Acidic Ocean

[wld1783]

greenbean36191

I'm a bit lost. How does 6 gigatons vs 200+ gigatons become 30% of all atmospheric CO2. Isn't CO2 circulated into the system captured, burried, rereleased naturally or by us.

As far as a baseline our current civilization has infrastructure that rests between two Ice Ages The last one and the next one.

As far as Vikings in Greenland are we certain that we knew the world temperature at that time. Is science advanced enough to tell me the average temperature in Tasmania in 1066AD. I really don't know the math but are there not ancient forests buried under receding glaciers?

I just have not seen a base line temp for the world. What is cold and what is warm. I know a bit about history and the evidence is clear that warming and cooling are cyclical. As far as CO2 I'm still learning. And how its affecting our reefs I'm learning more.


Bill

 

[MCsaxmaster]

Oh boy, it seems we've 'stepped in it' a bit.

Just a few quick comments.

Yes, the climate is still warming. In order to claim otherwise one has to cherrypick very specific years and completely ignore the statistics which are REQUIRED to determine the trend. Land temperatures are still warming, the ocean is still warming, most glaciers are still melting, Arctic summer sea ice is still receding, sea level is still rising, direct measurments of the Earth's radiation balance still demonstrate more energy is coming in than going out, etc. ad nauseum.

Of course the burning of fossil fuels (and secondarily deforestation and cement production) are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2, the reduction of delC13 measured everywhere, the increase in oceanic TCO2, etc. ad nauseum. It's no coincidenc that we release X amount of C into the biosphere (with a particular isotopic signature) and find X increase in the various global sinks (atmosphere, ocean, vegetation, etc.) with the same isotopic signature. The CO2 we emit doesn't just disappear, as if by magic. Claiming otherwise is on par with suggesting that the Earth is flat, or that the sun rises in the West. Wrong would be a kind way to put it...nuts might be a bit more apt

Just to draw this thread back a bit closer to its original topic, it is absolutely true that:

1) We are releasing CO2 to the biosphere

2) As CO2 is released to the biosphere it results in ocean acidificaton

3) Such acidification reduces growth, survivorship, health (as measured in several ways), etc. in a variety of marine organisms, both in the laboratory and in the field

4) Previous acidification events similar to what we are on track to do in the remainder of this century have resulted in widespread marine extinctions and the global collapse of reefs for millions of years

Many of the details still need to be worked out, but the big picture is captured by the four points above. It is not a happy picture.

Chris

 

[ctenophors rule]

sinse you have drawn us back to the orriginal meaning of this post, though i thought we were stepping in very nice and thought provocing convrsation, i would like to readress my previous question; why do freshwater snail survive in a ph of 7.0 or below, when marine snails will suffer huge losses of life?

i dont doubt it will happen, just wonder why.

 

[MCsaxmaster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14700478#post14700478 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
sinse you have drawn us back to the orriginal meaning of this post, though i thought we were stepping in very nice and thought provocing convrsation, i would like to readress my previous question; why do freshwater snail survive in a ph of 7.0 or below, when marine snails will suffer huge losses of life?

i dont doubt it will happen, just wonder why.

Very good question. As I brought up briefly somewhere above (a page or two ago ) pH is only one of several paramaters that determine the degree of saturation for carbonate minerals (low-Mg calcite, aragonite, and hi-Mg calcite being the most important biologically).

The solubility of a carbonate is described by,

Ksp = (Ca++)(CO3=)

where Ksp is the solubilty product and (Ca++) and (CO3=) are the activities of calcium and carbonate ions, respectively. The solubility product varies somewhat with temperature and pressure.

Saturation state is defined as,

Omega = (Ca++)(CO3=)/Ksp

That is, omega gives us a ratio of how much CaCO3 is dissolved in the water relative to how much there would be at equilibrium. If omega > 1 we can see net precipitation. If omega < 1 we see net dissolution.

