• 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!

The sea floor is dissolving because of anthropogenic CO2

Visbek said:
When, exactly, did you quantify the amount of CO2 emissions required to have an impact on the oceans? Did I miss your paper in Nature?
Click to expand...

Void argument. No one has quantified this.
 
Visbek said:
When, exactly, did you quantify the amount of CO2 emissions required to have an impact on the oceans? Did I miss your paper in Nature?
Click to expand...

The Atlantic is 4km deep. The Pacific 6km.

The density of water is 1 tonne per cubic meter. That of air is about 1kg per cubic meter. 1/1000.

There is 0.04% CO2 in the air. That has to be absorbed by the surface of the oceans. It then has to avoid being used in photosynthesis. More CO2 makes the oceans more productive of life. Then it has to be carried down to the depths of the oceans.

The bottom of the oceans is practically immune from such slight changes. It will not notice.

Just basic numbers.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The Atlantic is 4km deep. The Pacific 6km....
Click to expand...
Uh huh

Let's put this another way. When I asked "When, exactly, did you quantify the amount of CO2 emissions required to have an impact on the oceans?" the correct answer is "I didn't quantify it." You have not even tried to answer that question. Worse yet, you couple it with the deeply mistaken assumption that "trace amounts don't matter."

We know, for a fact, that CO2 is going into the oceans. We know, for a fact, that this has already made a detectable impact on the acidity of the oceans. We know, for a fact, that water from the ocean's surface does in fact circulate to the bottom (e.g. the Antarctic Bottom Water and the North Atlantic Deep Water). So no, it certainly is not the case that the ocean floor is immune to changes in the rest of the ocean.

As usual, your bad math and mistaken assumptions are not a substitute for actual science. Better luck next time.
 
Some loser posted this somewhere on the internet recently and it made me think of this thread.

.f9360d275db46e00af4a77f15f0db478.jpg

A couple guys write a paper,a few posters accept it as gospel , no questions asked.

Others on here have questions.
Hmmmmm.

{SNICKER}
 
Threegoofs said:
This from the guy who says ‘you cannot acidify an alkaline. It’s a basic tenet of acid-base chemistry’. (!!!!!!!!)

LOL.
Click to expand...

You keep showing you have no clue about acid-base chemistry. You just deny it and laugh at it.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The Atlantic is 4km deep. The Pacific 6km.

The density of water is 1 tonne per cubic meter. That of air is about 1kg per cubic meter. 1/1000.

There is 0.04% CO2 in the air. That has to be absorbed by the surface of the oceans. It then has to avoid being used in photosynthesis. More CO2 makes the oceans more productive of life. Then it has to be carried down to the depths of the oceans.

The bottom of the oceans is practically immune from such slight changes. It will not notice.

Just basic numbers.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Visbek said:
Uh huh

Let's put this another way. When I asked "When, exactly, did you quantify the amount of CO2 emissions required to have an impact on the oceans?" the correct answer is "I didn't quantify it." You have not even tried to answer that question. Worse yet, you couple it with the deeply mistaken assumption that "trace amounts don't matter."

We know, for a fact, that CO2 is going into the oceans. We know, for a fact, that this has already made a detectable impact on the acidity of the oceans. We know, for a fact, that water from the ocean's surface does in fact circulate to the bottom (e.g. the Antarctic Bottom Water and the North Atlantic Deep Water). So no, it certainly is not the case that the ocean floor is immune to changes in the rest of the ocean.

As usual, your bad math and mistaken assumptions are not a substitute for actual science. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

So, since you can't quantify it, and you admit that, you have no idea what you are talking about. You're guessing, using your religion to drive your guess. The bad math is YOUR problem.
The oceans are not acidic, dude. They are alkaline.
 
Threegoofs said:
Look.. I’m not the one making idiotic statements like ‘it’s impossible to acidify something alkaline’.
Click to expand...

Not an idiotic statement. Your denial of chemistry is already apparent. No matter how much acid you put into an alkaline, you can't acidify it.
 
Jack Hays said:
When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as many realize, this advocacy is AGW climate change which is described as man being the, at least, major contributor of climate change.
Environmentalists have placed all their 'eggs' into the AGW basket. Environmentalists say the world may be ending due to climate change but they're only concerned with man's contribution to climate change.
IDEOLOGY not science.
 
Visbek said:
Uh huh

Let's put this another way. When I asked "When, exactly, did you quantify the amount of CO2 emissions required to have an impact on the oceans?" the correct answer is "I didn't quantify it." You have not even tried to answer that question. Worse yet, you couple it with the deeply mistaken assumption that "trace amounts don't matter."

