PH in the ocean?

[thenewguy997]

After reading some biology ive seen how ph changes can erode nutrients and cause acid rain and kill trees etc.

What about in the ocean? Is pollution affecting ph there as well?

 

[Illhaveanother]

Not sure ,but I know that phytoplankton are absorbing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases trapped in our atmosphere , making are oceans more acidic.

 

[billsreef]

Not sure ,but I know that phytoplankton are absorbing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases trapped in our atmosphere , making are oceans more acidic.

Not quite accurate. Phyotplankton taking up CO2 do not acidify the ocean. However, the ocean absorbing CO2 is causing ocean acidification.

 

[GreshamH]

Not quite accurate. Phyotplankton taking up CO2 do not acidify the ocean. However, the ocean absorbing CO2 is causing ocean acidification.

Go one step further... Phyto uptaking CO2 is sequestering the CO2. The non sequestered CO2 is one of the factors of oceanic acidification

 

[billsreef]

Go one step further... Phyto uptaking CO2 is sequestering the CO2. The non sequestered CO2 is one of the factors of oceanic acidification

Indeed. Add in declining sea grass beds, reduction in marshlands and mangroves...leading to reduction in the environments ability to sequester CO2...

 

[GreshamH]

Oh touche

 

[billsreef]

:lol:

 

[Tiki God]

Has anyone honestly taken time to in-depth research the greenhouse effect and "global warming"? I have, and it's more media hype than anything else. Here are a few things against it.

1. Something that keeps coming up is the "we are burning more fossil fuels, that's adding C02, warming the earth" idea, but it isn't. The earth goes through temperature cycles, and since 1997 the average temperature has been the same.

2. People say is the "ice at the poles is shrinking" well it's not. Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012.

3. Almost all of the "average global temperatures since so and so" readings you see are land based measurements. That's averaging 30% of the Earth's surface, than applying that to the globe? Seems very un-scientific to me.

4. Climate models are showing that the theory is wrong. Here it is in the words of Dr. Roy Spencer.

"Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

--

Basically, the greenhouse is real, or we would not be here. But I believe (as well as a petition signed by over 15,000 scientists) that global warming is not happening right now at all.

If it's not happening, the oceans are being acidified slower than we thought. I am not coming close to saying we shouldn't protect reefs and our oceans, but we shouldn't be as worried as the media says we should be.

 

[GreshamH]

I have and I highly suspect Bill has as well.

The acidifcation of the ocean is real, how it happened aside, if you think its not, please tell that to the shellfish producers whom have a very hard time having settlement and larvalculture issues using NSW. This has only come about in the last 10 years. I work in aquaculture, not only do I see the countless reports, I deal directly with those effected. For us its a boon as the best way to not to deal with pH issues of NSW in flow through systems, is to close the systems off and feed our products to the shellfish.

 

[galleon]

Hi, I'm actually a real, live climate scientist, one of those not-so-mythical creatures you may have heard about. To thenewguy997, this link might be of interest.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification?

To Tiki: despite how it is often portrayed by a variety of public media, anthropogenic climate change is not 1) controversial 2) political or 3) financially motivated.

 

[billsreef]

Tiki,

You might want to look at actual scientific papers. Also look at a longer time line, don't cherry pick starting points like 1997 or 2012 in order to skew data to fit your argument. Another interesting thing is to look critically at that petition your referring too, it's a combination of scientists who have zero background in the subject matter and scientists who were rather surprised to find their names listed it. In other words, that petition is highly circumspect. If you start talking to large numbers of people that actually do climate and ocean research, you'll find an overwhelming of acceptance of what you seem to think is media hype.

BTW while there has been some recent increase in ice surface area coverage in the Arctic, it's also thinner than it as been historically. So less ice mass overall.

 

[CHSUB]

Has anyone honestly taken time to in-depth research the greenhouse effect and "global warming"? I have, and it's more media hype than anything else. Here are a few things against it.

1. Something that keeps coming up is the "we are burning more fossil fuels, that's adding C02, warming the earth" idea, but it isn't. The earth goes through temperature cycles, and since 1997 the average temperature has been the same.

2. People say is the "ice at the poles is shrinking" well it's not. Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012.

3. Almost all of the "average global temperatures since so and so" readings you see are land based measurements. That's averaging 30% of the Earth's surface, than applying that to the globe? Seems very un-scientific to me.

4. Climate models are showing that the theory is wrong. Here it is in the words of Dr. Roy Spencer.

"Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies "œhave failed miserably." Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models "œhave over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)."

--

Basically, the greenhouse is real, or we would not be here. But I believe (as well as a petition signed by over 15,000 scientists) that global warming is not happening right now at all.

If it's not happening, the oceans are being acidified slower than we thought. I am not coming close to saying we shouldn't protect reefs and our oceans, but we shouldn't be as worried as the media says we should be.

you need to stop watching FOX NEWS!!!!!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The thread was initially about pH, not temperature. There's no need to drag in a political debate to a scientific question.

Whether global warming is due to man or not, CO2 addition to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and the increase in measured CO2 in the air is debated by no one who has any sort of knowledge. Even Fox news probably only disputes that really late at night when scientists are all sleeping.

The drop in seawater pH from that CO2 is easily measured in a basic lab, or just calculated for accepted chemical principles. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will drop the pH of seawater equilibrated with it by about 0.3 pH units.

FWIW, I discuss the relationship between pH and CO2 in these articles:

Low pH: Causes and Cures
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-09/rhf/index.htm

High pH: Causes and Cures
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-03/rhf/index.htm

 

[thenewguy997]

Thank you for the helpful links guys.

Im just a college bio student trying to learn about the REAL world not some media hype scare tactics.

If phytoplankton do play a role in absorbing, then I wonder if creatures that feed on phyto also absorb the bad chemicals?

I wish biologists would investigate this stuff more. I mean, maybe they do. But I just dont see or hear about large funding to discover why giant squids are so rare or why sea stars are melting. Im also uninformed so maybe someone can revoke that statement, but the more we all know about our oceans and the world the better!

On a scary note, lets say hypothetically the ocean is getting more and more polluted, more variance in water params (no scientific data to back this up just a hypothetical) WELL what if it just builds up so much that the natural buffers are outweighed and a huge swing in params happens. PH down or up 5 points. We are talking about massive extinction here. This would ofcourse take millions of years.

 

[billsreef]

I wish biologists would investigate this stuff more. I mean, maybe they do. But I just dont see or hear about large funding to discover why giant squids are so rare or why sea stars are melting. Im also uninformed so maybe someone can revoke that statement, but the more we all know about our oceans and the world the better!

Plenty of biologists wanting to study this stuff, funding though is the hard part. Considering how much of the planet is covered in ocean, and how much of our food still comes from the ocean, and the environmental considerations that mean we are all tied into the health of the ocean, and it's amazing how little funding is available.

 

[Tiki God]

I didn't ask to be insulted guys, just shared my non-evolutionist, non-appacolyptic, beliefs. Thanks for your opinions :wave:

 

[galleon]

Pointing out reality isn't insulting.

 

[SloppyJ]

I didn't ask to be insulted guys, just shared my non-evolutionist, non-appacolyptic, beliefs. Thanks for your opinions :wave:

I can assume you have no science background. Thanks for playing. :headwally:

 

[Tiki God]

I can assume you have no science background. Thanks for playing. :headwally:

I may not, but just being a scientist doesn't entitle you to any rights and doesn't mean any non-scientist is "unworthy" of participating in a discussion on global issues. Global warming and ocean acidification are possible, yes, but is it happening as quickly as "scientists" say? Not even close.

 

[galleon]

Are we really doing this?