Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't care about illustrations, assumptions, or educated speculations. I care about the science, and science is not a process of best guess such has been abused in this particular field. So if it can not be shown to be such via the proper scientific method, it is merely a guess and I don't have even the faintest interest in guesses.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I was responding to another poster who said that a change in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 meant that the acidity had increased 1.2%. I was simply correcting him by saying that pH is a logarithmic scale and that such a pH change is actually a 26% increase in acidity (from 6.30 x 10^-9 mol/L to 7.94 x 10^-9 mol/L). I was not commenting on any scientific conclusions - I was just pointing out the error in his math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
That may be so, but neither you or them have a conclusion. Unless either one of you can properly show such via the scientific method. This is the problem with climate science at the moment. It does not use proper traditional means to establish its conclusions.
It certainly does. I'm curious - have you ever read a peer-reviewed, academic, scientific article?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
You do not know that for sure, nor do you know the full effect, the extent or if mankind is the significant contributor. As I said, there are a lot of speculations on what, how, when, and why, but no solid conclusions as to such. To claim so is devious and unscientific.
I do know for sure that ocean acidification is happening. It's happening as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 (that's very basic chemistry). We've been measuring and observing it directly for at least 40 years. (unless of course the thousands of researchers in this area over the past decades are all liars).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Yes, and science is about validating the evidence, not picking out what it thinks and coming to conclusions without proper evidential support. This is the failure of our educational institutions today to which teach a program to a conclusion, a goal and not a process to an understanding.
There are mountains upon mountains upon mountains of evidential support for ocean acidification due to increased atmospheric CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
And more specifically what is the cause, if it is naturally occuring and if the environment is naturally adapting. These have not been identified and substantiated with any position of proper scientific evidence. To claim so is misleading and promoting a bias.
The cause of surface ocean acidification is increased atmospheric CO2. You can try and convince me that the measured increases in CO2 aren't coming from man's industrial activities, but I'll doubt you'll convince me.
If you're really interested in scientific studies and research surrounding ocean acidification (and it's affects on carbonic species), here are 21 peer-reviewed, academic articles to start your reading (which could direct you to hundreds more if you want):
Perez, F.F., and F. Fraga (1987) The pH measurements in seawater on the NBS scale. Mar. Chem., 21, 315–327.
Brewer, P.G., A.L. Bradshaw, and R.T. Williams (1986) Measurements of total carbon dioxide and alkalinity in the North Atlantic Ocean in 1981, p. 358–381. In D. Reiche (ed.), The Global Carbon Cycle: Analysis of the Natural Cycle and Implications of Anthropogenic Alterations for the Next Century, Springer.
Caldeira, K., and M.E. Wickett (2003) Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature, 425, 365.
Clayton, T.D., and R.H. Byrne (1993) Spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements—total hydrogen-ion concentration scale calibration of M-cresol purple and at sea results. Deep-Sea Res. I, 40, 2115–2129.
Wanninkhof, R., and K. Thoning (1993) Measurement of fugacity of CO2 in surface water using continuous and discrete sampling methods. Mar. Chem., 44, 189–204.
Yates, K.K., and R.B. Halley (2006a) CO2− 3 concentration and pCO2 thresholds for calcification and dissolution on the Molokai reef flat, Hawaii. Biogeosci. Disc., 3, 123–154.
Friederich, G.E., P.G. Brewer, R. Herlien, and F.P. Chavez (1995) Measurement of sea surface partial pressure of CO2 from a moored buoy. Deep-Sea Res. I, 42, 1175–1186.
Balch, W.M., H.R. Gordon, B.C. Bowler, D.T. Drapeau, and E.S. Booth (2005) Calcium carbonate measurements in the surface global ocean based on Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer data. J. Geophys. Res., 110, C07001. doi:10.1029/2004JC002560.
Royal Society (2005) Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, Policy Document 12/05, The Royal Society.
Fairhall, A.W. (1973a) Accumulation of fossil CO2 in atmosphere and sea. Nature, 245, 20–23.
Archer, D., H. Kheshgi, and E. Maier-Reimer (1998) Dynamics of fossil fuel CO2 neutralization by marine CaCO3. Global Biogeochem. Cy., 12, 259–276.
Johnson, K.M. and others (1998) Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine studies: assessment of the quality of total inorganic carbon measurements made during the US Indian Ocean CO2 Survey 1994–1996. Mar. Chem., 63, 21–37.
Feely, R.A. and others (2002) In situ calcium carbonate dissolution in the Pacific Ocean. Global Biogeochem. Cy., 16(4), 1144, doi: 10.1029/2002GB001866.
Andersson, A.J., F.T. Mackenzie, and L.M. Ver (2003) Solution of shallow-water carbonates: An insignificant buffer against rising atmospheric CO2. Geology, 31, 513–516.
Dickson, A.G., and F.J. Millero (1987) A comparison of the equilibrium constants for the dissociation of carbonic acid in seawater media. Deep-Sea Res. A, 34, 1733–1743.
Broecker, W.S. (2003) The Ocean CaCO3 Cycle, p. 1–21. In H. Elderfield (ed.), The Oceans and Marine Geochemistry. Treatise on Geochemistry, Elsevier Pergamon.
Gruber, N., C.D. Keeling, and N.R. Bates (2002) Interannual variability in the North Atlantic Ocean carbon sink. Science, 298, 2374–2378.
Andersson, A.J., F.T. Mackenzie, and A. Lerman (2006) Coastal ocean CO2—carbonic acid—carbonate sediment system of the Anthropocene. Global Biogeochem. Cy., 20, doi:10.1029/2005GB002506.
Archer, D., and E. Maier-Reimer (1994) Effect of deep-sea sedimentary calcite preservation on atmospheric CO2 concentration. Nature, 367, 260–264.
Chisholm, J.R.M., and J.-P. Gattuso (1991) Validation of the alkalinity anomaly technique for investigating calcification and photosynthesis in coral reef communities. Limnol. Oceanogr., 36, 1232–1239.
Broecker, W., C. Langdon, T. Takahashi, T.-S. Peng (2001) Factors controlling the rate of CaCO3 precipitation on Grand Bahama Bank. Global Biogeochem. Cy., 15, 589–596.
Last edited by hammertime33; 12-04-2010 at 02:41 AM..
The article states that PH scale is from 0 to 14. ph of 7 is neutral. A ph of less than 7 is acidic. More than 7 is basic. Currently the ocean PH is 8.1 down from 8.2 in the 18th century (while the pro-AGW article says that 18th century was 8.2 I can neither confirm nor deny that is actual fact none of us were alive then)
So moving from 8.2 to 8.1 would be something on the level of a 1.23457% change.
A 30% change would move the PH of the ocean from 8.2% in the 18th century (disputed) to something on the level of 2.46 points which would make the ocean a 5.74 PH. If you swam in that, you would lose your skin.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]So here we are once again with total crap from the United Nations. Really people when are you going to start looking at what these lying people say?[/SIZE]
In the seventeenth century people went outside to take a dump and the first widely available toilet paper, Gayetty's medicated paper for the water-closet, didn't hit the market until 1857. Now I'm supposed to believe the same people who lacked indoor plumbing and had no clue how to wipe their own backsides accurately measured the world wide average PH of sea water?
That's not really the case at all. I am a scientist (physical inorganic chemist). I've worked in several research labs. I know many, many research scientists. I think you'd be surprised how little research out there has anything to do with the UN (I've never met a research scientist with any attachment to the UN whatsoever).
Not directly, but in ideal. That is, a shared bias of belief of anthropomorphic influence, and the research that seeds other fields as its basis (surface records, dendro records, ice core samples, ocean temperature, etc...) all have some reliance on those records being correct in order to speculate as to the influence of others. Otherwise there would be no means to be able to proclaim man as the influence. There is a connection in the research, and the basis for that core position is centered around those related to the UN (for instance if you use global temp records, it is likely you are using the CRU as they were the predominate suppliers of this information up until recently it was found that their records were garbage).
