PH in the ocean?

I guess. I said what I believed, then I made a comment to exit the conversation, but it was brought back up.
 
Global warming and ocean acidification are possible, yes, but is it happening as quickly as "scientists" say? Not even close.

I'm confused. Ignoring the temperature sideshow, you are doubting ocean acidification is happening as fast as what? Is it a future prediction of ocean pH you are commenting on? Whose prediction?

I almost never hear anyone doubt the CO2/pH connection, nor are such predictions often discussed in most media. Just want to be sure I understand what you are claiming. It has nothing to do with global warming.
 
Are we really doing this?

Yes, let's. Please. It will be fun to watch!

Seriously though, an intelligent, science based discussion will hopefully be instructive to some. We really need to move the dialogue forward from "whether" to "how can we stop this before the earth becomes uninhabitable to a large human population" (assuming of course we want the earth to support a few billion humans, which is another discussion altogether)
 
I guess. I said what I believed, then I made a comment to exit the conversation, but it was brought back up.

So you choose to believe all of the chemistry and physics we know about CO2 and the ocean are incorrect? What is your basis for this belief?

Exiting the conversation is far from ideal, if you open your mind you might learn something. You have a belief. I am a scientific expert on the matter. Do you see the discrepancy here? If you had cancer, would you believe something about cancer that was directly opposite to what a an oncologist would tell you about your cancer? Why? The oncologist is an expert.

This is especially puzzling on a coral reef keeping website, where conservation of the organisms we care about requires an understanding of inorganic carbon and carbonate

Randy, you referred to warming as political and a sideshow, am I getting a vibe you are skeptical of anthropogenic warming? I sincerely hope not.
 
Randy, you referred to warming as political and a sideshow, am I getting a vibe you are skeptical of anthropogenic warming?

:lol:

No, not at all. I was referring to his diversion of the thread into a global warming discussion as a sideshow to the pH issue that was being discussed. I think he may have thought them to be a package deal, where if one is true the other must be. But that isn't so. I just wanted to make that clear, and possibly have him reconsider whether he has actually ever seen anyone challenge the acidification of the oceans as happening because of CO2.

I've frankly have never seen such a thing that I can recall, but perhaps I don't pay enough attention to the right sources. :D
 
I've frankly have never seen such a thing that I can recall, but perhaps I don't pay enough attention to the right sources. :D

I expect the lack of such in regards to ocean acidification has to do more with very few outside the field marine science even seeming to pay attention to the subject.
 
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.

You mean like ~$18B?
 
As far an NW shell fish and acidification.
The west coast of the U.S. has always had on shore up-welling do to the predominate on shore winds.
The pacific oyster crassostreas gigas is native to Japan and was introduce to the west coast because the native oysters were struggling from the pollution caused by pulp production. The pacific oyster is hardier but does not naturally spawn well in,our colder and more acidic waters caused by the up welling of co2 saturated water.
This problem with NW shell fish is species specific to Crassostre gigas and oyster growers have always depended on hatcheries for their spat. they used to get their spat directly from Japan.
This crisis is exaggerated as are most looming climate catastrophes.
The pH of the ocean is not stable and fluctuates just like our tanks. On most reefs the fluctuation is greater on a daily basis than the predicted 100 year lowering of pH.
 
You can't really point to problems with an introduced species not naturally taking to it's introduced area as a example of something not being a problem...it's like comparing apples to peanuts.
 
So you choose to believe all of the chemistry and physics we know about CO2 and the ocean are incorrect? I didn't say that, I said it's not happening as fast as we think. What is your basis for this belief?

Exiting the conversation is far from ideal, if you open your mind you might learn something. You have a belief. I am a scientific expert on the matter. Do you see the discrepancy here? If you had cancer, would you believe something about cancer that was directly opposite to what a an oncologist would tell you about your cancer? Why? The oncologist is an expert.

But how does arrogantly saying "I'm an expert" prove anything? And yes I would. Evolution is a great example, I don't believe it because I don't buy into twisted and manipulated evidence to prove a hypothesis. I'm a creationist, and I personally think that method of thinking explains things much better than evolution could ever do. But back to reefs, I believe differently than most do on these subjects because I don't want to believe something that, frankly, is just not true.

This is especially puzzling on a coral reef keeping website, where conservation of the organisms we care about requires an understanding of inorganic carbon and carbonate

Randy, you referred to warming as political and a sideshow, am I getting a vibe you are skeptical of anthropogenic warming? I sincerely hope not.
 
Last edited:
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.

Funding of ~18B from whom?

NFS? Hardly... not even close to a single billion
Sea Grant? hardly... I think they hit a 1.7M mark last year

Whose got that type of funding for marine research, and how do I tap into it?

Care to cite a source for that figure?

I believe that my point was lost that was what could be done with that much funding regarding marine research. The ~$18B was NASA's budget so if Bill wants to get in on it he will have to travel to another planet to get that kind of funding.

I am well aware of the differences between funding levels.

Do I still have to provide a source or are we good? I am sure NASA, the White House, and every space related website could be a source.
 
On most reefs the fluctuation is greater on a daily basis than the predicted 100 year lowering of pH.

Even if that were true, if the low end of the fluctuation is moving downward and enters the zone where calcium carbonate skeletons dissolve, you don't see that as a concern?

There is a big difference between seawater at pH 8 and seawater at pH 7.5. It moves past the critical pH for such dissolution.
 
Back
Top