|
Post by thermostat on May 26, 2011 4:03:49 GMT
The ocean cannot become more acidic until it is first acidic. The correct way to refer to the process of lowering the pH of the ocean is its becoming less basic or less alkaline. If you want to express the direction the oceans are headed then the correct way to state it is to say the ocean is becoming more neutral. There is zero chance that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will cause the ocean to become acidic much less more acidic. Hopefully the people around here will learn a bit more about science. Mclainer, CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. CO2 in the atmosphere does this. As CO2 in the atmosphere increases, more carbonic acid is formed in the oceans. This is atmospheric chemistry. More CO2 in the atmosphere makes the oceans more acidic.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 26, 2011 4:11:03 GMT
Impact from ocean acidification is the right impression. If people think ocean acidification is a big deal then they have got the right impression. Ocean pH is dropping faster than any known example in Earth's history. 55 million years ago it dropped sharply following a large dump of CO2 or methane into the atmosphere. There was a mass extinction of life in the deep ocean. Yet still it dropped slower than today. The reason this can happen is that never before has a species pulled up all the hydrocarbons stored over millions of years and pushed them into the atmosphere in a few hundred. The fall in ocean pH is a direct consequence of the rate of CO2 rise. The same CO2 rise done more slowly (ie over thousands of years) would hardly register a change in ocean pH because the oceans would have time to buffer it. So if people get the impression that ocean acidification is a big deal, they've got the right impression. How can it be the right impression if they think the oceans are becoming acid? If they read the definitions above that's what they will think. The term has been devised to sell the wrong impression. You justify it because you think it will lead them to the right action. But a merchant thinks the right action is for you to buy their product. However, laws have been put in place such fraudulent deceptions in commerce. If you value credibility even when there is no law to prevent it you should follow the honest path. Unprecedented neutralization or even impacts on creatures from neutralization could be things to worry about. But it is on you to explain accurately what those things are and not just lie because you don't have any other recourse. Mclainer, this is not about an impression, it is an observed fact based on trivial chemistry. CO2 forms carbonic acid in water. A large part of CO2 in the atmosphere has been found to enter the ocean, where it forms carbonic acid, acidifying the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 26, 2011 4:23:50 GMT
Just a bit of sanity here, my swimming pool often gets below 7 and it certainly doesn't stop things growing in there, in fact algae seems to grow much better in an acidic pool. bobdutch, Do you have any coral reefs in your pool? Any ecosystems? The algae seem to grow much better when it gets acidic, you write; hmm... ie. acidity has an affect that is easy to see... but if this happens to the ocean rather than to your pool, and the algae like it, you don't see any possible implications?
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 26, 2011 6:17:40 GMT
mclainer: You make very valid points. Socold, when I have talked to people about lower ph, they have the impression that mclaimer is stating. When they mention acid, their eyes glaze over as they think about REAL ACID. To them then, the problem becomes insurmountable, so they ignore it. I had never thought much about the terminology, and I thank mclaimer for bringing this up. This is actually critical in understanding. Also, lowering the ph of the oceans may not be as big a deal as socold thinks. Over 1/2 of the curstacians seem to be in a state of high ph toxicity right now. When the ph is lowered using co2 as the buffering agent, they thrive. Yes, there are other crustacians that suffer, but it is a trade off it seems. Some benifit, some don't. Thanks for recognizing the point. Perhaps a better analogy for this is voltage. One can be electrocuted with either 100 volts or -100 volts. But at zero volts you cannot be electrocuted. For pH people can be severely burned by at strong acids or strong alkalies but not by neutral water (assuming the temperature of the acid, alkali or water are at non-burning temperatures.) We all were taught by our mothers about ammonia and acids to avoid them. Thus redefining this word acidification is purely political to serve a political purpose. Invoking irrational fear to Socold is the right thing to do because he has failed to convince people of the threat of lowering pH of ocean water. You are right that changing pH will benefit some species and not others. The world has been changing forever to the benefit and detriment of species.
