|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 3, 2011 2:55:53 GMT
Thermostat: At what level will the oceans reach an acidic state? Are they acidic now? sigurdur, pH is a continuum. Ocean acidification is an ongoing process. The question is not when will the oceans reach an acidic state. It is how acidification will affect various species. Ok.....So the ocean is not in an acid state right now. When will it become an acid state? You can't have an acid when the ph is above 7. Just doesn't work that way. And yes, ph is a continuum. And the PH shows the ocean is at a basicity and will continue to be a basicity no matter how high co2 gets. At least let's get the terminology correct for a change if we may? The correct terminology leads to a constructive dialog. Many of us old timers who had college chemistry get lost when some folks keep repeating the lie that the ocean is acid, or will become acid.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 3, 2011 3:00:29 GMT
Thermostat:
Are you concerned about the ocean becoming less basic? And if you are, what do you think the effects of this will have on approx 1/2 the crustacian species?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 3, 2011 3:07:39 GMT
sigurdur, pH is a continuum. Ocean acidification is an ongoing process. The question is not when will the oceans reach an acidic state. It is how acidification will affect various species. Ok.....So the ocean is not in an acid state right now. When will it become an acid state? You can't have an acid when the ph is above 7. Just doesn't work that way. And yes, ph is a continuum. And the PH shows the ocean is at a basicity and will continue to be a basicity no matter how high co2 gets. At least let's get the terminology correct for a change if we may? The correct terminology leads to a constructive dialog. Many of us old timers who had college chemistry get lost when some folks keep repeating the lie that the ocean is acid, or will become acid. Sigurdur, It is great to read that you are actually thinking about this. The issue to understand is that various marine species are quite sensitive to small changes in pH. Corals, for example. It is not simply about acid and base. It is about how certain key species respond to relatively small changes in pH. The ocean is a famously constant place, so species have adapted to that. At the same time, elaborate networks between species have developed. Thus, having a rapid change of a few pH points is expected to have a large impact.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 3, 2011 9:28:37 GMT
The issue to understand is that various marine species are quite sensitive to small changes in pH. Corals, for example.
Mostly corals have been judged to be ultra sensitive for political reasons. But so far none of it has played out as expected. Corals written off for any number of environmental causes have suddenly rebounded. What we get to hear is the stories of dying corals and never the stories of recovering corals. Like stories of Qori Kalis. When they are after your money you get the sob story. Once the cash flow is underway god forbid saying anything to turn off the cash spigot.
You want science Tstat? Try that on as the science of human nature.
It is not simply about acid and base. It is about how certain key species respond to relatively small changes in pH. The ocean is a famously constant place, so species have adapted to that. At the same time, elaborate networks between species have developed.
More ignorant claptrap! The ocean is an extremely dynamic place. You have to live in a cube somewhere far from the ocean to believe otherwise.
Ocean pH changes diurnally about 500% as much as its estimated "average" pH has changed since 1751. Areas change seasonally by at least 1200% greater than the change of the past 250 years.
And that doesn't even go to the inaccuracies and bias that may exist in proxies for 250 years ago. "OA" is just a twist, a variant, of the kind of mindless alarmism of climate science in general.
This pH variation is caused by photosynthesis, turning on each day the sun comes up and varying throughout the year. (based on a study of about 24,000 measurements made at Tatoosh Islands a group of islands off Washington near Cape Flattery)
Yet you readily accept the propaganda that relatively far lesser average change will result in dramatically negative consequences.
Most of the work on this is being done with modeling with far too few variables. . . .like climate. Not only do we not know what the changes will be we don't even know if they will be positive or negative changes.
Alarmism most serves as a full employment act for hordes of scientists emerging from universities in a world where people "must" send their children to college and get a degree.
Decades ago the AMA effectively began to lobby against medical school admissions to maintain a higher quality medical school graduate and keep salaries up in the profession.
But nobody has done this in other sciences. Its like environmental organizations have become gangs of underpaid and/or unemployed/volunteer scientists.
I suppose thats how you got your PhD in underwater basket weaving or whatever. Seems you are too embarrassed to even tell us your major.
I think its extremely important to continue to monitor ocean health and learn more about the variables of the ocean. I am not sure that objective is accomplished without a program of ensuring quality people or by alarmism used to drum up more funds and use it to create a 100,000 uncoordinated bunny trails.
Real estate is like that. Its boom and bust. Booms bring unwise investment and participation then the bust hurts more. Its exacerbated by a lack of coordination. Everybody and his brother-in-law become wannabee real estate moguls.
Science seems to be going through that also. Fact is that if it goes unrestrained what you get is more inspectors and investigators than you have producers to support them. . . .Bust!
Now thats real science!
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 3, 2011 15:29:41 GMT
Dr. T says: "Throttleup,
One obvious factor to consider regarding biological extinctions is ocean acidification. Any insights on how ocean acidification; a) won't happen, or b) won't matter?"Answer: No. I'm not that smart. I will throw this in the mix in case some find it helpful: "In what is increasingly looking like a fallback position for the carbon-control lobby, the issue of ocean acidification is getting a higher profile. The argument goes that, whatever happens to the air temperature, a higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to greater concentrations in the oceans (which is unarguably true). However, CO2 affects pH by forming a weak acid (carbonic acid) when it dissolves. Everything being equal, more carbon dioxide will move the pH in the acid direction and this, argue some, will ultimately be dangerous for sea life, since many creatures will find it increasingly difficult to use the calcium in seawater to produce their shells.
In practice, the situation is more complex than that. First, the oceans are actually slightly alkaline, with an average pH of 8.2 (although alkalinity varies by about 0.3 unit from area to area). To become acid, the pH must fall below 7 (neutrality). So far, in moving from the generally-accepted pre-industrial figure for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 280ppm to the present roughly 380ppm, ocean pH has dropped on average by about 0.1 unit.
It has been projected that, by 2050 a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air to 560ppm would reduce ocean pH by over 0.2 unit, bringing it just below 8, and that this could go as low as 7.8 by 2100. The problem is that we are looking at the output of models once again, and no-one really knows how long it would take excess CO2 to be taken up by the deeper ocean, or whether the buffering capacity of the complex mix of ions in seawater – and the seabed and shorelines they are in contact with – has been properly taken into account."Source: www.scientific-alliance.org/scientific-alliance-newsletter/checking-facts-ocean-acidificationQuestion (and I believe this has been posed before in one form or another): Weren't CO2 levels much higher in the distant past? Weren't there crustaceans thriving in the oceans during those times? Explain. As an aside, the recent COLD water periods did great damage to the corals. "Miami — August 26, 2011 — Remember frozen iguanas falling from trees during Florida’s 2010 record-breaking cold snap? Well, a new study led by scientists at the University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science shows that Florida’s corals also dropped in numbers due to the cold conditions.
“It was a major setback,” said Diego Lirman, associate professor at the UM Rosenstiel School and lead author of the study. “Centuries-old coral colonies were lost in a matter of days.”
The chilly January temperatures caused the most catastrophic loss of corals within the Florida Reef Tract, which spans 160 miles from Miami to the Dry Tortugas and is the only living barrier reef in the continental U.S.
The research team compared the mortality rates of corals from the cold event to warm-water events, such as the highly publicized bleaching event in 2005, and concluded that the cold-water event cause even more widespread morality than previous warm-water events. The results were published in the August 2011 issue of the journal PLoS One."Source: www.rsmas.miami.edu/news-events/press-releases/2011/new-study-shows-that-floridas-reefs-cannot-endure-a-cold-snapSo, which do we fear more? Warming air... or cooling oceans? What's a human to do? Perhaps our biggest fear... is fear itself. Or those who peddle it for profit. What are the alarmists' plans for preventing ocean cooling events? Controlling CO2 only goes so far. They have other "fish to fry" if they are to truly save the world. You could erase all human life on this planet (and thus end the Anthropocene and with it this thread!! ;D ) and species would still come and go; oceans would go from warm to cold; corals would still both thrive and die. If you want to save the whales, great! But no sense throwing the human babies out with the seawater...
