Ocean Acidification

[aspen31]

Hello Reefers!

I have a question about ocean acidification. It has been stated that the ph of the ocean has fallen .1 in the last 100 years or so due to increased co2 absorbtion. It has been said this will increase, and shelled creatures will have a hard time making shell material. I have tried to lower ph of hard water with co2. it does not move or stay easily. I believe the sea could handle a lot of co2 before this would be a problem.

I am not sure that this is a valid point. Comments?

Rick

 

[mcgyvr]

Did you have a question in there? or just want to discuss oceanic problems with saltwater fish tank keepers?

 

[brett559]

Rick, that's your first post? Interesting....

 

[sde1500]

This should get good.

 

[Mishri]

co2 is the latest boogeyman that isn't actually a huge deal... just wait for the next super volcano eruption.. could be any year.. might be another 10,000 years.. There are a lot of volcanos right now that are due/past due for eruptions.. I think we'll get a big one in our life time... Just talk to some geologists sometime about what scary things can happen.. and most of them laugh at the worry of co2.. yeah.. we are changing our atmosphere.. but it's not on a massive scale that will seriously alter our global temps. It's why all of the climate models are wrong.. we were supposed to be like 8 degrees warmer by now... instead of the actual .5... 400ppm co2 is still much lower than the earth had historically, and it could be as high as 1000ppm and we'll just see increased plant growth (most plants don't grow faster past 1000ppm).. the currents have more impact on localized water temps that a lot of people are blaming on global warming.. most scientists think solar activity is what started and stopped our last ice age... some believe ocean currents played a role in reversing the ice age. 2,000 years ago the global average temp was higher than it is now. some geologists have mapped volcanic activity to our global temp, and there is a correlation. (more volcanic activity = lower temps)

oh.. and I think changing .1ph over one hundred years will take us awhile to change the ph of the oceans.. we'll have to try harder...

-but people wont be happy unless they have something to complain about.... we've just got to be doing something wrong...

 

[aspen31]

Hi Mishri. I suspect that you do not see a big problem with shell fish being able to grow shells in slightly lower ph then? If your hardness dropped a bit and you added co2, you would not see much, if any, difference in shell growth?

I am not here to stir the pot. I only thought i would ask people with real life experience with the shell growth issue and lower ph. i thought the claim seemed far fetched.

Rick

 

[Mishri]

depends on how low your PH is.. it can also stop calcification and lead to death of corals as well. I guess the best way to test how low you could get it is run one of the fresh water planted co2 kits.. and test the ph.. but it's irrelevant to the discussion on our oceans..

we'd have to see what the PH is where these shelled creatures and corals live, and see how much it would have to decrease to cause a problem with calcification. Most of our readings are surface readings.. which could be different at great depths.

Generally speaking for calcification to be an severly impacted I'd expect ocean ph levels would have to decrease by .5-1.. so at current rates 500-1,000 years? and I think lower than that would be death..

this might have the info you are looking for: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/4/chemistry

although it relates to corals, I expect any animal building a skeleton/shell out of calcium would be equally impacted... now one thing to keep in mind is human ph is around 7.4.. and we still build bones fine.. so.. there may be organisms that adapt and fill roles.. although.. i could be wrong about the bone development and ph in the human body.. my sister is an MD.. I guess I could ask her. online sources say it impacts bone density.. so.. maybe.

 

[aspen31]

I saw a Nat Geo video showing that co2 in the antarctic cools and falls to the ground, on the ice. With this concentrated acidity, and the low hardness of the ice, it burrows through the ice, and falls in strings of bubbles through the water, much cooler than the water. This is the beginning of the south to north current which brings water through the gulf stream and up to England and Norway. The video of the long strings of bubbles coming through the ice was very memorable.

Rick

 

[saf1]

Mother nature is pretty resilient shy of a Nuclear bomb. Even then look at the surrounding areas of Chernobyl and Fukushima or the fires in California a few years back. Life has a way of adapting and recovering.

.1 over 100 years? If that is correct nothing to lose sleep over.

 

[Gorgok]

fires in California a few years back.

Its again/still on fire, no?

 

[saf1]

Its again/still on fire, no?

Lol, yeah. That is true but I was talking about those back in 1988 I think it was. A lot of doom and gloom type concerns, probably rightly so, but it was pretty amazing what happened after.

 

[Timfish]

If you search the studies on what will happen as the pH falls the corals may actually do better with lower pH levels than they are currently. (Calcification is highest at pH 7.84, zooxanthellae and protein content can be higher at 7.5 than 8.1.) Looking at what happens when a reef is over fished is far scarier. On a healthy reef sharks is 80% of the fish biomass, remove them and everything goes down hill really fast. It can take just a few years for a reef to become overgrown with algae.

