• 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

I just went over that paper, and wonder why you think it means squat, to answering why the pH doesn't add up right.

As for reference 5, I thought you meant reference 5 of that paper.

I guess I should dismiss you like I do 3Goofs and a few others.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So, in other words, you are speaking from where the sun doesn't shine, and call me naive?

Wow...

Changes in pH are simple calculations when changing one variable. Temperature and salinity do play a role, but not to a large enough extent. there are other factors causing pH changes in the ocean, but they would also have to be dramatic changes.

I think you are ignorant to the log curve usage in determining pH.
Click to expand...

Of course I know what a logarithmic scale is! The bit I'm not so sure about is whether the concentration of H+ ions (upon which pH depends) in the sea water is directly proportional to the CO2 content, as you have assumed, especially given all the other constituents of sea water. That's where I think you may be being naive.
 
Surface Detail said:
Of course I know what a logarithmic scale is! The bit I'm not so sure about is whether the concentration of H+ ions (upon which pH depends) in the sea water is directly proportional to the CO2 content, as you have assumed, especially given all the other constituents of sea water. That's where I think you may be being naive.
Click to expand...

Just think, just a few days ago he was nonsensically telling us how 'the chemistry equilibrium of CO2 can self buffer'.

And now he's 'proving' chemists wrong.

I can't wait until he devotes his energies to proteomics and finds new genetic targets for medicines. I'd give it a week or two, tops.
 
Threegoofs said:
Just think, just a few days ago he was nonsensically telling us how 'the chemistry equilibrium of CO2 can self buffer'.

And now he's 'proving' chemists wrong.

I can't wait until he devotes his energies to proteomics and finds new genetic targets for medicines. I'd give it a week or two, tops.
Click to expand...

He's a funny character. He remains me of the "wannabe geeks" who used to sit at the front of the physics lectures I attended during my degree course. They were the very serious types who wanted everyone to think they were smart but kept failing the exams; they were in love with the idea of being a scientist but, sadly, unable to grasp much more than the fundamentals of actual science. I used to wonder what became of them.
 
Surface Detail said:
He's a funny character. He remains me of the "wannabe geeks" who used to sit at the front of the physics lectures I attended during my degree course. They were the very serious types who wanted everyone to think they were smart but kept failing the exams; they were in love with the idea of being a scientist but, sadly, unable to grasp much more than the fundamentals of actual science. I used to wonder what became of them.
Click to expand...

In my field, he's like the guys who couldn't make the cut for med school and went into naturopathy/homeopathy/chiropractic and pretended that they were the 'science guys' who are proving modern medicine wrong.
 
Surface Detail said:
He's a funny character. He remains me of the "wannabe geeks" who used to sit at the front of the physics lectures I attended during my degree course. They were the very serious types who wanted everyone to think they were smart but kept failing the exams; they were in love with the idea of being a scientist but, sadly, unable to grasp much more than the fundamentals of actual science. I used to wonder what became of them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I almost always aced mine. 4.0 in all technical and scientific courses.
 
Surface Detail said:
Of course I know what a logarithmic scale is! The bit I'm not so sure about is whether the concentration of H+ ions (upon which pH depends) in the sea water is directly proportional to the CO2 content, as you have assumed, especially given all the other constituents of sea water. That's where I think you may be being naive.
Click to expand...

Some deviation from the log curve CO2 would follow can be expected, but if you wish me to believe it effectively causes other factors to feedback, and make CO2 cause more than twice the ionic change than a log10 curve dictates, then you should provide some evidence.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Some deviation from the log curve CO2 would follow can be expected, but if you wish me to believe it effectively causes other factors to feedback, and make CO2 cause more than twice the ionic change than a log10 curve dictates, then you should provide some evidence.
Click to expand...


Which from the looks of things the original article and yourself do not fully understand

As pH is on a log scale, and pH 7 is neutral, the amount of CO2 required to change the pH from say 7 to 6.7 is orders of magnitude lower then if the change was from 4 to 3.7 despite the same pH change of just 0.3

Last but not least as the ocean does have other dissolved minerals in it and the average pH is about 8-8.2 on the surface to calculate the pH the pKa value would have to be determined first and not just a straight CO2 concentration value. Of course when the concentration of CO2 goes past the where the buffering works then a more drastic pH change can occur.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Which from the looks of things the original article and yourself do not fully understand
Click to expand...
You are correct that I do not "fully" understand the complex ocean chemistry. Nobody does!

Lord Tammerlain said:
As pH is on a log scale, and pH 7 is neutral, the amount of CO2 required to change the pH from say 7 to 6.7 is orders of magnitude lower then if the change was from 4 to 3.7 despite the same pH change of just 0.3
Click to expand...
For pure water? Starting with 7?