Now that does not mean there is not individual assessments, but remember it requires other disciplines to establish a link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Ocean acidification is a separate field of study from "climate science".
Yes, but it is also one of the key foundations to the anthropomorphic position.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I was responding to another poster who said that a change in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 meant that the acidity had increased 1.2%. I was simply correcting him by saying that pH is a logarithmic scale and that such a pH change is actually a 26% increase in acidity (from 6.30 x 10^-9 mol/L to 7.94 x 10^-9 mol/L). I was not commenting on any scientific conclusions - I was just pointing out the error in his math.
I don't care about the discussion you and the other person were discussing. My issues is with your emotional summary of the issue to which imply a need for action. That isn't science, its political.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
It certainly does. I'm curious - have you ever read a peer-reviewed, academic, scientific article?
It certainly does not. As for your question, many, though what you may call peer review I call back patting and biased based approval driven by a desire for funding and political sway. The process of peer review is a joke in the fields searching for anthropomorphic support. The CRU emails showed the problems with such. Journals like Nature and Science have been turned into political propaganda machines to which the administrations churn out support for their pet projects. It is a disgrace to proper scientific process and with one fell swoop, the climate science and related fields have sullied the name of good science.
One does not hypothesize and then assume its data sets, and then speculate as to the results of that data sets to which they then conclude a result. That is far from science and those who present such garbage are a detriment to the name of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
I do know for sure that ocean acidification is happening. It's happening as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 (that's very basic chemistry). We've been measuring and observing it directly for at least 40 years. (unless of course the thousands of researchers in this area over the past decades are all liars).
That may be, but you failed to properly support the position that this is anthropomorphic to which there is currently no valid science to make such a claim without extreme speculation, an element of politics, not science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
There are mountains upon mountains upon mountains of evidential support for ocean acidification due to increased atmospheric CO2.
Again, I am watching you move the pea. Is it Anthropomorphic? As for that "mountain upon mountains" of data, is it conclusive? Scientifically as in, properly identified, tested, and reproduced via the scientific method to which all deviations have been explained and accounted for? If not, then it is speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
The cause of surface ocean acidification is increased atmospheric CO2. You can try and convince me that the measured increases in CO2 aren't coming from man's industrial activities, but I'll doubt you'll convince me.
I don't have to convince you, YOU have to properly support your hypothesis that it is the cause. This is how science works. You don't come up with a wild assumption and then demand people prove you wrong. You must test your hypothesis over and over, explain any divergence from it properly and have your hypothesis replicated and reproduced. If it fails even once and you can not properly explain it, your hypothesis is junk and you must begin with a new one. Passing a peer review where a bunch of talking heads opinionated as to the validity of a hypothesis is consensus and it has nothing to do with the scientific methods process. It is a political institution to which even Einstein was disgusted with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
If you're really interested in scientific studies and research surrounding ocean acidification (and it's affects on carbonic species), here are 21 peer-reviewed, academic articles to start your reading (which could direct you to hundreds more if you want):
Perez, F.F., and F. Fraga (1987) The pH measurements in seawater on the NBS scale. Mar. Chem., 21, 315–327.
Brewer, P.G., A.L. Bradshaw, and R.T. Williams (1986) Measurements of total carbon dioxide and alkalinity in the North Atlantic Ocean in 1981, p. 358–381. In D. Reiche (ed.), The Global Carbon Cycle: Analysis of the Natural Cycle and Implications of Anthropogenic Alterations for the Next Century, Springer.
Caldeira, K., and M.E. Wickett (2003) Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature, 425, 365.
Clayton, T.D., and R.H. Byrne (1993) Spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements—total hydrogen-ion concentration scale calibration of M-cresol purple and at sea results. Deep-Sea Res. I, 40, 2115–2129.
Wanninkhof, R., and K. Thoning (1993) Measurement of fugacity of CO2 in surface water using continuous and discrete sampling methods. Mar. Chem., 44, 189–204.
Yates, K.K., and R.B. Halley (2006a) CO2− 3 concentration and pCO2 thresholds for calcification and dissolution on the Molokai reef flat, Hawaii. Biogeosci. Disc., 3, 123–154.
Friederich, G.E., P.G. Brewer, R. Herlien, and F.P. Chavez (1995) Measurement of sea surface partial pressure of CO2 from a moored buoy. Deep-Sea Res. I, 42, 1175–1186.
Balch, W.M., H.R. Gordon, B.C. Bowler, D.T. Drapeau, and E.S. Booth (2005) Calcium carbonate measurements in the surface global ocean based on Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer data. J. Geophys. Res., 110, C07001. doi:10.1029/2004JC002560.
Royal Society (2005) Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, Policy Document 12/05, The Royal Society.
Fairhall, A.W. (1973a) Accumulation of fossil CO2 in atmosphere and sea. Nature, 245, 20–23.
Archer, D., H. Kheshgi, and E. Maier-Reimer (1998) Dynamics of fossil fuel CO2 neutralization by marine CaCO3. Global Biogeochem. Cy., 12, 259–276.
Johnson, K.M. and others (1998) Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine studies: assessment of the quality of total inorganic carbon measurements made during the US Indian Ocean CO2 Survey 1994–1996. Mar. Chem., 63, 21–37.
Feely, R.A. and others (2002) In situ calcium carbonate dissolution in the Pacific Ocean. Global Biogeochem. Cy., 16(4), 1144, doi: 10.1029/2002GB001866.
Andersson, A.J., F.T. Mackenzie, and L.M. Ver (2003) Solution of shallow-water carbonates: An insignificant buffer against rising atmospheric CO2. Geology, 31, 513–516.
Dickson, A.G., and F.J. Millero (1987) A comparison of the equilibrium constants for the dissociation of carbonic acid in seawater media. Deep-Sea Res. A, 34, 1733–1743.
Broecker, W.S. (2003) The Ocean CaCO3 Cycle, p. 1–21. In H. Elderfield (ed.), The Oceans and Marine Geochemistry. Treatise on Geochemistry, Elsevier Pergamon.
Gruber, N., C.D. Keeling, and N.R. Bates (2002) Interannual variability in the North Atlantic Ocean carbon sink. Science, 298, 2374–2378.
Andersson, A.J., F.T. Mackenzie, and A. Lerman (2006) Coastal ocean CO2—carbonic acid—carbonate sediment system of the Anthropocene. Global Biogeochem. Cy., 20, doi:10.1029/2005GB002506.
Archer, D., and E. Maier-Reimer (1994) Effect of deep-sea sedimentary calcite preservation on atmospheric CO2 concentration. Nature, 367, 260–264.
Chisholm, J.R.M., and J.-P. Gattuso (1991) Validation of the alkalinity anomaly technique for investigating calcification and photosynthesis in coral reef communities. Limnol. Oceanogr., 36, 1232–1239.
Broecker, W., C. Langdon, T. Takahashi, T.-S. Peng (2001) Factors controlling the rate of CaCO3 precipitation on Grand Bahama Bank. Global Biogeochem. Cy., 15, 589–596.
Nifty, I have read some of them, browsed a few in the past. None are conclusive to anthropomorphic means. To claim so is dishonest and shows an obvious bias to a position.
A new study has been released showing the affect of man made carbon dioxide on our oceans.
"The chemistry of the world's oceans is changing at a rate not seen for 65 million years, with far-reaching implications for marine biodiversity and food security...Overall, pH levels in seas and oceans worldwide have fallen by an average of 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution. The report predicts that by the end of this century ocean acidity will have increased 150 percent, if emissions continue to rise at the current rate."
The continued acidification of our oceans will bring widespread destruction to ocean habitats as we know them today.
I don't have to convince you, YOU have to properly support your hypothesis that it is the cause. This is how science works. You don't come up with a wild assumption and then demand people prove you wrong.
Why not?
You do on every thread concerning climate change
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
