View Full Version : Ocean Acidification - a VERY scary scenario!
caliban
19-04-2010, 01:45 PM
I stumbled onto this video on the web about ocean acidification and the future of fisheries:
I've been following the debates around climate change etc on and off, but I have to say this one scared the bejesus out of me! Basically this is NOT directly related to global warming, it has to do with the oceans absorbing all that CO2 we've been emmitting since the Industrial Revolution and which is ramping up dramatically. The data on CO2 levels seems pretty non-controversial and if the science is even half-way right in this video, then as fishermen we have a lot to be worried about. They are estimating the demise of most coral reefs within DECADES given the increasing acidity of the water and the impact this has on organisms like coral pollyps and krill that rely on a calcium carbonate exoskeleton. This also means the total collapse and extinction of most of the marine food chain. There is some stuff at the end of the video about marine sanctuaries - which to me seems pointless if the marine food chain and basic ocean chemistry is being rapidly destroyed!
I'm a fisherman with a family and I hate to think that in as little as 20 or 30 years we may not have a marine ecosystem to fish in and my kids may never see wild fish, sharks etc (let alone what this might mean for the global economy etc)!
Anyway, I'm hoping someone can tell me to relax - it's all a hoax etc etc. Otherwise I can only assume our governments are complicit in this silence and just trying to keep us all calm before the big calamity happens. If it is real then some sort of dramatic action to limit CO2 emissions would seem essential (irrespective of all the money we make out of digging coal out of the ground!)
Cheers,
Chris
caliban
19-04-2010, 01:53 PM
Sorry video link is:
[/url][url]
Scott nthQld
20-04-2010, 02:45 PM
yep, and the video link, even without seeing it is full of BS.
That last volcanic eruption, ie the one the other week, released MORE CO2 than the man made industrial revolution has since man first figured out how to make a fire.
Don't believe anything they tell you, and if you are one of 'them', go jump in a lake
Ozwald
20-04-2010, 03:20 PM
scott
you are spouting BS....
"Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions."
Oz
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/search/search.cfm?qFileType=&qCollection=&qSearchText=co2+volcanoes
TimiBoy
20-04-2010, 03:33 PM
Chris,
I believe you can sleep easy.
While I am not a chemistry expert, there are a few things I can raise that bring the acidification idea into BS status:
1. Coral evolved when CO2 was at 2000 ppm, about 400 million years ago.
2. Many experiments have been conducted. Some creatures will do badly, most will be fine, some will do very well. Equilibrium will be achieved, and evolution will do it's job. Indeed some creatures, totally against the hypothesis, actually thrive - the mechanism is not yet understood, but they believe Carbonic acid may actually be used as a catalyst somehow.
3. Of the total amount of CO2 emitted on the planet, man is responsible for about 3.6%, so if it's going up, it'll go up with or without our help. Here's a giggle - if we reduce by 20%, we will reduce total CO2 emissions worldwide by .7 of one percent. Possibly not even measureable. For this we detroy the Global Economy? Nature dwarfs us.
4. Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years and at the same time lower than at any time in history if we look at time scales longer than 50 million years.
So given we are at VERY low CO2 levels as compared to 20+ million years ago (yesterday in Geological terms) it's amazing the Planet didn't cook off back then, huh.
Cheers,
Tim
Mike Delisser
20-04-2010, 03:41 PM
yep, and the video link, even without seeing it is full of BS.
That last volcanic eruption, ie the one the other week, released MORE CO2 than the man made industrial revolution has since man first figured out how to make a fire.
Don't believe anything they tell you, and if you are one of 'them', go jump in a lake
Do you have a reference for that?
According to Prof Plimer on the radio today that eruption is releasing less CO2 than humans are releasing at the same time, and he is Australias formost climate change sceptic (for want of a better term). He talking with Greg Carey on 4BC today.
TimiBoy
20-04-2010, 03:48 PM
Do you have a reference for that?
