The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[sherm71tank]

I've been following this thread and it has been fun. However I am having a hard time wrapping my head around what the debate is about. We know that co2 causes ph to drop. We know that burning fossil fuels releases co2. Are we just trying to pretend or is it wishful thinking that burning all the gas and coal we do will have no effect? I'm not a "tree hugger" but it seems non debatable to me. We shouldn't do what we can do reduce emissions? Help me out!

 

[Kalkbreath]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7838463#post7838463 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Kalk,

You seem to be forgetting about other fossil fuels like coal, which burn very dirty as compared to oil. Also I don't see where you are accounting for natural gas. The other thing is your theory of all the produced CO2 getting tied into sinks is making a very large assumpution that those CO2 sinks have infinitate capacity.

I pointed out that Coal and Natural gas will out last oil reserves. Its not that all Fossil fuel C02 will stop once the oil runs out, its that the current rate of emissions will decrease by twofold.
The Ocean has already proven it can absorb fifty percent of current man made C02. (and has done so for 150 years)But its been sinking C02 for a lot longer.
The Ocean currently contains several million years worth of C02.
Its been settling onto the sea floor for a very long time.(the C02 and Crbon layers are hundreds of feet thick.
As plankton and marine life die and fall to the bottom, it gets stored up in this sludge.
It will continue to absorb Co2 even after we stop producing it.
If no additional C02 was released into the atmosphere the Oceans and Plants would still continue to absorb whats currently in the air.
If we stopped all C02 right now, the level would decrease from 400 to 300 to 200 as the plants and Ocean use it up.

Its only if the yearly sources of C02 continue to out pace the ocean and plant consumption that we continue to get a surplus.
Like whats been happening over the past 200 years,(about 2 points surplus per year lately) right now the level is about 400 up from 180 in 1800.
Were pumping man made C02 at arate of 8 giga tonns per year, up 50% from 1972 (4 GT)........yet the surplus rate of C02 accumulation in the air is still the same as in 1970s.!
Its been increasing two points a year, (370 this year to 372 next year] We cant keep up the 6 giga tonn per year out put for the next 100 years . There is not enough oil left.
As oil supplies diminish, the 2 point surplus will end and what remains in the air will continue to decrease because the Ocean and Plants will continue their increased consumption rate as long as the Atmosphere can supply it.

 

[Kalkbreath]

The basic laws of chemistry dont seem to be applied here and thats whats so interesting.
The H of the Oceans has not decreased in spite of what we have dumpet into it.
The research cited in this thread shows that in certain places like in the Pacific the pH is lower , but it also found that in the Atlantic its been increasing?
With all the debate here about if the data shows that he Earth has been warming ........its still an argument over wether its warmed .6 degrees or .1 degree.
Even if the Global warmests are correct and its warmed .4 degrees in 200 years, thats not nearly what 8 goga tonnes of C02 per year is supposed to affect global temperatures.
a look at the projected warming models made back in 1980s shows that nowhere near the 1.5 increase projected in 2000 was reached.
Why does the Earth seem to reject the notion about man made Global warming?

 

[sherm71tank]

"Why does the Earth seem to reject the notion about man made Global warming?"

Maybe we don't find out until there is more water in the atmosphere. Unfortunately things can seem to be fine until they reach a breaking point and then the crash comes.

 

[vessxpress1]

I've just decided to check in on this thread and looks like an interesting debate. I see we're talking about oil reserves running out in the near future. Looks like bad news for everybody. Here's an article I posted at another forum that some may find interesting in relation to oil reserves running out quickly. It isn't the 60 and 70s anymore. Nobody's oil use will be going down either, but what do you say to these people? Stop buying cars, keep riding bikes?
People are only thinking about their individual scenarios. Nobody thinks about the enviroment when they buy a car.

What I can't believe is, if you could live and work locally, I don't know why you'd ever want the hastle of wasting money on a car and gas when you could ride a bike and avoid the congestion, but these people do.

Things could get REAL interesting in our kid's lifetimes. I'm 25.