Ocean chemistry has other factors starting pH around 8.1 to 8.2. If 200 (arbitrary) units yield a pH of 8, then it takes a doubling to 400 for a pH of 7.7. Starting with a pH of 7 with the same ocean chemistry otherwise would indicate the units are around 2000 to get to a pH of 6.7. A factor of 10 for a 1.0 move on a graph. A doubling for a move of 0.301 pH.

Lord Tammerlain said:
Last but not least as the ocean does have other dissolved minerals in it and the average pH is about 8-8.2 on the surface to calculate the pH the pKa value would have to be determined first and not just a straight CO2 concentration value. Of course when the concentration of CO2 goes past the where the buffering works then a more drastic pH change can occur.
Click to expand...
Yes, you don't get the 1.0 move of pH for a factor of 10 while the buffering actions are in play.

At least you acknowledge the ocean buffering when the others claimed I didn't know what I was speaking of.

The article has a graph when the deep oven has crossed the 0.1 pH change deep, just past 2400 AD. At the surface, claiming 0.7 pH change. I was pointing out for an equalized 0.1 pH change would mean all the projected CO2 would have to be absorbed, and it still falls short of making enough carbonic acid to do so.

Can you explain how I am wrong in post 88?

Because of initial buffering, would you agree the 0.1 change would require possibly more than the 26% more carbonic acid already in the oceans? With an estimated store of over 39,000 GtC, look at what that needs to be, and the estimated 5270 GtC added/burned in the paper. The 5270 GtC is only a 13% addition. Not a 26% addition.
 
FYI

Freshly boiled distilled water has a pH of 7

Take that same water and shake it, then test the pH again. The pH can drop to 5.5, generally from absorbed cardon dioxide. As seen the change is more then just 0.3 pH units.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You are correct that I do not "fully" understand the complex ocean chemistry. Nobody does!


For pure water? Starting with 7?

Ocean chemistry has other factors starting pH around 8.1 to 8.2. If 200 (arbitrary) units yield a pH of 8, then it takes a doubling to 400 for a pH of 7.7. Starting with a pH of 7 with the same ocean chemistry otherwise would indicate the units are around 2000 to get to a pH of 6.7. A factor of 10 for a 1.0 move on a graph. A doubling for a move of 0.301 pH.


Yes, you don't get the 1.0 move of pH for a factor of 10 while the buffering actions are in play.

At least you acknowledge the ocean buffering when the others claimed I didn't know what I was speaking of.

The article has a graph when the deep oven has crossed the 0.1 pH change deep, just past 2400 AD. At the surface, claiming 0.7 pH change. I was pointing out for an equalized 0.1 pH change would mean all the projected CO2 would have to be absorbed, and it still falls short of making enough carbonic acid to do so.

Can you explain how I am wrong in post 88?

Because of initial buffering, would you agree the 0.1 change would require possibly more than the 26% more carbonic acid already in the oceans? With an estimated store of over 39,000 GtC, look at what that needs to be, and the estimated 5270 GtC added/burned in the paper. The 5270 GtC is only a 13% addition. Not a 26% addition.
Click to expand...

Maybe a refresher on basic chemistry might help.

7A: C02 and Ocean pH - What's the Connection?

The chemistry of ocean acidification : OCB-OA

How much has CO2 already decreased pH and how much change is expected?
Basic: Surface ocean pH has fallen by about 0.11 pH unit since the Industrial Revolution. Computer models forecast a drop of 0.3-0.4 pH units more by the end of the century if we continue to burn fossil fuels as we are today.

Intermediate: Scientists estimate that surface ocean pH has fallen by about 0.11 pH units from preindustrial times to today. Because pH is a measure of hydrogen ion concentration and the pH scale is logarithmic — for a decrease of 1 pH unit, the hydrogen ion concentration increases by a factor of 10 — a 0.11-unit pH decrease is equivalent to about a 29% increase in the ocean hydrogen ion concentration. If we continue on the expected trajectory for fossil-fuel use and rising atmospheric CO2, pH is likely to drop by 0.3-0.4 units by the end of the 21st century and increase ocean hydrogen ion concentration (or acidity) by 100-150% above what it was in preindustrial times. — S. Doney
Click to expand...

And the IPCC has similar conclusions:

Topic 2: Future changes, risks and impacts — IPCC

AR5_SYR_Figure_2.1.png
 
Last edited:
Goofs...

How about explaining it in your own words, instead of just showing us you know links.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Goofs...

How about explaining it in your own words, instead of just showing us you know links.
Click to expand...

The oceans are acidifying because of CO2 emissions. This has been demonstrated.

Its disruptive to ocean ecology. This has been demonstrated.

And it will get worse.
 
Threegoofs said:
The oceans are acidifying because of CO2 emissions. This has been demonstrated.

Its disruptive to ocean ecology. This has been demonstrated.

And it will get worse.
Click to expand...

That's it?

LOL...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom