The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[Kalkbreath]

Lets back up a tad.
How did these researchers conclude that the Oceans pH has dipped?
They mentioned Ice Cores...........Ice cores dont read Ocean pH in reefs 2,000 yeras ago.
What data did the artical base its position from?
If the pH of certain mid ocean parts of the world are 8.0.
Does that mean that even tough all the world reefs are still 8.3
The "average" is 8.1?

 

[REV]

The real question is if the ph of the ocean changes, should I alter my tank to match the natural environment? :lmao:

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7814146#post7814146 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
Lets back up a tad.
How did these researchers conclude that the Oceans pH has dipped?
They mentioned Ice Cores...........Ice cores dont read Ocean pH in reefs 2,000 yeras ago.
What data did the artical base its position from?
If the pH of certain mid ocean parts of the world are 8.0.
Does that mean that even tough all the world reefs are still 8.3
The "average" is 8.1?

I didn't look at the original study, but this isn't the only study to come to the same conclusions. Randy posted this earlier:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7720743#post7720743 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
Here's a recent study:
Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH.

Pelejero, Carles; Calvo, Eva; McCulloch, Malcolm T.; Marshall, John F.; Gagan, Michael K.; Lough, Janice M.; Opdyke, Bradley N.

Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2005), 309(5744), 2204-2207. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Abstract

The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atm. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compns. in a .apprx.300-yr-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over .apprx.50-yr cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atm. anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.

I'll bet you dollars to dimes that either study didn't overlook simple sources of error that you are suggesting.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7814300#post7814300 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by REV
The real question is if the ph of the ocean changes, should I alter my tank to match the natural environment? :lmao:

Naw, just hook the air intake of your skimmer up to your car exhaust.

 

[REV]

Hmmm. I can't help it. I love agood debate just as much as the next know-it-all, but this hobby is supposed to be my outlet, my stress relief! There is nothing wrong with this debate, but IMO this oughtta be in the lounge or something. It contributes nothing to my reefkeeping success. I keep my reef to help lower blood pressure not raise it! I must confess though summa ya'll sure can sound 'tellingint... but most of these arguments are just like most of these links - THEY DON"T BELONG HERE!!! .02 You may all resume pointless argument. Quickly, for those of you who just got your feathers ruffled because I said this argument is pointless... think about it this way. If I allow someone I don't know, whom I most probably will never meet, convince me to change my worldview because they have a link to a published article by someone else I don't know and most definitely will never meet, also whose data is mostly UNCOMFIRMED and sometimes unfounded just because you share an interest in a common hobby/addiction :lol: then what has anyone really gained!? Whew! I love REEF DISCUSSION!! See, now I have to go back over and stare in my glass box for another hour before I can go to bed!

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7814679#post7814679 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by REV
Hmmm. I can't help it. I love agood debate just as much as the next know-it-all, but this hobby is supposed to be my outlet, my stress relief! There is nothing wrong with this debate, but IMO this oughtta be in the lounge or something. It contributes nothing to my reefkeeping success. I keep my reef to help lower blood pressure not raise it! I must confess though summa ya'll sure can sound 'tellingint... but most of these arguments are just like most of these links - THEY DON"T BELONG HERE!!! .02 You may all resume pointless argument. Quickly, for those of you who just got your feathers ruffled because I said this argument is pointless... think about it this way. If I allow someone I don't know, whom I most probably will never meet, convince me to change my worldview because they have a link to a published article by someone else I don't know and most definitely will never meet, also whose data is mostly UNCOMFIRMED and sometimes unfounded just because you share an interest in a common hobby/addiction :lol: then what has anyone really gained!? Whew! I love REEF DISCUSSION!! See, now I have to go back over and stare in my glass box for another hour before I can go to bed!

You're more than welcome to ignore this thread if it bothers you. There is only one active thread like this as far as I know. It is also VERY relevant to reefkeeping. Where do you think most of your creatures come from?

I'm sorry, lol, this really made me laugh. You're a preacher? This is what made me laugh:

If I allow someone I don't know, whom I most probably will never meet, convince me to change my worldview because they have a link to a published article by someone else I don't know and most definitely will never meet, also whose data is mostly UNCOMFIRMED and sometimes unfounded just because you share an interest in a common hobby/addiction then what has anyone really gained!?

Ever hear of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Just as I suspected................Not only is this based on an 'ABSTRACT". http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pelejero2005/pelejero2005.html

ABSTRACT:
The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compositions in a ~300-year-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over ~50-year cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.

But even the study of which its based http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/309/5744/2204/DC1/1
suggests that

Therefore, until more pH data are
gathered, this pH distribution should be considered as a first approximation and that simply
illustrates the main patterns of pH heterogeneity in the tropics. Amongst other expected features,
the tongue of low pH surface waters in the eastern equatorial Pacific, related to upwelling and
vertical mixing of deep waters, is well represented in this map. Identical patterns of pH were
obtained using alternative global alkalinities derived from World Ocean Atlas 2001 annual
surface salinity (19) with alkalinity/salinity relationships for the whole Pacific Ocean (17) or for
more restricted areas such as the Coral Sea. All pH data were computed by means of the
CO2SYS program (20) using the K1 and K2 carbonic acid dissociation constants from Mehrbach
et al. (21), with values refitted for the seawater scale (22), and the bisulfate ion dissociation
constant from Dickson (23).