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 3, 2011 18:02:21 GMT
sigurdur, pH is a continuum. Ocean acidification is an ongoing process. The question is not when will the oceans reach an acidic state. It is how acidification will affect various species. Ok.....So the ocean is not in an acid state right now. When will it become an acid state? You can't have an acid when the ph is above 7. Just doesn't work that way. And yes, ph is a continuum. And the PH shows the ocean is at a basicity and will continue to be a basicity no matter how high co2 gets. At least let's get the terminology correct for a change if we may? The correct terminology leads to a constructive dialog. Many of us old timers who had college chemistry get lost when some folks keep repeating the lie that the ocean is acid, or will become acid. As Thermostat said, pH is a continuum. Your objection is akin to icefisher's claim that "greenhouse effect" means that CO2 acts exactly like a giant glass greenhouse. www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Ocean%20acidification"`Ocean acidification` is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth`s oceans" So yes, the terminology is entirely correct. But perhaps the entire world should change to suit your choice of phrasing. In your opinion, what should we call it if not ocean acidification? How about "ocean debasing"? :-)
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 3, 2011 18:20:49 GMT
Yep, extinction events are marked by extinctions. Wikipedia says, "An extinction event (also known as: mass extinction; extinction-level event (ELE), or biotic crisis) is a sharp decrease in the diversity and abundance of macroscopic life. They occur when the rate of extinction increases with respect to the rate of speciation." Everybody has adhered to this definition. What is the purpose of your first question? You just checking? As to your second question, your original post was inflammatory in a deliberately stupid fashion - though I suppose you could have been making a failed attempt at "cute". Asking for a listing of the species which have gone extinct, when everyone knows that most species have not been discovered and of those which have been discovered nobody knows all of which still survive, is a request for the impossible. One can find a species by finding a single individual, but proving that species extinct is nearly impossible. Asking for a daily accounting made it worse. Thermostat's reaction, calling your post "mindless", was appropriate. Back to the real subject, the current extinction event: "The background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with). In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone." www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.htmlThere are plenty of other cites for you to enjoy, if you like. One issue is that recent methods of determining extinction rates might be flawed in that they might count a species as extinct before the last individual is gone (though the species may be doomed to extinction through lack of diversity and range). However, extinction rates are certainly high enough to count as an "extinction event", assuming the current rate continues (guaranteed) or increases (very likely). In any case, current rates of extinction are equivalent to or higher than those in previous extinction events. Yep, all humans could commit suicide tomorrow and the extinction rate would drop, but get real, we're well into the beginning of the sixth mass extinction. 8. I just don't see the numbers... I notice that you went all over the map trying to avoid the numbers you were given. There are about 8.7 million species www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14616161That means that if 27,000 extinctions a year is accurate and things continue linearly, which they won't, we have about 322 years worth of species to go through. Sounds like an extinction event in progress to me.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 3, 2011 18:35:43 GMT
www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Ocean%20acidification "`Ocean acidification` is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth`s oceans"
So yes, the terminology is entirely correct. But perhaps the entire world should change to suit your choice of phrasing. In your opinion, what should we call it if not ocean acidification? How about "ocean debasing"? :-)Dictionaries record usages sometimes even highly regional or little used usages. Understand that language is important. When used for political means it has a negative effect on clear and responsible communication. Here OA is being used to advance a political point of view. If the interest was to inform then the correct terminology would be "ocean neutralization" or something of that sort. Its important to properly communicate the general trend and as much of its realistic destination. OA should only be used, following principles of good grammar, when there is a reasonable likelihood of the oceans becoming acidic. As far as I know there is no even remotely reasonable evidence anything of the sort will happen. Here you have yet another case of "crying wolf". In the long run its damaging to science. The small quantities of carbonic acid in the ocean are actually a necessity of ocean life. Like some trace nutrients in high concentrations they are toxic but within some concentration ranges they are essential to life. We have no idea at this point if increases in CO2 will lead to negative ocean change or positive ocean change. Lunatics who are too stupid to know they don't know are more dangerous to society than any threat mankind faces. History proves that.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 3, 2011 19:55:51 GMT