 

[Jeff4777]

Mother nature is pretty resilient shy of a Nuclear bomb. Even then look at the surrounding areas of Chernobyl and Fukushima or the fires in California a few years back. Life has a way of adapting and recovering.

.1 over 100 years? If that is correct nothing to lose sleep over.

Slow enough acclimation :fun4:

 

[ca1ore]

co2 is the latest boogeyman that isn't actually a huge deal...

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists don't agree with you - I'll take their expertise over yours, or mine. I think climate change is like believing in God: If you are a believer no evidence is necessary, if you are a non believer no evidence is enough.

According to a number of studies I have read, global temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1950. There's disagreement, of course, about how much more the planet can take before we're all screwed.

 

[ca1ore]

.1 over 100 years? If that is correct nothing to lose sleep over.

It's not correct.

It's my prediction that within the next 20 years climate change will be the most pressing and potentuially catastrophic issue we face; even if currently most people fail to realize it (or actively try to deny it).

Don't bother to argue, let's just wait and see (will RC still be around in 20 years?). I hope I'm wrong.

 

[ThRoewer]

... I think climate change is like believing in God: If you are a believer no evidence is necessary, if you are a non believer no evidence is enough.

...

I would have chosen "climate change denial" for the comparison above as it comes closer to the reality.

I think you should always err on the side of caution. Even if CO2 is turning out not to be a major issue, it's probably wise to cut back the emissions until you know for sure.
The climate change deniers are like someone who races on a unknown road with a blocked view on how it continues without slowing down - it could continue straight and everything will be fine, but there could also be a sharp turn an you will fly off the road.

So far all the evidence indicates that the observed rise in CO2 is man-made.
There are two major suspects:
1. Increased burning of fossil fuels. (All the data point to this one)
2. Deforestation, especially the alarming speed at which the rainforests around the world are cut down. (Here my concern would be less with CO2, but rather with habitat destruction and species extinction)

The oceans may be able to take up and bind a lot of CO2, though it may come at costs we can't yet foresee.

The real issue is that this whole issue has been politicized - started by those who have huge incentives to keep things as they are, and then by political parties to demonize their opponents.

We are now at a point where believes outweigh hard facts and arguments are pretty much pointless.

Economically change would likely be beneficial. It already brought us more energy efficient cars and appliances, which saves you money every day.
And if I had a house, I would put solar panels on my roof simply to be independent of the monopolistic power companies and protected from grid failures.

Also, business opportunities only come from change while stagnation favors big, change resistant corporations.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[saf1]

It's not correct.

It's my prediction that within the next 20 years climate change will be the most pressing and potentuially catastrophic issue we face; even if currently most people fail to realize it (or actively try to deny it).

Don't bother to argue, let's just wait and see (will RC still be around in 20 years?). I hope I'm wrong.

Highly doubt it. Just like any other prediction such has WWIII back when Regan was in office, stock market crash, major earthquake in CA, etc.

Sure, people and governments have an impact on the planet. Some more than others. The problem is that people can't have a civilized discussion without the person calling the other names when they disagree.

Anyone on this forum, who more than likely owns a saltwater aquarium, is impacting the Ocean. And let us not get into driving cars, gas or electric (because you have to generate electricity and heaven forbid of it go nuclear), or anything else we do in our day to day...

 

[ThRoewer]

The only thing I want to know is how high the ocean will rise precisely and how to speed it up - I want to buy some cheap land somewhere in the mountains and then have it turned into ocean front property quickly
(BTW: wasn't there a Bond movie with the same scheme...)

 

[saf1]

The only thing I want to know is how high the ocean will rise precisely and how to speed it up - I want to buy some cheap land somewhere in the mountains and then have it turned into ocean front property quickly
(BTW: wasn't there a Bond movie with the same scheme...)

I don't know about a Bond movie but there was a song by Tool...

Hmm...back to Bond. I think one of the more recent ones. Oh, Quantum Of Solace. That was it, that was water related.

 

[Butch01]

"Not believing in" climate change is sort of like not believing in gravity. It's not a matter of whether you believe it or not, it exists. As to the OP question, I think the earth's ecosystem is FAR too complex to narrow it down to changing the pH of the ocean (which in any event is not a consistent pH everywhere all the time anyway) will to X, Y, or Z. The answer is, we simply don't know. But I'm not willing to bet the future of the planet and every living thing on it that our current "take no prisoners" use of fossil fuels that the climate change deniers are right.