Acidic Ocean
- Thread starter Madfronter
- Start date
PSam
Active member
Net warming over a decade? Changes over the past century? Now that's an ample time frame to base a conclusion. Also, the reference they cite shows +1*C increase in global temperature in less than 100 years, not exactly "modest".
But it's really not. Earth was recording changes in the climate long before (if that's not an understatement, lol) politics were conceived. Now we have instruments to not only accurately measure current conditions, but also to better understand the records earth has been keeping. The proxy records don't care about politics.
wet reefer
New member
Too bad some of the nay-sayers won't be around when their grandchildren or great grandchildren have to deal with this so called global warming.
wld1783
Premium Member
+1
I still have not seen a baseline of average earth temp between ice ages. BTW the earth does have seasons.
Back to the original ? about acid oceans.
Finally I calibrated my PH meters and found my tank runs between 8.1 and 7.9. The same water outside with an airstone is 8.25.
That said the partial pressure of CO2 in my house may be greater than outside. I have a thriving reef with an average PH of 8.0. Many have said better than the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago
Admittly I will say not as good as the Monteray Bay Aquarium in California but close. Having an endless supply of NSW helps.I don't see how a very small increase in global CO2 will matter in the big picture of earth cycles and I know nature will adapt to changes. Our reefs are much more at risk due to costal development than a .0038% increase in CO2.
Remember CO2 is only .038% of the atmsophere. A 10% increase is only .0038%:eek1:
What I do see is a lot of smart people making lots of money convincing us that man made CO2 will melt the ice caps, kill the Polar Bears, devistate the rainforest and destroy the reefs.:eek2:
I cant wait for them to have a health club tax as we produce more CO2 when we work out
Bill
wet reefer
New member
Who would that be?
wld1783
Premium Member
Forgot to mention Mexican cement companies.
The ones in California will have to close, as California is imposing unrealistic demands on CO2 emissions. As the cost of business here goes up due to controls and taxes on CO2 the companies overseas will expand and grow as ours will disappear. Overseas there are less restrictions on pollution in some cases like China, India and Africa there are little to none. The net result will be less American jobs, more overseas jobs and more world wide pollution.
Bill
ScooterTDI
New member
All the researchers who get big grants to find correlations that may or may not demonstrate causality.
Scott
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Scientific knowledge isn't limited to controlled experiments. Lots of disciplines like astronomy, geology, and ecology can't be distilled down to controllable lab tests and that's perfectly fine. All you need for a scientific answer is a testable hypothesis and evidence that lets you evaluate it. Controlled experiments are just one of many methods to get that evidence. You can also look at analogs, take direct measurement, or use statistics and (gasp!) modeling, among other approaches.
That's not to say that there is no controlled experimentation in climatology or marine chemistry. John Tyndall started off the study of anthropogenic warming over a century ago when he measured the IR absorption of samples of CO2 vs other gases in the lab. There have also been lots of controlled experiments looking at the effects of increased CO2 on the growth of various plants, zooxanthellae, corals, and marine plankton for example.
There's also a lot known via analogs, such as other times in Earth's history when CO2 has been elevated that tell us a lot about the effect of CO2 on temps and reef growth.
Then there is information that is a simple matter of measurement and trend analysis. Is the average global temperature increasing significantly? Yes. Is atmospheric CO2 increasing significantly? Yes. Is the ratio of carbon isotopes in that atmospheric CO2 changing significantly? Yes.
That is a restatement of the scientific consensus.
It's not a question of science, but IMO this is a pretty weak argument for 2 reasons. 1. By extension of this logic, genocide and rape are human actions too and are therefore natural, so shouldn't be of any concern. 2. When we have ample warning why shouldn't we act to prevent harm from a threat simply because it's natural? Hurricanes and earthquakes are without a doubt natural phenomena, but we have building codes and evacuation plans specifically designed to prevent damage and loss of life. Even if climate change were entirely natural, that would be no excuse to do nothing.
A famous quote comes to mind here- "Reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing it in."
You can believe with all of your heart that the sun rises in the West and you would still be completely wrong. The simple fact that you disagree with someone that believes the sun rises in the East doesn't make them wrong and it doesn't make you partially right.
You can't see what you don't look for. I already posted links to several temperature reconstructions the first time you asked.
Again, I will ask you what is the point of the question? Do you really believe that climatologists are so dense that they don't realize that the planet's climate naturally changes? Do you believe that they have no understanding of the causes of those changes- they just get lucky in modeling their effects in hindcasts? Do you think these changes prove that humans cannot cause similar effects (just like lightning starts forest fires, therefore cigarettes and matches can't)? Do you think the impacts to a few thousand nomadic people is a fair analog to 7 billion who depend on consistent precipitation, growing seasons, and heating/cooling days for their water and food supplies?
That's great to hear, but for at least the third time now, home aquaria are not analogs to what happens in the ocean because A) captive reefs do not include the major sources of negative reef growth and parameters are optimized to give maximum positive growth B) you actively control the chemistry to keep the water saturated with respect to aragonite.
Well your personal incredulity doesn't affect reality. Periods of high CO2 have occurred in the past and reefs didn't adapt. They disappeared- for several million years. Many of the animals that built them went extinct. Also, it's fairly trivial to replicate the chemistry expected for drops in pH (without artificially maintaining aragonite saturation) and see how corals fare. They don't have a whole lot of tricks in their bag except to slow and eventually stop calcifying- the same thing they seemed to do in previous periods of high CO2.
Also, we're not talking about a "very small increase" in CO2. We're talking about an increase of about 30% already and likely close to a 100% increase or more by the end of the century if things don't change soon. That not-so-small change that has already occurred is enough to cause the dissolution of planktonic snails in some parts of the ocean that were already close to undersaturation of aragonite. It makes a big difference to them and anything that feeds on them.
Well, scientists are performing the science and I can assure you almost none of us are getting rich doing it. What non-scientists choose to do with the consensus is an independent issue, but if they find some way to exploit it to their advantage, isn't that the American way?
You're getting extremely political here. Lets stick to the science and keep the thread open.
:lol: I'd really love to hear what you think is involved in the process of proposing grants in the natural sciences and how much of that money you think researchers keep. If you think that there is widespread gaming of the system or that researchers are raking in money from grants I'd suggest you actually talk to a few and touch base with reality.
Also, AGW is not based on correlations. The causation was established based on chemistry and physics more than a century ago, long before the correlations could even be measured.
Last edited:
Research grants and pay have no bearing on what the outcome of the research is, only that the research is done and that there is a conclusion....even if it's not what the researcher expected. Grant funding really doesn't depend on what the results are.
Sorry about the insult if it was taken that way. But read my original post- I said it was man accelerated. I am not on either side of this issue. The fact bean wants to mix theoretical sciences ie physics and ast. with scientific fact shows the flaw in the argument. I am only speaking of scientific fact- which theories and hypothisis are not, no matter what the results may say. How long was pluto a planet? Thats the dif between theoretical science and fact based science. The earth does not care if there is rape or genocide, so I don`t know what it has to do with science. I have written more than a few grant proposals- and i do know where the money goes- and it is really dependent on the situation whether there is pork involved- again blanket hypothisis do not stand up here- from either side. Global warming= religion- same amount of factually proven information.
This topic is about ocean acidification, but the the larger topic is global climate change.
I think George Carlin sum it up here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&feature=related
I think George Carlin sum it up here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&feature=related
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Who prints my checks? Fish Tails Aquariums.
From my current research I'm raking in exactly $0 (actually it's cost me about $2,500 so far). From my last project I pocketed a whopping $450 from a quarter million dollar grant over 3 years. None of my work has ever involved long-term climate change anyway, so it's kind of silly to insinuate that I'm one of the "conspirators" supposedly in it for the money. If funding worked the way syrinx thinks it does then those dirty scheming climate scientists and biogeochemists would be stealing all of my research money. What would be my motivation for elevating their case?
Beyond that, the whole "scientists are doing it for the funding" meme ignores the fact that an original approach to a problem and showing how everyone else got it wrong is one of the best ways to secure funding and acclaim- not agreeing with what everyone else has already shown.
I'd love for you to prove me wrong and give us a nice overview of your insider knowledge of the granting process and how scientists are gaming the system- raking in money with unsubstantiated hype, getting rich, and adding lots of pork in their grants. Specific examples and numbers would be excellent. However, I'm not holding my breath for anything more than another round of nonsensical talking points.
From my current research I'm raking in exactly $0 (actually it's cost me about $2,500 so far). From my last project I pocketed a whopping $450 from a quarter million dollar grant over 3 years. None of my work has ever involved long-term climate change anyway, so it's kind of silly to insinuate that I'm one of the "conspirators" supposedly in it for the money. If funding worked the way syrinx thinks it does then those dirty scheming climate scientists and biogeochemists would be stealing all of my research money. What would be my motivation for elevating their case?
Beyond that, the whole "scientists are doing it for the funding" meme ignores the fact that an original approach to a problem and showing how everyone else got it wrong is one of the best ways to secure funding and acclaim- not agreeing with what everyone else has already shown.
While I don't doubt you've written grant proposals, I'm extremely skeptical that you have written any research grants, specifically in the natural sciences. You have this cartoonish view that scientific knowledge only comes from controlled experiments and you make a distinction between "theoretical science" and "factual science" as if they are separate entities, which belies your poor understanding of what the word theory means. You also don't seem to have any understanding of how the funding process works or how scientists are paid.
I'd love for you to prove me wrong and give us a nice overview of your insider knowledge of the granting process and how scientists are gaming the system- raking in money with unsubstantiated hype, getting rich, and adding lots of pork in their grants. Specific examples and numbers would be excellent. However, I'm not holding my breath for anything more than another round of nonsensical talking points.
ctenophors rule
New member
you tell them green bean.
what is your current project, just wondering.
what is your current project, just wondering.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Right now I'm looking at temporal changes in foraminiferan species composition in FL bay.
Back the the original topic of acidification- Here are a handful of the many non-existent studies of what happens to reef organisms at elevated pC02.
First, measurements of decreasing aragonite saturation over the past decade showing how the real ocean's chemistry is not comparable to a reef tank's response to high CO2.
Gledhill, DK, et al. 2008. Ocean acidification of the Greater Caribbean Region 1996-2006. J. Geophys. Res. 113.
A good overview of the many periods in history when reefs completely disappeared for several million years and a discussion of why they went away each time-
Veron, JEN. 2008. Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints on geological dilemmas. Coral Reefs 27: 459-472.
Another discussion of how past climate change has affected previous reef builders-
Scheibner, C and RP Speijer. 2008. Late Paleocene-early Eocene Tethyan carbonate platform evolution - A response to long- and short-term paleoclimatic change. Earth-Science Reviews 90: 71-102.
If that's all too "theoretical" for you, here are controlled tests of what happens to reef organisms if you increase pCO2 in seawater without artificially maintaining aragonite saturation as reefkeepers do.
At a pH of 7.8 larval clownfish are attracted to cues they strongly avoid at normal pH-
Munday, PL, et al. 2009. Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine fish. PNAS 106: 1848-1852.
Experimental demonstration of several negative impacts of increased pCO2 on various marine larvae-
Kurihara, H. 2008. Effects of CO2-driven ocean acidification on the early developmental stages of invertebrates. MEPS 373: 275-284.
At aragonite saturations expected by 2050 under business as usual increases in pCO2 (=560 ppm) Porites grows at half of the normal rate and only about 1/5 of the normal rate at saturation expected by 2100 under BAU.
Albright, R, B Mason, and C Langdon. 2008. Effect of aragonite saturation state on settlement and post-settlement growth of Porites astreoides larvae. Coral Reefs 27: 485-490.
Coralline algae growth drops by almost 90% and coral growth is reduced by about 20% when the pH of natural flowing seawater is reduced to replicate a doubling of CO2.
Jokiel, PL, et al. 2008. Ocean acidification and calcifying reef organisms: a mesocosm investigation. Coral Reefs 27: 473-483.
High pCO2 induces bleaching and this effect is stronger than the effect of reduced calcification.
Anthony, KRN, et al. 2008. Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders. PNAS 105: 17442-17446.
As for how these mesocosm studies relate to the real world-
The combined rate of calcification for a whole reef is highly correlated to temperature and aragonite saturation and is consistent with the rate changes demonstrated above. Also, the observed rate change can be predicted accurately by the physical rate laws.
Silverman, J, B Lazar, and J Erez. 2007. Effect of aragonite saturation, temperature, and nutrients on the community calcification rate of a coral reef. J. Geophys. Res. 112
There has been a significant (unprecedented in at leas 400 yrs) decline in growth rates in corals on the GBR since 1990. The decline shows the hallmarks of being a slow, long-term process rather than a few years of poor growth like after the 1998 bleaching event. While there is no smoking gun for the mechanism, temp increases and increased acidification are likely.