We know, for a fact, that CO2 is going into the oceans. We know, for a fact, that this has already made a detectable impact on the acidity of the oceans. We know, for a fact, that water from the ocean's surface does in fact circulate to the bottom (e.g. the Antarctic Bottom Water and the North Atlantic Deep Water). So no, it certainly is not the case that the ocean floor is immune to changes in the rest of the ocean.

As usual, your bad math and mistaken assumptions are not a substitute for actual science. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

As long as you use "acidity" and "ocean," you will be ignored by intelligent people.
 
Into the Night said:
Not an idiotic statement. Your denial of chemistry is already apparent. No matter how much acid you put into an alkaline, you can't acidify it.
Click to expand...

Bo, you can turn it acidic, but at a 8.2 pH... That's one hell of alot of acid to add.
 
Visbek said:
Uh huh

Let's put this another way. When I asked "When, exactly, did you quantify the amount of CO2 emissions required to have an impact on the oceans?" the correct answer is "I didn't quantify it." You have not even tried to answer that question. Worse yet, you couple it with the deeply mistaken assumption that "trace amounts don't matter."

We know, for a fact, that CO2 is going into the oceans. We know, for a fact, that this has already made a detectable impact on the acidity of the oceans. We know, for a fact, that water from the ocean's surface does in fact circulate to the bottom (e.g. the Antarctic Bottom Water and the North Atlantic Deep Water). So no, it certainly is not the case that the ocean floor is immune to changes in the rest of the ocean.

As usual, your bad math and mistaken assumptions are not a substitute for actual science. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

Total mass of oceans 1.35 billion billion tonnes.

Total amount of CO2 produced by humanity;https://www.google.co.uk/search?saf...1j0i20i263k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.0.YX0ly-nSKB0
“Since the industrial revolution, about 375 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2).”
Click to expand...

Total absorbed by the oceans;https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/
Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually.
Click to expand...

So 375 Billion x 26% divided by 1.35 billion billion.

72 billionths.

I understand that very sadly this is a number and as such utterly beyond your ability to understand. Trace ammounts do not matter. It is below tracable.
 
How can anyone expect to have scientific evidence from “ the oceans “ when 98% of them are unmapped? And this algore resonance is trying to make a claim about their floors? Hardy har har.
 
Lord of Planar said:
As long as you use "acidity" and "ocean," you will be ignored by intelligent people.
Click to expand...
lol

Sure... Except for the intelligent people who are oceanographers, climate scientists, work at NOAA, work at the EPA, the European Environment Agency, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Parks Service, Nature, PNAS....

LMGTFY


Or perhaps you have a better term for the oceans becoming more acidic? In case you missed it, the pH balance of the oceans has fallen by approximately 0.1 pH units since 1750.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Bo, you can turn it acidic, but at a 8.2 pH... That's one hell of alot of acid to add.
Click to expand...

It’s making it ‘more’ acidic (or less alkaline), not ‘making it acidic’.

You seem to miss the concept.

Luckily, educated scientists get it though.
 
Visbek said:
lol

Sure... Except for the intelligent people who are oceanographers, climate scientists, work at NOAA, work at the EPA, the European Environment Agency, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Parks Service, Nature, PNAS....

LMGTFY


Or perhaps you have a better term for the oceans becoming more acidic? In case you missed it, the pH balance of the oceans has fallen by approximately 0.1 pH units since 1750.
Click to expand...

Surface waters only.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I understand that very sadly this is a number and as such utterly beyond your ability to understand. Trace ammounts do not matter. It is below tracable.
Click to expand...
Yaay, more napkin math with bad numbers!

You didn't even check your own source. "375 gigatons" number is from an article you didn't bother to read. The Google blurb excerpted the claim that the article pointed out was the wrong number; the correct number is closer to 1,370 gigatons, (https://www.carbonbrief.org/doha-infographic-gets-the-numbers-wrong-underestimates-human-emissions)

Anyway. Got some bad news for you: Trace amounts do matter. The changes are detectable, as is the impact. Those trace amounts caused the pH balance of the oceans to drop by about 0.1 pH units during the Industrial Era. In just the past few decades, it's probably fallen by 0.03 pH units. And yes, that's a substantial change, and it's likely to accelerate.


Changes to CO2 amounts and pH levels are detectable by direct observation:

acidity-figure1-2016.png



Changes in pH levels are now detectable via satellite as well:

satelliteima.jpg

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-satellite-images-reveal-ocean-acidification.html

And yes, incredibly small changes like this can have a huge impact on organisms, especially when the changes happen faster than organisms can adapt to the change. As I've pointed out before: 135 milligrams of cyanide is a toxic dose for for a 200 pound (90 kilogram) human. That amount of cyanide is 0.00015% of the 90kg body's total mass. That "below traceable" amount is fatal.

C'mon, man. This is basic stuff. Get it together.
 
