|
Post by thermostat on May 24, 2011 2:24:18 GMT
Ya know what concerns me more than anything? That the OHT system is changing. And by that change we are in for interesting times. What causes said change? The temperature of the ocean. What has caused the temp of the ocean to rise? IT is not air temps, but rather increased short wave radiation because of the drop in cloud cover. Is that drop a result of the strong solar cycles in the very recent past? Might be.....I see correlation and causeation if Svensmarks theory is correct. A lot of things affect OHC and OHT. Both are extremely important actual drivers of climate. I was quit surprised to see cause and effect to the AMO concerning, of all things, Tibetian snowfall patterns. I still have a hard time wrapping my knowledge around this that it can be true, but a published paper indicates it is. This has changed my thinking, at least at this time, as to how powerful the OHT system is. Maybe there is more to this than one had thought. sigurdur, bro, you've lost me here. OHT system (clarify), AMO (atlantic oscillation) etc. But what about changes in nitrogen cycling, land use, and the oceans becoming more acidic?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 24, 2011 2:52:57 GMT
OHT = Ocean Heat Transport system.
Just read a paper showing that in the past when temps approached the current temps that there were changes in the OHT system that brought a quit abrupt cooling to the planet.
As far as nitrogen......I can only shudder because as a farmer, the EPA is already talking about regulating that. I knew this was coming under the Obama EPA, but I didn't think it would be quit this quick. The problem with Nitrogen cycling is that a legume adds nitrogen, decaying organic material adds nitrogen...etc. To quantify it is about impossible in the real world.
As far as acidic oceans, that is not a worry. The studies done where they used actual co2 to acidify the water has positive effects. It seems a lot of crustacians like a lower ph in the water. Lobster is one example. The shell grew faster and thicker. This came from a Scripps analysis using actual co2 rather than boric acid. Over 1/2 of the crustacians studied fared better with a lower ph.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 24, 2011 2:54:13 GMT
The paper concerning the snow in Tibet and the AMO was just published. There is over a 200 year correlation to the snow and the AMO. Tibet and the Atlantic are a longgggg ways apart last time I checked.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 24, 2011 3:05:12 GMT
The paper concerning the snow in Tibet and the AMO was just published. There is over a 200 year correlation to the snow and the AMO. Tibet and the Atlantic are a longgggg ways apart last time I checked. sigurdur, okay. More broadly, these crazy geologists are now contending that human activity has reached a point where the combined effect of what we do has begun to alter GeoPhysics.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on May 25, 2011 1:21:52 GMT
While the Atlantic and Tibet are a long way apart, the winds blow that way. Winds that carry water.
And "these crazy geologists" that contend human activity is changing geophysics did not understand the physical processes of geology in the first place.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 25, 2011 4:06:32 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.
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 25, 2011 4:15:36 GMT
More broadly, these crazy geologists are now contending that human activity has reached a point where the combined effect of what we do has begun to alter GeoPhysics. You are having a severe pronoun reference problem. I am trying to follow this thread. But the nearest I can tell who you are talking about is to go back several posts where you link to the Stockholm Memorandum that came out of the 3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability. But that doesn't help because there was not one geologist on the panel.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 25, 2011 21:12:51 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. The term acidification means pH is lowering. It doesn't mean it becomes acid. Just as heating an object doesn't mean the object becomes hot. "de-colding" just isn't catchy, neither is "less basicifying"
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 25, 2011 22:53:50 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. The term acidification means pH is lowering. It doesn't mean it becomes acid. Just as heating an object doesn't mean the object becomes hot. "de-colding" just isn't catchy, neither is "less basicifying" You are wrong. Here are definitions from non-political sources: The Chemistry Dictionary: Definition(s) for ACIDIFICATION 1) This process happens when compounds like ammonia, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides are converted in a chemical reaction into acidic substances. Most of the compounds are a direct result of air pollution. Merriam Webster Dictionary Definition of ACIDIFY transitive verb 1 : to make acid 2 : to convert into an acid intransitive verb : to become acid —acid·i·fi·able adjective —acid·i·fi·ca·tion noun —acid·i·fi·er noun To properly use the term there has to be at a minimum a real possibility of turning the oceans acid. In this case there is zero possibility or at least so near to zero as to be not worth considering. You have purchased into a made up politically expedient definition used to gain undeserved influence over others. Now granted definitions of words change over time. Children do it routinely as part of their rebellion against their 2nd class citizenship. Here it is being used for an evil purpose to sew fear over things that have zero chance of occurring. It is a far worse violation of straight talk than using the term anthropocene that is a borderline case but at least has a shred of potential of actually occurring even if it has not yet and geologists recognize it hasn't yet. It was devised as a political cudgel but it is does have a shred of credibility that it could occur which is not true for anthropogenic acidification of the oceans. The proper word for the process is not acidification. You did not read my entire post. The proper word is neutralization. This is a very important distinction because chemical processes reverse their actions at neutral pH. Until then the process becomes merely less robust. Strong acids and strong alkalies can both support strong chemical reactions. Neutral pH is generally benign. It is not the same situation as heating and cooling as there is no neutral non-reactive point on the thermometer. There actually is no chance of the ocean becoming neutral either. So the only direction the ocean can go and it is going extremely slowly is to a less reactive ocean. When you say acidification the wrong message is being sent. Apparently sending the wrong message does not bother some scientists.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 25, 2011 23:31:26 GMT
pH doesn't need to fall below pH 7 to have an impact on calcifying organisms in the ocean. The issue of ocean acidification concerns a drop in pH from 8.1 today to a predicted pH 7.8 by 2100. Nowhere is discussion of the phenomenon based on the idea that ocean pH will fall below 7.
