• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ocean Acidification Exaggerated

Lord of Planar said:
Hard to say.

I only am showing that pH has not followed CO2.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't shown that at all.

Apparently you didn't learn anything at all from the last time your same 'argument' was shown 6 mths ago to be based on false claims about an old 2005 paper. A paper you don't even appear to have read. It's almost like you're religiously attached to the notion and just can't accept anything that shows your dogma to be false.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
He's recycling this again. His 'argument' was already shown to be false 6 months ago. I'm betting he found this old 2005 paper referred to on a blog, is repeating what he read there, never bothered to really read it, and never bothered to do any further investigation. But then, he's already shown he doesn't even know how to search the literature.
Click to expand...

Oh, no!

He doesn't read blogs! He just randomly mentions this one single paper repeatedly because it's ground breaking info- he knows, because he's not only an expert on paleoclimatology, but also on modeling, atmospheric physics, cryology AND coral formation/ocean acidification.

That's what it's like when you read all the papers.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There are other factors and the chemistry equilibrium of CO2 can self buffer.
Click to expand...

I'll just leave a quote from the primary author of the study you just misrepresented for us:

"Though pH has been lower in the past, this time the changes are happening about 10 times faster. And that means there is no time for species to evolve and adapt, or the ocean to buffer itself," Pelejero says. "It's clear that the ocean is acidifying, much clearer than that the world is warming. And we know that most of the effect is caused by man's actions. The only argument among scientists is over how much damage is being done."
-Carlos Pelejero

Can scientists save the world's sea life from "ocean acidification"? | The Independent
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then maybe you should lean that part of science.
Click to expand...

I think it's on you to explain your phrase:

'the chemistry equilibrium of CO2 can self buffer'

Because it's pretty much nonsense as written.

No surprise, though.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Threegoofs said:
I think it's on you to explain your phrase:

'the chemistry equilibrium of CO2 can self buffer'

Because it's pretty much nonsense as written.

No surprise, though.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

When there are other chemistries in the water. You cannot predict the CO2 changes in water based on changes in CO2 partial pressure. Temperature, salinity, calcium, etc. all play a role in the pH change. There are natural swings in the pH that are far more than a doubling of CO2 provides, and because of the other chemistries, the CO[SUB]3[/SUB][SUP]2-[/SUP] helps buffer.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then maybe you should lean that part of science.
Click to expand...

Oh please, explain your meaningless sentence to us all. We can't wait to learn from a self-proclaimed 'expert' like you who 'knows this stuff'
 
Lord of Planar said:
When there are other chemistries in the water. You cannot predict the CO2 changes in water based on changes in CO2 partial pressure. Temperature, salinity, calcium, etc. all play a role in the pH change. There are natural swings in the pH that are far more than a doubling of CO2 provides, and because of the other chemistries, the CO[SUB]3[/SUB][SUP]2-[/SUP] helps buffer.
Click to expand...
Still not making much sense. Sounds like you're flailing around trying to make up something in your own head so you can religiously cling to your anti-CO2 dogma.
 
OK, tell us. How much of a pH change is expected with a quadrupling of CO2 from 1750 levels.

I think you will find it's within the error limits of measuring the complex chemistry, since other factors are present.
 
Lord of Planar said:
When there are other chemistries in the water. You cannot predict the CO2 changes in water based on changes in CO2 partial pressure. Temperature, salinity, calcium, etc. all play a role in the pH change. There are natural swings in the pH that are far more than a doubling of CO2 provides, and because of the other chemistries, the CO[SUB]3[/SUB][SUP]2-[/SUP] helps buffer.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Stick with physics, denier.

As the author of your paper clearly states, pH is dropping in the ocean (fairly dramatically too- 0.1 units) and the cause is entirely man made.

That takes any buffering into account, of course, since it's measurable pH.
 
