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.
How is it fear mongering to state a FACT? If the hydronium concentration increased from 6.30 x 10^-9 mol/L to 7.94 x 10^-9 mol/L, then it has become 26% more acidic.
If anything the gross misrepresentation is to present the increase in terms of a logarithmic pH scale to a general public which by in large doesn't understand what that means.
Those aren't facts, much of the research you provided in that link is speculation on conclusion and a lot of it is heavily contested.
In order for something to be a fact, it must first start as a hypothesis, then it must be tested rigorously showing no deviation from the hypothesis without proper explanation and it must be replicated among many others (due diligence) to validate that hypothesis.
Your report is a bunch of speculative research papers that hold a hypothesis yet have no valid means of confirmation. That makes them still a hypothesis, not a fact.
Even if this study were true...where does the bulk of it come from? US? China?
From the Ocean.
CO2 as well as N2 and Methane are soluble in seawater and they are also locked into the substrate.
Our orbit is not circular, it's elliptical with the average (key-word) distance from the Sun being about 93.5 Million miles.
Over the course of 100,000 years our orbit moves from elliptical to near-circular. This means the apogee and perigee change and that the Earth is closer to the Sun for longer periods of time.
Currently, we are closer to the Sun than we have ever been in recorded human history. This 100,000 year cycle ends in December 2012 at which time the Earth will begin moving farther away from the Sun very slowly over thousands of years. About 8,000 to 10,000 years from now we will be moving back towards our normal climate, which is continuous Ice Age.
This extra energy from the Sun increases ocean water temperatures causing gases like CO2 in the substrate to liberate where it then is in the ocean water (remember the Ideal Gas Laws concerning temperature, pressure and volume -- soluble gases are under enormous pressure at just one hundred feet below sea level).
We also read the IPCC AR's as well, it had a lot of names and made a lot of conclusions and well... how did that turn out?
Not my point at all.
I was simply responding to another poster who claimed "For some reason, only Europeans and the UN are saying this". My response was to post an academic review of ocean acidification research (an academic review meaning experienced scientists in the field studied all of the published, peer reviewed scientific reports and data that dealt with ocean acidification then summarized and discussed it) that was in no way connected to the UN. I posted the authors to point out that 18 of the 22 were NOT European.
For every acid nature creates a complimentary alkaline. Why can't we simply neutralize the cabonic acid with something that will bring the ph of the oceans back into stasis?
Surely, there is some nasty, caustic by-product out there that will do tthe trick.
Those aren't facts, much of the research you provided in that link is speculation on conclusion and a lot of it is heavily contested.
In order for something to be a fact, it must first start as a hypothesis, then it must be tested rigorously showing no deviation from the hypothesis without proper explanation and it must be replicated among many others (due diligence) to validate that hypothesis.
Your report is a bunch of speculative research papers that hold a hypothesis yet have no valid means of confirmation. That makes them still a hypothesis, not a fact.
Um, well first, those numbers are just illustrations. Another poster just threw out pH 8.2 and 8.1 and said that it is representative of what might be occurring (his "might", not mine). He then claimed such a change is negligible because it's only a 1.2% increase in acidity (when in fact it's a 26% increase).
My responses (including the one you quoted) were primarily lessons in basic chemistry to correct his misunderstanding of pH and acidity.
As to Ocean acidification - it is happening. The hypothesis comes from basic equilibrium chemistry. The more CO2 over water, the more acidic the water becomes (that's been known and shown for hundreds of years). It's an observed fact that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is progressively increasing (and has been since the industrial revolution). Knowing this, every chemist in the world has speculated that the ocean is probably becoming more acidic (acidifying). Many chemists (and other scientists) have gone out and tested this. These tests all show that surface ocean water is in fact acidifying. Moreover, some have correlated it to the increase in atmospheric CO2 in a predictable manner (gee, I wonder why that could be).
Yes, there is a lot of variation and many unanswered questions. Ocean currents, specific regional chemical composition, temperature, etc, all effect the acidification process. It's not clear how much deep water (as opposed to surface water) is being acidified - if it is at all.
Whether surface ocean water is acidifying isn't really being debated - it's been demonstrated that it is. The debate has become what is the affect of ocean acidification on marine life and the marine ecosystem.