According to Prof Plimer on the radio today that eruption is releasing less CO2 than humans are releasing at the same time, and he is Australias formost climate change sceptic (for want of a better term). He talking with Greg Carey on 4BC today.
Did he? Actually it's nice that Plimer has toned that one down. He's carried on in the past like a looney talking about volcanoes. I don't believe he has helped the Skeptics' cause.
The truth is that while they do emit quite a bit of CO2, it's far less than humans do, and it's mega mega MEGA pathetic when measured against the general global natural output.
Volcanoes actually have a generally cooling effect, short term because of the particulate clouds they produce, and SO2. If the Icelandic eruption continues and intensifies, we may well have a cool Summer next year...
Cheers,
Tim
caliban
20-04-2010, 03:51 PM
So just ignore it and it will go away - boy I hope you are right!
You might want to watch the video though - because when the world's leading marine biologists tell me the ocean's chemistry is changing radically that is kind of alarming.
caliban
20-04-2010, 04:00 PM
Tim,
Thanks for the response. Perhaps I can relax now?
Have you got any refs for the human contribution to total CO2 emissions - 3.6% does seem pretty minimal.
Chris
TimiBoy
20-04-2010, 04:02 PM
So just ignore it and it will go away - boy I hope you are right!
You might want to watch the video though - because when the world's leading marine biologists tell me the ocean's chemistry is changing radically that is kind of alarming.
Yes I know.
Follow the money. You can bet your ar$e and mine too he's totally addicted to grant money that kinda helps him decide where he wants his research to go. Huh. Post Modern Science, they're calling it.
In other words, if you want to publish something saying the World is not about to go to hell in a handbasket, you will lose your funding. Bingo, outcome assured.
The major Skeptic Scientists (and there are thousands) are mostly self funded or retired. There's no money in not getting on the AGW boat. And don't be fooled, the acidification bit is every bit part of the AGW furfy. Oh, and if anyone says my view is BIG OIL funded, they are on drugs. Big Oil funding is miniscule, and over. The last documented case of Oil funding was in 2003 to the HEartland Institute to the tune of $23 million. Kinda tiny compared to the BILLIONS going to AGW research. Big Oil is lining up to make $$$$ out of Carbon Trading. They don't care, they will just find another way to rape your wallet.
Google Walter Stark. He's a World Leading Marine Biologist too. A good spot to start getting some reality into your head.
By the way, no, I don't think we should ignore pollution. We should aggressively tackle it. There's a definition problem, though. CO2 is not a pollutant. Period. And, as I said, Man's output of CO2 is almost statistically insignificant compared to Nature's.
Cheers,
Tim
FNQCairns
20-04-2010, 04:08 PM
I would be more worried over O2, boy o boy do we cut that survivable range very thin!
TimiBoy
20-04-2010, 04:17 PM
Tim,
Thanks for the response. Perhaps I can relax now?
Have you got any refs for the human contribution to total CO2 emissions - 3.6% does seem pretty minimal.
Chris
I've dug them up in the past - I don't have a list. You should find it fairly easily if you do some research, but if I find it I'll let you know.
Cheers,
Tim
TimiBoy
20-04-2010, 04:25 PM
Actually that number (or very close to it) is not disputed, but the warmists will talk about it being "additional" - that it buggers up the "equilibrium".
Um, equilibrium? There's another impossible to prove hypothesis: Post Modern Science again.
Don't be scared. Don't be in a hurry to hand over extra taxes to achieve what will be a null outcome.
Cheers,
Tim
lampuki
20-04-2010, 04:45 PM
I cant wait....when in 2030 (if im still allowed to by law), I come home with some fish, take some photos, and place them on Ausfish.....I hope that footage is still on youtube so that I can add it to my thread and have a giggle.
This is nothing more than an advanced marketing campaign for those with a conncern in renewable energy and a pull on the heart strings by extremist envionmentalists.
Chris, you said it yourself....the video poses the question: What can we do about ocean adicification.....the first answer the video provides is marine parks...
Can someone please explain to me how the chemistry of the water is afftected by applying a marine park?
Very little science provided and the majority of it is emotive crap...The crying fisherman at the end was offensive!
After spending weeks reading scientific documentation on global warming, Ill be damned if I spend any significant time researching this issue.....If I am provided with clear fact, and a reasonable conclusion drawn from those facts, then I will listen.....according to video, within 20 years, we will know the answer.
PinHead
20-04-2010, 04:51 PM
to be perfectly honest..I have had a gutfull of all this CO2 talk...some scientist says we are i ntrouble..some say we aren't and some don't have any idea.
As far as i am concerned , I am over it and a lot of people I know are of the same mind. You can find some scary stuff and then stuff that negates it all.
Just go out and enjoy yourself..take your rubbish home and have a good life.
Stuff the scientists..I am over them.
finga
20-04-2010, 05:48 PM
Scientists are like the rest of us.
They will find finding that will agree with the thoughts of anyone willing to sign a cheque to the researcher whether the signer be a government, private organisation or individual.
Timmy is right. Take note of the scientists who do it for free. ie retired.
Actually I was going to do my bit for global warming tonight.
It's a bit chilly so I was going to light the fire but it rained and all the wood is wet.
I'll have to wear the flannelly jarmies instead.
gr hilly
20-04-2010, 08:01 PM
scientist one who gets paid to scare the hell out of you,don't lose any sleep mate the fish won't'.
hilly
Chimo
23-04-2010, 09:32 AM
Whale poo key to healthy oceans
ANDREW DARBY
April 23, 2010
EVERY little bit helps. Research has revealed the potential value of whale poo in mitigating climate change through its recycling of iron.
Australian Antarctic scientists looking into ways to increase the amount of CO2-absorbing algae in oceans have traced the passage of iron through whale digestive systems and have found that whales take up iron when they consume shrimp-like krill.
Before commercial whaling began early last century, whales consumed about 190 million tonnes of krill per year, converting this into about 7600 tonnes of iron-rich faeces, which encouraged the growth of carbon-absorbing algae, according to Steve Nicol, of the Australian Antarctic Division.
''This monumental fertilising effort means the whales may have been responsible for recycling about 12 per cent of the current iron content in the surface layer of the Southern Ocean,'' Dr Nicol said.
''The baleen whales' faecal iron concentration is about 10 million times that of Antarctic seawater.''
He said about 24 per cent of the total iron in the Southern Ocean surface water is currently stored within krill body tissue.
''The most recent estimates of krill biomass in the Southern Ocean is 379 million tonnes, storing about 15,000 tonnes of iron.''
The research suggests increasing populations of baleen whales and krill would have a positive effect on the Southern Ocean ecosystem and improve the ocean's ability to absorb CO2.
davez104
23-04-2010, 10:18 AM
Our environment is constantly changing. Every living organism has an effect, no matter how minuscule. If we push things too far one way, nature will bight back, she will cull us at some point. As long as our world population continues to increase at it's current rate, we will continue to rapidly approach that point. There is a limit to the number of humans this planet can support.
How many of these climate change models are accurate, I wouldn't know, not many would be my guess. They can speculate all they like about the various effects of human emissions, but none of them really know how nature will respond. Every change in the chemical composition of our planet will be to the detriment of some organisms, but to the benefit of others. the same with the change in the climate. We are shifting the base of the food chain. Some animals will adapt, some won't.
Will we? I guess we will, but there will be casualties.
We can't keep raping the planet and expect nothing to change.
FNQCairns
23-04-2010, 10:21 AM
OK alternative heading:) Whales not man as once believed have now been shown as responsible for the eutrophication of oceanic surface waters!
Scientist once believed different but recent research has now shown that the great toxic blooms of cyanobacteria that exist each year in most waters frequented by whales but lays waste to trillions of marine organisms at a any time.......
Neither 'report' is I suspect the whole story just a very very very very minor portion of any whole in any sane thought process.....still 'reports' help to keep the money coming in!
4x4frog
23-04-2010, 10:29 AM
So just ignore it and it will go away - boy I hope you are right!
You might want to watch the video though - because when the world's leading marine biologists tell me the ocean's chemistry is changing radically that is kind of alarming.
My only question is, who are the leading marine biologists and from whence do they hail?
I saw a segment on an ABC Sunday morning news programme a few months back where they spoke to a marine scientist from James Cook Uni I think it was and he strongly refuted many of the claims by the global warming alarmists. His take on it was 99% of their data was very limited in that they only surveyed very small sections of the reef for damage. There is little evidence for saying fertilizer is doing much damage as the outer sections of the reef are actually growing. Further more, when the oceans do rise, if in fact that happens, reef growth will increase because of more protection to the reef from, yep you guessed it, more water coverage. They don't tell us these things. I'd like to be able to find this interview but my search skills are similar to the truths warmist alarmists tell, very tainted;D
It depends on who you speak to as to just what effect humans are having on the planet. As Carl Kryz..... said the other day, we are really just passengers and have little effect on the planet per say because it'll only take one huge eruption and we could all be ash.
davez104
23-04-2010, 11:07 AM
Not sure what you mean by protection from more water coverage, but the corals will have to grow upwards to keep pace with rising sea levels. They live in the shallows because they need to. Changes in salinity could me more of a concern, though I have no idea how much fresh water could potentially be released from frozen stores or how much of an effect it will have.
TimiBoy
23-04-2010, 11:53 AM
Not sure what you mean by protection from more water coverage, but the corals will have to grow upwards to keep pace with rising sea levels. They live in the shallows because they need to. Changes in salinity could me more of a concern, though I have no idea how much fresh water could potentially be released from frozen stores or how much of an effect it will have.
Very little in percentage terms is held in ice. No one's started up about salinity issues because it's just not even close to beginning to think about considering becoming an issue.
Cheers,
Tim
Ozwald
23-04-2010, 03:19 PM
My only question is, who are the leading marine biologists and from whence do they hail?
I saw a segment on an ABC Sunday morning news programme a few months back where they spoke to a marine scientist from James Cook Uni I think it was and he strongly refuted many of the claims by the global warming alarmists. His take on it was 99% of their data was very limited in that they only surveyed very small sections of the reef for damage. There is little evidence for saying fertilizer is doing much damage as the outer sections of the reef are actually growing. Further more, when the oceans do rise, if in fact that happens, reef growth will increase because of more protection to the reef from, yep you guessed it, more water coverage. They don't tell us these things. I'd like to be able to find this interview but my search skills are similar to the truths warmist alarmists tell, very tainted;D
Probably Professor Bob Carter, famous sceptic; a marine geologist rather than a marine biologist I think.
TimiBoy
02-05-2010, 01:57 PM
I can now add a little more. Many studies have been carried out it seems. Many have tested increased acidity using HCL (Hydrochloric acid) and this has resulted in very nasty results. Things die.
Funny thing is, while the acidification bit is the same, the chemicals aren't. Studies done by slowly bubbling CO2 through the water to try and simulate the possibility of Carbonic Acid (you know, real world) have shown Coral responding by growing faster and stronger.
FROM
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/the-debate-continues-dr-glikson-v-joanne-nova/
"When a researcher recently did the hard yards of actually bubbling CO2 through corals in a tank, and also analyzing sediment cores, she and her team found that in the last 220 years as CO2 levels increased the average cocolith mass grew by 40%."
Reference (actual science here folks, not a committee...)
- Iglesias-Rodriguez, M.D., Halloran, P.R., Rickaby, R.E.M., Hall, I.R., Colmenero-Hidalgo, E., Gittins, J.R., Green, D.R.H., Tyrrell, T., Gibbs, S.J., von Dassow, P., Rehm, E., Armbrust, E.V. and Boessenkool, K.P. 2008. Phytoplankton calcification in a high-CO2 world. Science 320: 336-340.
Cheers,
Tim
TimiBoy
03-05-2010, 06:31 AM
Also worth a read...
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/answers_to_fishers_testimony.html
Cheers,
Tim
davez104
03-05-2010, 10:29 AM
Shame it doesn't give many details on the experiment. The description given is way to brief to draw any conclusions as to how they came about their findings. I use co2 on my coral aquarium too, but the way it is used does not adversely affect the pH. However, if the house is closed up, the increase in atmospheric co2 inside the house DOES adversely affect the pH. Draw from that what you will.
At a pH of around 7.5 corals are unable to form their calcium skeletons, the chemical reactions required will not happen, therefore they will die, end of story.
I am no expert on the subject, but facts can be manipulated for either side of the argument. Time is the only thing that will tell us for sure what is going to happen. Only problem with that is, if things are going to go bad, it will be too late by the time we know.
Dave.
Saltdoggy
03-05-2010, 05:54 PM
To be honest i believe its just another scare tactic to keep us all thinking global warming etc is going to kill out this planet. If they keep telling everyone the same crap day in day out, people are going to believe it and in turn no one's going to think twice about handing over there hard earned money for "carbon offsets" "going green" etc. Just for a laugh i'll put this in too.
Al gore introduced "Global Warming"
Al gore introduced "carbon offsets"
You can buy them....from his company...he profits (So i guess you could say "An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.climatecrisis.net/)" was a pretty good commercial for al gore's company!)
Al Gore is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations!!!
NRDC made that film that you all just watched
And...ha!
NRDC's director is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations
Research for yourself members of the Council on Foreign Relations, there's a lot of dodgy important people involved with them. I can almost garuntee you there members came up with "global warming"...the same people who wanted to tax farmers because there animals are contributing to global warming????
Recent article i read...
"The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain."
Bogus film!
siegfried
07-05-2010, 08:29 PM
No bastard believes in God no more ,theese prickz need something to scare the money out of us with
Saltdoggy
08-05-2010, 05:00 PM
Too right! You couldn't have said that any beter siegfried!
TimiBoy
09-05-2010, 07:34 AM
I use co2 on my coral aquarium too, but the way it is used does not adversely affect the pH. However, if the house is closed up, the increase in atmospheric co2 inside the house DOES adversely affect the pH. Draw from that what you will.
Dave.
Dave, do you know what level the CO2 gets to when your house is locked up?
Do you know that it is a CO2 buildup and not something else causing the issue when you lock up?
And what is the degree of change in pH when you close up the house.
400 million years ago those corals evolved, when atmospheric CO2 was at 2000ppm +. If your tank is affected, it would be interesting to know what the level gets to...
Sorry, but all those facts need to be known before I can draw any conclusion.:grin::grin::grin:
Cheers,
Tim
davez104
09-05-2010, 10:22 PM
Yeah, I know what your saying Tim. I don't know all of the details of CO2 levels in the house when locked up, which I guess technically makes my argument null and void. But it is generally believed (I'll refrain from using the word 'fact') that with respiring animals in an enclosed space, the CO2 levels will rise and oxygen levels fall over time. The pH should sit around 8.2 - 8.3 given exposure to correct atmospheric conditions and good gas exchange, but I have seen my tank as low as 7.8 after being closed up for a day. I don't know of any other factors that would influence the pH to that extent, but like I said, I'm no expert.
It would be interesting to know what CO2 levels would have to get to have that sort of influence on the ocean and if we are even capable of releasing enough to have that impact.
I still believe that it's all guesswork we are hearing based on individual scientists biased view on the world. But I also believe that if we can reduce our impact on the planet, then that is a good thing, but I think we are going the wrong way about it. Population control is the only thing that will work in the long run, there has to be a limit to the number of humans this planet can support. I don't want to be around when that limit is reached.
Dave.
TimiBoy
27-07-2010, 12:39 PM
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/5990/428
Very technical, but what this is saying is that they've found evidence of creatures adapting to acidifaction rather than dying out, at a time when there was rapid and massive increase in CO2 levels as a result of extreme volcanic activity.
Cheers,
Tim
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.