In sea water (Ca++) is essentially constant at a given salinity. Carbonate activity (usually concentration is used along with an apparent solubility product, Ksp`) at at given temp and pressure depends on 1) alkalinity, and 2) pH. Alkalinity in sea water is nearly constant at a given salinity. Hence, the major parameter of importance in determing saturation state (and, in effect, whether carbonate minerals are likely to precipitate or dissolve) is pH. At about constant alkalinity, pH is determined by dissolved CO2.

In fresh water, both natural waters and those in an aquarium, we can see huge differences in calcium and alkalinity, depending on the source of the water. There are also important effects of ionic strength on activity vs. concentration.

Thus, it is possible to have a saturation state > 1 and thereby net precipitation with low pH, IF it is coupled with high calcium and/or alkalinity. In some natural waters that's what we observe and we see calcifying freshwater organisms there. In other natural waters calcium and alkalinity are lower as a result of their contact with minerals (e.g., granites instead of limestones). In those waters calcifying freshwater organisms are absent, and are replaced by non-calcifying organisms such as insects.

The important take home message is that pH is just one piece of the puzzle if calcium and alkalinity are subject to change. If calcium and alkalinity are essentially fixed (as is true in the ocean over timescales of less than thousands of years) then the only parameter left to cause variation in the system is pH via dissolved CO2.

Hope that makes sense,

Chris

 

[ctenophors rule]

yep that works for me.

at school we were talking about it and i was completely floored by that question.

thanks for taking the time to write all that out for me!

 

[wld1783]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14700478#post14700478 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
sinse you have drawn us back to the orriginal meaning of this post, though i thought we were stepping in very nice and thought provocing convrsation, i would like to readress my previous question; why do freshwater snail survive in a ph of 7.0 or below, when marine snails will suffer huge losses of life?

i dont doubt it will happen, just wonder why.

Admittedly I learned a bit more about partial pressure. Just like Payne Stewart learned the hard way it does matter. The lack of their O2 or the overabundance of CO2 in our atmosphere pumping tons of extra CO2 into the ocean does matter. To what extent I really don’t know. Also on the ionization of the upper atmosphere and clouds has me doing homework, now I’m undecided…Thanks I really hate to me misinformed.

We are talking about CO2 the gas that compromises 0.038% of our atmosphere. That’s less than 1%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere.

To say that a little extra CO2 will lead to significant global warming and have us eating soylent green and melting our reefs has yet to be proven. If it bleeds it leads and the media have some of us drinking that cool aid. Others don’t care and others are afraid to ask the question…Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The models are always being improved and tweaked. I will not believe that we can say the earth will be 2 degrees warmer in 2050 when they cannot tell me what the average temp of the earth was in 1066AD. If they can, then was this info included in the global warming model?

We all love the reef but and I have witnessed the demise of the keys first hand. Man I feel old but I blame costal development, ships leaking a little oil and tons of nutrients from the Midwest more than a .0114% increase in made CO2.

The earth was warmer. The earth was cooler. Reefs came and reefs disappeared. These are facts that no one will dispute.

For those of you who believe in man made global warming thanks for the replies. I may not agree in some cases, I fully agreed in others and I’ve learned a bit more along the way. Thanks again nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree .

However…I still cannot buy the warming trend and I will admit I don’t know if we are in spring or fall. But to say that we are experiencing global warming and mass extinction based on a 30 year timeline is either naïve or smells of agenda. 30 years ago Time Magazine scared the world in believing an Ice Age was around the corner. Now you have an Academy Award winner with a very large carbon foot print scaring us into the possibility of eating soylent green. Something smells and I hope it’s not that expensive wrasse that just jumped out of my tank.

BTW I wish I had a bike to power my MH lights:bounce1:.

