The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7723733#post7723733 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dreaminmel
Now we're getting somewhere... :thumbsup: You all are proving me wrong right now. I fully expected this thread to come to a flaming end but am actually impressed that the opposite is happening... maybe I shouldn't give up on humanity just yet.

i think we're all trying to get back to a level-headed debate :rollface:

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7723733#post7723733 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dreaminmel
Now we're getting somewhere... :thumbsup: You all are proving me wrong right now. I fully expected this thread to come to a flaming end but am actually impressed that the opposite is happening... maybe I shouldn't give up on humanity just yet.

Never, ever, give up on humanity. None of us are evil (very few people make consistantly bad choices, and it really is an extreme minority), we all do what we think is best for everyone else. I know, I'm a 'hippie', but there is a little hippie is everyone.

 

[eckrynock]

Thank you everyone. Now, Hippie, there is something wrong. MCary has been saying it since the beginning. We all learned it in 7th grade:

Make an observation.
Formulate a question that is answerable.
Propose a hypothesis, an educated guess as to what the answer is. The hypothesis must be one that you can reject.
Make a prediction or a way to test the hypothesis. This is a type of if, then, when statement.
Experiment, test the prediction.
Analyze and evaluate the test.
Make a decision, did the test support or reject the hypothesis?

You can not "test" global warming. You have a hypothesis, but there is no way to verify it. Without a control (the most important part of a scientific experiment) there is no way to prove your hypothesis. If global warming could be tested in a lab, or if CO2 emmisions could be completed eradicated in the US, then maybe you would have a control. And sad but true, GW has become a huge political issue and is now driven by money and political agendas. What are we to do when one scientist says a glacier has grown over the last ten years when we are told he is being funded by Exxon? What are we to do when another scientist says a glacier has shrunk in the last ten years and are told they are funded by some supporter trying to get AG in office? Let science be science and leave politics out of it. That's what I say.

Randy, what's disappointing about a good debate on current issues?

I guess I was looking at the pH drop in the oceans more as a dilution problem from melting freshwater in the icecaps than a CO2 intake problem?

 

[eckrynock]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7723812#post7723812 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
but there is a little hippie is everyone.

Peace, man. :smokin:

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7723870#post7723870 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eckrynock
Thank you everyone. Now, Hippie, there is something wrong. MCary has been saying it since the beginning. We all learned it in 7th grade:

Make an observation.
Formulate a question that is answerable.
Propose a hypothesis, an educated guess as to what the answer is. The hypothesis must be one that you can reject.
Make a prediction or a way to test the hypothesis. This is a type of if, then, when statement.
Experiment, test the prediction.
Analyze and evaluate the test.
Make a decision, did the test support or reject the hypothesis?

You can not "test" global warming. You have a hypothesis, but there is no way to verify it. Without a control (the most important part of a scientific experiment) there is no way to prove your hypothesis. If global warming could be tested in a lab, or if CO2 emmisions could be completed eradicated in the US, then maybe you would have a control. And sad but true, GW has become a huge political issue and is now driven by money and political agendas. What are we to do when one scientist says a glacier has grown over the last ten years when we are told he is being funded by Exxon? What are we to do when another scientist says a glacier has shrunk in the last ten years and are told they are funded by some supporter trying to get AG in office? Let science be science and leave politics out of it. That's what I say.

Randy, what's disappointing about a good debate on current issues?

I guess I was looking at the pH drop in the oceans more as a dilution problem from melting freshwater in the icecaps than a CO2 intake problem?

I never said you could 'test' GW. But, you can collect data that shows GW to be taking place.

 

[eckrynock]

Yes, but you can collect data that shows GW isn't taking place.

 

[poedag]

i think your both right, the trick is to collect and look at ALL of the data and see whats there. in my albeit short scientific experience (i'm working on it every day!) i find that rarely does ALL the data point to the conclusion you were hoping for, failed experiments and simulations happen. the problem is when someone omits a piece of data to derive a pre-concieved conclusion aka junk science.

eckrynock - i'll see what i can dig up at work tommorow, but i know i have a paper somewhere that shows where the carbon fluxes have been distributed since pre-industrial revolution. its some part ocean , some part C3 veg, some part C4 veg, some part atmosphere...etc i'll see if i can dig it up for you though.

glad this thread is taking turn for the better!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy, what's disappointing about a good debate on current issues?