Thermostat: Are you concerned about the ocean becoming less basic? And if you are, what do you think the effects of this will have on approx 1/2 the crustacian species? Excellent attempt to trap instead of actually providing anything productive! Shame on you. Yes, ocean acidification is a big problem. Since, even by deniers' count, 1/2 of crustaceans will be directly negatively affected, and the web of life depends on all species, the total effect will be to hurt nearly all species, including those who thicken their shells as a result of acidification, and importantly, even those species which don't have shells. Of course, there are folks like you who think that a loss of 50% or more of species is no big deal, but the reality is that such a large reduction in diversity will result in weedy conditions. Red tides are NOT a good thing for humans. Jellyfish and toxic algae will flourish, but is that something we want? "Elevated pCO2 levels in seawater, such as those predicted for the year 2300, are known to have diverse effects on calcification rate, little effect on egg production and a negative effect on growth rate and moulting frequency in marine crustacean species. At these levels, embryonic development is negatively impacted, but larval and juvenile stages do not appear to be affected, unless the changes in pCO2 are accompanied by rising temperatures. Overall, marine crustaceans are broadly tolerant to the seawater pCO2 levels expected by 2100 and 2300, but only in the medium-term (weeks) and only in the more adaptable species." c-can.msi.ucsb.edu/articles-of-interest/physiological-and-ecological-responses-of-crustaceans-to-ocean-acidification
|
|
|
Post by astroposer777 on Oct 3, 2011 22:07:54 GMT
8. I just don't see the numbers... I notice that you went all over the map trying to avoid the numbers you were given. There are about 8.7 million species www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14616161That means that if 27,000 extinctions a year is accurate and things continue linearly, which they won't, we have about 322 years worth of species to go through. Sounds like an extinction event in progress to me. Sounds like a LELE "Local Extinction Level Event" to me. " In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone. " www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 3, 2011 23:09:40 GMT
Overall, marine crustaceans are broadly tolerant to the seawater pCO2 levels expected by 2100 and 2300, but only in the medium-term (weeks) and only in the more adaptable species.
There you go! No problem! Thanks for that!
Here the conclusion is marine crustaceans, the type of specie for which the greatest concern exists, are broadly tolerant of the sort of changes that we can expect over the next 300 years.
Obviously it will apply best to the more adaptable species. Generally speaking since climate change has occurred in the past, species are grouped around environmental conditions and about 1/2 will benefit and the other 1/2 will have negative affects, balancing out to somewhere around zero.
Here the spin is obviously for funding for longer term studies as the study concludes: "Studies are urgently needed to evaluate whether the patterns of vulnerability identified here in crustaceans will still be relevant after long-term (months) exposure to the relevant pCO2 levels, in combination with changes in other environmental factors."
Urgently? The interpretation of that is the workload for the future isn't fully booked yet, including expansion plans. The conclusion starts out with "broad" tolerance for the next 100 to 300 years. Seems like a fair request to a small longterm project to explore a few species and determine if problems emerge.
Ya need to start thinking like a loan officer whose compensation is dependent upon loan performance as opposed to origination fees to cut through this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 4, 2011 1:32:21 GMT
Thermostat: Are you concerned about the ocean becoming less basic? And if you are, what do you think the effects of this will have on approx 1/2 the crustacian species? Excellent attempt to trap instead of actually providing anything productive! Shame on you. Yes, ocean acidification is a big problem. Since, even by deniers' count, 1/2 of crustaceans will be directly negatively affected, and the web of life depends on all species, the total effect will be to hurt nearly all species, including those who thicken their shells as a result of acidification, and importantly, even those species which don't have shells. Of course, there are folks like you who think that a loss of 50% or more of species is no big deal, but the reality is that such a large reduction in diversity will result in weedy conditions. Red tides are NOT a good thing for humans. Jellyfish and toxic algae will flourish, but is that something we want? "Elevated pCO2 levels in seawater, such as those predicted for the year 2300, are known to have diverse effects on calcification rate, little effect on egg production and a negative effect on growth rate and moulting frequency in marine crustacean species. At these levels, embryonic development is negatively impacted, but larval and juvenile stages do not appear to be affected, unless the changes in pCO2 are accompanied by rising temperatures. Overall, marine crustaceans are broadly tolerant to the seawater pCO2 levels expected by 2100 and 2300, but only in the medium-term (weeks) and only in the more adaptable species." c-can.msi.ucsb.edu/articles-of-interest/physiological-and-ecological-responses-of-crustaceans-to-ocean-acidificationCommonsense: I was trying to lead Thermostat to produce some papers supporting his view. To say shame on me is a bit on the wrong order as the intent was to try and get him to participate with literature. Was I asking too much? I have expressed in the past that I think the lowering of the ocean ph to be a very valid concern. I know that approx 1/2 of crustacieans will be helped with a lower ph, and approx 1/2 will have a tougher row. Do I find evidence that lower ph will lead to widespread extinctions? No, I do not. With that said tho, the variability of life within the oceans is so complex that to give one part a head start over another part may produce results that are not benifical for mankind. So....to me it is a concern because of the unkown.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 4, 2011 1:36:05 GMT
www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Ocean%20acidification "`Ocean acidification` is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth`s oceans"
So yes, the terminology is entirely correct. But perhaps the entire world should change to suit your choice of phrasing. In your opinion, what should we call it if not ocean acidification? How about "ocean debasing"? :-)Dictionaries record usages sometimes even highly regional or little used usages. Understand that language is important. When used for political means it has a negative effect on clear and responsible communication. Here OA is being used to advance a political point of view. If the interest was to inform then the correct terminology would be "ocean neutralization" or something of that sort. Its important to properly communicate the general trend and as much of its realistic destination. OA should only be used, following principles of good grammar, when there is a reasonable likelihood of the oceans becoming acidic. As far as I know there is no even remotely reasonable evidence anything of the sort will happen. Here you have yet another case of "crying wolf". In the long run its damaging to science. The small quantities of carbonic acid in the ocean are actually a necessity of ocean life. Like some trace nutrients in high concentrations they are toxic but within some concentration ranges they are essential to life. We have no idea at this point if increases in CO2 will lead to negative ocean change or positive ocean change. Lunatics who are too stupid to know they don't know are more dangerous to society than any threat mankind faces. History proves that. Total tripe, as usual for you. The term was used in science first, with public use not even slightly important. You're just paranoid. The term is entirely appropriate, entirely descriptive of the situation, and not in the least "political".
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 4, 2011 1:39:58 GMT
8. I just don't see the numbers... I notice that you went all over the map trying to avoid the numbers you were given. There are about 8.7 million species www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14616161That means that if 27,000 extinctions a year is accurate and things continue linearly, which they won't, we have about 322 years worth of species to go through. Sounds like an extinction event in progress to me. That means that if 27,000 extinctions a year is accurate and things continue linearly, which they won't, we have about 322 years worth of species to go through. Sounds like an extinction event in progress to me. The '27,000 extinctions a year' was already an ongoing event in 1992 according to the "consensus" "theory", so that puts us at 500,000 specifies gone....POOF! So where are the corpses? continue linearly, which they won't, So this isn't an average? What then, one year would be 54,000, another 1000, then 27,000? Or did you just pull that out of thin air? Really, where are the corpses?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 4, 2011 2:12:34 GMT
Ok.....So the ocean is not in an acid state right now. When will it become an acid state? You can't have an acid when the ph is above 7. Just doesn't work that way. And yes, ph is a continuum. And the PH shows the ocean is at a basicity and will continue to be a basicity no matter how high co2 gets. At least let's get the terminology correct for a change if we may? The correct terminology leads to a constructive dialog. Many of us old timers who had college chemistry get lost when some folks keep repeating the lie that the ocean is acid, or will become acid. Sigurdur, It is great to read that you are actually thinking about this. The issue to understand is that various marine species are quite sensitive to small changes in pH. Corals, for example. It is not simply about acid and base. It is about how certain key species respond to relatively small changes in pH. The ocean is a famously constant place, so species have adapted to that. At the same time, elaborate networks between species have developed. Thus, having a rapid change of a few pH points is expected to have a large impact. It is about how certain key species respond to relatively small changes in pH. Especially how those certain unnamed key species respond to relatively small changes in pH when hydrochloric acid is used to study them
|
|