Visbek said:
Yaay, more napkin math with bad numbers!

You didn't even check your own source. "375 gigatons" number is from an article you didn't bother to read. The Google blurb excerpted the claim that the article pointed out was the wrong number; the correct number is closer to 1,370 gigatons, (https://www.carbonbrief.org/doha-infographic-gets-the-numbers-wrong-underestimates-human-emissions)

Anyway. Got some bad news for you: Trace amounts do matter. The changes are detectable, as is the impact. Those trace amounts caused the pH balance of the oceans to drop by about 0.1 pH units during the Industrial Era. In just the past few decades, it's probably fallen by 0.03 pH units. And yes, that's a substantial change, and it's likely to accelerate.


Changes to CO2 amounts and pH levels are detectable by direct observation:

acidity-figure1-2016.png



Changes in pH levels are now detectable via satellite as well:

satelliteima.jpg

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-satellite-images-reveal-ocean-acidification.html

And yes, incredibly small changes like this can have a huge impact on organisms, especially when the changes happen faster than organisms can adapt to the change. As I've pointed out before: 135 milligrams of cyanide is a toxic dose for for a 200 pound (90 kilogram) human. That amount of cyanide is 0.00015% of the 90kg body's total mass. That "below traceable" amount is fatal.

C'mon, man. This is basic stuff. Get it together.
Click to expand...

Your graphs are for the surface layers of the ocean.

If it is evenly dissolved then there is no significant difference. That is the 4 x 72 284 parts per billion is utterly irrelavent.

When you have it all in the top few meters it has the effect you show inthe graphs. That is the top of the ocean is far more productive of life than it otherwise would have been. And very slightly less alkaline.

Very very basic numbers are obviously utterly beyond you mind.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Your graphs are for the surface layers of the ocean.
Click to expand...
Satellites measures the surface. In case it isn't obvious, it's not like all of the CO2 stays in the top 10cm of the ocean. The surface measurements indicate what's happening in the top layers of the ocean.

Direct measurements are taken at a variety of depths. E.g. the ESTOC site near the Canary Islands has its pH and CO2 sensors close to the surface (1.5m); E2-M3A is also very close (10m depth). Station M has multiple instruments in a column, and collects pH and pCO2 data up to 2000m below the surface.

Anyway... There are lots of organisms in the surface layers of the ocean. They form shells out of CaCO3 which settles on the ocean floor. As the oceans become more acidic, the CaCO3 produced by those near-surface organisms is increasingly dissolved rather than forming sediment, and this changes the mineral composition of the ocean floor. Thus, even if we are only talking about what's happening on the upper layers of the oceans, it's a change whose full impacts we really ought to try and understand.

By the way, ocean waters do this crazy thing called "circulate." It does take time, and some of the CO2 goes back into the atmosphere before those waters circulates into deeper ocean waters. Eventually the increases in CO2 and changes in pH in the ocean already propagate to lower layers, and this spreads out the impact. The more CO2 we emit, the larger the impact over time. See how that works?


If it is evenly dissolved then there is no significant difference. That is the 4 x 72 284 parts per billion is utterly irrelavent.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess you'd better grab a new napkin. You're simultaneously saying "it's only the surface!" but your math assumes that the CO2 is evenly spread through the entire ocean. Which is it? (And, of course, it didn't occur to you to calculate how much we will add by 2050, 2100, 2200...)

Anyway. The empirical evidence is clear that it is not irrelevant. The added CO2 is increasing pH levels in a layer of the ocean which is responsible for perhaps 25% of the ocean floor sediment. Trace amounts still matter, most notably when dealing with organisms that may not have time to adapt.
 
Tim the plumber said:
How such drivel can be passed as sciene is beyond me.

Just work out how much CO2 we have pumped out and dived it by the size of the world's oceans. Then try to argue that this number so close to zero is important.
Click to expand...

We have trouble getting full coverage of the sea SURFACE, and these people expect us to believe we have a sufficient deep sea presence to make reliable claims about the global status of the sea floor? :roll:
 
Tim the plumber said:
Your graphs are for the surface layers of the ocean.

If it is evenly dissolved then there is no significant difference. That is the 4 x 72 284 parts per billion is utterly irrelavent.

When you have it all in the top few meters it has the effect you show inthe graphs. That is the top of the ocean is far more productive of life than it otherwise would have been. And very slightly less alkaline.

Very very basic numbers are obviously utterly beyond you mind.
Click to expand...

Somehow, all those idiots at PNAS, the peer reviewers of the paper in the OP, McGill University earth science department, and the people who investigated this and specialize in this field completely missed this.

I'm sure they would appreciate a letter to the editor of PNAS outlining this fascinating analysis, and would be happy to publish it from someone as accomplished in the denier...errr.. political forum field as yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom