You say you have a degree in chemical engineering yet you do not seem to understand the carbon cycle or even the basics of chemical equilibrium equations and you spew the kind of nonsense you find on denier blogs like WUWT. Sorry if you take this the wrong way but I know how people with science degrees talk and I find your claim very hard to believe. Couple that with the fact you are unable to provide a single cite on-line that verifies this supposed book you are using for accuracy. I am claiming that the pH of the oceans dropped by 0.7 unit over 10,000 years in the worse pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere from the second phase of volcanic explosions. Ths was enough to kill off over 90% of all oceanic species. "The team saw little change in acid levels during the first phase of the Permian extinction, which lasted about 50,000 years. But during the second, much faster pulse, pH levels dropped by about 0.7 units over 10,000 years, Clarkson says." That is probably because the Siberian volcanoes were putting out so much CO2 so quickly, the researchers argue. “It’s such a rapid change, the ocean can’t buffer the CO2 increase,” Clarkson says. But you only have to go back 50 million years or so to a time when massive amounts of CO2 spewed into the atmosphere "The associated period of massive carbon injection into the atmosphere has been estimated to have lasted no longer than 20,000 years. The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C.[3] The carbon dioxide was likely released in two pulses, the first lasting less than 2,000 years. Such a repeated carbon release is in line with current global warming.[2] A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free.[4] However, the amount of released carbon, according to a recent study, suggests a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year.[5][6]" https://www.nature.com/news/acidic-oceans-linked-to-greatest-extinction-ever-1.17276 https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification I shouldn't have to explain any of this to you if you really have a science degree. This is all pretty basic solution chemistry and is not controversial to anyone who has a background in science. And you are citing climate deniers like Gregory Whitestone which is a dead givaway that you are not well versed in anything other than a political argument in denial of what is really fairly basic science. The pH of the oceans has already dropped by 0.1 pH unit. If you are really a chemical engineer you should have no problem understanding how much of a percentage increase in protons this means for the oceans in a logarithmic scale.
I disagree. But we do need to rapidly change the way our economic system and it's consequences are effecting the planet. Something that is not going to happen as long as the fossil fuel denial industry is going to use the same tactics that the tobacco industry did to wring every last dollar out of the planets death throes. I hope you are being ironic
Help me out bro, I have trouble reading stuff like this and if the post is over 10 lines its TL;DR. Was there a solution to this concern or just a bunch of "Might happen" scenario's?
What else happened in that time period ?? What was the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ?? What were the pH levels before and after ?? You don't believe papers by the sources listed in my post ?? All you do as all alarmists do is to resort to personal attacks and insults. Why do you falsely claim that Gregory Whitestone denies that global warming is occurring ?? That's telling. Here is a free book with a complete section on ocean pH with 602 references to peer reviewed scientific papers. https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/longhurst-print.pdf I'd recommend that you at least read the section in Chapter 10 on ocean pH - sections 10.3 and 10.4
The UN is as worthless and unreliable as a tabloid. But if it makes you feel better the birth rate in Western nations is declining. All we have to do is spread capitalism and let third world nations develop and their birth rate will drop resulting in fewer people and less consumption of resources
Science is a liberal lie. The Bible says earth is 6,000 years old. We walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs.
How much of that statistic includes species that went extinct because their descendants evolved to another species? That’s different from the kind of extinction we’re looking at here. Species are dying and an escalated rate due to artificial causes.
this is my field.. and this "Acidification" of the oceans is complete fear mongering BS. There is nothing "acidic" about the ocean at all. Of course if they told you the truth and said the Oceans PH went from a very alkaline 8.2 down to a very alkaline 8.1.. that doesn't have the same fear inducing responses from people, so they come up with "acidification" to scare people like you..
The U.S. Isn't killing the planet. I am not willing to pay more for energy until other Countries reduce their use of fossil fuels. And besides, I am not convinced that we can alter the climate cycle significantly. I believe that we should take measures to deal with the enviable. Don't rebuild near the oceans. Don't rebuild in areas prone to forest fires. Don't rebuild in areas that constantly flood. Raise insurance premiums on these areas.
There is no politically possible way to reduce CO2 emissions to produce a significant reduction in temperature. And global warming is beneficial.
Southern California is experiencing the most moderate weather I've seen since I moved here in 1985 and the most rainfall. The drought is over and cooler temperatures are great. Seems as though the slightly warmer temperature is putting more moisture in the air to fall as rain and the clouds keep it cool. Is that supposed to be bad?
Bleaching does not = dead coral. Bleaching is the coral expelling the algae due to an environmental change, usually el nino cause the sudden change that causes bleaching. The coral will regrow new algae once the environment has gone back, or will grow new algae that is more adaptable to the new environment. Bleaching events have happened to the Great Barrier reef in 1980, 1982, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2016/17 In 98 and 02 the events bleached 42% and 54% of coral. Bleaching has happened 1000s of times in the past, and will happen 1000s of times in the future. A study of the bleaching events in the Great Barrier reef has shown the majority of coral recovers from a bleaching event. and only about 10% of the loss of coral in the reef can be attributed to bleaching. So corals have a natural adaptation to expel algae and regrow new algae that is better suited to the new environmental change. Think about that for a second.. the corals natural ability to adapt to a changing environment is being used to scare you into thinking the corals will die because of a changing environment. Coral Bleaching sounds scary just like acidification..
Yeah except you have no idea how many species went extinct to have a comparison in the first place. The only ones we know for sure are those that exist in the fossil record, and 99% of those died off. You have no evidence that the last few thousand years are any different than the last few hundred million. How many species died during the multiple ice ages, do you suppose? The ice ages and asteroid impacts are what wiped out life on this planet, not 22C increases in temperature and thousands of PPM CO2 in the atmosphere. You just want it to be true for you, so in your mind, it is.
I'm not resorting to personal attacks. I'm making a comment that you don't appear to understand how the carbon cycle works and you seem to be denying that the ocean is becoming more acidic. I keep posting articles that cite scientific research and you just keep denying it. It gets frustrating and because you are usually citing people who's work is funded through fossil fuel interests like the well known miss Curry whose files you linked above it tells me that you are just propagating the tripe these types of people put out to confuse the public as to the real science of climate change. I will gladly read the section in the book you would like me to but it is also telling that you are expecting me to wade through your claims when you could just as easily cut and paste the section that you think bolsters your argument and then debate it. So do that and let's discuss. Here, I'll try to put some more facts out there so other readers can make their own minds up. Present ocean acidity change is unprecedented in magnitude, occurring at a rate approximately ten times faster than anything experienced during the last 300 million years. This rapid timeline is jeopardising the ability of ocean systems to adapt to changes in CO2 – a process that naturally occurs over millennia. Changes in ocean pH levels will persist as long as concentrations of atmospheric CO2 continue to rise. To avoid significant harm, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 need to get back to at least the 320-350 ppm range of CO2 in the atmosphere. Compared to other similar events in Earth's history, ocean acidification, over hundreds of years, has been happening very fast. However, its recovery has been very slow due to the inherent time lags in the carbon and ocean cycles. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/ocean-acidification https://ocean.si.edu/planet-ocean/temperature-chemistry/searching-ocean-acidification-signal "New NOAA-led research maps the distribution of aragonite saturation state in both surface and subsurface waters of the global ocean and provides further evidence that ocean acidification is happening on a global scale. The study identifies the Arctic and Antarctic oceans, and the upwelling ocean waters off the west coasts of North America, South America, and Africa as regions that are especially vulnerable to ocean acidification. “These findings will help us better understand and develop strategies to adapt to the severity of ocean acidification in different marine ecosystems around the world,” said Richard A. Feely, a NOAA oceanographer and co-author of the study, which has been accepted for publication and can be read online in the American Geophysical Union journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles." https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/providing-further-evidence-ocean-acidification "n 2004, they published the results of this colossal effort in two articles in the prestigious journal Science. In the first of the two studies, Sabine and Feely and their colleagues found that the ocean has absorbed about one-third of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities. This absorption slows the rate of global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but it also changes the chemistry of seawater. Historically, the average pH of seawater around the globe has been approximately 8.2, a value that is slightly basic. Since the Industrial Revolution, the average pH of surface oceans has decreased to 8.1, which means the seawater is becoming less basic—more acidic. Based on current and projected concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the pH of surface waters is expected to decrease to 7.8 or 7.7 by the end of this century. Feely led the second of the two Science studies, which was a cross-disciplinary collaboration with biologists and ecologists to assess the potential impact of ocean acidification on marine life forms. The scientists found that in some conditions, acidified water “eats away,” or corrodes, calcium carbonate minerals that many calcifying, or shell-building, organisms rely on to build their shells and skeletons. This study alerted biologists that acidified waters could begin to interfere with marine organisms’ abilities to form their protective armor." Feely published these findings in the mid-1980s, but few people noticed. The science community wasn’t too concerned about tiny changes in pH in a few areas of the world’s vast ocean. Yet Feely suspected that the problem could be worldwide; if so, even small changes in pH could lead to large changes in the marine ecosystem. “Over the past 20 million years, ocean ecosystems have evolved in a very stable pH environment,” Feely explained. “I’m worried that if concentrations of carbon dioxide continue to rise, the ocean could undergo large and rapid changes in pH.” Feely decided to launch a global investigation. In the early 1990s, he and his team of researchers expanded their observation program from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to launch a worldwide effort involving laboratories from several countries. On 99 oceanic cruises over a 10-year period, they collected nearly 72,000 seawater samples from all over the world. Feely invited oceanographer Christopher Sabine to join him at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and, together, they began the arduous task of analyzing the thousands of samples to characterize the global ocean’s carbon dioxide content. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/upwelling-crisis-ocean-acidification "Coral reefs are endangered by a variety of factors, including: natural phenomena such as hurricanes, El Niño, and diseases; local threats such as overfishing, destructive fishing techniques, coastal development, pollution, and careless tourism; and the global effects of climate change—warming seas and increasing levels of CO2 in the water. According to Reefs at Risk Revisited, a report by the World Resources Institute, 75 percent of the world’s coral reefs are at risk from local and global stresses. About a quarter of them have already been damaged beyond repair. If we continue with business as usual, 90 percent of coral reefs will be in danger by 2030, and nearly all of them by 2050." Coral reefs are endangered by a variety of factors, including: natural phenomena such as hurricanes, El Niño, and diseases; local threats such as overfishing, destructive fishing techniques, coastal development, pollution, and careless tourism; and the global effects of climate change—warming seas and increasing levels of CO2 in the water. According to Reefs at Risk Revisited, a report by the World Resources Institute, 75 percent of the world’s coral reefs are at risk from local and global stresses. About a quarter of them have already been damaged beyond repair. If we continue with business as usual, 90 percent of coral reefs will be in danger by 2030, and nearly all of them by 2050. So there you go. But you are denying all of this is even happening which is why I question your claim to have a background in chemistry and why you and others here have gone beyond mere skepticism and moved outright into the denialshere of the internet blogs. That being said, if you can post a paragraph from the paper you have cited that makes your case clearly by all means do so.