De'ath, G, JM Lough, and KE Fabricius. 2009. Declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef. Science 323: 116-119.
Yep, there has been a recent increase in acidity on the GBR and it's due to anthropogenic CO2 as measured by the concentrations of B and C13 in coral skeletons.
Wei, GJ, et al. 2009. Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73: 2332-2346.
Based on measurements of temperature, coral cover, calcification rates, and aragonite saturation from 9,000 reef sites, rate law calculations (validated by Silverman, Lazar, and Erez above) show that net growth becomes negative for all reefs at about 560 ppm CO2, which would occur about 2050 under business as usual.
Silverman, J, et al. 2009. Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric CO2 doubles. GRL 36.
Back the the original topic of acidification- Here are a handful of the many non-existent studies of what happens to reef organisms at elevated pC02.
First, measurements of decreasing aragonite saturation over the past decade showing how the real ocean's chemistry is not comparable to a reef tank's response to high CO2.
Gledhill, DK, et al. 2008. Ocean acidification of the Greater Caribbean Region 1996-2006. J. Geophys. Res. 113.
A good overview of the many periods in history when reefs completely disappeared for several million years and a discussion of why they went away each time-
Veron, JEN. 2008. Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints on geological dilemmas. Coral Reefs 27: 459-472.
Another discussion of how past climate change has affected previous reef builders-
Scheibner, C and RP Speijer. 2008. Late Paleocene-early Eocene Tethyan carbonate platform evolution - A response to long- and short-term paleoclimatic change. Earth-Science Reviews 90: 71-102.
If that's all too "theoretical" for you, here are controlled tests of what happens to reef organisms if you increase pCO2 in seawater without artificially maintaining aragonite saturation as reefkeepers do.
At a pH of 7.8 larval clownfish are attracted to cues they strongly avoid at normal pH-
Munday, PL, et al. 2009. Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine fish. PNAS 106: 1848-1852.
Experimental demonstration of several negative impacts of increased pCO2 on various marine larvae-
Kurihara, H. 2008. Effects of CO2-driven ocean acidification on the early developmental stages of invertebrates. MEPS 373: 275-284.
At aragonite saturations expected by 2050 under business as usual increases in pCO2 (=560 ppm) Porites grows at half of the normal rate and only about 1/5 of the normal rate at saturation expected by 2100 under BAU.
Albright, R, B Mason, and C Langdon. 2008. Effect of aragonite saturation state on settlement and post-settlement growth of Porites astreoides larvae. Coral Reefs 27: 485-490.
Coralline algae growth drops by almost 90% and coral growth is reduced by about 20% when the pH of natural flowing seawater is reduced to replicate a doubling of CO2.
Jokiel, PL, et al. 2008. Ocean acidification and calcifying reef organisms: a mesocosm investigation. Coral Reefs 27: 473-483.
High pCO2 induces bleaching and this effect is stronger than the effect of reduced calcification.
Anthony, KRN, et al. 2008. Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders. PNAS 105: 17442-17446.
As for how these mesocosm studies relate to the real world-
The combined rate of calcification for a whole reef is highly correlated to temperature and aragonite saturation and is consistent with the rate changes demonstrated above. Also, the observed rate change can be predicted accurately by the physical rate laws.
Silverman, J, B Lazar, and J Erez. 2007. Effect of aragonite saturation, temperature, and nutrients on the community calcification rate of a coral reef. J. Geophys. Res. 112
There has been a significant (unprecedented in at leas 400 yrs) decline in growth rates in corals on the GBR since 1990. The decline shows the hallmarks of being a slow, long-term process rather than a few years of poor growth like after the 1998 bleaching event. While there is no smoking gun for the mechanism, temp increases and increased acidification are likely.
De'ath, G, JM Lough, and KE Fabricius. 2009. Declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef. Science 323: 116-119.
Yep, there has been a recent increase in acidity on the GBR and it's due to anthropogenic CO2 as measured by the concentrations of B and C13 in coral skeletons.
Wei, GJ, et al. 2009. Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73: 2332-2346.
Based on measurements of temperature, coral cover, calcification rates, and aragonite saturation from 9,000 reef sites, rate law calculations (validated by Silverman, Lazar, and Erez above) show that net growth becomes negative for all reefs at about 560 ppm CO2, which would occur about 2050 under business as usual.
Silverman, J, et al. 2009. Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric CO2 doubles. GRL 36.
Last edited:
