The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[MCary]

I am way too deep into this debate, sorry. Its Friday afternoon and I'm bored and ready to go home. Thanks all for keeping me entertained. I like intelligent conversation.

Okay, having said that. Its time for a math lesson. We debate back and forth about what data is interpreted and how, but math doesn't lie.

Anthropogenic contribution to green house effect.

First water vapor is 95% of green house effect. 99.999% of which is natural in origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Since CO2 is 99.44% of green house gas, lets stay there for easy figgurin. The baseline CO2 concentration is 288,000 ppb (parts per BILLION). That's the amount pre-inductrial age. Now its 368,400 ppb. An increase of 80,400 ppb. of this 68,520 ppb are natural additions. That leaves, 11,880 ppb that is anthropogenic.

Okay, 11,880/368,400= 3.207% of CO2 is anthropogenic.

Now if we include water vapor, then the total contribution to global warming caused by CO2 is 3.618% and of that 3.207% is man made. So the total contribution of man to the green house effect by CO2 emmissions is 0.112%.

Adding other green house gases the total amount is 0.28% of green house effect is caused by man. Now I just need Algore to double check my figures.

Mike

 

[HippieSmell]

Where are you getting these numbers?

*Edit* never mind, I found comparable numbers.

 

[Aj_999]

Couldn't that extra CO2 in the atmosphere raise the temperature enough to melt some areas of permafrost, which then would release even more greenhouse gases like methane?

 

[RobbyG]

There use to be a time when I would get impressed by numbers like these, now they mean nothing!

I don't need any numbers to tell me that the earths atmosphere the Land and the sea have changed rapidly in the last 20 years, I can see the layer of dust in the air, the one that Hazes my view of mountains that I use to see clearly 20 years ago. The Reefs I dived on as a boy are now dead and many of the small streams I swam in have dried up, my father tells me stories of how him and his father swam in them, and now they are not there for my children. I basicaly have given up on the environment, people are going to keep on doing what they feel like doing, nothing will change them even if the proof is right in front of them!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7699583#post7699583 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I am way too deep into this debate, sorry. Its Friday afternoon and I'm bored and ready to go home. Thanks all for keeping me entertained. I like intelligent conversation.

Okay, having said that. Its time for a math lesson. We debate back and forth about what data is interpreted and how, but math doesn't lie.

Anthropogenic contribution to green house effect.

First water vapor is 95% of green house effect. 99.999% of which is natural in origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Since CO2 is 99.44% of green house gas, lets stay there for easy figgurin. The baseline CO2 concentration is 288,000 ppb (parts per BILLION). That's the amount pre-inductrial age. Now its 368,400 ppb. An increase of 80,400 ppb. of this 68,520 ppb are natural additions. That leaves, 11,880 ppb that is anthropogenic.

Okay, 11,880/368,400= 3.207% of CO2 is anthropogenic.

Now if we include water vapor, then the total contribution to global warming caused by CO2 is 3.618% and of that 3.207% is man made. So the total contribution of man to the green house effect by CO2 emmissions is 0.112%.

Adding other green house gases the total amount is 0.28% of green house effect is caused by man. Now I just need Algore to double check my figures.

Mike

 

[blufish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7698367#post7698367 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Robby, you seem awfully concerned about the Ozone depletion. Maybe I can ease your anx a little.

Depletion of the ozone layer has no effect on the risk of deadly skin cancers. The ozone layer blocks UV-B radiation, but it does not block UV-A radiation. UV-A radiation has been linked to malignant melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. UV-B has been linked to only two types of skin cancer, neither of which is life-threatening.

Source:

"Myths and Facts About the Environment -- Part II: The Hole in the Ozone Layer," The National Center for Public Policy Research, Contact: David Ridenour @ 202/543-4110, e-mail: EarthDay@nationalcenter.org, Web:

I hope that makes you feel better.

Mike

Ok, I took the bait and looked up this reference. The National Center for Public Policy Research is a self-described conservative think tank. I looked up the article in question and this is what it said:

Myth: Loss of the Earth's protective ozone layer will result in an increase in cancer deaths.

Fact: Malignant melanoma, a deadly form of cancer, is linked to UV-A radiation, which is not blocked by the ozone layer. UV-B rays are blocked by ozone, but have no impact on the incidence of melanoma. Source: "Talking Points on the Economy - Environment Series," The National Center For Public Policy Research.[/B]

Notice that the reference that it gives for this "information" is another article by the same think tank. They do not quote a primary source. I will not yet comment on how sloppy this research is.