Is it great? Is it negligible? Is it beneficial to some species? Is it harmful to others? Some other poster (perhaps it was you) pointed out how acidification by CO2 increases some carbonate species. Bicarbonate is becoming more abundant (HCO3-) where as carbonate ([CO3]2-) is becoming less abundant due to acidification. What affect do such changes in the chemical environment mean for the whole system?
Hypotheses are being made, and experiments are being conducted to try and answer these questions. To expect no change is naive.
Like I'm really going to put my trust in you and not scientists and officials who have dedicated their lives to studying this subject.
Get real, global warming deniers have no credibility. Maybe get a PHD in Environmental Science or hell, even Biology and then you can argue with them.
so only people that have what you consider the proper education can argue certain subjects? if that is truly your position, then you are just fooling yourself. just because a person does not have a PHD in a certain area does not mean they cannot be an expert in that area.
I was simply responding to another poster who claimed "For some reason, only Europeans and the UN are saying this". My response was to post an academic review of ocean acidification research (an academic review meaning experienced scientists in the field studied all of the published, peer reviewed scientific reports and data that dealt with ocean acidification then summarized and discussed it) that was in no way connected to the UN. I posted the authors to point out that 18 of the 22 were NOT European.
You would be surprised how much of the research out there does deal with the UN. The whole problem with the research today is that it is incestuous, and is using, relying, or referring to previous research in the field (even when it appears it does not).
Look, I understand your eagerness and interest, but the fact is that anything that deals with "climate science" is HIGHLY suspect in its integrity. That is not to say there is not legitimate research out there in Climate Science, but those "legitimate" sources are not coming to bold conclusions such as you or the summaries you have suggested have.
Um, well first, those numbers are just illustrations. Another poster just threw out pH 8.2 and 8.1 and said that it is representative of what might be occurring (his "might", not mine). He then claimed such a change is negligible because it's only a 1.2% increase in acidity (when in fact it's a 26% increase).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
My responses (including the one you quoted) were primarily lessons in basic chemistry to correct his misunderstanding of pH and acidity.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
As to Ocean acidification - it is happening. The hypothesis comes from basic equilibrium chemistry. The more CO2 over water, the more acidic the water becomes (that's been known and shown for hundreds of years). It's an observed fact that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is progressively increasing (and has been since the industrial revolution). Knowing this, every chemist in the world has speculated that the ocean is probably becoming more acidic (acidifying). Many chemists (and other scientists) have gone out and tested this. These tests all show that surface ocean water is in fact acidifying. Moreover, some have correlated it to the increase in atmospheric CO2 in a predictable manner (gee, I wonder why that could be).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Yes, there is a lot of variation and many unanswered questions. Ocean currents, specific regional chemical composition, temperature, etc, all effect the acidification process. It's not clear how much deep water (as opposed to surface water) is being acidified - if it is at all.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Whether surface ocean water is acidifying isn't really being debated - it's been demonstrated that it is. The debate has become what is the affect of ocean acidification on marine life and the marine ecosystem.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Is it great? Is it negligible? Is it beneficial to some species? Is it harmful to others? Some other poster (perhaps it was you) pointed out how acidification by CO2 increases some carbonate species. Bicarbonate is becoming more abundant (HCO3-) where as carbonate ([CO3]2-) is becoming less abundant due to acidification. What affect do such changes in the chemical environment mean for the whole system?
Good questions, but they should remain in the basis of discovering the validity of a hypothesis and not a motive of investment in political influence which is what this is being used for at the moment. It is a disgrace to proper scientific process and a mockery of intelligent discovery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Hypotheses are being made, and experiments are being conducted to try and answer these questions. To expect no change is naive.
I expect nothing more than a proper process of discovery to which a result that deviates and is not explained leads to a reconstruction of a hypothesis and not an adjustment to findings to fit such. The problem is that a bias (through political demand) has tainted this process and the result is an imbalance in the proper process of scientific discovery. To deny this is to admit a lean to a bias and to promote propaganda.
You would be surprised how much of the research out there does deal with the UN. The whole problem with the research today is that it is incestuous, and is using, relying, or referring to previous research in the field (even when it appears it does not).
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Look, I understand your eagerness and interest, but the fact is that anything that deals with "climate science" is HIGHLY suspect in its integrity. That is not to say there is not legitimate research out there in Climate Science, but those "legitimate" sources are not coming to bold conclusions such as you or the summaries you have suggested have.
Ocean acidification is a separate field of study from "climate science".
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.