I havn't lost the factual debate. I've provided links for all the scientific data I've posted and tried to provide factual evidence at every turn. The Feelz thing is a stupid meme and so unoriginal. Try something based on substance rather than posting right-wing tripe.
Partly true but of course as with the other posters on this thread, you are careful to not acknowledge warming oceans as any factor or that the rate and level of bleaching is not alarming. This is the familiar theme here. Nothing to worry about everything is normal. It's just normal el nino or whatever. This is what the strategy is to deny anything to do with overall warming of the oceans. But is it true?: "Historically, global-scale coral bleaching has been associated with El Niño events, which generally raise global temperatures. The first mass coral bleaching was observed during the strong El Niño in 1983, and the first truly global event coincided with the strong El Niño of 1998. The world’s tropical reefs were stressed again during a moderate-strength 2010 El Niño. The coral-bleaching event of 2014–2017 was unusual not just for its long duration, experts say, but also because it wasn't entirely due to El Niño. Though an El Niño was anticipated in 2014, it didn't really materialize until March 2015, yet bleaching-level heat stress was already well underway by that time. A strong El Niño arrived in 2016, and heat stress occurred at 51 percent of the world's coral reefs into early 2017, when a La Niña was in place. The 36-month heatwave and global bleaching event were exceptional in a variety of ways. For many reefs, this was the first time on record that they had experienced bleaching in two consecutive years. Many reefs—including those in Guam, American Samoa, and Hawaii—experienced their worst bleaching ever documented. In the Northern Line Islands in the South Pacific, upwards of 98 percent of the coral at some reefs were killed. Reefs in the northern part of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef that had never bleached before lost nearly 30 percent of their shallow water corals in 2016, while reefs a bit farther south lost another 22 percent in 2017.? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/unprecedented-3-years-global-coral-bleaching2014%E2%80%932017 "Coral reefs are endangered by a variety of factors, including: natural phenomena such as hurricanes, El Niño, and diseases; local threats such as overfishing, destructive fishing techniques, coastal development, pollution, and careless tourism; and the global effects of climate change—warming seas and increasing levels of CO2 in the water. According to Reefs at Risk Revisited, a report by the World Resources Institute, 75 percent of the world’s coral reefs are at risk from local and global stresses. About a quarter of them have already been damaged beyond repair. If we continue with business as usual, 90 percent of coral reefs will be in danger by 2030, and nearly all of them by 2050." https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/06/13/losing-our-coral-reefs/ I know, nothing to see here, nothing unusual, nothing to worry about, everything's fine.........and on and on............
How much atmospheric co2 = how much drop in PH? This is very to find out by lab testing. The fact that your posting doomsday predictions and future possibilities rather then hard facts is amusing.
Right there I can tell you are not making a scientific argument put a political one. Highlight the paragraphs you think are relevant to your discussion. I'm not here to study the Curry blog material you post here. You are making a claim that all this is government funded nonsense while the likes of Curry and former Fox weatherman Anthony Watts are true. Prove it>
World overpopulation. The problem is not in First World English-speaking/European countries but in the Third World. Well actually it is in the First World now, since population from the most impoverished overpopulated parts of the Third World have been spilling over into the First World.
I'm posting exactly what the science is telling us and every post has been backed with data and facts. That is including the study in the op that documented dtamatic loss in biodiversity all over the planet backed by 15, 000 peer reviewed studies. That was what this thread was about before the deniers took over and made it about climate change. I have provided factual information at every stage. It is sad that you are denying it all.
Agreed. Overpopulation is certainly the problem. As is access to resources and education in developing countries. Do you think western economic practices have any role in this or is the developing world living in a vacuum of it's own making?
