Acidifying Oceans Spell Marine Biological Meltdown

[havelock]

No doubt you are measuring pH, temperature and sea level in a local location rather than sampling globally?

I have no idea whether there are local factors such as the composition of the rocks in that area that help to maintain a constant pH.

I suggest that scientists that are taking samples all over the world may have more repesentative data. I see no reason so suspect them of either making silly mistakes or lying.

[rsmith7]

Well we're not sitting next to a volcanic vent. I doubt whether the composition of the rock or "local" factors make much difference. There's a fair bit of tide swilling through these islands.
Of course the 20mm of water on the surface that is exposed in any way to co2 would make all the difference. I think not.
Surely the marine organisms - phyto plankton etc - are a massive buffer to runaway co2. If there's too much co2 there will be blooms of phytoplankton to eat it up and return it from whence it came - the ocean floor where it'll be recycled into that lovely substance that has given us so much - oil.
Not a story you'd find in the Guardian.

[havelock]

Here's another report that helps to put the rate of change of acidification into context (from www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-acidity-in-the-ocean )

"That careful balance has survived over time because of a near equilibrium among the acids emitted by volcanoes and the bases liberated by the weathering of rock. The pH of seawater has remained steady for millions of years. Before the industrial era began, the average pH at the ocean surface was about 8.2 (slightly basic; 7.0 is neutral). Today it is about 8.1.

Although the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken 5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years. Ocean life survived the long, gradual change, but the current speed of acidification is very worrisome. Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 unit in this century alone and by as much as 0.7 unit beyond 2100.

About 89 percent of the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater takes the form of bicarbonate ion, about 10 percent as carbonate ion, and 1 percent as dissolved gas. Modern marine life has evolved to live in this chemistry. A wide variety of organisms use carbonate ion to manufacture their skeletons: snails, urchins, clams, crabs and lobsters. And notably, it forms the calcified plates of microscopic phytoplankton that are so abundant and crucial to the entire marine food chain. Meanwhile carbon dioxide levels influence the physiology of water-breathing organisms of all kinds, which for most creatures has been optimized to operate in a narrow range of dissolved CO2 and ocean pH.

We are now carrying out an extraordinary chemical experiment on a global scale. Our fossil-fuel emissions raise the dissolved CO2 levels in the ocean, which reduces carbonate ion concentrations and lowers pH. The ocean’s sunlit surface layer (the top 100 yards or so) could easily lose 50 percent of its carbonate ion by the end of this century unless we reduce emissions dramatically. Marine animals will find it harder to build skeletons, construct reefs, or simply to grow and breathe. Compared with past geologic events, the speed and scale of this conversion is astonishing."

You may have not noticed any change in pH because your instruments are not sensitive enough. You may say that such very small changes do not matter. They haven't effected your lobsters. However, there will come a point at which it does effect your lobsters but by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

[kiteman]

Sept 6, 2010 16:35:18 GMT 1 rsmith7 said:

I have offered my data for study in the past. As soon as it's revealled that it doesn't fit with the "direction" required by the funding bodies, it's dropped like a hot potato.
I am very interested in oceanography - it's such a shame that most of the research on-going is conclusion led.

A forum dedicated to silly arguments about AGW has been set up.

thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate

[rsmith7]

Yes, but in an eco-system (hate that term) like we have here, the changes you point to, would have become apparent already. They haven't. Everything is thriving despite the best efforts of some to paint a gloomy picture. (Usually motivated by the quest for funding.) Believe me, I'd notice if something was amiss. When I'm fishing I'm tuned into every aspect of the environment. Air temp, sea temp, pressure, wind direction, tidal cycle, water clarity and sea life behaviour. Nowt's changed.
I would have thought this good news would be met with relief and a renewed critical eye on those intent on scaring us.

[lazarus]

rsmith7

Why do you insist on posting these childish scare stories?

Yes I'd have to agree. Very radical these Geological Society Boffins, they will be tell you that the world isn't flat next.

[lazarus]

havelock

Mr Smith is a would be politician. He is impervious to arguments using facts, reason and empirical evidence.

He believes that any science or scientific institution that does not agree with him must be a conspiracy for funding, political gain etc. He will always have his own unqualified evidence that he believe is better than all the research the world over

I'd suggest you point to the science and move on because he will never be able to counter it with anything other than unsubstantiated here-say.

[rsmith7]

Sept 7, 2010 0:25:46 GMT 1 lazarus said:

havelock

Mr Smith is a would be politician. He is impervious to arguments using facts, reason and empirical evidence.

He believes that any science or scientific institution that does not agree with him must be a conspiracy for funding, political gain etc. He will always have his own unqualified evidence that he believe is better than all the research the world over

I'd suggest you point to the science and move on because he will never be able to counter it with anything other than unsubstantiated here-say.

I am totally open to arguments using "facts, reason and empirical evidence". I thought that was obvious. I'm not naive enough to fall for politically motivated propaganda - from either side of the argument.
Are you a member of Greenpeace, WWF of the RSPB?

[havelock]

Sept 6, 2010 19:09:53 GMT 1 rsmith7 said:

Yes, but in an eco-system (hate that term) like we have here, the changes you point to, would have become apparent already. They haven't. Everything is thriving despite the best efforts of some to paint a gloomy picture. (Usually motivated by the quest for funding.) Believe me, I'd notice if something was amiss. When I'm fishing I'm tuned into every aspect of the environment. Air temp, sea temp, pressure, wind direction, tidal cycle, water clarity and sea life behaviour. Nowt's changed.
I would have thought this good news would be met with relief and a renewed critical eye on those intent on scaring us.

and if the changes that the science points to are not yet apparent to you but will be in 10 to 20 years time if the acidification continues at the present rate?

What then?

Do you accept that there might be a delay between the acidification of the oceans and you noticing the effects?

Do you think it wise to ignore the scientists and wait until your lobsters can no longer form an exo-skeleton because of the lack of carbonate ion before admitting that there could be something amiss?

[rsmith7]

"and if the changes that the science points to are not yet apparent to you but will be in 10 to 20 years time if the acidification continues at the present rate?"

So you assert that a 30% fall in pH wouldn't be noticable???
If the sea had acidified to this extent:
1. It would have shown up on the readings I've taken for 20 years.
2. There would be massive changes in sea life.

Neither have happened.
Can you explain why?

[lazarus]

I am totally open to arguments using "facts, reason and empirical evidence". I thought that was obvious.
I'm afraid so far that is far from the case. You seem to reject all science as some sort of left wig conspiracy if it contradicts your political beliefs.

Are you a member of Greenpeace, WWF of the RSPB?

Not at all but the fact that you seem to think being a member could mean the person has fallen for ' politically motivated propaganda' does underline my first point.

[rsmith7]

Not that they'd fallen for politically motivated propaganda but that they were purveyors of it.
I repeatedly point to actual empirical evidence backed up with logical argument.
You, however, continue to repeat well known propaganda. Glacier scare stories to name but one.
We could go on like this for ever. I'll leave it for the other readers to decide who has the most credible argument.
You admit to being involved in climate modelling in the past. Surely you'd admit that this would lead to some attachment to them whether it be emotional or professional capital.

[havelock]

Here is another report that says "Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, ocean acidity (defined here as the hydrogen ion concentration) has increased by 30%. This change is about 100 times faster than any change in acidity experienced during the last many millions of years. Within only a few decades, surface waters in the coldest parts of the ocean are projected to start becoming corrosive to the calcium carbonate shells of some marine organisms. But large unknowns, including the potential for organisms to adapt and the propagation of effects through ecosystems, need to be studied in order to evaluate ecological and economical impacts."

www.ocean-acidification.net/Symposium2008/ResearchPrioritiesReport_OceanHighCO2WorldII.pdf

I suggest that, just because you have not noticed it does not mean it is not happening.

Do you believe these scientists are wrong or are part of a conspiracy?

Your own political affiliations are quite clear and are perhaps colouring your views. Because this is a failing that you suffer from does not mean that others do to. Most people do not have an axe to grind (unlike yourself) and accept the science for what it is - evidence based, observation led studies that draw conclusions based on facts.

[rsmith7]

I'll re-post this so that it doesn't get buried among the petty bickering

"and if the changes that the science points to are not yet apparent to you but will be in 10 to 20 years time if the acidification continues at the present rate?"

So you assert that a 30% fall in pH wouldn't be noticable???
If the sea had acidified to this extent:
1. It would have shown up on the readings I've taken for 20 years.
2. There would be massive changes in sea life.

Neither have happened.
Can you explain why?

[rsmith7]

"But large unknowns, including the potential for organisms to adapt and the propagation of effects through ecosystems, need to be studied in order to evaluate ecological and economical impacts."

That'll keep the author and their team in business for quite a while eh?
Motive?