So, going back further and looking article "Talking Points on the Economy - Environmental Series" which is listed as the source for the UV-B/Melanoma information, we find that there are no direct sources given for this information. Once again, sloppy research.

There are general sources listed at the end of the article. Here's what it says:

Information from: Dr. S. Fred Singer in Chemical and Engineering News, July 12, 1993; "The Ozone Crisis" by Dr. Sallie Baliunas (George Marshall Institute, Washington, D.C.), May 17, 1994; CFACT Citizen Outlook (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Washington, D.C.), May/June 1994.[/B]

The George Marshall Institue is another conservative think tank. The Commitee for a Constructive Tomorrow is also another conservative-based, pro-business, anti-environment think tank. Neither are scientific or primary sources. How sloppy is it that these "think tanks" keep referencing each other in recursive loops?

I didn't look up the article by Dr. S. Fred Singer in Chemical and Engineering News because I don't have access to it, but I did find out some facts about Dr. Singer.

Dr. Singer denies that global warming is taking place at all, and denies the effects of ozone depletion and its remedies. He is founder of an organization called The Science & Environmental Policy Project, basically a pro-business, anti-environment organization that rails against a host of environmental issues. If you are looking for actual research or facts to back up their claims on their website, you will be sadly disappointed.

Finally, if you go to the EPA website, you will find this quote:

Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts. All sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal ozone levels. It is always important to limit exposure to the sun. However, ozone depletion will increase the amount of UVB, which will then increase the risk of health effects. Furthermore, UVB harms some crops, plastics and other materials, and certain types of marine life.[/B]

Notice is says that UVB plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. Current scientific thought is that there is a complex relationship between UVA and UVB, and its effects on melanoma development. There is ongoing research in this area, and all the processes are not yet known.

What these conservative think tanks seems to say is this:

1. Melanoma is linked to UVA
2. The ozone hole lets in UVB
3 Therefore the ozone hole doesn't cause melanoma

It doesn't take a genius to see the logical flaw in this argument. It turns out that melanoma may be linked to both UVA and UVB.

Btw, specifically about marine life, there have been articles published on the negative effects of UVB on krill in the southern hemisphere, which are the basis of the food chain for a whole host of other animals.

Funny what you'll find out if you just follow the sources

 

[RobbyG]

But can these numbers be trusted?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7699674#post7699674 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Where are you getting these numbers?

*Edit* never mind, I found comparable numbers.

 

[RobbyG]

I stoped looking at the numbers or the research, just looking around is all the proof you need. Everything that is printed can be fabricated or twisted but your own eyes dont lie.
Thats why I bought up Australia, they have a Ozone hole and now abnormaly high Cancer rates, look no further than that for your UVA or B answer.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7699875#post7699875 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by blufish
It doesn't take a genius to see the logical flaw in this argument. It turns out that melanoma may be linked to both UVA and UVB.
Funny what you'll find out if you just follow the sources

 

[scaryperson27]

Thats nice that we can push the blame on natural and artificial causes but the fact of the matter is there is a problem. The ph has gone down .1 in 200 some odd years. It is going to go down .2 in the next 100 years. That means that the problem is getting worse. We need to find out what is exactly causing the problem and fix it. We only get one earth, one chance to screw up and right now all we are doing is arguing in a forum. It would be better to try to convince our goverment to invest into the research of our beautiful oceans to alleviate the problem. We can start this by writing. Anyone have any other ideas?

Mike

 

[Flobajob]

That's a big assumption to make scaryperson. It doesn't follow that because the pH has changed by so much in so many years it will continue to change at that rate in the future. I'm not saying that we shouldn't research and invest in preventing pollution though.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7699583#post7699583 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I am way too deep into this debate, sorry. Its Friday afternoon and I'm bored and ready to go home. Thanks all for keeping me entertained. I like intelligent conversation.

Okay, having said that. Its time for a math lesson. We debate back and forth about what data is interpreted and how, but math doesn't lie.

Anthropogenic contribution to green house effect.