So I think the message here that is wrong is your message. I can easily see a layperson reading your post and going away wrongly thinking that ocean acidification, or the fall in pH in the ocean if you will, was a non-issue because the ocean would never become acidic.
On the other hand any layperson who is "tricked" into thinking there will be impacts from falling ocean pH simply because it's called "ocean acidification" will go away with the right impression.
For non laypeople who understand what ocean acidification is behind the word, the word itself is splitting hairs. You could call it ocean bannanafication and it would still mean a pH drop from 8.1 to 7.8 with all associated impacts and uncertainties.
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 25, 2011 23:44:51 GMT
pH doesn't need to fall below pH 7 to have an impact on calcifying organisms in the ocean. The issue of ocean acidification concerns a drop in pH from 8.1 today to a predicted pH 7.8 by 2100. Nowhere is discussion of the phenomenon based on the idea that ocean pH will fall below 7. So I think the message here that is wrong is your message. I can easily see a layperson reading your post and going away thinking ocean acidification, or the fall in pH in the ocean if you will, was a non-issue because the ocean would never become acidic. On the other hand anyone who is "tricked" into thinking there would be impacts from falling ocean pH simply because it's called "ocean acidification" would go away with the right impression. If "ocean acidification" conjures up to lay people that some measure of acidity in the ocean is changing that will have impacts, well that's the right message. For non laypeople who understand what ocean acidification is behind the word, the word itself is splitting hairs. You could call it ocean bannanafication and it would still mean a pH drop from 8.1 to 7.8 with all associated impacts and uncertainties. According to you the wrong impression is right if it spurs action. In the mercantile system that's called fraud or bait and switch. It is the problem of thinking the ends justifies the means that science is earning a black eye from the public. Keep in mind I am not saying that if a problem is identified it should not be brought to people's attention. But as I understand it there is no consensus yet if this is a problem and some studies suggest it might be beneficial to life in the ocean to have a less reactive environment to live in. The oceans are massive and if life thrives in a better ocean it will benefit all of us. Life thrives quite nicely in fresh water environments and there is zero possibility that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will get us anywhere near there.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 25, 2011 23:56:45 GMT
pH doesn't need to fall below pH 7 to have an impact on calcifying organisms in the ocean. The issue of ocean acidification concerns a drop in pH from 8.1 today to a predicted pH 7.8 by 2100. Nowhere is discussion of the phenomenon based on the idea that ocean pH will fall below 7. So I think the message here that is wrong is your message. I can easily see a layperson reading your post and going away thinking ocean acidification, or the fall in pH in the ocean if you will, was a non-issue because the ocean would never become acidic. On the other hand anyone who is "tricked" into thinking there would be impacts from falling ocean pH simply because it's called "ocean acidification" would go away with the right impression. If "ocean acidification" conjures up to lay people that some measure of acidity in the ocean is changing that will have impacts, well that's the right message. For non laypeople who understand what ocean acidification is behind the word, the word itself is splitting hairs. You could call it ocean bannanafication and it would still mean a pH drop from 8.1 to 7.8 with all associated impacts and uncertainties. According to you the wrong impression is right if it spurs action. 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.
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 26, 2011 0:12:55 GMT
According to you the wrong impression is right if it spurs action. 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.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 26, 2011 1:35:53 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.
|
|
|
Post by bobdutch on May 26, 2011 3:32:43 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.
|
|