Bill

 

[ctenophors rule]

well bill, most scientist estimate the ph to drop to 7.8 ish by the turn of the century, could be before, could be after, that is just a compilation of multiple trend lines. the highest frequency is at around 2100.(according to a harbor branch lecture on polution)

their have been many experaments performed where the ph decreased when the co2 in the atmosphere was increased.

i am doing a similar science project, just using buffer instead of pumping extra co2.

reefs have come and gone, i believe 4 times, if i am not misaken (probably am, covered this earlier in the year) but from what i understand the rate of change is much higher now.

poeple can say that it is natural, but isn't that putting faith in the least plausible of the two,(the ne with the least evidence to support it) because it means that we can sleep better without worrying about having to change our ways. (sound like a nother hot topic!)

we are choosing to comfort our selves rather than deal with the solid facts.

even if it is a cycle, we can all agree that the anthropogenic co2 is increasing the rate, even if slightly, above natural, their fore it cant be entirely natural.

the models are being improved and tweaked because their is always new data. if 5,000 years ago a man wrote down that the tides changed ever 12 hours, you wouldn't want to use that information because it no longer applies. we have more sophisticated methods of measuring tides, and we now know it is every 12 hours and 15 minutes. (about) this may be a bad analogy, but you can see my point.

the fact that the data is getting more precise should be considered good, not bad.

finaly we can say the earth will be two degrees warmer on average, because we are essecing the current trends of green house gas emmisions, and adding variables that expert scientist, and geographers have made well educated guesses.

 

[Poorcollegereef]

To say that a little extra CO2 will lead to significant global warming and have us eating soylent green and melting our reefs has yet to be proven.

... I will not believe that we can say the earth will be 2 degrees warmer in 2050 when they cannot tell me what the average temp of the earth was in 1066AD. If they can, then was this info included in the global warming model?...

However…I still cannot buy the warming trend and I will admit I don’t know if we are in spring or fall. But to say that we are experiencing global warming and mass extinction based on a 30 year timeline is either naïve or smells of agenda. 30 years ago Time Magazine scared the world in believing an Ice Age was around the corner. Now you have an Academy Award winner with a very large carbon foot print scaring us into the possibility of eating soylent green. Something smells and I hope it’s not that expensive wrasse that just jumped out of my tank.

BTW I wish I had a bike to power my MH lights.

Bill

OK, if we wait until we prove (which sounds more like direct observation) that CO2 is causing a worldwide ecological shift... then it is to late. I am not going to wait to see if not wearing my seat belt is dangerous until I have an accident, I buckle up, even if it is just to be on the safe side. The academic community is in census about global warming and when... the debate is the severity and the effects.

As for 1066AD... I will give you an extra 66 years. I believe Mann's hockey stick (in 2001 I think) actually showed climate data from 1000AD. Note that Mann's Hockey stick is questioned frequently due to the emphasis of the last 200 years, still the data is accurate (although newer records/projections are available). I think there are other studies that go back even further, but I can't think of them off hand to cite.

The climate change data is not just 30 years... it uses data and trends older than that, but really the last 30 years are best for projecting the next few years. (And yes, they use data for hundreds, thousands of years, if not longer) Whats great about modeling, is that you can factor in the historical data and variables and "tune" the future model. This allows the researchers to know exactly how the variables interact and which are more important.

As I have said (and others) in a previous post, global cooling was really a bunk concept. It never truly rivaled global warming in academic literature. However, due to aerosols concerns and the sexiness of glaciers, for some reason the media/pop culture bought it. It did damage the climate change community to a degree, but academics have almost always said global warming, unless it was some fringe quack.

 

[Poorcollegereef]

In other natural waters calcium and alkalinity are lower as a result of their contact with minerals (e.g., granites instead of limestones). In those waters calcifying freshwater organisms are absent, and are replaced by non-calcifying organisms such as insects.

