PH in the ocean?

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.

Ahh, now that makes sense. Yup, we spend a fortune on outer space, while ignoring our own planet. Though we do get to tap a very small crumb of that NASA budget occasionally when they want to train astronauts at Aquarius.

Tiki,

What sources do you have for stating changes of ocean acidification is happening much slower than claimed? Most legitimate scientific (i.e. not the media) sources I've seen suggest quite the opposite.
 
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

Hah! Ok, that's what I figured. ;)
 
I guess. I said what I believed, then I made a comment to exit the conversation, but it was brought back up.

Tiki,

The issue at hand is that you have made specific, detailed points about climate change and the environment. You are obviously not a scientist and there is nothing wrong with that. I applaud non-scientists getting in on the discussion. That is the way people learn.

The problem with your approach is that you did indeed cherry pick statements and provided no references for the sources of those statements. ANY statement about scientific 'fact' should always be suspect unless there are well established sources involved.

Your view of climate change is, sadly, not uncommon. I prefer to blame the media and their sensationalist headlines and accidental and PURPOSEFUL spread of misinformation. Social media is a prime suspect there as well.

As for the rest of us that may have a scientific background or are in fact scientists, like myself, it is on us to not overreact to posts from people that are just misinformed. It is OUR job to instruct and inform, but not be jerks about it. I ask that you consider that the next time you respond to someone on a climate change post.

TL : DR - Misinformation is a problem. Legitimate information sources are the solution. And, don't be a jerk about it. :wavehand:
 
In regards to pH fluctuation in the ocean, the pH IS dropping and CO2 in the atmosphere IS rising. This is just a basic, physical fact. See the Mona Loa Observatory for daily/historical atmospheric CO2 data.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

The ocean is the largest sink for atmospheric CO2. As we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, more of it ends up in the oceans. This, invariably, produces Carbonic Acid through the combination of CO2 and H2O. This is a physical fact. Undeniable. Irrefutable. The question everyone likes to point to is whether the rise in CO2 (and thus temperature) is our fault or whether it is related somehow to Milankovich Cycles (minute fluxuations in the Earth's orbit that cause the very slow rise and fall of global temperatures).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles (yes, wikipedia is a very good source for information)

Temperature aside, we were talking about ocean pH. A previous poster pointed out that pH in the oceans can vary more than the worst predicted long term pH changes. This is absolutely correct. The key here (as with any climate change topic) is a matter of rate. Consider a barrier reef, such as in Australia. We all know what tides are and what they do. They cause the local water level to rise and fall. When tides are low, you restrict water flow in shallow areas and can stop flow all together. All those critters living in that water are still respiring and pumping additional CO2 into the water. This can locally drop pH levels to relatively extreme levels. Sounds pretty bad, right? Well, it's not THAT bad. Over millions of years these organisms have found ways to cope with these short perturbations in pH. When the tide comes in, the bad water is flushed out, the pH returns to normal, and everyone is happy again.

Here's the problem. That was a SHORT time. The pH changes involved in wholesale ocean acidification may seem small (they are not because pH is a logarithmic scale http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/184ph.html), but these are long term changes that most organisms are not equipped to handle.

The other point that is often brought up in these discussions is that CO2 used to be higher in the past and pH lower and everything did just fine. That's absolutely true, but again it's a question of rate. Organisms have millions of years to adjust and change to deal with those very slow changing conditions. The Earth's organisms are not getting those millions of years this time. What happens when there are sudden (geologically speaking) changes in environmental conditions? We get an extinction event. There have been 5, that we know of, in Earth's history.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events)
What these all have in common is that they were all sudden, again, geologically speaking.

The change in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution has been staggering when compared to the normal change in CO2 throughout geologic history. This rate of change is only increasing as we burn fossil fuels. Much of that CO2 ends up in the oceans, causing increasing ocean acidification. This is a very real problem and will have very real consequences in the coming decades.

Here are a few papers/links that could be of interest for further reading.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification?
http://nuweb2.neu.edu/rieslab/Hoeni...e_Geologic_history_of_ocean_acidification.pdf
http://nuweb2.neu.edu/rieslab/Ries_2011_Nature_Climate_Change_Acid_Ocean_Cover_Up.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/418.full.pdf

Here is how I look at the overall climate change debate. We can try and do what we can about it and not ignore it. If climate scientists are wrong, all we have done is improve the world. If climate scientists are right, we may have saved our children and their children and so on down the line.

Lastly, I apologize if some of those articles are behind a paywall. I'm posting this from a university system, so I have access to most journals by default.
 
Yup, we spend a fortune on outer space,

FWIW, I consult on a Mars program, and the government doesn't let consultants like me charge my normal rate, so they are getting advice cheap. :D

That said, when we find aliens on Mars before they find us, you'll think it was money well spent. :D
 
Depends on what kind of water we find there. :)


Seymour, great posts. Thanks for the contributions and the time.
 
Here is how I look at the overall climate change debate. We can try and do what we can about it and not ignore it. If climate scientists are wrong, all we have done is improve the world. If climate scientists are right, we may have saved our children and their children and so on down the line.

This + a million

Even if we are dead wrong about what causes the temperature change, even if we are dead wrong about whether or not the temperature change is real, even if we are dead wrong about the whole thing...

It still doesn't hurt to clean things up.
 
I didn't say that, I said it's not happening as fast as we think.

Then that's exactly what you said.

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.

You do believe something that, frankly, is just not true. Evolution is a fact. It's as plain and simple as that. You can say, think, even believe a giraffe is a zebra. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a giraffe.

The fact that you think evidence is twisted and manipulated is a statement that highlights ignorance. That's not an insult; again, it's a statement of fact.

And it's a serious problem that 1) people think expertise is arrogance and 2) ignorance deserves the same status of gravity regarding topical discussion as does expertise on the topic. And, 3) that being called ignorant is an insult.
 
Maybe another view of expertise will help:
"So, what would happen if I showed up at a physics conference and said,"String theory is bogus. It doesn't resonate with me. It's not how I chose to view the universe at a small scale. I'm not a fan." (Laughter) Well, nothing would happen because I'm not a physicist; I don't understand string theory. I'm the Ted Bundy of string theory. (Laughter) I wouldn't want to belong to any string theory club that would have me as a member.

But this is just the point. Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise. That is what it is for knowledge to count." - Sam Harris

Climate change is happening and impacting the ocean life. Ocean acidification is happening and impacting ocean life. Why anyone who has kept a reef tank, who knows how sometimes even slight shifts in water chemistry can impact ocean life isn't on trying to deal with the problems of climate change and ocean acidification is stunning to me.

Even more stunning is how a reef keeper will add Marc Weiss products (or a plethora of magic in a bottle products' to their tank to save their animals based on some 'expert' testimony they found on the net, yet at the same time will discount the overwhelming understanding of people who are actually experts on climate change.
 
Honestly since everyone here is apocalyptic, and doing the whole EOTWAWKI thing, I'll stop bothering you. Good vibes only :D
 
Tiki can believe what he wants to believe. It's everyone's right. We all believe something different based on scientific evidence and our own observations. Just because someone doesn't believe those things that we know are true doesn't make them a bad person.

I understand the frustration. I feel it too. You just want to slap the crap out of someone until they wake up and understand it. Not everyone sees things as logical as we do. No matter how hard you try, some people just won't believe dinosaurs were real or that the earth is billions of years old. Just accept the fact that he doesn't seek the answers or he has his own set of answers that don't make sense to us because they cannot be proven or duplicated.

Maybe one day he will want to branch out and open his mind to a different way of thinking that's outside of the media/religious affiliations. I'm sure more than a few of us would be willing to help. Please don't take anything personal it's just a heated subject that gets frustrating when people won't acknowledge the facts at hand.
 
Some ppl think dinosaurs werent real? No offense to anyone..

But lets keep this friendly guys i started this thread jusr for info and respect any and all opinions.

You learn the most from taking in all sides
 
Please don't take anything personal it's just a heated subject that gets frustrating when people won't acknowledge the facts at hand.

I apologize for being frustrating, but we ALL have rights to our beliefs. (Btw, I believe dinosaurs were real! And they must have been freaking cool ;) )
 
Honestly since everyone here is apocalyptic, and doing the whole EOTWAWKI thing, I'll stop bothering you. Good vibes only :D

That is a terrible representation of what has been said in this discussion. It's like you have already made up your mind and are doing everything you can to not actually have a discussion about the various topics while trying to make yourself look and feel like you are taking the high road.

I apologize for being frustrating, but we ALL have rights to our beliefs.

This is a red herring. No one is saying you don't have the right to believe whatever you want. Discussing the topics and saying that you are wrong is in no way treading on your rights.
 
Then that's exactly what you said.



You do believe something that, frankly, is just not true. Evolution is a fact. It's as plain and simple as that. You can say, think, even believe a giraffe is a zebra. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a giraffe.

The fact that you think evidence is twisted and manipulated is a statement that highlights ignorance. That's not an insult; again, it's a statement of fact.

And it's a serious problem that 1) people think expertise is arrogance and 2) ignorance deserves the same status of gravity regarding topical discussion as does expertise on the topic. And, 3) that being called ignorant is an insult.

evolution is NOT a fact.....
 
Of course it is. That you disagree doesn't change that.

whether i agree or disagree is not relevent. ocean acidifacation is a fact, evolution is a theory...from wiki 'Thus, to say that evolution is not proven is trivially true,....'
 

Similar threads

Back
Top