Expert says oceans are turning acidic....

Nu2SW

New member
Expert says oceans are turning acidic

By ANTHONY MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 7 minutes ago

The world's oceans are becoming more acidic, which poses a threat to sea life and Earth's fragile food chain, a climate expert said Thursday.

Oceans have already absorbed a third of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, leading to acidification that prevents vital sea life from forming properly.

"The oceans are rapidly changing," said professor Stefan Rahmstorf on the sidelines of a U.N. conference on climate change that has drawn delegates from more than 100 countries to Kenya. "Ocean acidification is a major threat to marine organisms."

Fish stocks and the world's coral reefs could also be hit while acidification risks "fundamentally altering" the food chain, he said.

In a study titled "The Future Oceans â€" Warming Up, Rising High, Turning Sour," Rahmstorf and eight other scientists warned that the world is witnessing, on a global scale, problems similar to the acid rain phenomenon of the 1970s and 1980s.

Rahmstorf, the head of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Research into Climatic Effects, says more research is urgently needed to assess the impact of ocean acidification.

David Santillo, a senior scientist at Greenpeace's Research Laboratories in Exeter, Britain, said it had come as a shock to scientists that the oceans are turning acidic because of carbon dioxide emissions.

"The knock on effect for humans is that some of these marine resources that we rely on may not be available in the future," the marine biologist, who was not involved in Rahmstorf's study, told The Associated Press by telephone.

Rahmstorf also reiterated warnings of rising sea levels caused by global warming, saying that in 70 years, temperature increases will lead more frequent storms with 200 million people threatened by floods.

Scientists blame the past century's one-degree rise in average global temperatures at least in part for the accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere â€" byproducts of power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel burners.

The 1997 Kyoto accord requires 35 industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto countries meeting in Nairobi are continuing talks on what kind of emissions targets and timetables should follow 2012.



Andeveryone's take on this article?
 
I dont totally buy into "Global Warming" It has already been disproved by other scientists anyway. I saw some pictures from Nasa the other day of the ice shelf melting and or breaking appart. In my ipinion, and many scientists opinion, this is nothing more than natural climate fluctuation. Although we have not seen a fluctuation like this in our life time, It is still only a fluctuation. Not to mention global green house gas out put is lower now than in YEARS. Automobiles are virtually emission free as of the last ten years.

In short. I dont buy it. Our air quality has improved dramaticaly.
 
I tend to agree with that, I took an Enviromental Geology class last year and it talked greatly about climate change and what not.
As with all natural cycles, they are that cylces.....we are on the tail end of a cooling trend and it is starting to rebound.....climate change is enevetable.....just how much the human species is accelerating this process is the real debate.

We were shown a lot of data in the class that dealt with the orientaion of the poles in rock when formed where the poles of the earth were and correlating data of (been a while, so don't jump on me about the isotope), Carbon 14? and the amount of it and how much carbon dioxide was present and deposited at these times.....and that these shifts in climate are a result of what is called the Milakonvic(sp) cycle, the eccentricity of the orbit around the sun and a couple of natural cycles........

The really disturbing thing is that we are in one of the "coolest" periods with some of the lesser CO2 levels there have been in the history of planet, and previously it has been a lot hotter and have a lot more CO2 present.

The class also talked about Global Warming and what will happen in the end........More CO2+more heat=more evaporation from the oceans=more cloud cover=more rain=more vegetation=more Oxygen produced=Global cooling.........

The biggest question was could we surrvive and adapt the change.....

Look up and research that cycle.....pretty interesting stuff, but opinions vary and we really don't know what is going to happen, but we live in an ever changing climate.

True about the emissions of cars....but now there are just more of them so, a few polluting cars=a lot of less polluting cars...and it evens out in the total output of emmisions
 
Last edited:
I buy into it bigtime.
Not necessarily from this article as its pretty ambiguous and basically just a thesis. Clearly stating that they need more data basically to cross reference.
Combustable engines, what a topic. Nearly 0 emmissions?Close but thats just those that have been comin off the line for the past 10 years. What about all the ones that are on the road already?What about the ones that are in exempt status? A far far cry from 0. Now what about the past 90 years? Not to mention the long list of factories that only have been recently monitored that make these engines.

Not to mention the rainforests..Doh!Just did :p This planet is getting raped from both ends dont kid yourself and make no mistake about it. IMO this planet is the most elaborate system that one could only hope to come close to fully comprehending. Any system is comprised of more than 2 parts. Most of us have one we top off every night. I think it's safe to say that we all have bore witness to when a few elements are taken, used, dead etc. and the reprocussions these things can do when altered. Most of us are aware as well when one thing becomes extinct more are to either adapt or follow. Why would this be no different? Everything is connected in some form, I have yet to hear of something that is on this planet that just "is". Unless it's man made ;)

-Justin
 
Ya, you're right there. I know it's not a well liked outlook on it... but there are just too many people. :( Gotta feed em, house em and let em play somewhere I suppose.
 