First water vapor is 95% of green house effect. 99.999% of which is natural in origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Since CO2 is 99.44% of green house gas, lets stay there for easy figgurin. The baseline CO2 concentration is 288,000 ppb (parts per BILLION). That's the amount pre-inductrial age. Now its 368,400 ppb. An increase of 80,400 ppb. of this 68,520 ppb are natural additions. That leaves, 11,880 ppb that is anthropogenic.

Okay, 11,880/368,400= 3.207% of CO2 is anthropogenic.

Now if we include water vapor, then the total contribution to global warming caused by CO2 is 3.618% and of that 3.207% is man made. So the total contribution of man to the green house effect by CO2 emmissions is 0.112%.

Adding other green house gases the total amount is 0.28% of green house effect is caused by man. Now I just need Algore to double check my figures.

Mike

Thanks for the math lesson, but do you realize what you've just said? Also, I'm not so sure about the numbers you attribute to the contribution (contribution is not the same as percent composition) CO2 has to global warming. The IIPC attributes about 25% of warming to CO2, not 3.6%, and that is a major discrepancy.

Regardless, I'll use your numbers. The number you give for man made contribution to global warming is 0.112%. This is, believe it or not, quite a lot because it is increasing very rapidly. If there was no global warming, the earth would be about 32 degrees celsius cooler. We would be in an ice age if we were 3-4 degrees cooler, so you don't need a major change in temp to have a major change in climate.

There is also a feedback loop created with water vapor, which you seem to have overlooked. Because water vapor has such a large greenhouse effect, increasing the amount in the atmosphere is not good. If the average temp increases even slightly, there will be more vapor in the atmosphere, which traps more heat, and evaporates more water. Feedback loop.

The other problem is deforestation because trees act as a carbon sink. Since there are fewer trees, more is forced to stay in the atmosphere, more goes into the ocean, and the pH of the ocean decreases, which brings us nicely full-circle back to the original topic of this thread.

 

[physicslord]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7699583#post7699583 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I am way too deep into this debate, sorry. Its Friday afternoon and I'm bored and ready to go home. Thanks all for keeping me entertained. I like intelligent conversation.

Mike

Thanks for the spirited debate.

:lol:

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7699875#post7699875 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by blufish
Ok, I took the bait and looked up this reference. The National Center for Public Policy Research is a self-described conservative think tank. I looked up the article in question and this is what it said:



Notice that the reference that it gives for this "information" is another article by the same think tank. They do not quote a primary source. I will not yet comment on how sloppy this research is.

So, going back further and looking article "Talking Points on the Economy - Environmental Series" which is listed as the source for the UV-B/Melanoma information, we find that there are no direct sources given for this information. Once again, sloppy research.

There are general sources listed at the end of the article. Here's what it says:



The George Marshall Institue is another conservative think tank. The Commitee for a Constructive Tomorrow is also another conservative-based, pro-business, anti-environment think tank. Neither are scientific or primary sources. How sloppy is it that these "think tanks" keep referencing each other in recursive loops?

I didn't look up the article by Dr. S. Fred Singer in Chemical and Engineering News because I don't have access to it, but I did find out some facts about Dr. Singer.

Dr. Singer denies that global warming is taking place at all, and denies the effects of ozone depletion and its remedies. He is founder of an organization called The Science & Environmental Policy Project, basically a pro-business, anti-environment organization that rails against a host of environmental issues. If you are looking for actual research or facts to back up their claims on their website, you will be sadly disappointed.

Finally, if you go to the EPA website, you will find this quote:




Notice is says that UVB plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. Current scientific thought is that there is a complex relationship between UVA and UVB, and its effects on melanoma development. There is ongoing research in this area, and all the processes are not yet known.

What these conservative think tanks seems to say is this:

1. Melanoma is linked to UVA
2. The ozone hole lets in UVB
3 Therefore the ozone hole doesn't cause melanoma

It doesn't take a genius to see the logical flaw in this argument. It turns out that melanoma may be linked to both UVA and UVB.

Btw, specifically about marine life, there have been articles published on the negative effects of UVB on krill in the southern hemisphere, which are the basis of the food chain for a whole host of other animals.

Funny what you'll find out if you just follow the sources

My PI would be proud of you, debunking conservative think tanks that just cite each other over and over again is one of his past times.

Very well said!

 

[collins]

Thanks MCary, I was looking for those numbers. I researched this topic when our government at the time signed on to Kyoto.

