The Oceans pH Level Is Falling

[Reef_bones]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7839508#post7839508 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 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

THe SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING...lol

Hogwash...There are recorded tempature fluctuations in the climate from years ago.. Studies of ICE in the artics show temps a few degrees higher on a global scale in the 1600's. Core samples show co2 levels fluctuating long before big industry and cars were ever even in existance. It's not something humans have any control over. There are many veriables to it. Its just the cycle of life. No matter how important we as human beings want to believe we are in the overall picture, fact is nature has its own laws and we have no control over it.

 

[dreaminmel]

So here I am still reading this thread and I'm really curious about one thing in particular...

I find myself somewhere in the middle, not siding w/ either opinion BUT... I'm having a hard time with being told that the earth has survived temp swings in the past so we shouldn't worry about them. There are different variables that have been added now that weren't a part of the past swings. How can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that the earth will be able to handle it the same way? I am one for analogies so... just because I've driven in my car every day without incident, should I expect the same if icy roads get added into the equation? Of course not. Anytime you add different variables to an equation you will get a different result. Does this mean the sky is falling? Probably not but it could mean some changes in our way of living so why shouldn't we be concerned? It's human nature...

Also, I think the notion that since there's "nothing we can do about it let's not worry" is a bit flawed. Obviously taking away everyone's vehicles and shutting down factories is not a reasonable option but I think that inventions that would give us better alternatives are something that need to be discussed more. Look at how much we've invented since 50 years ago. We are more than capable.

**deleted the rest... got a little long winded and boring.

 

[billsreef]

Well said, dreaminmel. That is indeed the point some of us are trying to make

 

[Reef_bones]

There definately two ways to look at it.

But there is still nothing that you can do about it...I mean even if right now everyone stopped driving and every toxic gas spewing thing in the world stopped producing...The temp is still gonna rise. Short of putting gigantic ACs on the poles you just can't change the climate over night. This has been building for more years than it has been noticed. The sun has storms that can translate into a degree rise in climate, you can't control those...I agree if we can change what we can it would be for the better, but its still just a drop in the bucket...

 

[Reef_bones]

and to add to it, lets say you did find a way to change it. What happens when nature regulates it itself and sinse we tinkered it is now to far the other way....

Which is the greater risk, riding the natural cycle or messing with nature and potentially messing up the cycle..

 

[dreaminmel]

I think some endangered species that have been given attention and rebounded enough to be taken back off the endangered list could give you some input there...

Not everything we do is destined to fail and, yes, some things we do end up making things worse.

Let me put it to you this way. Do you stand in the path of a hurricane or tornado or do you take shelter in your basement? I betcha the first people to start building basements were scoffed at. I'm not one for messing with nature. I don't think anyone here has suggested that this is something we can stop. Does that mean the discussion is useless? Not by a long shot. I think the discussion of scientific data can at least help us figure out ways to avoid making it worse.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7841144#post7841144 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
Which is the greater risk, riding the natural cycle or messing with nature and potentially messing up the cycle..

We're already messing with nature

 

[Reef_bones]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7841203#post7841203 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
We're already messing with nature

to a degree YES...

but are we sure its US causing the current trend or can we look at history and see it has happened before...

Alittle of both I guess...

Awesome points Dreaminmel...

I am not really on either side of this, I just don't want some idiot with power making a knee jerk discision and screwing the whole thing up when we aren't sure if its even broke...

AL GORE should shut his trap for sure...lol

Tennesseans hate when he says he's from TN...He's from VIRGINIA...:lol:

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7841245#post7841245 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
but are we sure its US causing the current trend or can we look at history and see it has happened before...

Alittle of both I guess...

That would be a good guess. I don't know any scientist that say we're causing a warming trend. What they are generally saying is that we are excaberating the natural trends. Our additional inputs will cause the warming trend to increase faster, go hotter, and last longer than the natural trends. Sort of an amplifier for those natural trends

 

[Kalkbreath]

What makes the C02 scare a little different from sewage or chemical poison threats, is that there is actually evidence that additional Co2 is a good thing for the planet. Were talking about the addition of something thats in short short supply and required to sustain life.
C02 is 380 parts per million in the atmosphere.
Thats about 380 drops in a washing machine full of water.
or 1 part C02 to 2500 parts other stuff.
Coming from a horticulture background, I learned early on that adding C02 to the inside of a greenhouse is a plus to the plants within.
C02 levels in commercial green houses are routinely raised to the levels predicted to occur in atmosphere 100 years from now.(600-800ppmv)
If I raise the C02 level in a green house, the crop inside will start growing faster and quickly soak up the Carbon gas and bring the levels back to within the normal outdoor range.
What makes this interesting, is that the plants increase their respiration and growth when added C02 is present and then seem to stop this increased motabolism when levels come back down to normal range (as the additional C02 is used up.)
It makes sense that most horticulturists feel that C02 levels in the atmosphere will never reach the 500 point because long before that point, plant life all over the world will (just like in a green house) quickly increase their metabolism and soak up the C02.
Why do plants seem to become stimulated by additional C02 levels?
But only at levels above 500ppm?
Do plants have a built in regulator?
If plants seem to consider our current C02 levels as normal and not realy stimulated by todays enriched environment, why do some scientists feel that current levels are too high?
Plants hardly seem to notice the tiny spike at this point.


.

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7840523#post7840523 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
Hogwash...There are recorded tempature fluctuations in the climate from years ago.. Studies of ICE in the artics show temps a few degrees higher on a global scale in the 1600's. Core samples show co2 levels fluctuating long before big industry and cars were ever even in existance. It's not something humans have any control over. There are many veriables to it. Its just the cycle of life. No matter how important we as human beings want to believe we are in the overall picture, fact is nature has its own laws and we have no control over it.

again, no one is trying to say that it hasn't been hotter or colder in the past, or that CO2 has been lower or higher. it has been both. the tremebdous difference we are seeing today is the RATE of change. that is the unprecidented part that we should be looking at and attempting to deal with, not the natural cycles of the earth, but rather how we have the potential to eliminate or magnify those cycles in a manner negative to our and other species survival.

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7841245#post7841245 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
AL GORE should shut his trap for sure...lol

Tennesseans hate when he says he's from TN...He's from VIRGINIA...:lol:

isn't it a free country? if people like Bill O'Rieley (sp?) Rush Limbaugh, Al Frankin and Bill Mahr can have television and radio shows, how come you bag on Al Gore? Is it because he's the only person out there actually trying to bring climate issues into the mainstream media?

 

[poedag]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7842719#post7842719 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kalkbreath

Why do plants seem to become stimulated by additional C02 levels?
But only at levels above 500ppm?.

Plants respond to the conditions they are presented with. On a regular basis i subject plants to abnormal CO2 and PAR levels with a machine designed to measure their photosynthesis and resperation rates. Different plants and different plant types (C3 vs C4) can tolerate and be productive of different amounts of light and CO2. There are some plants that peak at ~500ppm and others lower or higher. You are providing a source of food for the plant (at the cost of losing water through open stomata) but depending on conditions some plants will respond accordingly.

to anser the second part, they don't just respond to values above 500ppm, if you start at 0 and rise in 50ppm increments, you get a curve that peaks before you reach 2000ppm. where it peaks depends on what type of plant you are dealing with and how healthy it is when the measurement is being taken.

 

[Kalkbreath]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7845718#post7845718 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by poedag
again, no one is trying to say that it hasn't been hotter or colder in the past, or that CO2 has been lower or higher. it has been both. the tremebdous difference we are seeing today is the RATE of change. that is the unprecidented

But how has the rate of change been unprecidented?
The rate of C02 has not changed over the past hundred years.(1. to 3.ppmv) increases each year, inspite of doubling and tripling the amount of man made C02 we humans pump into the atmosphere.
Thats a pretty constant rate, considering how much we keep increasing the oil consuption .
The Temperature has not changed at all in most places of the earth.
Not here in the USA, where is should have changed the most.
The only changes have been in third world location around growning cities.
The world is coming off anlittle Ice age in the 1500s the temperature increase from 1500s to 1900 was much greater then from 1900 to 2000.
Even if the world has warmed a bit.


Would we really wish to return to sub zero temps in most of the United States all winter long?

Most Americans dont realize how cold "NORMAL" was in 1500 through 1850.
Take a look back at Civil War weather records in the middle 1800s
Sub zero winters were the norm back then .
Makes global warming seem like kinda a nice thing .
Imagine how much more Fossil fuel we would burn to keep warm if temperatures were like back in then

 

[Reef_bones]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7845730#post7845730 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by poedag
isn't it a free country? if people like Bill O'Rieley (sp?) Rush Limbaugh, Al Frankin and Bill Mahr can have television and radio shows, how come you bag on Al Gore? Is it because he's the only person out there actually trying to bring climate issues into the mainstream media?

Cause AL contridicts himself at every corner on this subject..

good reads
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...l?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&p=1
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/gore-roars-on-global-warming-wrong-again


This is not political its about global warming....

 

[Reef_bones]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7845718#post7845718 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by poedag
again, no one is trying to say that it hasn't been hotter or colder in the past, or that CO2 has been lower or higher. it has been both. the tremebdous difference we are seeing today is the RATE of change. that is the unprecidented part that we should be looking at and attempting to deal with, not the natural cycles of the earth, but rather how we have the potential to eliminate or magnify those cycles in a manner negative to our and other species survival.

I can bye that, makes sense, but how do you control what your not sure is normal or not. If we had a definitive way of knowing exactly how we effect the overall picture it could be accomplished. But there in lies the problem, how much of the rate increase is our doing and how much is natural occurrence.

 

[dreaminmel]

Some more interesting reading...

Article

Kinda paints a picture for ya. Also shows that past governmental decisions have had harmful effects when positive ones were intended. An all encompassing analysis of the entire condition of the ocean is definately needed before trying to determine how our actions could possibly help.

 

[Reef_bones]

It is an interesting read, but I have to be a sceptic of anything the LATIMES or NYTIMES writes. Not saying it doesn't contain facts, just that I find those 2 tabliods tend to over dramatacize everything. I do agree jellyfish populations are on the rise, but the thing I question is if there is so much plankton and micro life then why are the feeder fish not growing in numbers too. Thats what they eat. Also this has an appocaliptic veiw that just isn't reality YET...Stressing the YET...

 

[dreaminmel]

Could be wrong but I thought they were trying to say the reason for excess plankton and micro life was because of the overfishing of the feeder fish. I'll have to read it again after work...

 

[Kalkbreath]

We seem to be returning to my beleif that the oceans have been over fished and its that loss of carbon cycle in the sea which has upset the natural C02 ballance.
I ll keep reminding you that the only time in the past 200 years which C02 levels actualy went down , was during WWII.
What was it about 1938 through 1946 which caused C02 levels to fall?