The 1997 Kyoto accord requires 35 industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto countries meeting in Nairobi are continuing talks on what kind of emissions targets and timetables should follow 2012.
The Kyoto Protocol, which got a lot of press because Bush refused to sign into it, is like many other UN projects, a joke. What doesn't get reported openly, unless you look for it, is the fact that the Protocol only includes what is considered as 1st World status. The two most populated countries (China/India) are quickly coming into 1st world status and it is expected that any decrease caused by the Kyoto Protocol will quickly be counteracted by India and China in the next 10-15 years. Also, not well reported is that several countries that signed the Protocol have since withdrawn from it.

There is a lot of debate on Global Warming...but what there is almost no debate on is the changing pH of the Ocean and what is causing it. Yes, there are periods in the worlds history where the climate was hotter/colder, and the CO2 levels may have been higher than they are today. But, there was always some explanation on why the CO2 levels were up. Massive volcanic activity around the globe, etc. In the last 300 years or so the only major factor that could have contributed to these rising levels is man. Yes, there have been brief/periodic episode such as Mt. St. Helens, but even this historic event would have caused a minor spike in the global CO2 levels, and then tapered off. This is a graph of the worlds population in comparison to the atmospheric CO2 levels. You can clearly see a cause/effect, and a trend of the ocean pH follows suit.
CO2.gif

As China & India come into their own, these trends will increase by several magnitudes...unless something is done to alter the mitigating factors.

Like I said earlier, there are a lot of people on both sides of the Global Warming debate. But even countries that are on the No Global Warming side, are not debating what is happening to the Oceans' pH around the world.
 
China is on it's own. Most of Asia's pollution stems from China. In fact, I heard a recent study where they found like 15% of Los Angeles pollution is from CHINA, no joke. Makes the rest of the world look like a joke in comparisn :(
 
Pretty humbling graph Marc. Amazing how you can pretty much coralate each spike with known production booms and technilogical advances throughout the years :(


-Justin
 
THis is why we need a better energy source. The sun can provide all our power needs, but noone wants to fork over the $$$ for solar panels. The government will give you up to 8grand to install solor panels in your home.

If alot of people started using solor panels, Then they dont depend on the electric company for power, less is being used, they dont have to produce as much and then that make's the enviroment better. And to top it off, if people started usingPHEV (plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ) that would help in the long run, But what would be even better is the day all cars go electric or hydrogen, which creates no waste product.

Wont happen, not in my lifetime probably. Too many money hungry corporations .

If it was a perfect world, people would use electric cars powered and getting there energy from Companies that use nothing but solar power.


Ahhh but that wont happen anytime soon.
 
Its amazing the knowledge one needs to reference here. Yeah, I didn't want to get into that Kyoto thing either, I had to do a research project on it for that class also.......In a nutshell, we can't not let the developing countries develop.....so what ends up happening is the levels are decreased by law in the first world countries that are rich enough to afford to buy and create cleaner technology.....as they develop it, the developing countries are allowed to continue to pollute at ever increasing rates until they "catch up" economicly and can afford to buy or develop the newer technologies....For instance I remember that our coal burning electrical plants were already fitted with scrubbers and other stuff that has increased the efficiencies to like 60% maybe, but Chinas older dirtier plants were on the order of 20% maybe.....the numbers are wrong, but the order of magnitute fifference is about the same.
 
Dont forget this is just a limited scope of total picture as far as emmision allowances, what about the major direct impacts on our oceans? Oil/fuel spills, toxic runnoffs, shipwrecks that continue to leach fuels, since the dawn of garbage, we have dumped it into our oceans. Did you know they continue to dump garbage to this day legitamately by even our own government? Onec any ship whether its civilian, commericial or military is in non territorial open ocean they dump there waste directly into the deep blue?As long as there x amount of miles out from land? My fiance whos a 10 year naval vet can vouch for this personally. The more you learn the more you hear the more you just cringe, get embarrased and get mad.

-Justin
 
IMO we need a whole lot less people in this world...people just keep popping out kids like there is no tomorrow.... It's just a shame there aren't more wars and diseases to counteract that problem...I only come to that conclusion becasue we all know people aren't going to controll themselves to only one or two children.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8519932#post8519932 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by duec22
IMO we need a whole lot less people in this world...people just keep popping out kids like there is no tomorrow.... It's just a shame there aren't more wars and diseases to counteract that problem...I only come to that conclusion becasue we all know people aren't going to controll themselves to only one or two children.
I can see into your thoughts about how there is too many people, and there is. I for one am not into controlling peoples right to have children.