A scientific debate is great. And folks that want to see the data should read the original scientific articles, instead of assuming it is flawed and stop there.

What bothered me?

Responses like Mikes:

"OMG! All this unchallenged evidence from the scientific journal USA Today. From 8.2 to 8.1 in only 206 years! What ever will we do? If someone took the time to write it down it must all be true. No use looking at any other evidence or causations.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!


Dear lord, please safegaurd our passage to the other side for we are all doomed. "


That started off assuming there even was another "side" to the fact of CO2 rising and pH lowering. Not global warming. That seemed to have been dragged in as an easy whipping horse, but pH and CO2.

Has anyone here EVER read a scientific article that disagreed with:

1. Atmospheric CO2 rising?

2. The fact that elevating CO2 lowers pH in seawater?


If you read the article that I posted, you can see the direct evidence for yourself, and then make a learned comment on the data and the conclusion. Without doing that, the criticism is hardly worth its weight in CO2.

 

[eckrynock]

Randy, did you read the article Robby posted? The first sentence says corals face an uncertain future becuase industrial emmissions fueling global warming are causing the oceans to become corrosive. I don't think Mike's post was too far off about the gist of that article. However, you are correct about rising CO2 and its pH lowering capability. If the article Robby posted dealt just with rising CO2 and lowered pH, this wouldn't be an issue. But, the USA Today made sure they put GW in the first sentence. Agenda.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy, did you read the article Robby posted? The first sentence says corals face an uncertain future becuase industrial emmissions fueling global warming are causing the oceans to become corrosive.

Yes, but it does not say that global warming is causing the pH drop. It only tangentially connects the CO2 to global warming as a way of pointing out that the gas does something else as well:


Corals and shelled sea creatures face an uncertain future in oceans made increasingly corrosive by the industrial emissions that fuel global warming, a government report warned Wednesday.

It is not the potential/real/hypothetical warming that is dropping the pH, so you need not accept that it is happening at all. It is the CO2 that is dropping pH, and that is apparently not debated by anyone that I've ever seen.

If his initial response said , yes, I accept that CO2 is rising and that ocean pH is falling, but I doubt it matters to corals, that would be a fine place to start a debate.

But instead he belittled the actual pH measurement as being very likely incorrect when he wrote:

"OMG! All this unchallenged evidence from the scientific journal USA Today. From 8.2 to 8.1 in only 206 years! What ever will we do? If someone took the time to write it down it must all be true. No use looking at any other evidence or causations."

 

[eckrynock]

I'm sorry. You are correct. There is hard proof that CO2 levels have risen in the atmosphere and all reef aquarists should know the affect CO2 has on pH. I agree this thread took a sharp turn from the beginning, I just think the article should have left GW out of it all together and just presented the facts.

 

[eckrynock]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7723273#post7723273 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
A billion years is impossible to predict now, 1,000 years is within our capability.

They can't get the weather forecast right for two days straight, how can we forecast a 1000 years?

 

[Flobajob]

Because although the weather varies immensely from day to day, there are general trends over time which are easier to see - e.g. we know it gets warmer in general during the summer time, even though not every day in summer might be a warm one.

 

[eckrynock]

Correct, but there are trends within trends. They tell me a warm front's moving in and temps will be in the 90s by the end of the week. That's a warming trend within the "summer" trend. Well, when Fri. and Sat. roll around, it's in the low 80s. Bad prediction.

I'm getting tired of weak examples (cat in oven, breed restrictions) etc. Please tell me you have something other than the fact that we know it gets hot in summer allows us to forecast a 1000 years into the future.

 

[Flobajob]

The examples I gave were not being used as evidence as you have suggested, but merely to illustrate a point. Please do not confuse the two applications.

By observing things such as ice cores and layers of sedimentary rock we have been able to analyse the Earth's atmosphere from many thousands of years ago. Using these we can see trends in the Earth's climate. This has shown that up until the past 150 years or so the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has been fairly constant, but recently it has started to rise alarmingly quickly. I don't think it is possible to attribute coincidence to the remarkable correlation between the industrial revolution and the rise in pollution associated with it, and the rising levels of CO2.

 

[MCary]

Randy,

I am a science buff. I can't get enough of science, and history for that matter. I work in a science field so I understand method, standards, controls etc. I find its predictions and recreations interesting. I like watching the story of the little dinosaur that could on the Discovery channel. Even though most of the story is obvious speculation.

My response to this thread was, as Ed said, a reaction to the sensationalism of the piece. Everyone one here know that your corals do not dissolve 30% if the pH drops from 8.2 to 8.1.

the ocean's average pH level has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1, making it 30 percent more corrosive

The statement that Seawater is 30% more corrosive is rediculous in itself. 30% more than what? Nitric Acid which is 30% more corrosive is saying much more that water that is 30% more corrosive. This is a sensationalist comment. It is meant to stir emotions, it says nothing. The statement that it is happening by inductrial pollution is also sensational. That link cannot be established. It is the best guess of the researchers. That does not make it wrong, just that making it a main theme of the article is sensationalism.

Increased CO2 and Global warming will result in longer growing seasons and lusher foilage in some areas. Global climate change will not cause drought, it will move drought from one area to another. Increased flooding that was predicted has not occured. So that's really not an issue. So why no stories of the possible expansion of rain forrests caused by global warming?

Remember acid rain? It was going to ruin the world. Increase oceans pH, dissolve monuments and buildings, kill freshwater fish and destroy crops. It was all over the front page of papers and covers of magazines. What happened? Well a ten year study was commisioned to study the effects of acid rain. The results, not a problem. No acid rain. No decrease in mountain lakes pH in the indudtrial areas of the East coast. The story was barely mentioned. Very small blurb on page six. Quietly went away. Where was the Time cover story "ACID RAIN, NOT A WORRY"

That's why I'm a little jaded. I like science and I feel cheated by the politicization and sensationalizing of it.

Mike

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

My response to this thread was, as Ed said, a reaction to the sensationalism of the piece. Everyone one here know that your corals do not dissolve 30% if the pH drops from 8.2 to 8.1.

he statement that Seawater is 30% more corrosive is rediculous in itself.


No, it is quite accurate.

A drop in pH of 0.1 , from pH 8.2 to 8.1 does drop the supersaturation index of CaCO3 by 26%, so the 30% is acceptably close. That is the index that determines if CaCO3 will dissolve. A difference of 0.3 pH units is a factor of two (100%) in solubility/corossivity/whatever.

 

[MCary]

I did not say the figure was wrong, I said it was sensational. By using the percentage being its a large number you can hype the story. A layman reading the piece would have visions of battery acid flowing through the oceans. It was clearly meant to stir emotions and sell papers not to further understanding of science.

T

 

[Nabber86]

OK, I for one have a problem with this statement:

corals and shelled sea creatures face an uncertain future in oceans made increasingly corrosive by the industrial emissions that fuel global warming, a government report warned Wednesday.

If the pH drops from 8.2 to 8.1, the solution is becoming more NUETRAL, not more CORROSIVE. If the goverment report cannot use a scientific term correctly, how much can we trust the data?

 

[physicslord]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7728717#post7728717 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
I did not say the figure was wrong, I said it was sensational. By using the percentage being its a large number you can hype the story. A layman reading the piece would have visions of battery acid flowing through the oceans. It was clearly meant to stir emotions and sell papers not to further understanding of science.

T

You know, every time you are wrong, you rationalize your argument into something different. You just said 30% is ridiculous.

I don't want to prove you wrong. Just admit that you did not understand the pH scale. There is no shame in that.

I agree though that "corrosive" was not the best choice of words, but the statement is no less true. I guess the point I am trying to get across is that if we believe in the scientific method then we also must be willing to accept it's results. We cannot throw out an experimental result that we do not like.