Even if Kyoto was completely successful, we would have an insignificant decrease in the CO2 emissions created by man. And the total emissions, as you point out, is insignificant to begin with. The hockey stick graph has been proven to be conjecture.

I'm only going to worry about global warming if the Edmonton Oilers start playing like the Florida Panthers

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7700216#post7700216 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by collins
Thanks MCary, I was looking for those numbers. I researched this topic when our government at the time signed on to Kyoto.

Even if Kyoto was completely successful, we would have an insignificant decrease in the CO2 emissions created by man. And the total emissions, as you point out, is insignificant to begin with. The hockey stick graph has been proven to be conjecture.

I'm only going to worry about global warming if the Edmonton Oilers start playing like the Florida Panthers

No, the human input is NOT insignificant. CO2 levels have risen a lot, will continue to rise, and will not decrease for thousands of years because of the reduction of carbon sinks (forests). How is that insignificant?

 

[scaryperson27]

"That's a big assumption to make scaryperson. It doesn't follow that because the pH has changed by so much in so many years it will continue to change at that rate in the future. I'm not saying that we shouldn't research and invest in preventing pollution though."

Thats what the article said. When has the environment ever fluctuated this much on earth? Water parameters changing drastically. It really takes alot of CO2 in order to change the oceans PH .1. Water accounts for 70% of earth.<----- I'm not sure if that statistic is true. It could be more. We need to write our gov't and tell them our opinions. What have we got to loose. If we do not do anything then no attention will be made on our behalf. If anyone has anything positive to add to this it would be greatly appreciated. Why are people fighting this? Being reef aquarist you should appreciate the sealife environment.

 

[collins]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7700606#post7700606 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
... CO2 levels have risen a lot...

a fraction of a percent is not a lot.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7700606#post7700606 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
... How is that insignificant?

because even if all CO2 produced by man were to cease, there would be no effect on the climate.

Climate change is real. I am not arguing about that. It is just not a man made or significantly influenced phenomenon.

 

[HippieSmell]

For some reason I'm still up and decided to read this thread, lol. First, I believe there are some flaws in MCary's argument that I didn't catch the first read through.

Collins, look at the data. The CO2 levels are up around 30% the last couple hundred years, and unlike what MCary said, most of those additions are not natural because the atmosphere was in a relatively stable state for thousands of years before the industrial revolution. Do you really think that CO2 increases and the industrial revolution coincide by accident?

The CO2 reduction having no effect argument is best left for tomorrow because I'm tired. Good night.

 

[physicslord]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7700196#post7700196 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by poedag
My PI would be proud of you, debunking conservative think tanks that just cite each other over and over again is one of his past times.

Very well said!

You know this thread got me to thinking. A lot of people think they are defending capitalism as a whole by claiming everything they hear about the environment is a lie or bad research or whatever. I think some people have fallen into this trap here. Sometimes you just need to be willing to accept bad news before you can improve yourself. You can't surround yourself with a bunch of conservative yes men.

These "conservative think tanks" are manufacturing propaganda and acting like they are pro-capitalism and business. They are doing themselves a huge disservice in the long run by pretending there is not a problem with the emissions or the environment. Not to mention the fact that they are giving conservatism a really bad name.

I'm pro business too. But I'm not going to start believing a bunch of non-peer reviewed un-scientific studies to reassure myself that everything is okay.

To thrive capitalism needs a safe, relatively honest and fair marketplace. (If you don't believe me look at Mexico.)

A company that continues to deal in lies eventually falls to the wayside.
Look at how successful the Asian and European car companies have been moving into our market and how the US automakers are taking a nose dive. They just wanted to keep on pretending that oil was always going to be cheap and they didn't need to think about the future.

well, that's my 2 cents. What this has to do with reefs I don't know.

 

[physicslord]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7700216#post7700216 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by collins
Thanks MCary, I was looking for those numbers. I researched this topic when our government at the time signed on to Kyoto.

Even if Kyoto was completely successful, we would have an insignificant decrease in the CO2 emissions created by man.

I must agree we were wise not to sign. I just read an article a couple of months ago that Japan itself is unable to meet the terms of the agreement.
This is one reason why I think it might not be possible to reverse the trend.

Besides, some other countries around the world are flying in the face of Kyoto agreement and sending their bad emissions our way.

 

[Nano Chris]

Maybe setting up a reef tank is taking away from the oceans, and the capture of fish may be throwing off the balance... could be the cars prolbems too!