruction and global warming. But I can also guarantee you that the current effects of global warming are blown way out of proportions.

Rellum, I am not a tree hugger by any means...I drive an old 90 suburban with a lift kit. But just cause I do that doesnt mean that I avoid the impacts of global warming. Whether that means, increases durations of hot and cold or just an increase amount of overall heat in the world. We are not talking about C02 gas content in a dissolved solution. We are talking about the usuable amount of carbon in a system. If this carbon is used up by other inorganic or organic molecules, as is seen with decreased pH it will not be avaliable to organisms.

All that I ever wanted to say was that it is very probable that a decrease in pH could reduce the capacity of some organisms to exploit dissolved and undissolved carbonic matter.

I am a pure blood fisherman and while I believe that global warming is way to hyped up, I think that is is necessary to believe that we are having an accelerated effect on ecosystems that has never been observed before. Whether this means having an increased impact on phosphorous, nitrogen, or carbon impacts. Humans are changing ecosystems in ways that have never been observed.

[DarkAisling]

Oops.

Well, I've got lots of reading to do

[The Fish King]

I love it! haha
I am actually loving this debate and I really appreciate everyones input...I have and certainly will learn much more about what people think and know about climate change. Unfortunatley I am headed to Michigan tomorrow to go slay some fishies down there....maybe one of those odd eastern lake style Steelhead.

Merry Christmas Everyone!!

[rellum]

Kingfisher I find your response almost laughable if wasn't typical of the so called environmentalist of today. First is the rebranding of Global Warming to Climate Change. Why?

Your response to changes in pH level make no sense. We are talking about a dissolved gas in solution when talking about CO2 and how it effects the pH level of water, simple, CO2 plus H20 = Carbonic acid. However as water warms up less gas therefore less ability to form an acid. Same equation and result as with acid rain sulfuric acid. By the way how do you define usable and unuseable CO2, that is a new one.

Why didn't you respond to the main push these last 2 weeks to funnel billions of dollars to Africa,China and India and this will help to reduce Climate Change.

And 1 last question you state increases in hot or cold or just increases in the overall heat, boy you got all basis cover don't you, just incase A does work out we can go with B.

And please, I really get a kick out of you people when you start confusing Global warming (oops climate change) with pollution. These are 2 entirely things, getting rid of all the CO2 will not solve pollution just kill all life as we know because we are all carbon based. In other words, you want to fight pollution great, because I want my kids and myself for that matter myself to be able to swim in the water, drink it and breathe healthy air. Getting rid of or lower CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with phosphurus, heavy metal etc.

[Unregistered user]

Underwater volcanoes pump acid into the oceans and that aint my "fault".

[big]

Originally Posted by The Fish King

Sundancefisher you are absolutely right about the bias on peer reviewed journals and I agree with you completely on the nessecity to there being more information.
I however think that increased carbon levels in the atmosphere are increasing the global warming effect. Now as you said, the levels have been higher in the past, but I also believe that its not the absolute levels are affecting species but the rate of this increase. I am absolutely sure that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is greater than than that of any previous records..which is my main concern. I think that resilience of species is at risk and that this is a direct result of habitat destruction and global warming. But I can also guarantee you that the current effects of global warming are blown way out of proportions.

Rellum, I am not a tree hugger by any means...I drive an old 90 suburban with a lift kit. But just cause I do that doesnt mean that I avoid the impacts of global warming. Whether that means, increases durations of hot and cold or just an increase amount of overall heat in the world. We are not talking about C02 gas content in a dissolved solution. We are talking about the usuable amount of carbon in a system. If this carbon is used up by other inorganic or organic molecules, as is seen with decreased pH it will not be avaliable to organisms.

All that I ever wanted to say was that it is very probable that a decrease in pH could reduce the capacity of some organisms to exploit dissolved and undissolved carbonic matter.

I am a pure blood fisherman and while I believe that global warming is way to hyped up, I think that is is necessary to believe that we are having an accelerated effect on ecosystems that has never been observed before. Whether this means having an increased impact on phosphorous, nitrogen, or carbon impacts. Humans are changing ecosystems in ways that have never been observed.

looks like we've got another AL gore here! you probably learned this bull**** from some commie professor. "humans are changing ecosystems in ways that have never been observed" Wow. what a cliche. I think i've heard that from all of my communist teachers

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by The Fish King

Sundancefisher you are absolutely right about the bias on peer reviewed journals and I agree with you completely on the nessecity to there being more information.
I however think that increased carbon levels in the atmosphere are increasing the global warming effect. Now as you said, the levels have been higher in the past, but I also believe that its not the absolute levels are affecting species but the rate of this increase. I am absolutely sure that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is greater than than that of any previous records..which is my main concern. I think that resilience of species is at risk and that this is a direct result of habitat destruction and global warming. But I can also guarantee you that the current effects of global warming are blown way out of proportions.

Rellum, I am not a tree hugger by any means...I drive an old 90 suburban with a lift kit. But just cause I do that doesnt mean that I avoid the impacts of global warming. Whether that means, increases durations of hot and cold or just an increase amount of overall heat in the world. We are not talking about C02 gas content in a dissolved solution. We are talking about the usuable amount of carbon in a system. If this carbon is used up by other inorganic or organic molecules, as is seen with decreased pH it will not be avaliable to organisms.