Chris [/B]

Judging by the ephemeroptera around here and knowing the low calcium and pH, (3.3mg/L and 6.6 respectively) I think my region would fall into that category... heck we are fairly immune to zebra mussels...for the time being. If anyone want to study low Alk/Ca environments or reservoir management/ecology, those might have been my favorite classes in the BioSci department here. (Sorry a really shameless school plug)

 

[greenbean36191]

I'm a bit lost. How does 6 gigatons vs 200+ gigatons become 30% of all atmospheric CO2. Isn't CO2 circulated into the system captured, burried, rereleased naturally or by us.

About 210 gigatons of carbon (not just CO2) is captured and sunk per year- the same value that is produced naturally. A little less than half of our annual contribution is not sunk (at least on short time scales), so accumulates in the atmosphere over time. Over the last 150 years that small bit that accumulates each year has added up to around 100 ppm, or a little less than 30% of the 384 ppm currently in the atmosphere.

As far as Vikings in Greenland are we certain that we knew the world temperature at that time. Is science advanced enough to tell me the average temperature in Tasmania in 1066AD.

We know with a high degree of confidence what the temperature was at a variety of sites around the world at the time. However, there is only good spatial coverage around Europe and the north Atlantic. To say whether or not those data are representative of global temperatures for the period would require better spatial coverage elsewhere on the globe. However, where reconstructions have been made from data outside of that region, the MWP does not seem to be a global event (at least as far as being warmer). If you want to know the average temperature of Tasmania at the time, the science is certainly sufficient to do so with a high degree of confidence, assuming someone collects the data (which I'm almost certain hasn't been done).

I will not believe that we can say the earth will be 2 degrees warmer in 2050 when they cannot tell me what the average temp of the earth was in 1066AD. If they can, then was this info included in the global warming model?

There are multiple reconstructions that can give you this data.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017814.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003RG000143.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7026/full/nature03265.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5563/2250
...just to list a few. In about 1066, globally, it was most likely .4-.6 deg C colder than today (which is slightly warmer than the first half of the 20th century), though again as mentioned above this range suffers from issues of heterogeneity and poor spatial coverage outside of the North Atlantic.

These reconstructions are used to test hindcasts of climate models and the models do remarkably well, which is part of the reason why there's 90% statistical confidence in their forecasts. The interesting part though is that up until industrial times the hindcasts from the models match the reconstructions just as well when only natural forcing are included. After that though, the observed data and models only match when anthropogenic and natural forcings are both included.

To say that a little extra CO2 will lead to significant global warming and have us eating soylent green and melting our reefs has yet to be proven.

Well this is quite a straw man, but the idea that "a little extra CO2" can have dramatic affects on the climate was settled long ago- before most people had even heard of global warming. To break it down into the simplified main points format Chris used-

1) Greenhouse gases trap the sun's heat and keep Earth warm (Fourier, 1824)
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall, 1859)
3) CO2 is increasing (Keeling, 1961)
4) Almost all of that increase is due to human input (Seuss, 1955)
5) Temperature is rising (Take your pick- HadCrut, GIStemp, RSS, UAH, etc.)

There is no scientific basis for doubt on any of these points, all of which make anthropogenic warming a certainty.

There is debate over how much warming will occur, how fast, and how it will affect people and ecosystems. However, to say our understanding is imperfect is not the same as saying we know nothing. Our knowledge of the exact shape of the planet is imperfect, and scientists are still debating over that, but we've know for 2500 years that it's roughly spherical, which is plenty of detail for most purposes. We've known for 113 years that CO2 from fossil fuels can affect the temperature of the planet (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf). All we're discussing today is by how much and how soon and we've had useful, though imperfect, estimates of that for 30+ years.

 

[wld1783]

Industrialization is happening and if the EU and USA limit CO2 and shut down all factories and power plants, they will just move to Asia, Africa or South America. If they raise their cost of doing business they will just move to Asia, Africa or South America. To have a knee jerk reaction to what a portion not a consensus of the scientific community believe is irresponsible. Perhaps at the universities there may be a consensus but these are the same type of professors that gave Fred Smith a C- on his thesis about a new shipping company. Many educators are indeed truly gifted others are simply not and only repeat what someone has told them, while others refuse to raise the flag for fear of sitting alone at the lunch table.

