The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[Aj_999]

Here’s a good link I found on climate change:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/

And some good information IMO found on the site:





As seen by the carbon dioxide graph, the amount of CO2 really started to rise between the years 1950 and 2000, which, I’m guessing, would mean that the pH levels really started to drop between the years 1950 and 2000. I could be wrong, however.

[Flobajob]

You don't need to boost your post count!! It's high enough already

[dreaminmel]

Mmmm, post count... remind me again why the count seems to be important for some reason? Last time I paid attention to mine it was half the current number... guess I voice opinions more than I thought. I shall go back to lurking for at least 24 hours. Promise...

[MacnReef]

Originally posted by MacnReef
Your post is in violation of the terms and conditions of use of this web site and has been edited. Further violations will result in revocation of your posting privileges.


Let's not go there please.

--beerguy

oops! Sorry beerguy, just wish I could remember what I wrote so I don't do it again.

Well, post count really doesn't matter. Seeing as that I can't seem to break the 4000 mark!

Mike

[Flobajob]

I need to reach 400 posts so that I can have a message other than "registered member". (Plus you must have realised that everyone is secretly competing to get as high a post count as possible )

[MacnReef]

400 huh...I think when I joined it was like 50 posts or something like that.

Since we are way off topic anyway, is RC looking for a few good men (or women, I GUESS?!?! ) I would love to add Team RC to mine!

But i guess that won't happen if I violate the UA...

Mike

[Flobajob]

Then you could edit your own post count

[Timbor]

I know we have already moved on a bit from this topic, but I wanted to add one thing about global populations: a country's population growth depends on the inhabitant's quality of life, and education levels.

Take a look at North America, Europe, Japan, and other first world countries. People are generally well to do, healthy, well educated (especially women, compared to 3rd world), and work for the most part in a knowledge-based workforce. In first world countries, we have the means to control our family size basically at our fingertips. In an environment such as this, having children can be seen loosely as a "commodity." People have children because they bring them joy, happiness, etc etc. Having and raising children is also very expensive. Parents can therefore have 1, maybe 2 kids, and put all of their parental energies into those children. They don't need more kids.

In third world countries, the situation is different. People are not always healthy, and many children die at a young age. Therefore, to have a few grow up, it is most logical to have a whole bunch (kinda like fish...) There is also a much lower availability of birth control and education, especially with women. If women have no chance to have a career or education, then they will probably have more children. Finally, most people rely on labour-based jobs, such as farming, in the third world. If you are a farmer, more kids means more workers.

The best way to curb the population growth in less developed countries is to increase their quality of life, and their education level. As people become more educated and healthy, they tend to have less children. This is why we don't see the astounding growth in first world country populations.

But, I guess with all that increasing of life quality, people begin to use more resources, and the pH of the ocean falls even further... sigh

Tim

[MacnReef]

^^^^^^That makes perfect sense!^^^^^^^

[MCary]

AJ,

I'm a skeptic, so I automatically ask:

In your graph, at what point (year) was the data collection methods changed. I assume the earliest was from ice cores and the latter was from direct measurment.

Why hasn't tempertures fluctuated proportionally with CO2 concentrations. Although the 30's and the 70's had some of the highest emmissions, the temps were lower?

The pictures obviously shows that the glacier has receded in 74 years. How do you draw a link to that and anthropological global warming? Have all other causes been ruled out? If you use the pictures as points on a graph, would you accept a linear correlation with only 2 points. Statistics say you need at least 6 points to record a trend. Where are the pictures for 74 years before 1928? Where is your baseline, a picture of the glacier before industrialization? Don't you want to know the answers before selling your metal halides?

We must always keep in mind that we are talking about anthropological (man made) global warming. Climate change is not a debatable issue. At one time the mediterranean was the cradle of civilization. The Nile and Euphrates valleys were the bread baskets of the world. The Carthaginians cultivated the Sahara. Now they're deserts. Climate change is obvious.

The issue is whether the current trends are man made, whether they're the doomsday they are presented to be, and whether there is anything that can be done about it.

Mike

[Timbor]

Originally posted by MacnReef
^^^^^^That makes perfect sense!^^^^^^^

Thanks, we talked about this problem in two of my classes last year: environmental biology, and contemporary moral issues. I've always enjoyed a good moral dilemma...

I would agree with most of the skepticism here. I am not saying that nothing bad has happened, but that we need to know more about the situation before sounding any alarm bells.

Tim

[RobbyG]

I agree with you, I have read the same things but it still does not explain why Skin Cancer in Australia is off the roof at the same time that they have this huge hole in the Ozone layer right above them. BTW the Abororigonize (Sorry about Spelling) are not suffering at all from this ozone hole.

Originally posted by MCary
Robby, you seem awfully concerned about the Ozone depletion. Maybe I can ease your anx a little.

Depletion of the ozone layer has no effect on the risk of deadly skin cancers. The ozone layer blocks UV-B radiation, but it does not block UV-A radiation. UV-A radiation has been linked to malignant melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. UV-B has been linked to only two types of skin cancer, neither of which is life-threatening.

Source:

"Myths and Facts About the Environment -- Part II: The Hole in the Ozone Layer," The National Center for Public Policy Research, Contact: David Ridenour @ 202/543-4110, e-mail: EarthDay@nationalcenter.org, Web:

I hope that makes you feel better.

Mike

[Aj_999]

I'm a skeptic

There is a good article about skeptics here:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_C...e/Skeptics.asp

In your graph, at what point (year) was the data collection methods changed. I assume the earliest was from ice cores and the latter was from direct measurment.

Not sure, but I assume so.

Why hasn't tempertures fluctuated proportionally with CO2 concentrations. Although the 30's and the 70's had some of the highest emmissions, the temps were lower?

There is another good article about global warming here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...dtemp2005.html
In it, it states that, the bulk of Earth's excess heat over the past several decades has been absorb by the oceans, and that, the release of this excess heat is a slow process.

The issue is whether the current trends are man made, whether they're the doomsday they are presented to be, and whether there is anything that can be done about it.

The following is text from the skeptic site I gave you:
"The overwhelming majority of the world’s top climate scientists agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, and it has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. The IPCC's findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. The Royal Society of Canada – together with the national academies of fifteen other nations – also issued a joint statement on climate change that stated, in part: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change.”

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by MCary
AJ,
Why hasn't tempertures fluctuated proportionally with CO2 concentrations. Although the 30's and the 70's had some of the highest emmissions, the temps were lower?

The issue is whether the current trends are man made, whether they're the doomsday they are presented to be, and whether there is anything that can be done about it.

Mike

The reason is that global temp is not solely controlled by CO2 concentrations. If you look at data over 800,000 years you will see an unmistakable correlation. There are other factors such as sun cycles and the 'not too perfect' orbit the earth travels around the sun. No scientist will say that CO2 is the ONLY reason the temps are rising, but it has an undeniable impact.

[Aj_999]

HippieSmell,

Does a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere directly lead to the pH levels of the oceans falling?

[MCary]

No scientist will say that CO2 is the ONLY reason the temps are rising, but it has an undeniable impact.

This is taking liberties with the English language. Undeniable is an absolute. Because of the vastness and complexity of the problem, experiments cannot be created and tested in a laboratory. This means the only method for testing hypothesis' is computer simulation. If you wanted to call this "educated speculation" and argue that their experiance and training trumps mine, then you would be right. But is still not an absolute.

The overwhelming majority of the world’s top climate scientists agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate.

This is not a valid argument. It only takes one to be right. Einstein, Newton, and Copernicus all went against the consensus of scientists. The fact that they all had to get together to decide if they agree makes it suspect. You don't need a conference to decide if 2+2=4. It just is. And you must realize that their jobs depend on not only selling global climates changes existance but it catastrophic outcome. No one is going to shell out a research grant for just an interesting phenomenon. An example, a biology professor of a local college wanted to study the social interactions of prarie dogs. Had to come up with his own money. But when he changed it to "The effects of global warming on Prarie Dogs" he gets a grant. Now which side of the debate do you think he falls?

Mike

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Aj_999
HippieSmell,

Does a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere directly lead to the pH levels of the oceans falling?

Yes, the CO2 in the atmosphere will slowly dissolve into the ocean. I think CO2 saturated water has a pH in the 6 range. Higher temperature water can absorb less CO2, cold water can absorb more. That's why I think there is more concern about cold water ocean life, because it might affect their pH more.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by MCary
This is taking liberties with the English language. Undeniable is an absolute. Because of the vastness and complexity of the problem, experiments cannot be created and tested in a laboratory. This means the only method for testing hypothesis' is computer simulation. If you wanted to call this "educated speculation" and argue that their experiance and training trumps mine, then you would be right. But is still not an absolute.

Mike

That's not true. The heat absorbing characteristics of CO2 are well known, using controlled experiments, and can be applied to the atmosphere as a whole. Raising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will trap more heat.

[poedag]

Originally posted by Aj_999
HippieSmell,

Does a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere directly lead to the pH levels of the oceans falling?

if i might add to the conversation, higher concentrations of CO2 do lead to the lowering PH of the oceans due to the increase in carbonic acid/ calcium carbonate (the temporary destination of the C in Co2) Studies have shown that the oceans are absorbing more of the CO2 emmited by anthropogenic activity than previously thought. There is also some thought that the volume of CaCO3 in the ocean will lead to an increased population those orgainisms that use CaCO3 in their shells (forams and the like).

just my .02 but i had quite a conversation with my PI about how much CO2 you would need to inject into the Pacific ocean to lower the PH by .1, and we both concluded that its probably not a good thing for temperate marine life.

[REV]

I love a good reef discussion. I'm gonna go and apply all I've learned right now. I wonder what my tank will look like this time next month?!

[poedag]

Originally posted by MCary
No one is going to shell out a research grant for just an interesting phenomenon.

I think that people should start!!!

[MCary]

That's not true. The heat absorbing characteristics of CO2 are well known, using controlled experiments, and can be applied to the atmosphere as a whole. Raising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will trap more heat.

I think if you do a little research on this you'll find you're mistaken. The effects on CO2 in the atmosphere are all based on computer modeling. No controlled laboratory experiments can be applied to the atmosphere as a whole because the lab cannot provide all the variables of something so vast.

Poedag,

I agree, I would love to see more science for science sake.

[physicslord]

Originally posted by MCary
I think if you do a little research on this you'll find you're mistaken. The effects on CO2 in the atmosphere are all based on computer modeling. No controlled laboratory experiments can be applied to the atmosphere as a whole because the lab cannot provide all the variables of something so vast.

Now you're grabbing at straws man. You're now argueing that unless we have a lab as big as the earth we cannot support our assumption that CO2 contributes to global warming.

BTW I agree that we may not be able to really control the trend in climate change. Even if human influence is the major cause, it think most of the developing countries are not going to be able to make the changes necessary to reverse this trend. It's unfortunate that our children will have a very different world than ours.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by MCary
I think if you do a little research on this you'll find you're mistaken. The effects on CO2 in the atmosphere are all based on computer modeling. No controlled laboratory experiments can be applied to the atmosphere as a whole because the lab cannot provide all the variables of something so vast.

That's true, but my point was that the heat trapping characteristics of CO2 are well known, and it follows that if you increase the relative concentrations of heat trapping compounds you will have increased temperature. I would be interested in a study showing that increased CO2 concentrations in an atmosphere like composition didn't result in increased temp.

The fact of the matter is that there is a limitation in Western scientific process, and it shows up very clearly when dealing with the environment because there are too many variables we can't control, and that is why we rely on computer simulation. However, that does not mean we aren't correct in the conclusions made by using the myriad of data obtained by individual scientists across the globe. It would be much more difficult to prove that man made climate change is not happening, because all of the data pointing in the opposite direction is a lot to overcome. Right now the question is whether or not anything is going to be done about it.

[poedag]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Right now the question is whether or not anything is going to be done about it.

so are there any politicians on the board right now?