BUt, as a socieity we have invented nifty little things called antibiotics and with all the nice things we have in life, we have prolonged our life span. Think many thousands of years ago, people would live to about 30 years old.

Can you think if we make things and improve our life to where everyone lives to 110......

NO thank you!!!!!!!

But as a race, we need to think of what we can do now. Less oil=less pollution.

Tesla-Roadster.jpg



Its a nice car isnt it........

Guesss what..............




That car is a all electric vehicle, goes 0-60 in 4 seconds , 250 miles per charge and its about .1cent per mile to operate.
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

The problem, its super expensive. Why , no demand. We need a demand for it, we had electric vehicles, but the motor companies killed them along with CARB. (California air resource board)
 
From a 1993 Research Paper
The composition of the pore waters implies that sea water boron concentrations and isotopic composition have been constant during the past 21 Million years, allowing us to reconstruct past ocean pH directly from the foraminiferal isotope data. We find that 21 Million years ago, surface ocean pH was only 7.4, but it then increased to 8.2 (roughly the present value) about 7.5 Million years ago.
All of the historical data, such as the citation above from this Link suggests that the surface ocean pH level has been steady for approximately 7.5 Million years. You only see the pH begin to change as the world becomes more & more industrialized within the last few hundred years. Large scale events like the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, 1991 eruption of Mt. Piantubo, 1980 Mt. St Helens eruption didn't do anything to affect the pH level, nor did they really affect the atmospheric CO2 levels. There were various times in the past 7.5 Million years where there were numerous eruptions going on, large wildfires around the globe. Nothing has had an impact on the oceans pH level!

Why did the pH change 7.5 Million years ago? Well, because the atmospheric CO2 levels dropped dramatically. Some researchers feel that this was directly caused by the explosion of global flora during the Miocene period (23 to 5.3 million years ago). The explosion of plants is what some belief lowered the global CO2 levels, which in turn allowed the pH levels to rise around the world's oceans.

The leading theory debunking the "Green House Gas/Global Warming" theory is that basically the Earth's temperature is cyclic. Most researchers feel that every 22000-30000 years the earth undergoes a swing in temperature. There is another theory that every 100000+/- years the temperature swing can be higher than normal. The theory is that we are not experiencing Green House global warming, but that we are simply in a heating trend as the 22000-30000yr cycle comes into play.

So, there is debate, and I think it is honest debate on Global Warming. But if you take into account all of this heating & warming over 7.5 Million years, you should remember that the Ocean pH has been stable for 2500 of these temperature cycles, with 75 of these temperature cycles being more severe than normal. There isn't any debate that the industrialized world is increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels, there is only debate on whether or not it is causing the warming trend...or if there is a warming trend at all. You don't find any credible debate on ocean acidification. It is simple chemistry...the CO2 rises, and the pH drops.

As the pH drops the calcareous organisms will start dying off. There are several models on when this will happen, and they largely depend on what India & China do in the next 20 years. Some scientists believe that we will see dramatic & global changes in the worlds oceans within the next 20-30 years, while others are saying it will be more like 75-100 years. It all depends on which CO2 model they are using to calculate the rate of change.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8520117#post8520117 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Nu2SW
[BThe problem, its super expensive. Why , no demand. We need a demand for it, we had electric vehicles, but the motor companies killed them along with CARB. (California air resource board) [/B]
No demand? Dude, have you seen the preorder numbers?
It's expensive due to the carbon fiber and other ultralight materials needed in its manufacturing. Will it's cost drop as production ramps up? Of course, but it's high cost at this point is not due to low demand.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8532045#post8532045 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by goslugsgo
No demand? Dude, have you seen the preorder numbers?
It's expensive due to the carbon fiber and other ultralight materials needed in its manufacturing. Will it's cost drop as production ramps up? Of course, but it's high cost at this point is not due to low demand.

To install a self running full house system is like anywhere from 20,000 - 40,000.

that is what is shying so many people away, so that there for makes a low demand.

Maybe I shouldnt of said no demand, I know there is a demand, if they were not so costly.

Thats what I ment.
 
Yeah, I was talking about the cars.
As for the house electrical systems, the panels are heavily backordered. How do you want them to reduce costs? One major component in them is silver. That's not going to get any cheaper, especially with inflation and the investing community's shift toward the global commodities makets.
:rolleye1:
 
Back
Top