"With 1.3 billion people, the People's Republic of China is the world's most populous country and the second largest oil consumer, behind the U.S. In recent years, China has been undergoing a process of industrialization and is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. With real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 8-10% a year, China's need for energy is projected to increase by 150 percent by 2020. to sustain its growth China requires increasing amounts of oil. Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S.'
Growth in Chinese oil consumption has accelerated mainly because of a large-scale transition away from bicycles and mass transit toward private automobiles, more affordable since China's admission to the World Trade Organization. Consequently, by year 2010 China is expected to have 90 times more cars than in 1990. With automobile numbers growing at 19% a year, projections show that China could surpass the total number of cars in the U.S. by 2030. Another contributor to the sharp increase in automobile sales is the very low price of gasoline in China. Chinese gasoline prices now rank among the lowest in the world for oil-importing countries, and are a third of retail prices in Europe and Japan, where steep taxes are imposed to discourage gasoline use.

Where will China get its oil?
China’s ability to provide for its own needs is limited by the fact that its proven oil reserves are small in relation to its consumption. At current production rates they are likely to last for less than two decades. Though during the 1970s and 1980s China was a net oil exporter, it became a net oil importer in 1993 and is growingly dependent on foreign oil. China currently imports 32% of its oil and is expected to double its need for imported oil between now and 2010. A report by the International Energy Agency predicted that by 2030, Chinese oil imports will equal imports by the U.S. today."

 

[sherm71tank]

Where will China get its oil? It's neighbor to the north has already expressed great interest in meeting that demand.

 

[billsreef]

Kalk,

Simply put the deep sediments are not a place where all that carbon just gets bound up and stays put. It get's recylced and recirculated. Heck, you even point that out when you talk about deep ocean currents upwelling and releasing CO2. You can't blame that upwelling on releasing CO2 and call the deep ocean sediments a sink that binds it all up at the same time.

The basic laws of chemistry dont seem to be applied here and thats whats so interesting.

Ah, but they are.

 

[Kalkbreath]

And what happens when Iran runs out of oil?
They "launch" out of spite.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7838786#post7838786 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sherm71tank
I've been following this thread and it has been fun. However I am having a hard time wrapping my head around what the debate is about. We know that co2 causes ph to drop. We know that burning fossil fuels releases co2. Are we just trying to pretend or is it wishful thinking that burning all the gas and coal we do will have no effect? I'm not a "tree hugger" but it seems non debatable to me. We shouldn't do what we can do reduce emissions? Help me out!

You know, I think that is the best and most logical post in this entire debate :thumbsup:

 

[sherm71tank]

Not Iran. I speak of the Independent States.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7838914#post7838914 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sherm71tank
Unfortunately things can seem to be fine until they reach a breaking point and then the crash comes.

That was part of what I was trying to point out with my sewage analogy earlier. A system can seemingly take continuing inputs until a critical balance is reached, and than things go out of whack. Just look at our tanks for example. What would happen if you continually dumped in pollutants without doing water changes? That is in essence what we are doing to our planet.

 

[Kalkbreath]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7838954#post7838954 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Kalk,

Simply put the deep sediments are not a place where all that carbon just gets bound up and stays put. It get's recylced and recirculated. Heck, you even point that out when you talk about deep ocean currents upwelling and releasing CO2. You can't blame that upwelling on releasing CO2 and call the deep ocean sediments a sink that binds it all up at the same time.



Ah, but they are.

Throughout the Earths long history, many realy big releases of C02 have occured. Every time a realy big volcano sends C02 into the atmosphere there is a period of time that C02 levels are temp elevated.
The Ocean steadily absorbs this additional C02 , like it has thousand of times before......returning the elevated C02 levels back to their normal levels.
If you think this is the only time C02 levels have been raised, your not paying attention in Science class.
The Ocean has been attempting to do the same ballancing act with the current C02 spike.
Thats why when we double C02 out put (like from 1970 to today), the amount of C02 in the air doesnt double, the oceans and Land plants step up the absorbtion rate to ballance the increased supply.
The steady 1.4 avearge increase in C02 during the past 150 years if too steady to reflect man made sources.
The rate was the same in 1920 as in 2003?
Can we possible out strip the oceans ability to soak up C02?
If we had more oil reserves left then maybe.
If we had a nuclear war and released whats left all at once.
Then I would think so.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7839094#post7839094 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
If you think this is the only time C02 levels have been raised, your not paying attention in Science class.

I paid enough attention to get a Marine Science degree

Besides, we're not really arguing if volcanic activity releases CO2, that's a given. We're trying to argue about the increases relative to man's activities on this planet

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7839094#post7839094 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
Can we possible out strip the oceans ability to soak up C02?

We once thought that about industrial chemical pollutants, insecticides, and sewage. We have also been proven very wrong about those substances. Why should excess CO2 be any different?

 

[Reef_bones]

I don't think we have as much effect on the ocean as nature itself. Discovery channel has been having some interesting shows on the sunject of global warming which is also tied to Co2. Co2 is a major part of the blanket that holds the heat in the earths atmosphere. They also told that a volcanic eruption produces more co2 than man could in 100 years... If infact there is a rise in co2 it could have more to do with solar activity or natural climate change than your SUV...

 

[Kalkbreath]

for all the threat C02 posses to the planet, It realy hasnt had much of an effect to this point.
Thats why I would much rather focus on curbing the Sewage and over fishing then on Co2 futures.
Wouldnt you agree?
When was the last time you heard CNN talking about Global sewage or trash?
I think it was that Crying Indian comercial back in the Seventies.


Hey, dont you have a fish store to run?
I know I do..............I will post again tonight.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7839231#post7839231 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath
for all the threat C02 posses to the planet, It realy hasnt had much of an effect to this point.
Thats why I would much rather focus on curbing the Sewage and over fishing then on Co2 futures.


I've seen the same arguments applied to sewage and over fishing also. I've seen formerly healthy waters become eutrophic, fish stocks of several species crash, all while those same types of arguments are made. And you know what? We still haven't learned. Arguments are made that it's too expensive to upgrade sewage plants, we need to fish everything we can to pay off the boat, etc. Same with CO2, why not curb emissions where we can? Consider that the only way we will be absolutely sure of the effects of uncurbed man made emissions will be waiting till it's too late. Unless you have a contract with the Magratheans to build a new planet, this is the only we've got. So it makes sense to take care of it
Hey, dont you have a fish store to run?

:lol: You know what? I do have a lot fragging to do

I know I do..............I will post again tonight.

 

[CyanoMagnet]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7691828#post7691828 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aquaticman74
:lol: :thumbsup:

I havent read the article, but I sense a bit of sarcasm in your post (yes Im being reverse sarcastic).

However, in all seriousness, ask yourself this.

How long has life been around? Millions and millions of years.

206 years is but a perverbial drop. And if every drop reduced your tanks PH by .1, your tank would wipe in no time....

Get it?

 

[HippieSmell]

Look at these websites.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/107.htm#fig33
http://www.ifm.uni-kiel.de/fb/fb1/po1/research/sfb460/a5/Startseite_A5.htm
Specifically these two graphs, taken from the above sites.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-3.htm
http://www.ifm.uni-kiel.de/fb/fb1/po1/research/sfb460/a5/Fig_tracer_input_histories.htm
Tell me there isn't a correlation between fossil fuel burning, the atmospheric increase in CO2, and increase in temp.

Kalk, your predictions on future oil consumption are old. Contrary to common belief, there is no oil shortage because we keep finding more, and there are enough oil sands and coal to last for hundreds of years.

Your previous comment on the half life of CO2 being 30 years is also on the low side.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.ms.fate_co2.pdf

The bottom line is we are increasing CO2, there is no denying it, and the source of those increases will continue to be available for many more years. I really am stunned that you don't see a problem with how much we've effected the CO2 levels. It is an unprecedented event, and you can't say it hasn't had an effect already. We've increased the temp of the entire planet, and decreased the pH of the ocean. That's not a big effect to you? Keep in mind the full effects might not be seen for many more years.

Here's another fun article.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501AP_Science_For_Sale.html

 

[eckrynock]

Hey,

Where are all of the hurricanes? Wasn't this supposed to be a record year or something? Here we are half way through the season and not ONE????

Well, since I just jynxed FL, they can name the first one Hurricane Ed.