• 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:
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?



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.
Click to expand...

The point is either;

1, It is in the surface only and thus having a slight but detectable effect.

or

2, It is all the way down and thus so tiny as to be utterly inconsequential if detecable at all.
 
jmotivator said:
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:
Click to expand...

You take the normal scientific approach of dealing with their arguments in the order they are in.

That is wrong. When you are being sold snake oil or a used car you should start at the end of the argument and work backwards.

This will make the case fall appart very quickly. The amount of CO2 is in the billionths if it is going all the way down. So don't even count it.
 
Threegoofs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sooooooooooooooooooooo unable to do numbers........................
 
Tim the plumber said:
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


Total absorbed by the oceans;https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/


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.
Click to expand...

Tim, it isn't that simple.

The surface for example is considered if I recall correctly, the top 700 meters. This is where the relatively quick equilibrium take place, but it is still slow to that depth. If we consider what is really happening at a faster rate, look for example at the first 20 meters for example. This is where we can expect to see the levels close to the partial pressure of the atmosphere. For the ocean as a whole, the ECS is well over 2,000 years, as the cycle if the ocean averages 1,200 years.
 
Threegoofs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very bad terminology. Just shows indoctrination, as before AGW became a fad, scientists would never use such inaccurate words.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Very bad terminology. Just shows indoctrination, as before AGW became a fad, scientists would never use such inaccurate words.
Click to expand...

I guess when people have been dying of metabolic acidosis for decades, we were all mistaken to use that terminology, since their blood pH was above 7.

Thanks for the expert tip! You sure know your science!
 
Threegoofs said:
An article was just published in PNAS that looks a bit concerning.


From the news release:



Alterations to seabed raise fears for future | Newsroom - McGill University

The implications of this isn’t too dramatic for us- it will eventually screw up geologic climate records and leave a stamp for the next civilization to detect how this one screwed up. The CaCO3, of course, is buffering the excess carbonic acid, helping to temper acidification in the future. No one really expected the seafloors this deep to be dissolving this quickly and this early, however.

Article here:
Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2 | PNAS

I look forward to all the deniers suddenly becoming experts on oceanography, chemistry and benthic zones and telling us how this all means nothing and PNAS is just a biased blog site.
Click to expand...

it's a conspiracy

your truly,

a trumpet
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess when people have been dying of metabolic acidosis for decades, we were all mistaken to use that terminology, since their blood pH was above 7.

Thanks for the expert tip! You sure know your science!
Click to expand...

Different word, different meaning.

Words have meaning.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You take the normal scientific approach of dealing with their arguments in the order they are in.
Click to expand...
"Denying scientific evidence from a position of ignorance" is not the "normal scientific approach." Just FYI.


The amount of CO2 is in the billionths if it is going all the way down. So don't even count it.
Click to expand...
And again... the amount of pCO2 is already changing the pH balance, and having an impact on marine life. So yeah, you ought to count it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Different word, different meaning.

Words have meaning.
Click to expand...
That "argument" would be much more persuasive if you actually knew the meaning of the words in question.
 
Visbek said:
That "argument" would be much more persuasive if you actually knew the meaning of the words in question.
Click to expand...

But I do. I looked them up to make certain.
 
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...

Nope. You must neutralize it first. You can't acidify and alkaline.

You are correct though that it would take a lot of acid.
 
Visbek said:
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....
Click to expand...
Government agencies and government scientists are not science, dude. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Visbek said:
Or perhaps you have a better term for the oceans becoming more acidic?
Click to expand...
Ocean water is alkaline, not acidic.
Visbek said:
In case you missed it, the pH balance of the oceans has fallen by approximately 0.1 pH units since 1750.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the pH of the all the world's oceans to this accuracy. pH varies depending on location. No ocean water is acidic.
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s making it ‘more’ acidic (or less alkaline), not ‘making it acidic’.
Click to expand...
You cannot make an alkaline more acidic. Adding an acid to an alkaline produces a salt, and tends to neutralize an alkaline, but it does not make it more acidic.
Threegoofs said:
You seem to miss the concept.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy.
Threegoofs said:
Luckily, educated scientists get it though.
Click to expand...
At least chemists do. They happen to agree with me.
 
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:


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


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...

Argument from randU. You are making up numbers. It is not possible to measure pH of the world's oceans to anywhere near that level of accuracy. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. The EPA is not a valid source.
 
Visbek said:
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?



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.
Click to expand...

No paradox. He is saying IF it is uniformly dissolved, not that it actually IS. Fallacy fallacy.
 
Threegoofs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Argument from randU. Argument from false authority.

If any book, university, scientist, or 'expert' wants to ignore mathematics, that is THEIR problem. Tim is quite right here.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess when people have been dying of metabolic acidosis for decades, we were all mistaken to use that terminology, since their blood pH was above 7.

Thanks for the expert tip! You sure know your science!
Click to expand...

You are referring to acidemia. Yup. You are mistaken to use that terminology. Metabolic acidosis can cause acidemia, but it is not acidemia itself. Even the term acidemia is mistaken terminology,
 
Visbek said:
"Denying scientific evidence from a position of ignorance" is not the "normal scientific approach." Just FYI.



And again... the amount of pCO2 is already changing the pH balance, and having an impact on marine life. So yeah, you ought to count it.
Click to expand...

You just don't have a clue how pH works, do you?
 
Into the Night said:
You cannot make an alkaline more acidic. Adding an acid to an alkaline produces a salt, and tends to neutralize an alkaline, but it does not make it more acidic.

Inversion fallacy.

At least chemists do. They happen to agree with me.
Click to expand...

Yeah... no.

Chemists don’t agree with you.

I happen to know a few.
 
Into the Night said:
You are referring to acidemia. Yup. You are mistaken to use that terminology. Metabolic acidosis can cause acidemia, but it is not acidemia itself. Even the term acidemia is mistaken terminology,
Click to expand...

Damn. I guess all those damn textbooks are wrong.

Thanks, Mr Science!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom