The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[dreaminmel]

I think some endangered species that have been given attention and rebounded enough to be taken back off the endangered list could give you some input there...

Not everything we do is destined to fail and, yes, some things we do end up making things worse.

Let me put it to you this way. Do you stand in the path of a hurricane or tornado or do you take shelter in your basement? I betcha the first people to start building basements were scoffed at. I'm not one for messing with nature. I don't think anyone here has suggested that this is something we can stop. Does that mean the discussion is useless? Not by a long shot. I think the discussion of scientific data can at least help us figure out ways to avoid making it worse.

[billsreef]

Originally posted by Reef_bones
Which is the greater risk, riding the natural cycle or messing with nature and potentially messing up the cycle..

We're already messing with nature

[Reef_bones]

Originally posted by billsreef
We're already messing with nature

to a degree YES...

but are we sure its US causing the current trend or can we look at history and see it has happened before...

Alittle of both I guess...

Awesome points Dreaminmel...

I am not really on either side of this, I just don't want some idiot with power making a knee jerk discision and screwing the whole thing up when we aren't sure if its even broke...

AL GORE should shut his trap for sure...lol

Tennesseans hate when he says he's from TN...He's from VIRGINIA...

[billsreef]

Originally posted by Reef_bones
but are we sure its US causing the current trend or can we look at history and see it has happened before...

Alittle of both I guess...

That would be a good guess. I don't know any scientist that say we're causing a warming trend. What they are generally saying is that we are excaberating the natural trends. Our additional inputs will cause the warming trend to increase faster, go hotter, and last longer than the natural trends. Sort of an amplifier for those natural trends

[Kalkbreath]

What makes the C02 scare a little different from sewage or chemical poison threats, is that there is actually evidence that additional Co2 is a good thing for the planet. Were talking about the addition of something thats in short short supply and required to sustain life.
C02 is 380 parts per million in the atmosphere.
Thats about 380 drops in a washing machine full of water.
or 1 part C02 to 2500 parts other stuff.
Coming from a horticulture background, I learned early on that adding C02 to the inside of a greenhouse is a plus to the plants within.
C02 levels in commercial green houses are routinely raised to the levels predicted to occur in atmosphere 100 years from now.(600-800ppmv)
If I raise the C02 level in a green house, the crop inside will start growing faster and quickly soak up the Carbon gas and bring the levels back to within the normal outdoor range.
What makes this interesting, is that the plants increase their respiration and growth when added C02 is present and then seem to stop this increased motabolism when levels come back down to normal range (as the additional C02 is used up.)
It makes sense that most horticulturists feel that C02 levels in the atmosphere will never reach the 500 point because long before that point, plant life all over the world will (just like in a green house) quickly increase their metabolism and soak up the C02.
Why do plants seem to become stimulated by additional C02 levels?
But only at levels above 500ppm?
Do plants have a built in regulator?
If plants seem to consider our current C02 levels as normal and not realy stimulated by todays enriched environment, why do some scientists feel that current levels are too high?
Plants hardly seem to notice the tiny spike at this point.


.

[poedag]

Originally posted by Reef_bones
Hogwash...There are recorded tempature fluctuations in the climate from years ago.. Studies of ICE in the artics show temps a few degrees higher on a global scale in the 1600's. Core samples show co2 levels fluctuating long before big industry and cars were ever even in existance. It's not something humans have any control over. There are many veriables to it. Its just the cycle of life. No matter how important we as human beings want to believe we are in the overall picture, fact is nature has its own laws and we have no control over it.

again, no one is trying to say that it hasn't been hotter or colder in the past, or that CO2 has been lower or higher. it has been both. the tremebdous difference we are seeing today is the RATE of change. that is the unprecidented part that we should be looking at and attempting to deal with, not the natural cycles of the earth, but rather how we have the potential to eliminate or magnify those cycles in a manner negative to our and other species survival.

[poedag]

Originally posted by Reef_bones
AL GORE should shut his trap for sure...lol

Tennesseans hate when he says he's from TN...He's from VIRGINIA...

isn't it a free country? if people like Bill O'Rieley (sp?) Rush Limbaugh, Al Frankin and Bill Mahr can have television and radio shows, how come you bag on Al Gore? Is it because he's the only person out there actually trying to bring climate issues into the mainstream media?

[poedag]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath

Why do plants seem to become stimulated by additional C02 levels?
But only at levels above 500ppm?.

Plants respond to the conditions they are presented with. On a regular basis i subject plants to abnormal CO2 and PAR levels with a machine designed to measure their photosynthesis and resperation rates. Different plants and different plant types (C3 vs C4) can tolerate and be productive of different amounts of light and CO2. There are some plants that peak at ~500ppm and others lower or higher. You are providing a source of food for the plant (at the cost of losing water through open stomata) but depending on conditions some plants will respond accordingly.

to anser the second part, they don't just respond to values above 500ppm, if you start at 0 and rise in 50ppm increments, you get a curve that peaks before you reach 2000ppm. where it peaks depends on what type of plant you are dealing with and how healthy it is when the measurement is being taken.

[Kalkbreath]

Originally posted by poedag
again, no one is trying to say that it hasn't been hotter or colder in the past, or that CO2 has been lower or higher. it has been both. the tremebdous difference we are seeing today is the RATE of change. that is the unprecidented

But how has the rate of change been unprecidented?
The rate of C02 has not changed over the past hundred years.(1. to 3.ppmv) increases each year, inspite of doubling and tripling the amount of man made C02 we humans pump into the atmosphere.
Thats a pretty constant rate, considering how much we keep increasing the oil consuption .
The Temperature has not changed at all in most places of the earth.
Not here in the USA, where is should have changed the most.
The only changes have been in third world location around growning cities.
The world is coming off anlittle Ice age in the 1500s the temperature increase from 1500s to 1900 was much greater then from 1900 to 2000.
Even if the world has warmed a bit.


Would we really wish to return to sub zero temps in most of the United States all winter long?

Most Americans dont realize how cold "NORMAL" was in 1500 through 1850.
Take a look back at Civil War weather records in the middle 1800s
Sub zero winters were the norm back then .
Makes global warming seem like kinda a nice thing .
Imagine how much more Fossil fuel we would burn to keep warm if temperatures were like back in then

[Reef_bones]

Originally posted by poedag
isn't it a free country? if people like Bill O'Rieley (sp?) Rush Limbaugh, Al Frankin and Bill Mahr can have television and radio shows, how come you bag on Al Gore? Is it because he's the only person out there actually trying to bring climate issues into the mainstream media?

Cause AL contridicts himself at every corner on this subject..

good reads
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...9b1b3542ef&p=1
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/g...ng-wrong-again


This is not political its about global warming....

[Reef_bones]

Originally posted by poedag
again, no one is trying to say that it hasn't been hotter or colder in the past, or that CO2 has been lower or higher. it has been both. the tremebdous difference we are seeing today is the RATE of change. that is the unprecidented part that we should be looking at and attempting to deal with, not the natural cycles of the earth, but rather how we have the potential to eliminate or magnify those cycles in a manner negative to our and other species survival.

I can bye that, makes sense, but how do you control what your not sure is normal or not. If we had a definitive way of knowing exactly how we effect the overall picture it could be accomplished. But there in lies the problem, how much of the rate increase is our doing and how much is natural occurrence.

[dreaminmel]

Some more interesting reading...

Article

Kinda paints a picture for ya. Also shows that past governmental decisions have had harmful effects when positive ones were intended. An all encompassing analysis of the entire condition of the ocean is definately needed before trying to determine how our actions could possibly help.

[Reef_bones]

It is an interesting read, but I have to be a sceptic of anything the LATIMES or NYTIMES writes. Not saying it doesn't contain facts, just that I find those 2 tabliods tend to over dramatacize everything. I do agree jellyfish populations are on the rise, but the thing I question is if there is so much plankton and micro life then why are the feeder fish not growing in numbers too. Thats what they eat. Also this has an appocaliptic veiw that just isn't reality YET...Stressing the YET...

[dreaminmel]

Could be wrong but I thought they were trying to say the reason for excess plankton and micro life was because of the overfishing of the feeder fish. I'll have to read it again after work...

[Kalkbreath]

We seem to be returning to my beleif that the oceans have been over fished and its that loss of carbon cycle in the sea which has upset the natural C02 ballance.
I ll keep reminding you that the only time in the past 200 years which C02 levels actualy went down , was during WWII.
What was it about 1938 through 1946 which caused C02 levels to fall?

[sherm71tank]

Less fishing?

[aquaman222]

Just dump a bunch of super buffer in the ocean and we will be just fine.

[Reef_bones]

LESS COMERCIAL FISHING indeed, maybe its time for some inland SW fish farms...Large ponds of SW where the fish could be controlled and feed a more complete diet. This would also insure agianst disease from wild fish... We farm everything else for slaughter and consumption why not fish. Think of all the desiel fuel saved, and I'm sure selling your fleet of boats would finance the farm....Just an IDEAR...

[Kalkbreath]

Fish farms would help off set the loss of ocean life and help soak up C02, but whats really missing is the cycle of life in the ocean.
Its the lack of stuff falling to the bottom and locking the carbon down there.
Ever seen the whale eating lampre eels like fish which strip the flesh off big dead ocean creatures which fall to the bottom.
What do they eat when there are so few whales and big fish in circulation.
They say that Megladon the 40 foot shark had such an advantage over whales that there had to be seveal thousand whales per shark , just to keep these 40 foot sharks from decimating the supply.
The oceans may have had a likewise supply of ocean mamals just a few hundred years ago.
The whaling industry was big time in the early 1800s.
Many became extinct by 1850.
which I remind you was after the C02 levels started to rise on earth.
(1780s)

[Reef_bones]

See I think the co2 rise could have alot more to do with land than water...TREES or lack there of to soak up the co2. The whale thing is a good point. The mamath ocean mamals are almost gone. But on the flip side sometimes we recognize something needs to be protected or resticted and we OVER Do it... Example White Tail deer, for many years the numbers dwindled due to over hunting, then so one noticed and the Wildlife agencies started limiting the animals bagged in a single year.. NOW you can't drive down a backroad without having one dart out in front or your car. I have seen 30-40 eating in the alfalpha fields in my area which is somthing you would have never seen 10 years ago. Some animals are just resiliant and rebound very quicky, then there are animals like tigers that take decades to even start seeing slight number boost...