My last home was rather small and for the life of me I could not get my PH above 8.0. I would take a sample of water outside aerate it and wow PH 8.3 I had I growing reef back then as well. Of course some things I could not keep but not doom and gloom. The partial pressure explanation of elevated CO2 levels in the home explains why indoor aeration no matter how much would raise the PH. I would consider a small 900 square foot home with a family of 4 and a running CA reactor similar to the worse case scenario of the global warming crowd. However I cannot say for certain if CO2 levels were .38% or .42% of atmospheric concentration.

I still would like to know the average temperature of the earth between the last two ice ages. The coldest average temp, the warmest average temp and how that compares today. Maybe things should be warmer maybe we should be cooler. Or maybe we should focus our efforts on something useful like reducing the amount of heavy metals we consume and release. Just remember cow emissions add to the greenhouse equation as well. So much so the EU has a climate tax on each head of cattle. Needless to say the farmers are miffed and are not raising fewer cows just charging more for beef.

Bill

 

[billsreef]

With science, like anything else, you'll often not get 100% agreement on anything. So no point in looking for that sort of consensus. However, it's a very large majority in agreement with the expected, as well as currently observed, problems of anthropogenic CO2 rise. The data goes back quite a few years and strongly supports this as well, at least since I first started learning about this stuff in the early to mid '80's. So far I've only seen better and more refined data that only supports the early stuff I first learned about. Of course solutions are a whole other ball of wax and much harder to come up with when you throw in the whole global socio-economic bit. Like with the EU cows, taxing cow farts just isn't a solution for anything other than raising taxes.

When it comes to dismissing the problems of our contribution of CO2 being a problem due the small percentage of the total global CO2, think of things like treating a tank with copper. A very little bit is needed for life, a smidge more will kill parasites and nuke a reef tank, and a minute amount more will kill the fish also. For many things, it only takes a very small percentage increase over normal to tip the scales in a bad direction, doesn't have to be a large percentage.

With the average global temperature differences between an ice age and non iceage, we're only talking about a 1 to less than 2 degree Celsius difference. Again a very small difference, but a large impact.

 

[wet reefer]

For anybody who doubts the correlation between atmospheric CO 2, methane levels, coral diversity and even terrestrial diversity should read "A Reef In Time" by Jen Veron. It absolutely one of the best books Iv' e ever read on the history of corals and climate change in general. If you believe the statistics in the book, it leaves little doubt about what is to come.
Humans in general are selfish towards one another. Very few are going to want to go without something when the other guy isn't. Humans like sex. They are not going to stop having it and the population of the planet will continue to increase and most will want what the other guy has. It's human nature and isn't going to change until it's too late-if even then. The future looks very bleak and I believe it is already too late to avoid long term climate change and acidification of the oceans. We will not see the full effects of what we have already done up to this point for many years. Once the PH of the oceans reaches the point where calcium carbonate isn't produced, things will snowball. It's happened before and will probably happen again. Sure, Mother Nature will recover, but humans will probably be long gone by then. Some people have a hard time conceiving the time scales we are talking about here.
I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist.

 

[wet reefer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28156581/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28436388/

Scary.

 

[pfish]

http://thefellowshipofscientifictru...0/carbon-dioxide-ocean-acidification-and.html
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
I'm sure you will tell me these people have no standing.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14719487#post14719487 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pfish
http://thefellowshipofscientifictru...0/carbon-dioxide-ocean-acidification-and.html
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
I'm sure you will tell me these people have no standing.

That first one totally misses the difference being acidification and acidic and goes on a rant about it being impossible for the oceans to become acidic (i.e. a pH below 7). No one has been claiming the oceans are going to get acidic, but rather that they will acidify below the current pH, but still be alkaline...not acidic which is what Pete is railing against in his blog. Since he already is confused about the issue, it's pretty hard to figure he's got any sort of valid argument.