All that I ever wanted to say was that it is very probable that a decrease in pH could reduce the capacity of some organisms to exploit dissolved and undissolved carbonic matter.

I am a pure blood fisherman and while I believe that global warming is way to hyped up, I think that is is necessary to believe that we are having an accelerated effect on ecosystems that has never been observed before. Whether this means having an increased impact on phosphorous, nitrogen, or carbon impacts. Humans are changing ecosystems in ways that have never been observed.

We are not sure what the rates of CO2 increases were specifically but geological records show that there were similar increases in the past. There is also a great pair of graphs from the IPCC which show CO2 and temperature linked. It has been pointed out by some "sceptics" that they split the graphs because optically it proves their point but if you overlap the graphs it shows temperature goes up first...then CO2 follows. Theories abound but one says that with rising temperatures you get a natural release of CO2 from many sources such as permafrost.

You state that the effect is "increasing durations of hot and cold" which common sense should just say to you "climate variability". Increasing cold is not caused by global warming. Not sure where you get a link from.

A common connection for believers is that controlling CO2 is akin to fixing all the other know pollution problems. Problem is that SO2 for instance is not natural....whereas CO2 is. CO2 actually makes up a very small fraction of the world's assumed global warming ills. Methane is actually 100 times more problematic. Methane produced by the meat industry is seen as a major problem. Don't be surprised if the cost of meat goes up to offset carbon trading issues.

As for species at risk...Green Peace and WWF have been using Polar Bears as their global warming slogan for years. After it was leaked that some photos were staged and show totally out of context and that polar bear numbers are actually rising and that the Arctic has been ice free many times in the past...no wonder polar bears are still at. Fact is nature takes care of nature. The Earth can not be changed over night by man. We know little about climate...but just enough to make wild and dangerous and costly assumptions. There are guys studying dumping chemicals in the ocean to create clouds hoping to cool the Earth. They scare me the most cause what happens if they succeed but it warms the Earth or cools the Earth too much. Very little is known about clouds effects on climate.

I want non believers to give an honest scientific wack at proving or disproving, recreating or tearing apart studies and do it properly without interference from any side. Scientists are supposed to be sceptics...not yes men for any ideological agenda.

[Cal]

I saw a program on the PH thing and the scaryest thing I found about it all was the response of the people doing the reaserch. Nobody's happy to make these discoveries, many of the scientists doing the studies are becoming terminaly depressed. They realy do beleive that they are looking at the begining of the end of life on earth as we know it. Obviously all us internetexperts have a way better idea of whats going than the scientests doing the actual studies though. So lets just keep telling ourselfs that its not our fault. From an entirely logical standpoint how could our lifestyles possibly have any negative effect on the invironment right?

[TBD]

No one person can be right about a subject like this.

[rellum]

Originally Posted by Cal

I saw a program on the PH thing and the scaryest thing I found about it all was the response of the people doing the reaserch. Nobody's happy to make these discoveries, many of the scientists doing the studies are becoming terminaly depressed. They realy do beleive that they are looking at the begining of the end of life on earth as we know it. Obviously all us internetexperts have a way better idea of whats going than the scientests doing the actual studies though. So lets just keep telling ourselfs that its not our fault. From an entirely logical standpoint how could our lifestyles possibly have any negative effect on the invironment right?

Maybe they are stressed because they know they are full of crap and gradually the information is finally being questions. There goes all their opearting grants etc. I would be stressed too if I was them, poor bastards.

[uicehole]

Global warming scientists are doing abit of backtracking since their hacked emails are suggesting they've been fudging/losing their data. It's all over the internet. See also,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfekvMHIBeQ

[Unregistered user]

I'm reading "Red hot lies" by C. Horner featured in the interview above. Very interesting read so far.

[big]

Originally Posted by Cal

I saw a program on the PH thing and the scaryest thing I found about it all was the response of the people doing the reaserch. Nobody's happy to make these discoveries, many of the scientists doing the studies are becoming terminaly depressed. They realy do beleive that they are looking at the begining of the end of life on earth as we know it. Obviously all us internetexperts have a way better idea of whats going than the scientests doing the actual studies though. So lets just keep telling ourselfs that its not our fault. From an entirely logical standpoint how could our lifestyles possibly have any negative effect on the invironment right?

if it were up to you. We would all be living in huts.

take your commie bull**** somewhere else. There are also more and more scientists saying that this CO2 crap is bull****

[Cal]

yes, I want you to live in a hut and I'm a militant comunist

[Yellowtail]

Originally Posted by big

if it were up to you. We would all be living in huts.

take your commie bull**** somewhere else. There are also more and more scientists saying that this CO2 crap is bull****

What does communism and communists have to do with global warming and CO2? Or is this what you call everyone who does not share your opinion?

[Cal]

Lol stayed up all night coming up with that one eh?

[Unregistered user]

AGW alarmists really are Marxists. Google Lord Monckton Traffic lights.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Cal

Lol stayed up all night coming up with that one eh?

I really hope you're trying to stir the pot here.....if not.....sad!!!!