The point is what if you over protect a species and they start envading the space of more delicate species. How do you know what the end outcome would be...

[HippieSmell]

Kalk and Reef_bones, please read this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
There is actual evidence suggesting human induced increases in CO2. Did you know that, or do you choose to ignore the elephant in the room? That website is generally pretty good and will clarify some misconceptions that seem to persist.

[Reef_bones]

I will read the article, but still I am sceptical that the few years of recorded data that has been gathered on the subject will be conclusive HUMANS are causing serious change in a climate that has been going through cycles and changes for MILLIONS of YEARS. Thats like MR. Gore saying you can look with the naked eye at the ICE Samples gathered in ANTARTICA and tell when the UNITED STATES inacted the Clean AIR Act... I think it will take more than a couple of hundreds of years of human desctruction before we cause the planet to die. There were Thousands of active Valcano's on this planet for Hundreds of thousands of years and the Planet is still alive and kicking. And one Volcanic eruption has more toxic and greenhouse gases than all the US produces in a year.


You say ELEPHANT, I see a mouse.

I may be out there in my thoughts on this, I do think we should avoid adding to the changes as we can but I just don'tshare the apocaliptic outcome that some choose to see.

[Kalkbreath]

That is a far too simplistic view of the Oceans ability to hold C02.
There are three main sinks in which the Ocean can hold C02.
1.)Surface exchange of the water and air.

2.)The bio life swimming within the waves ( the flesh and proteins)

3.)and the deep water sludge holding Carbon from millions of years ago.

At this point there really is not any data to gauge how much C02 the Ocean takes in or takes out. It would take billions of samples daily all over the world just to begin understand.
Big changes like during a warm water event (El Nino) have shown a direct link to increased C02 levels in the Atmosphere when the Ocean acts up.
This Author seems hide from the reader.

This author paints a blanket over the entire ocean and pretends that only the surface waters play a role in Atmospheric interaction.
Ninety percent of the worlds Oxygen comes from the Ocean, its also the source of most of the C02.

I have also been reading some data which suggests that Oil is not organic and thus cant be the source of a decreasing C-13 to C-12 carbon isotope ratio.
But thats for another post.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
That is a far too simplistic view of the Oceans ability to hold C02.
There are three main sinks in which the Ocean can hold C02.
1.)Surface exchange of the water and air.

2.)The bio life swimming within the waves ( the flesh and proteins)

3.)and the deep water sludge holding Carbon from millions of years ago.

At this point there really is not any data to gauge how much C02 the Ocean takes in or takes out. It would take billions of samples daily all over the world just to begin understand.
Big changes like during a warm water event (El Nino) have shown a direct link to increased C02 levels in the Atmosphere when the Ocean acts up.
This Author seems hide from the reader.

This author paints a blanket over the entire ocean and pretends that only the surface waters play a role in Atmospheric interaction.
Ninety percent of the worlds Oxygen comes from the Ocean, its also the source of most of the C02.

I have also been reading some data which suggests that Oil is not organic and thus cant be the source of a decreasing C-13 to C-12 carbon isotope ratio.
But thats for another post.

I don't think you gave that link and the cited material in the link as much focus as you should. Regardless, I think it's time you show some EVIDENCE for your claims. You can say "I believe this and that and you're wrong" all day, but unless you show some evidence, your argument doesn't hold up.

The abiotic source of oil is an unproven theory, at best. Again, isotopes are the key, don't overlook the isotopes.

[justinzimm]

Here's a new article posted today on CO2 effect on the oceans.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...home-headlines

By comparing these measurements to past levels of carbon dioxide preserved in ice cores, the researchers determined that the average pH of the ocean surface has declined since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution by 0.1 units, from 8.16 to 8.05.

Richard Feely, a chemical oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

If this is correct, a drop of 0.11 is huge! A doubleing or trippleing in the future and we're looking at a pH of 7.8 - 7.9

As aquarists we know this is the low range of keeping even the hardiest of corals.

Here is another NOAA article:

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_gcc.html

If current trends in carbon dioxide emissions continue, the ocean will acidify to an extent and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years. At present, ocean chemistry is changing at least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed in the 100,000 years preceding our industrial era.

The conclustion of 50 international climate experts.

Change can be good but not when it's happening 100X the normal.

If people aren't outraged at even the POSSIBILITY of this happening they're not paying attention.


J