The second link I haven't had a chance to follow yet.

 

[pfish]

In Petes defense the way acidification is portrayed in the press is to suggest the ocean is turning acidic.
I would like to here what you have to say about the other article because it is dealing in the physics of global warming. Which is also pertinent to acidification because of small quantity of co2 relative to other atmospheric gasses.
The acidification studies I have looked at use small data sets. Ph in the ocean is not uniform and there can be relatively large localized swings especially near kelp beds.

 

[MCsaxmaster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14719487#post14719487 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pfish
http://thefellowshipofscientifictru...0/carbon-dioxide-ocean-acidification-and.html
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
I'm sure you will tell me these people have no standing.

Wow...just...wow.

As Bill writes above, in the first link the author goes on an on about how the ocean will not become acidic, meaning a pH less than neutral (~ 7), due to ocean acidification. Ummm, yeah, no kidding. Oceanic pH is dropping due to the addition of an acid (carbonic acid), hence why it's called ocean acidification.

As such, the only point the author has confirmed is that he either 1) has no idea what ocean acidification means, or 2) understands it but is purposefully misleading people. Either he just doesn't get it, or does but doesn't want you to.

His other point of contention is that the climate has, at times in the geologic past, been colder when atmospheric CO2 conc. was higher. Again, no kidding. Atmospheric CO2 conc. provides a particular forcing. It redirects X amount of long-wave radiation to the surface of the planet and the atmosphere. It's not a thermostat, it doesn't set a particular temperature, it simply redirects outgoing LWR. Hence his charge is really that atmospheric CO2 is not the only factor that affects climate. Well ya, no kidding. The moon isn't made of green cheese either, but no one is making that argument.

Again, either he doesn't understand anything about the topic he's discussing, or he's trying to be purposefully deceptive.

Given the length of the second link I've only had a chance to skim it. One argument in particular caught my eye, and demonstrates the level of sophistication of the authors arguments (or more aptly, deception). The argument is that CO2 is heavier than N2 or O2 therefore it sinks to the ground (though it may take 100-150 yrs to do so due to convection), and for some unspecified reason that negates the influence of CO2 on climate. Ummmm, ok??? Sugar is heavier than water, on a molar basis. If I mix up sugar water, the sugar remains dissolved. It doesn't settle out even if I stop stirring it, and especially can't settle out if I do keep stirring it. The fact that sugar is heavier than water has nothing to do with the effects of sugar on, for example, boiling point elevation. The difference in mass between CO2 and N2+O2 is far less than the difference in mass between sugar and water. The atmosphere is also constantly mixing. CO2 does not settle out, and the fact that it is heavier than N2 or O2 has nothing to do with it's effects on climate.

The level of sophistication of the arguments offered are on par with those offered by the Flat Earth Society for why the Earth is actually flat and our notions of a (approximately) spherical Earth are wrong.

Either the author is simply trying to deceive us, is a nut, or both.

Chris

 

[Poorcollegereef]

wow, those sites hurt my brain matter... I might loose 3 credits from just reading those...

Misinformation, misinformation, misinformation.

In all fairness, is there any "anti-climate change" (man or natural causes) peer reviewed journal articles. (Idiots with a web page need not apply). Since I did not find anything thing in my lit search, it would actually be interesting to see if there was any.

In any case, I believe the world is flat... the Thomas Friedman world is flat argument.

MCSaxMaster, Congrats on your MSU boys going to the final four

 

[MCsaxmaster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14725231#post14725231 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Poorcollegereef
MCSaxMaster, Congrats on your MSU boys going to the final four

Oh man, thanks. Soooo excited, you don't even know. I had them in my Final Four based only on wishful thinking, not critical thinking. If they weren't my team I would have picked a loss to Louiseville. Those guys are playing out of their heads, and Izzo coached that game as well or better than I think I've ever seen from anybody

Go Green!!!