The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[eckrynock]

You haven't answered my questions! Where did the CO2 go every 100,000 years in this graph? Maybe that's why Kalkbreath is on to something about temp. increasing CO2 levels instead of vice versa. It is easy to extrapolate a line after 130 years of data, what do you do with the 400,000 year graph?

You broke the rules.

 

[Kent E]

Folks, it simply doesn't matter.

Sooner or later this world by one means or another will be utterly obliterated. we cannot control the future, and you are delusional if you think we can. We have reefs now, we have tanks now, Enjoy them!

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7789962#post7789962 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
You haven't answered my questions! Where did the CO2 go every 100,000 years in this graph? Maybe that's why Kalkbreath is on to something about temp. increasing CO2 levels instead of vice versa. It is easy to extrapolate a line after 130 years of data, what do you do with the 400,000 year graph?

You broke the rules.

again to bring this back to my point, it's not that CO2 levels have not been higher or lower than they are now, its the RATE of change that is the dramatic difference. look at those graphs again and see how CO2 did rise, in 1000 years or more. we have dumped enough anthropogenic carbon into the carbon cycle to spike all of the numbers at a much faster RATE.

and to the point about the words if, appear....etc, you must understand. people such as scientists who think in rational thought understand that their ideas/conclusions/hypothesis are not going to be 100% correct ALL THE TIME. therfore as rational people, they include words such as appear, so as to allow fluctuations in their conclusions. not 180 degree turnarounds, but a reasonable margin of error.

 

[physicslord]

Man this thread has gotten boring. It's like watching C-Span.

 

[Tim the Stick]

Hmmm....

Didn't realy read the last 17 pages, but I like to stop and take sea water samples any time I'm near the Atlantic and Gulf. Old habit my dad got me into. Depending on the day, time, weather, I've gotten everything from 8.0 to 8.4 from Jersey to Alabamma and everywhere in between. Funny thing is, here in Detroit they say the same thing about Lake Erie. "Ohh, the chemical ballance is going away! We'll melt if we touch it!"

My father was one of the men responsible for Erie's "Great Orange Stripe" going from Great Lakes Steel in Ecorse to the St. Lawrence Seaway in the mid 1970's. Now he's got bone, lung, skin, and brain cancer and went from 240 lbs to a mere 85 and is hunkered over in a walker on a morphine drip. All this because of the "crap" going into the Detroit River that his company was dropping there that his company also made him test daily. His job: Energy and Environmental control.

We still take Erie samples to this day my father and I, although now only about once a month. You know what we've discovered when we graph out our collective data? In the past 35 years, 4 steel mills have closed, Great Lakes is at 1/3 capacity and dumps almost nothing these days, and the arrival of the dreaded Zebra Muscles... Erie hasn't changed chemicaly ONE BIT.

The PH has gone up and down almost .4 depending on where/when we take the samples and in most places the water has gotten murkier, not cleaner. The water level has gone up and down almost 3 1/2 feet in the last 6 years, the Walleye still taste the same, the Sturgeon are still there, the Pike still swim deep, the dumping into the river has gone down aprox. 500% and what IS dumped now is so well screened it's cleaner than rain water runoff....

And nothing's changed. Not one thing in 35 years. From the Orange Stripe that you could see from space to the "cleanest the Lakes have been in a century" (according to the EPA), we still get the same readings. Now how is that when the EPA says "today's data shows it's the best it's been since 1800", and our data shows nothing's changed in 35 years.

Bottom line. This is the earth. It's entire existance is based on CHANGE, not ideal parameters. The earth responds to stimuli and figures out how to deal with it. There's a 1/2 a million people taking readings every day, but I've never seen a collecive data share by everyone who's ever taken a water sample graphed over the last 100 years.. It's all "he said, she said".

The last I checked, the water off Boca Raton was at 8.3. Ft. Lauderdale was 8.2. That was New Years Day this year.

Believe your OWN research. When everyone in the worlds books ALL get put together in one big report, I'll make sure I send my data in as well.

 

[Tim the Stick]

Ohh, and to answer the question posed:

"The CO2 levels and temp increases are measurements, not speculation. The amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere every year is known, it's not a guess. Do you think all that CO2 disappears?"

Yes, all that CO2 disappears. Speaking as someone holding a degree in Bio-Chemistry, CO2 disapears on a molecular level when it is consumed by organisms that utilize that molecule in the construction of compounds neccessary to sustain life.

It doesn't disapear...

We eat it, build decks out of it, use it as the foundation for the funiture you're sitting on, and mow it with a toro. High CO2 levels stimulate plant growth. Want to bring back the rainforest faster? Drive a big block.

Fact.

(Now, let's not get into the creation of NOx... That one we can't get rid of. Thus, why I'm now an engineer! Working to make the semi truck less NOx capable... What a life.)

 

[Kalkbreath]

There is little question that C02 levels have increased during the past 200 years.
But what if temperatures world wide are not really increasing?
And what do the records of the past 100 years show?
What my side of the fence doesn't understand is that temp records taken in places like the USA and in the upper atmosphere around the world (by NASA) Data collectors have not found the "Warming trend" which the Global warming crowd seems to holdfast to.
Here in the USA and in places like Europe, there is a long record of daily temperature readings which date back a hundred plus years.
Hundreds of Cities and thousands of daily readings to work from.


North America has actually found itself in a cooling trend since 1940s.
The record is complete and non debatable.

If it's the United States which is responsible for the Majority of C02 emissions and for global warming, we as a nation seems to be experiencing the opposite of what a greenhouse gasses are supposed to induce.

The people who wish for you to believe that the earth has warmed .6 degrees, want you to relay on short term data collected in places which just recently began the collection of daily temperature data.

Why was this Global warming thing not discovered until the 1990s?

Many of the places which have reported this newfound warming trend are in areas of the world which have experienced a large amount of localized development like Forrest clearing and urban growth in the building of cities. These changes do lead to localized micro climate increases (i.e., temperature changes ), but this is not because of any world wide accumulation of Green house gasses, it simply arises from turning a green lush jungle into a concrete one.

The term "Global Cooling" in the 1970s was a real position of the Scientific community.
This position was based on the fact that the earth was experiencing a trend downward in temperature.
Why would the interpretation of the same fifty year cooling trend )data) suddenly reveal an about face warming trend?

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7790842#post7790842 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tim the Stick
Erie hasn't changed chemicaly ONE BIT.

Besides pH, what have you tested?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7790859#post7790859 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tim the Stick
Ohh, and to answer the question posed:

"The CO2 levels and temp increases are measurements, not speculation. The amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere every year is known, it's not a guess. Do you think all that CO2 disappears?"

Yes, all that CO2 disappears. Speaking as someone holding a degree in Bio-Chemistry, CO2 disapears on a molecular level when it is consumed by organisms that utilize that molecule in the construction of compounds neccessary to sustain life.

It doesn't disapear...

We eat it, build decks out of it, use it as the foundation for the funiture you're sitting on, and mow it with a toro. High CO2 levels stimulate plant growth. Want to bring back the rainforest faster? Drive a big block.

Fact.

Of course CO2 becomes assimilated into organisms, but it's not the immediate, complete, perfect sink you believe it is that will offset the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

The comment about bringing back the rainforests faster with increased CO2 is a complete fallacy that was brought up earlier in this thread.

 

[HippieSmell]

Kalkbreath, I know where you're getting that 'data'. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's junk. I enjoyed your fishing theory, why don't you try and develop that some more?

 

[Kalkbreath]

All science is "junk" Thats why I like to form my own interpretations.
I fully understand why few follow with my position on Ocean outgassing and how the removal of marine life may have cause increased out gassing.
But temperature records are not subject to much interpretation.
The temp records for north America, much of Europe, Antarctica, north pole dont show a warming trend.

The record keeping of thousands of weathermen for the past 100 years cant be manipulated because its been set in stone each year as its written down .

What part of the NASA upper atmosphere records do you disagree with? In a place where C02 should have the greatest effect (little water vapor) the poles and upper atmosphere seem to buff the notion.

It seems that only certain places of the earth are claiming a warming trend. (tropics)Those locations are suspect and are being given too much weight at the end of the hockey stick.

One way to double check temperature Data is to compare published records that were compiled prior to the modern Global warming theme.
Look at collections published prior to 1980s and you will see there was no interpretations which pointed to a warming trend.
Its also interesting how as we move further away from 1998 (spike).....
The cooling trend seems to have resumed its course.(2000-2006)

Yet the "warming" crowd seems unaffected?