 

[REV]

Who?? :lol: The thing is I have met the one they write about and know Him personally. The really cool thing is His prediction... this place is gonna end in fire anyway. You cannot save the planet from God. My beliefs are to be good stewards of everything we are given, but see there ya go... got me gettin serious again. Know this, I believe in something that isn't bound by time or this world. I love nature and do respect it, but I gotta have a sense of humor or I'll literally go crazy. You see, I find humor everywhere I can because I have this tremendous weight of feeling called to share something that matters for eternity whether the mountains should crumble into the sea or not... but I digress. POINT - all of these things are faith in something I cannot see, given, I'm just not that inclined to have that much faith in those who are apparently so easily swayed without at least admitting that WE ALL HAVE A BIAS!! There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Scientific research is based on a theory to begin with. Find me a scientist who tells you what the future holds and I find you one who says he's wrong! (Not really. PLEASE don't make me go out and find my scientist!) Take for instance how many times science has told what to eat and what not to eat only to come back and says "Well... not exactly." How many drugs, tested and proven through REAL research have been pulled from the market? Oops, sorry, you're dead. See, everyone is selling something! But, I continue to digress... All that aside, I really do think it is funny, in fact I actually laugh, that this is considered reef discussion. And I'll say again, if this thread goes on until all are convinced to hold the same opinion, the condition of the earth will not change because we agree, thus not relevant to my reef. Even if we all agree it doesn't mean we're right! Unless... perhaps I've misunderstood and this thread is a revolutionary attempt to affect the worlds climate... HMMM.... Please, laugh with me. I can hardly take myself seriously this late. A preacher, rabbi, and a priest walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Is this some kind of joke?

 

[Kalkbreath]

God wants us to take care of our fellow man and the Planet.

But when the fellow man thinks the pH of the worlds Oceans has decreased because somebodies brother's freind a Scientists, said something about Ph and Porites............it seems the first thing we need to do is show our fellow man that "faith" in God is fine.
But faith in thy brothers scientist friend is not.

How we got from Porites core samples which showed the pH of southern reeefs two hundred years ago were actually lower then todays reefs .
To Major media reports that" the Oceans of the world currently have the lowest pH readings since the Dinosuars"
make my point quite clearly that "SCIENCE"today is not what it once was.

 

[HippieSmell]

Kalk,
I gave your link a quick glance (so it's possible I overlooked something), and I have to say that was a nice call on where THAT study is relevent (but it is STILL evidence supporting anthropogenic emissions). But, like I said, it isn't the only study to come to the same conclusions. I suppose I will have to show what the other studies say, but it's late. Tomorrow maybe.

REV (and kalk),
We really should keep religion out of this, (as much as I would LOVE to debate with REV) because it will get closed. PM me REV (kalk too), if you want a discussion on religion.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Its not my link.......
Its the link to the authors of this "Ocean's C02 artical" ......as well as Randy's.
As I searched for the underlining research paper........I also noticed quite a few other Media peices using this same study as the source of their Doom and Gloom C02 /Ocean pH stories as well.

 

[Tim the Stick]

Actualy, for the last 5-6 years, no we havn't talked to anyone from the EPA. But, our #'s show pretty much the same thing, so I can't see anything "we" know that they don't. Bottom line is, the river and Erie do a DAMN good job cleaning themselves up, no matter WHAT we've tossed in. Once you're 3 feet below the surface, the water hasn't changed in 30 years no matter WHAT they do to try and make it cleaner.

And he's the real kicker. RAINWATER.

Rainwater and wash off from roadways is THE #1 pollutant. Here in Detroit, we use rock salt on the roads all winter. In the spring, we DO see a silinity increase as the salt goes down the drain. Ready for the next kicker? Guess what all the lagoons in the middle of Belle Isle used to be a few 100 years ago? Yup, you guessed it, natural salt deposits.

The Detroit river actualy cut it's way through a giant undergound salt mine about 15,000 years ago. And it's still cutting through it today. So, is all the salt we're tossing down poluting? Seeing as the bottom of the river is a salt deposit?

Makes ya go "hmmm...."

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7815457#post7815457 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
Its not my link.......
Its the link to the authors of this "Ocean's C02 artical" ......as well as Randy's.
As I searched for the underlining research paper........I also noticed quite a few other Media peices using this same study as the source of their Doom and Gloom C02 /Ocean pH stories as well.

Well, what's your point then? Just because the study was only conducted in the tropics, and the story has been circulated through the media, you think you can discredit it? You have to do better than that.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7815614#post7815614 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tim the Stick
Actualy, for the last 5-6 years, no we havn't talked to anyone from the EPA. But, our #'s show pretty much the same thing, so I can't see anything "we" know that they don't. Bottom line is, the river and Erie do a DAMN good job cleaning themselves up, no matter WHAT we've tossed in. Once you're 3 feet below the surface, the water hasn't changed in 30 years no matter WHAT they do to try and make it cleaner.

Lakes and rivers do a pretty good job cleaning themselves, but there are tipping points, and they can happen fairly quickly.

Your last sentence confuses me. Are you saying that the water IS polluted, and they haven't been able to get the water below 3 feet clean?

 

[RobbyG]

Thats world wide my friend and were I am they just let all the water just run straight into the sea.

When the rainy month of June comes around it's horrifying to see all the Garbage oil and junk that gets washed out to sea and yet the government does nothing about it.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7815614#post7815614 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tim the Stick


And he's the real kicker. RAINWATER.

Rainwater and wash off from roadways is THE #1 pollutant. Here in Detroit, we use rock salt on the roads all winter. In the spring, we DO see a silinity increase as the salt goes down the drain. Ready for the next kicker? Guess what all the lagoons in the middle of Belle Isle used to be a few 100 years ago? Yup, you guessed it, natural salt deposits.

The Detroit river actualy cut it's way through a giant undergound salt mine about 15,000 years ago. And it's still cutting through it today. So, is all the salt we're tossing down poluting? Seeing as the bottom of the river is a salt deposit?

Makes ya go "hmmm...."

 

[Kalkbreath]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7819484#post7819484 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Well, what's your point then? Just because the study was only conducted in the tropics, and the story has been circulated through the media, you think you can discredit it? You have to do better than that.

There is nothing wrong with the study.
Its the clearly blatant false interpretations of the study thats criminal.
Claiming the study showed all sorts of things it didnt.
The study stated that the porities have survived shifts downward in pH long before today .
Yet the Media makes silly claims that are the direct opposite?
"Current Oceans pH drops for the first time in thousands of years"?

Some one asked for me to quote my pasteings
Yet the very authors this thread is debating, based there story on data that disproves their position!

Ever wonder why the media fails to report on the current record sunspot activity?
Its because the media are liars.

And of all the posters on this thread none actually looked at the underlining data.
We all assumed since its in print ..... it must be true.

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7820298#post7820298 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
And of all the posters on this thread none actually looked at the underlining data.
We all assumed since its in print ..... it must be true.

that is an absolutely false statement. i'm actually about 40 pages into the 100 or so page report, and guess what. they show the raw data and then interpret it. just like every other scientist who can not conduct an experiment in a lab/box/petri dish. why don't you read the report. it can be found at http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf

 

[Tim the Stick]

No, the surface water is where all the dreaded "POLUTION" supposedly exists. The water 3 feet down hasn't been dirty and hasn't gotten cleaner in over 30 years. Oil films etc on the surface migh be "visible" from like a 2 cycle boat engine, but it has little to no impact on the water itself other than an oily sheen on the surface.

THAT'S the point. The EPA says the water's cleaner? No it's not. The same for 30 years. But all the tests say it's cleaner? Well, not mine.

 

[Kalkbreath]

This is nothing more then a report on ocean outgassing.(and a Calcification lesson)

Brewer first published a report finding a fossil-fuel "signature" in ocean acid measures in 1978. At first controversial, the finding has been duplicated with greater sensitivity since then, culminating in a 2004 report by NOAA colleagues Feely and Christopher Sabine that showed Pacific waters becoming increasingly acidic at depths that threatened deep water corals.

The upwellings from deep down in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are the SOURCE of the C02 and acid seawater.
The subject was controversial in 1978 because it was issued during a time that global cooling was all the rage.
It made little sense then largely due to tha fact that deep ocean Carbon is from thousands of years ago and has nothing to do with industrial age emissions.
Brewer has recently gained refound attention due to his work being one of the few papers pro global warming crowd can turn to for support.

If the atmosphere was the source of Pacific acidification, why is the Atlantic seem to be getting more alkaline ?(and much less healthy)

It makes more sense that certain areas of the Pacific are Acidic because of up local wellings, the Out gassing of certain areas of the deep ocean is the source the additional C02 in the atmosphere world wide during the past 200 years.

Its why the atmosphere Co2 levels are higher over the open oceans then over North America,
and its why C02 is increasing into the air at about the same average yearly rate (1.4) over the past 50 years , in spite of the fact that we humans are pumping more and more C02 into the air.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7820298#post7820298 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
And of all the posters on this thread none actually looked at the underlining data.
We all assumed since its in print ..... it must be true.

That would be an incorrect assumption Just some of us seem to reach different conclusions while looking at the same data. For instance I still don't look at the various data out there and see your upwelling theory holds water as the source of increased carbon. After all, that deep water was once surface water before it got chilled at the poles and sunk to the bottom to recirculate.