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 26, 2011 6:41:59 GMT
The ocean cannot become more acidic until it is first acidic. The correct way to refer to the process of lowering the pH of the ocean is its becoming less basic or less alkaline. If you want to express the direction the oceans are headed then the correct way to state it is to say the ocean is becoming more neutral. There is zero chance that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will cause the ocean to become acidic much less more acidic. Hopefully the people around here will learn a bit more about science. Mclainer, CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. CO2 in the atmosphere does this. As CO2 in the atmosphere increases, more carbonic acid is formed in the oceans. This is atmospheric chemistry. More CO2 in the atmosphere makes the oceans more acidic. The problem Thermostat is you are describing less than half of a process. I posted the definitions of acidification and the folks changing the meaning of the term have not yet gotten around to changing the dictionary. Indeed you can add acid to a base solution and cause the solution to become more neutral. If you add enough acid you may even acidify the solution by making it actually acid. But the addition of carbonic acid to the oceans is far to small to make the ocean acid. It does however serve to make it more neutral. This acidification thing was invented for the same reason your geologist friend invented the term anthropocene. They wanted to bring attention to it nothing more nothing less. Now there is a process called soil acidification. But since most vegetables and foods grow better in soils that are acid around 5 on the pH scale it is done to make things grow better. Here even if the soil is high ph what they want to do is make it acidic. So you go get an acidification product to make it acid. The definition of the word is clear. To make acid. But that is not what is happening to the oceans. We can say we added some acid to it but that only serves to make it more neutral it is a mischaracterization that we are acidifying it. And that brings us to the motivation to mischaracterize something. The motivation for redefining the word acidification. Some people just don't want change of any kind. So if they can't actually find something that is clearly bad to call attention to they go off anyway like little shriveled up ugly people that run around all day long worrying about what everybody else is doing. They are the consummate busy bodies and if they have to invent a language to get more people to participate in their miserable lives doggawn it they are going to do it. So tell me do you do it because you are miserable or do you do it for fun?
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 26, 2011 6:45:20 GMT
Just a bit of sanity here, my swimming pool often gets below 7 and it certainly doesn't stop things growing in there, in fact algae seems to grow much better in an acidic pool. bobdutch, Do you have any coral reefs in your pool? Any ecosystems? The algae seem to grow much better when it gets acidic, you write; hmm... ie. acidity has an affect that is easy to see... but if this happens to the ocean rather than to your pool, and the algae like it, you don't see any possible implications? "you don't see any possible implications?" You are making my point here. You have not identified anything clearly bad you are merely railing about change.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 26, 2011 7:53:32 GMT
How can it be the right impression if they think the oceans are becoming acid? If they read the definitions above that's what they will think. The term has been devised to sell the wrong impression. You justify it because you think it will lead them to the right action. I justify it because I think it's accurate enough. In this case acidification refers to the move towards acid, the drop in pH. People are going to get mostly the right impression from that because most people understand what an acid is. I am sure "ocean neutralization" would go over everyone's heads. Although coincidentally by the way that sounds like we are killing the oceans. eg "Neutralize the target". If scientists had called it that no doubt their would be complaints that they had chosen an alarmist word. Just thinking of other popular named scientific theories that on the face of it don't have a strictly accurate name. How can "Big Bang" be the right name if people have the impression the universe started with an explosion? How can "greenhouse effect" be the right name if people have the impression it works like a greenhouse?
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 26, 2011 11:40:20 GMT
How can it be the right impression if they think the oceans are becoming acid? If they read the definitions above that's what they will think. The term has been devised to sell the wrong impression. You justify it because you think it will lead them to the right action. I justify it because I think it's accurate enough. In this case acidification refers to the move towards acid, the drop in pH. People are going to get mostly the right impression from that because most people understand what an acid is. I am sure "ocean neutralization" would go over everyone's heads. Although coincidentally by the way that sounds like we are killing the oceans. eg "Neutralize the target". If scientists had called it that no doubt their would be complaints that they had chosen an alarmist word. Just thinking of other popular named scientific theories that on the face of it don't have a strictly accurate name. How can "Big Bang" be the right name if people have the impression the universe started with an explosion? How can "greenhouse effect" be the right name if people have the impression it works like a greenhouse? I completely understand the need for deception you have nothing else to alarm people with. Its not going to go over their head if you tell them the truth you will get the reaction you should get. A better analogy here is to voltage. You can be killed by high voltage whether it is a postive or negative charge. At zero volts its harmless. Pretty much the same deal with pH. You can be killed with strong acids or strong alkalies but pH 7 is basically the pH of distilled water. So you have people worried about the oceans moving from 8 to 7.8 in a hundred years or more. From a more dangerous range to a less dangerous range. Its plain silly or demonic depending upon how you look at the irrational fears that support this kind of deception. Its becoming safer and more supportive of life in the oceans. I get a real chuckle of picturing you trying to alarm people with the truth. No wonder you have to make up fraudulent stories.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 26, 2011 20:53:06 GMT
A pH drop from 8 to 7.8 is not a small change, it's a large and fast change and it could result in a mass extinction event in the oceans. Your assumption that because it doesn't reach acid it will only have a benign effect is exactly an example of why calling it ocean neutralization would just mislead people. If people go away thinking what you are thinking they would be wrong too.
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 26, 2011 21:24:52 GMT
A pH drop from 8 to 7.8 is not a small change, it's a large and fast change and it could result in a mass extinction event in the oceans. Your assumption that because it doesn't reach acid it will only have a benign effect is exactly an example of why calling it ocean neutralization would just mislead people. If people go away thinking what you are thinking they would be wrong too. "it could result in a mass extinction event in the oceans" That is a completely unquantified risk. It may as well be boogeymen hiding under your bed. Go quantify the risk and then come back and argue the point with science rather than just defaulting to lies. Fact is studies are showing both benefits and problems. Man is going to make a choice and if he makes one choice it is going to benefit some creatures and disadvantage others. If he makes the opposite choice he will have chosen to do the same thing but he will have chosen to benefit or disadvantage different groups of species. Without quantification and details what will happen how can anybody make the right choice. You seem to think that doing nothing is always the right choice. If that were true the whole world should be couch potatoes. Boy is that dumb or what!!! Ultimately this is about busybodies with miserable lives worry about what others are doing and assuming everything they do is the right thing. The real right thing to do is to personally do what you think is right and let others do the same. Only when you have quantified a risk and demonstrated it as being a clear negative choice for the public in general should anybody be considering doing something to prevent people from doing what they think is right. But no way huh? It would go over their heads huh? All you are trying to do is shortcircuit choice and preach end of the world fear exactly like Harold Camping. The only question is whether you are doing it to fill the tithe tray or doing it because you are stupid.
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 26, 2011 21:26:44 GMT
A pH drop from 8 to 7.8 is not a small change, it's a large and fast change and it could result in a mass extinction event in the oceans. Your assumption that because it doesn't reach acid it will only have a benign effect is exactly an example of why calling it ocean neutralization would just mislead people. If people go away thinking what you are thinking they would be wrong too. "it could result in a mass extinction event in the oceans" That is a completely unquantified risk. It may as well be boogeymen hiding under your bed. Go quantify the risk and then come back and argue the point with science rather than just defaulting to lies. Fact is studies are showing both benefits and problems. Man is going to make a choice and if he makes one choice it is going to benefit some creatures and disadvantage others. If he makes the opposite choice he will have chosen to do the same thing but he will have chosen to benefit or disadvantage different groups of species. Without quantification and details what will happen how can anybody make the right choice. You seem to think that doing nothing is always the right choice. If that were true the whole world should be couch potatoes. Boy is that dumb or what!!! Ultimately this is about busybodies with miserable lives worry about what others are doing and assuming everything they do is the right thing. The real right thing to do is to personally do what you think is right and let others do the same. Only when you have quantified a risk and demonstrated it as being a clear negative choice for the public in general should anybody be considering doing something to prevent people from doing what they think is right. But no way huh? It would go over their heads huh? All you are trying to do is shortcircuit choice and preach end of the world fear exactly like Harold Camping. The only question is whether you are doing it to fill the tithe tray or doing it because you don't know what you are doing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 26, 2011 22:21:39 GMT
A pH drop from 8 to 7.8 is not a small change, it's a large and fast change and it could result in a mass extinction event in the oceans. Your assumption that because it doesn't reach acid it will only have a benign effect is exactly an example of why calling it ocean neutralization would just mislead people. If people go away thinking what you are thinking they would be wrong too. "it could result in a mass extinction event in the oceans" That is a completely unquantified risk. It may as well be boogeymen hiding under your bed. I might not be able to quantify the risk of throwing a spanner into a machine, but I know it is a dangerous thing to do. Boogeymen do not exist nor is there any evidence they can happen and I agree in that case, for those reasons, that it's a non-issue. But mass extinction events have happened and we know they happen when conditions change too fast for life to adapt. The opposite choice is to leave the system alone, ie don't throw the spanner into the machine. In which case the machine will go on as it has done. If we don't drop pH suddenly life won't have to be tested with a sudden pH drop. Because that's what it is - a test. A big experiment we are performing on the atmosphere and ocean and we don't know precisely what the results will be. Yes some species will do well and others won't. That'll be true even if a mas extinction occurs. Sometimes species doing well isn't a good thing either. Think of rabbits doing well in once introduced in Australia for example. The event that cannot be quantified is only going to happen due to one choice - the choice to continue emitting vast quantities of CO2. So really I think what you say there should really be an argument to put carbon emissions on hold until we have quantification and details of what will happen. I think doing nothing is sometimes the safest choice until the risks can be quantified. Many people are conditioned to see this issue as one where business-as-usual is not a choice and so doesn't require justification. I am not entirely sure why this is as on other subjects people are far more willing to accept the need for caution. For example when scientists recently attempted a geo-engineering experiment by dumping tons of iron in a region of ocean it was eye opening to see many of the public, including many global warming skeptics, complaining that such a thing was a dangerous and risky move because the scientists didn't know what might happen. Another example was fears about the Large Hadron Collider causing some kind of disaster where the public effectively forced scientists to quantify the risks and "prove" it was safe before doing it ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_particle_collisions_at_the_Large_Hadron_Collider). It's funny it works like this in these cases. But when we are talking about elevating the CO2 level of the atmosphere to highs not seen for millions of years at rates perhaps unprecedented, and droping ocean pH at rates similarly unprecedented to current knowledge, no-one bats an eyelid. That's great, we'd no longer have to test the safety of new drugs or children's toys before releasing them to the public.
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 27, 2011 1:35:11 GMT
You said a lot of things I agree with Socold and only a few I disagree with. But to avoid getting distracted from the point here, as it seems you have, lets get back to the primary point.
You say:
"I think doing nothing is sometimes the safest choice until the risks can be quantified."
The key words in the above is "I" and "sometimes". Here we have an objective of yours alone where you alone decide "what" we should do nothing about and you are defending lies in achieving those objectives.
What I believe in is government of the people, by the people, for the people with full open, honest, and fiduciary responsibility in fulfilling that mandate enforced by both law and moral peer pressure.
In my world the ends do not justify the means and protections of the environment can be achieved through full, open, transparent discourse.
The world does not revolve around you. Effective environmental action has to reckon we cannot all fly to Mars and thus leave the system unperturbed.
You are not necessarily even knowledgeable about what you would do if greenhouse gases were prohibited. Most alarmists figure society will invent something for them.
You are ignorant and dependent upon a long chain of folks providing for your needs who have forgotten more about providing you energy than you ever knew about it.
The collective wisdom of the masses with freedom to vote is a powerful force and when it is combined with facts it is far less to make a mistake than when some ignorant boob who lacks moral fiber sews fear to create a wave of ignorant boobs running off the cliff like a herd of lemmings.
Making decisions in a calm cool collected fact filled environment that democratically weighs equally every persons needs is the best route to wise use. The only alternatives to wise use are ignorant and stupid uses.
|
|
|
Post by bobdutch on May 27, 2011 1:49:07 GMT
Therostat, the point I was making about my swimming pool is that the lower ph does not necessarily kill anything, and it is not just algae that grows, if I didn't go and dump a load of chlorine into the pool regularly there would be all sorts of life in there. I think you worry too much about a perceived problem that is most likely to cause no problems at all.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on May 27, 2011 2:01:31 GMT
If Nature says it is true...
Well, then we need to study and ask if it is political in nature.
Too bad, but Nature sold out long ago, just after Britain lost the industrial revolution.
|
|