 

[Architect1]

This happens all the time take the worlds history its nothing unusual. That’s why its ed evaluation nature will adjust its self like it has of the billions of years its been hear.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7793226#post7793226 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Architect1
This happens all the time take the worlds history its nothing unusual.

Explain how this is usual.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7792785#post7792785 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
All science is "junk" Thats why I like to form my own interpretations.
I fully understand why few follow with my position on Ocean outgassing and how the removal of marine life may have cause increased out gassing.
But temperature records are not subject to much interpretation.
The temp records for north America, much of Europe, Antarctica, north pole dont show a warming trend.

The record keeping of thousands of weathermen for the past 100 years cant be manipulated because its been set in stone each year as its written down .

What part of the NASA upper atmosphere records do you disagree with? In a place where C02 should have the greatest effect (little water vapor) the poles and upper atmosphere seem to buff the notion.

It seems that only certain places of the earth are claiming a warming trend. (tropics)Those locations are suspect and are being given too much weight at the end of the hockey stick.

One way to double check temperature Data is to compare published records that were compiled prior to the modern Global warming theme.
Look at collections published prior to 1980s and you will see there was no interpretations which pointed to a warming trend.
Its also interesting how as we move further away from 1998 (spike).....
The cooling trend seems to have resumed its course.(2000-2006)

Yet the "warming" crowd seems unaffected?

Saying all science is 'junk' is a silly, silly statement. Not all science is 'junk', if you believe that, then you haven't been exposed to good science.

I don't know where you're getting your info (and that makes me suspicious), but the majority of the warming has been in the poles, and there is no current cooling trend.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Your ocean outgassing questions deserves a reply, and it will answer some of eckrynock's questions as well. The ocean does outgass CO2 and other compounds such as CH4. But, the ocean is NOT an overall source of these gasses, at least not at the moment. The ocean does fluctuate, and the amount of CO2 it 'sinks' per year can change. Warmer oceans will tend to outgass a little more, while cooler oceans sink a little more (what happens when there are ice ages?). There are other factors in global warming and cooling besides people (as can be seen in the historic record) and CO2 levels, which you are all aware of. The current understanding is that a 'triggering' event is responsible for warming, and is likely because of the sun and earth's orbit. This fluctuation INITIATES a warming. This initial warming triggers an increase in atmospheric CO2 because water (and soil) can't absorb as much CO2 at higher temperatures. This creates what is known as a feedback loop. Higher temps release more CO2, which in turn raises the temp. This eventually peaks, and I would imagine the CO2 slowly gets locked up in plants, other organisms, soil, oceans, etc, and the temp slowly falls. Then it starts all over. If that doesn't make sense, then tell me.

The warming and cooling trend throughout recent (relatively) history is usually like what I described. There are notable exceptions. It is important to understand the feedback loop, as this is what carries the warming past what would be experienced with simple orbital and solar fluctuations.

I'm pretty sure I got all that right, but if I messed up, please tell me.

 

[Kalkbreath]

This graph has been a hot topic .http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig
It is based on Surface records.(could surface data be wrong?)
Satellite data shows a vastly different story.(from 1979 forward.)
Which set of records would be the most error proof?
Humans with thermometors in third worlds counties or Satellites?
"The `surface record' comprises the combined average of thousands of thermometers world-wide in every country, recording temperatures in standard white louvred boxes called Stevenson Screens, usually mounted one metre above the ground. The boxes are mostly placed where there are suitable people to read and maintain them, such as at post offices in town/city centres, airports, pilot stations, lighthouses, radio/tv stations, farms, and cattle stations. By far the majority are located in towns and cities.
While the surface record was registering a global warming of +0.4°C between 1979 and the present, the satellite MSU record was showing a quite different trend. It was also showing a warming, but less than +0.1°C, not the +0.4°C claimed for the surface. Even this small trend was not evenly spread across the full 21 years, nor was it truly global. Instead it resulted from the warmth of 1998 caused by the big El Niño of 1997-98. Up to that time, the satellites were actually registering a slight global cooling.
Even more puzzling was that the MSU record was not diverging from the surface record everywhere. Instead, the two records were in close agreement over North America, Western Europe and Australia, the very regions where the station records were properly collected and maintained. Elsewhere, the surface and satellites diverged, the surface record showing a significant warming, while the MSU was showing an almost neutral trend."
If the satellites are wrong , why would they only become inaccurate in certain areas of the world?
The biggest differences between the two records [12] occur in -

1) A broad band over the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia
2) West Africa
3) Central Brazil
4) Polynesia
5) Pacific Ocean east of Mexico
6) Northeastern Siberia

Clearly, these are not the regions where we have reliable, consistent, and well maintained surface records, and it is hardly credible to associate the divergence between the satellite and surface records to natural causes, when the `natural causes' are so selective as to avoid the well-monitored populated areas in OECD countries. Southeast Asia has been so racked by war and political upheaval in the 20th century that its records lack continuity and consistency. Tropical stations in Malaysia and Indonesia show warming, while Darwin and Willis Island in Australia, both tropical stations in the same region, do not.

I also checked thirty to fifty of the individual records for the north and south poles :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=700896060008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
I fail to see how the compiled graph can conclude what it claims.
Go ahead and read the individual station data for yourself?
If polar warming was such a big event , one would think it would not be so hard to find individual data stations to support so.
Vostok Base, Antarctica. This is a Russian base deep in the Antarctic continent at the top of the ice plateau,
3,420 metres above sea level. Vostok holds the dubious distinction of having recorded the coldest
temperature ever measured on Earth, -89.2 deg C. in 1983. (1983 was a `warm' year globally). Data to 1999

 

[justinzimm]

Kalk,

If you're going to cut and paste your threads from sites like www.john-daly.com either let us know or don't bother. 90% of your posts (going back a few) are copied verbatim from other peoples work. The last one came from: http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm I can't tell you're trying to pass these ideas along as your own or just don't want to reference john-daly.com.

 

[Tim the Stick]

Originally posted by Tim the Stick
Erie hasn't changed chemicaly ONE BIT.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Besides pH, what have you tested?




My dad and I grab 2 - 5 gallon buckets on each sample run, usually about once a month, sometimes every other month if we were busy. Exactly the same way he used to grab them at the mill before he went on medical retirement. Toss them out on a 100 foot rope with a big old lasso style toss, drag them in, cap them off, then run the tests right there on the dock.

We tested for:

PH
Alkalinity
Iron
Molybdenum
Calcium
Phosphate
Strontium
Nitrate
Nitrite
Sulfur
Carbonic's (and the acidics and components)
Copper
Lead (and ions of)
Magnesium
Manganese
Aluminum (and "-"ates)
Silicates
Radioactivity

Lets see.... I think that's about it.

My dad's data is complete since before I was born 30 years ago. He goes back all the way to 1971 when the EPA first stepped in to start regulating the dumps and the total emission output at great lakes steel. Basically, ALL of the EPA test data you see on the Detroit River from this time period was done by him, and or by one of the guys he worked with every day and then compared to his data for accuracy or "number skewing" (ie, the corporation trying to claim the water was better/worse than it was. Such as skew a # high, install “x” scrubbing device, then give the real # as “look at how much cleaner it is now that we installed “x thing”.) Yup, that's right, a steel worker in charge of dumping who gave a damn about what he was doing. He volunteered to do it with one of his buddies who was also fresh out of college and got a job with the EPA, both MSU graduates, and both hot rod nuts.

When I was born, he, my grandfather, and little old me would head down to the Ecorse fishing pier and have a burger at the greasy spoon that's changed names 20 times in 30 years and grab 2 - 5 gallon buckets of water. We'd run the tests, then go collect up stream of there off the Zug Island bridge area, then down to Wyandotte pier, then past McLouth steel in the Grosse Isle channel off Trenton's Elizabeth park.

40 gallons, grabbed from the same 4 spots for 35 years. Ohh, forgot to mention Walleye and crappie fishing along the way (the real reason we were there). 1 page of data for each bucket, all put in a ring binder and averaged at the beginning of the ice flow in winter. Start again in spring.

In the 4th grade I really started getting into it and did a science fair project on the testing we had been doing all these years. When I posted up the data and presented my report, I won the schools over-all first place. Went to district and won there too. Then off to regional's... And the most amazing and single most insulting thing that anyone's ever said to my dad and I at the same time happened. The regional judge said "Look, if you're going to make up a story like this at least have the common courtesy to not drag your son into it. We're trying to NOT warp the minds of our school children with fictitious make believe. Everyone knows the Detroit River is more polluted than this, and everyone knows the water's gotten better since 1971 (it was 84-85 at the time). I can't believe you'd put a project together like this for your kid, then try and enter it into a science fair. I'm a man of science and I know better, he doesn't." I punched him right in the balls, cried, folded up my project and ran out. “I” did that project. I took the samples, did the dropper tests, wrote it all down, catalogued it, presented it, used my dad’s data from previous 13 years to show the pattern, and then had my dad called a liar and a cheat in front of me. Because of that, I haven’t stopped taking samples since, just to prove WE WERE RIGHT all along, and that we forgot MORE about science yesterday than that science fair dickhead will ever know. Amazing how an event like that early in life can trigger long term obsessive behavior isn’t it?

Since he's been really sick this spring/summer we haven’t gotten a single bucket out. We got out 8 last year in 2 trips, but he’s too sick to head to the docks anymore.

If anyone wants I can run down the highlights and/or scan and paste up the data pages.

Anyone interested? Or will it be 6 hours wasted?

 

[HippieSmell]

Interesting story. So, what is the official conclusion of the EPA regarding the Detroit River? Do they agree with you and say that it was never polluted and is the same today as it was in the 70's, or do they agree with the science-fair judge and believe it was polluted but has since been cleaned up?

I commend you for continuing to take samples after all these years. Have you shared your recent results with the EPA?

BTW, I'm sorry about your dad. I send him my regards.

 

[RobbyG]

Wow Tim I applaud you, it's comforting to know we have people like you and your Dad out there checking to make sure that the government is not lying to us. Wish we had more people doing this world wide, maybe the world would not be in the state it is in today.

 

[Kalkbreath]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7796092#post7796092 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by justinzimm
Kalk,

If you're going to cut and paste your threads from sites like www.john-daly.com either let us know or don't bother. 90% of your posts (going back a few) are copied verbatim from other peoples work. The last one came from: http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm I can't tell you're trying to pass these ideas along as your own or just don't want to reference john-daly.com.

Sorry I have been using the (") to contain quotes of others.
The quotes are connected to the charts I link to .
I did not make the charts either.
I avoid divulging the source of certain perspectives as an attempt to let the issues stand on their own.(all too often an idea is dismissed based on who said it) Not knowing who said it can at tiimes leave the readers mind in a more receptive mode.
Does the scientific process change based on who wrote it down?
Thats why I point out its up to the reader to examine the data for themselves and not to take anyone's world on its face value.

Like just exactly how did these researchers come to the conclusion that the Oceans pH is down? and why did we listen without any data to back it up?

We can't even agree if the earth has warmed .4 or not in the past 200 years , even with the vast amount of data contained in surface, Balloon, Satellite, ice core and tree rings readings from around the world over the past 100 years.

.......As I turn up the bubble count on my reef's Kalkreactor, I cant help but wonder if this is much to do about nothing?
Its 87 degrees and the pH is 8.1 , yet I have to pune the Acros weekly and the baby snails seem to grow just fine inspite of the current Oceanic conditions in this captive ocean.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7798230#post7798230 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
Thats why I point out its up to the reader to examine the data for themselves and not to take anyone's world on its face value.

Like just exactly how did these researchers come to the conclusion that the Oceans pH is down? and why did we listen without any data to back it up?

We can't even agree if the earth has warmed .4 or not in the past 200 years , even with the vast amount of data contained in surface, Balloon, Satellite, ice core and tree rings readings from around the world over the past 100 years.

You didn't post any more data than anyone else. It was still an interpretation of the data. Besides, even if you did post the ACTUAL data, who on this board has the education to interpret it? I know I don't. That's why we rely on scientists in climatology, not some random person who makes a website.

The methods used to determine the decrease in pH was discussed earlier, wasn't it? This thread is getting long, lol.

Why can't we determine if Earth has warmed over the past 200 years? That is the easiest period to measure.

Regardless, there hasn't been one piece of evidence to disprove AGW (or the anthro dropping of ocean pH) posted in this thread (or anywhere else for that matter). But, I hope this thread stays alive, because I think it is a very important discussion. Thanks to RC for leaving it open.

If there are questions, I would be happy to regurgitate what I know (not that I'm an expert).