[h=2]Surprise: Ocean acidification quite good for some shells[/h]
Wait, wait – someone made an assumption that carbon life forms would not like more carbon, and that they might not be able to adjust to a change even after surviving for 100 million years of other changes. But now researchers are surprised that some shells are not only as good in an “acidic environment” but might be even better. Indeed formanifera turned out to micromanage pH levels so that in the right spot, where they need a higher pH, they can create that. The researchers say “such an active biochemical regulation mechanism has never been found before” and wonder “what if” the majority of organisms can do this?
More carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) in the air also acidifies the oceans. It seemed to be the logical conclusion that shellfish and corals will suffer, because chalk formation becomes more difficult in more acidic seawater. But now a group of Dutch and Japanese scientists discovered to their own surprise that some tiny unicellular shellfish make better shells in an acidic environment. This is a completely new insight.
Researchers from the NIOZ (Royal Dutch Institute for Sea Research) and JAMSTEC (Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology) found in their experiments that so-called foraminifera might even make their shells better in more acidic water. These single-celled foraminifera shellfish occur in huge numbers in the oceans. The results of the study are published in the leading scientific journal Nature Communications.
Since 1750 the acidity of the ocean has increased by 30%.
Well… at least in theory. (Number of pH meters in 1750 = 0.) Models predict the oceans have become less alkaline.
According to the prevailing theory and related experiments with calcareous algae and shellfish, limestone (calcium carbonate) dissolves more easily in acidic water. The formation of lime by shellfish and corals is more difficult because less carbonate is available under acidic conditions. The carbonate-ion relates directly to dissolved carbon dioxide via two chemical equilibrium reactions.
Self-regulating biochemical magic trick
Keep reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Surprise: Ocean acidification quite good for some shells[/h]
Wait, wait – someone made an assumption that carbon life forms would not like more carbon, and that they might not be able to adjust to a change even after surviving for 100 million years of other changes. But now researchers are surprised that some shells are not only as good in an “acidic environment” but might be even better. Indeed formanifera turned out to micromanage pH levels so that in the right spot, where they need a higher pH, they can create that. The researchers say “such an active biochemical regulation mechanism has never been found before” and wonder “what if” the majority of organisms can do this?
More carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) in the air also acidifies the oceans. It seemed to be the logical conclusion that shellfish and corals will suffer, because chalk formation becomes more difficult in more acidic seawater. But now a group of Dutch and Japanese scientists discovered to their own surprise that some tiny unicellular shellfish make better shells in an acidic environment. This is a completely new insight.
Researchers from the NIOZ (Royal Dutch Institute for Sea Research) and JAMSTEC (Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology) found in their experiments that so-called foraminifera might even make their shells better in more acidic water. These single-celled foraminifera shellfish occur in huge numbers in the oceans. The results of the study are published in the leading scientific journal Nature Communications.
Since 1750 the acidity of the ocean has increased by 30%.
Well… at least in theory. (Number of pH meters in 1750 = 0.) Models predict the oceans have become less alkaline.
According to the prevailing theory and related experiments with calcareous algae and shellfish, limestone (calcium carbonate) dissolves more easily in acidic water. The formation of lime by shellfish and corals is more difficult because less carbonate is available under acidic conditions. The carbonate-ion relates directly to dissolved carbon dioxide via two chemical equilibrium reactions.
Self-regulating biochemical magic trick
Keep reading →
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

It's kinda disconcerting to read that a tiny unicellular shellfish managed to shock and surprise learned scientists! :thumbs: :mrgreen: As usual, I enjoyed the comments, but I couldn't swear that I understood them this time because both pro and con arguments made sense, so I'm confused. Is changing ocean acidity/ alkalinity a big problem for creatures that make their home there?
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

It's kinda disconcerting to read that a tiny unicellular shellfish managed to shock and surprise learned scientists! :thumbs: :mrgreen: As usual, I enjoyed the comments, but I couldn't swear that I understood them this time because both pro and con arguments made sense, so I'm confused. Is changing ocean acidity/ alkalinity a big problem for creatures that make their home there?
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Whether it's a big problem is a focus of research.:mrgreen:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

It's kinda disconcerting to read that a tiny unicellular shellfish managed to shock and surprise learned scientists! :thumbs: :mrgreen: As usual, I enjoyed the comments, but I couldn't swear that I understood them this time because both pro and con arguments made sense, so I'm confused. Is changing ocean acidity/ alkalinity a big problem for creatures that make their home there?
Click to expand...

Protip: I wouldnt ask Jack for an interpretation. He only cuts and pastes.

But look at it this way. With acidification, you now have a single organism that seems to be able to prosper in the new environment. What do you think that does to the balance of life when the other organisms dont thrive? Do you think a potential massive disruption, destroying other zooplankton and creatures above it in the foodchain that have specifically evolved to live in this balanced environment is a GOOD thing for the already heavily stressed ocean system?

As for if the effects of ocean acidification are harmful... again, relying on climate science denier blogs is probably not a good place to start, especially if you get confused reading the comments.

I suggest you start reading from solid, respected sources of science, like National Geographic: Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

Or, if you think you can chew on a bit more science, Scientific American: http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/ocean_acidification_from_c02_060301.pdf
 
Oh Yeh...

Scientific American... Real good... Predicting a 0.8 drop in pH...

Do you have a clue what that means the CO2 levels would have to be?

More alarmism in the guise of science.

Try "impossible."
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Oh Yeh...

Scientific American... Real good... Predicting a 0.8 drop in pH...

Do you have a clue what that means the CO2 levels would have to be?

More alarmism in the guise of science.

Try "impossible."
Click to expand...

And LoP says Scientific American is wrong.

Because he understands the science better than the scientists who study the issue....

I'm guessing before he proves himself to be better than all
The scientists studying this in the world, he might want to work on
Reading comprehension.. I see no 0.8 pH increase in either reference.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
And LoP says Scientific American is wrong.

Because he understands the science better than the scientists who study the issue....
Click to expand...

OK, tell us how we get to over a 2,000 ppm level of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I see you haven't done the pH math.

It's log 10 based. For a 0.1 decrease, that's a 30% increase of CO2. Doubling CO2 gives a 0.3 pH if the ocean wasn't moving, and that's why we really don't see a 0.1 pH decrease.

As time progresses to where these higher levels might exist, it is starting to well mix with all the ocean. This is currently about a 50:1 ratio.

Any idea how much CO2 we would have to produce to have that much CO2 in the atmosphere, since at the current imbalance, the ocean absorbs about 30% to 50% of our output?
 
Last edited:
And yes. Scientific American is wrong.

Please look up the papers they derived it from.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OK, tell us how we get to over a 2,000 ppm level of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I see you haven't done the pH math.

It's log 10 based. For a 0.1 decrease, that's a 30% increase of CO2. Doubling CO2 gives a 0.3 pH if the ocean wasn't moving, and that's why we really don't see a 0.1 pH decrease.

As time progresses to where these higher levels might exist, it is starting to well mix with all the ocean. This is currently about a 50:1 ratio.

Any idea how much CO2 we would have to produce to have that much CO2 in the atmosphere, since at the current imbalance, the ocean absorbs about 30% to 50% of our output?
Click to expand...

I'm kind of aware of pH. I think they taught it in pharmacology and physiology and organic chemistry and medicinal chemistry and, of course, my daily calculations of acid base balance when I was working the ICU.

And I find it hilarious that you think throwing out a bunch of numbers means you know what you're talking about.
 
Even the paper is wrong:

Access : Oceanography: Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH : Nature

Original graph from here:



link in pic.

It is wrong in that it considers the ocean static, and not completing a circulation is 800-1200 years. In 200-300 years, the saturated surface has moved, and is replaced by previously unsaturated waters. The math for the graph and surface pH assumes a continual buildup and only vertical mixing.

There is no way in 200 years, that the atmosphere would accumulate to levels producing such a high pH in the surface waters.
 
To add, we currently have about a 43% imbalance between the atmospheric CO2 and what the oceans can absorb. When it reaches 2000 ppm, the absorption would have to be 100% to imbalance to reach -0.8 pH, which means we would have to output much more than 20 GtC to maintain it.

The authors are good at calculations, but it appears they missed the complete dynamics of ocean movement, and treated it as if it doesn't move.

The timescale is completely wrong, since the oceans make a complete circulation in under 1,300 years.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Even the paper is wrong:

Access : Oceanography: Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH : Nature

Original graph from here:



link in pic.

It is wrong in that it considers the ocean static, and not completing a circulation is 800-1200 years. In 200-300 years, the saturated surface has moved, and is replaced by previously unsaturated waters. The math for the graph and surface pH assumes a continual buildup and only vertical mixing.

There is no way in 200 years, that the atmosphere would accumulate to levels producing such a high pH in the surface waters.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes.

The peer reviewed Nature paper is wrong. And the guy who 'knows' this just read it in 10 minutes, with no solid background in chemistry.

Are you detecting the withering condescension yet?
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, yes.

The peer reviewed Nature paper is wrong. And the guy who 'knows' this just read it in 10 minutes, with no solid background in chemistry.

Are you detecting the withering condescension yet?
Click to expand...

OK, please explain how the ocean will continue to absorb all that CO2... and actually far more than emitted.

For the entire ocean depth to decrease by 0.1 pH, and as much as 0.7 at the surface...

Just the entire depth for a 0.1 pH change is almost 10,000 GtC. At a 10 GtC emission rate, that's almost 1000 years of emissions.

Do the math!

If the ocean contains 38,000 GtC, to change the pH by 0.1, requires adding 26% CO2.

38,000 x 0.26 = 9880

9880 / 10 = 988 years.

That would be with 100% absorption.
 
Yes, complain about my napkin math, but you will not be able to show me wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom