PDA

View Full Version : PH in the ocean?


thenewguy997
06/09/2014, 02:31 AM
After reading some biology ive seen how ph changes can erode nutrients and cause acid rain and kill trees etc.

What about in the ocean? Is pollution affecting ph there as well?

Illhaveanother
06/09/2014, 08:20 PM
Not sure ,but I know that phytoplankton are absorbing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases trapped in our atmosphere , making are oceans more acidic.

billsreef
06/10/2014, 04:30 PM
Not sure ,but I know that phytoplankton are absorbing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases trapped in our atmosphere , making are oceans more acidic.

Not quite accurate. Phyotplankton taking up CO2 do not acidify the ocean. However, the ocean absorbing CO2 is causing ocean acidification.

GreshamH
06/10/2014, 05:07 PM
Not quite accurate. Phyotplankton taking up CO2 do not acidify the ocean. However, the ocean absorbing CO2 is causing ocean acidification.

Go one step further... Phyto uptaking CO2 is sequestering the CO2. The non sequestered CO2 is one of the factors of oceanic acidification :D

billsreef
06/10/2014, 05:35 PM
Go one step further... Phyto uptaking CO2 is sequestering the CO2. The non sequestered CO2 is one of the factors of oceanic acidification :D

Indeed. Add in declining sea grass beds, reduction in marshlands and mangroves...leading to reduction in the environments ability to sequester CO2...

GreshamH
06/11/2014, 11:37 AM
Oh touche :D

billsreef
06/11/2014, 11:43 AM
:lol:

Tiki God
06/11/2014, 02:24 PM
Has anyone honestly taken time to in-depth research the greenhouse effect and "global warming"? I have, and it's more media hype than anything else. Here are a few things against it.

1. Something that keeps coming up is the "we are burning more fossil fuels, that's adding C02, warming the earth" idea, but it isn't. The earth goes through temperature cycles, and since 1997 the average temperature has been the same.

2. People say is the "ice at the poles is shrinking" well it's not. Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012.

3. Almost all of the "average global temperatures since so and so" readings you see are land based measurements. That's averaging 30% of the Earth's surface, than applying that to the globe? Seems very un-scientific to me.

4. Climate models are showing that the theory is wrong. Here it is in the words of Dr. Roy Spencer.

"Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

--

Basically, the greenhouse is real, or we would not be here. But I believe (as well as a petition signed by over 15,000 scientists) that global warming is not happening right now at all.

If it's not happening, the oceans are being acidified slower than we thought. I am not coming close to saying we shouldn't protect reefs and our oceans, but we shouldn't be as worried as the media says we should be.

GreshamH
06/11/2014, 02:48 PM
I have and I highly suspect Bill has as well.

The acidifcation of the ocean is real, how it happened aside, if you think its not, please tell that to the shellfish producers whom have a very hard time having settlement and larvalculture issues using NSW. This has only come about in the last 10 years. I work in aquaculture, not only do I see the countless reports, I deal directly with those effected. For us its a boon as the best way to not to deal with pH issues of NSW in flow through systems, is to close the systems off and feed our products to the shellfish.

galleon
06/11/2014, 02:52 PM
Hi, I'm actually a real, live climate scientist, one of those not-so-mythical creatures you may have heard about. To thenewguy997, this link might be of interest.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

To Tiki: despite how it is often portrayed by a variety of public media, anthropogenic climate change is not 1) controversial 2) political or 3) financially motivated.

billsreef
06/11/2014, 03:15 PM
Tiki,

You might want to look at actual scientific papers. Also look at a longer time line, don't cherry pick starting points like 1997 or 2012 in order to skew data to fit your argument. Another interesting thing is to look critically at that petition your referring too, it's a combination of scientists who have zero background in the subject matter and scientists who were rather surprised to find their names listed it. In other words, that petition is highly circumspect. If you start talking to large numbers of people that actually do climate and ocean research, you'll find an overwhelming of acceptance of what you seem to think is media hype.

BTW while there has been some recent increase in ice surface area coverage in the Arctic, it's also thinner than it as been historically. So less ice mass overall.

CHSUB
06/11/2014, 04:03 PM
Has anyone honestly taken time to in-depth research the greenhouse effect and "global warming"? I have, and it's more media hype than anything else. Here are a few things against it.

1. Something that keeps coming up is the "we are burning more fossil fuels, that's adding C02, warming the earth" idea, but it isn't. The earth goes through temperature cycles, and since 1997 the average temperature has been the same.

2. People say is the "ice at the poles is shrinking" well it's not. Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012.

3. Almost all of the "average global temperatures since so and so" readings you see are land based measurements. That's averaging 30% of the Earth's surface, than applying that to the globe? Seems very un-scientific to me.

4. Climate models are showing that the theory is wrong. Here it is in the words of Dr. Roy Spencer.

"Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

--

Basically, the greenhouse is real, or we would not be here. But I believe (as well as a petition signed by over 15,000 scientists) that global warming is not happening right now at all.

If it's not happening, the oceans are being acidified slower than we thought. I am not coming close to saying we shouldn't protect reefs and our oceans, but we shouldn't be as worried as the media says we should be.


you need to stop watching FOX NEWS!!!!!

Randy Holmes-Farley
06/11/2014, 05:45 PM
The thread was initially about pH, not temperature. There's no need to drag in a political debate to a scientific question.

Whether global warming is due to man or not, CO2 addition to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and the increase in measured CO2 in the air is debated by no one who has any sort of knowledge. Even Fox news probably only disputes that really late at night when scientists are all sleeping. :D

The drop in seawater pH from that CO2 is easily measured in a basic lab, or just calculated for accepted chemical principles. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will drop the pH of seawater equilibrated with it by about 0.3 pH units.

FWIW, I discuss the relationship between pH and CO2 in these articles:

Low pH: Causes and Cures
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-09/rhf/index.htm

High pH: Causes and Cures
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-03/rhf/index.htm

thenewguy997
06/11/2014, 11:45 PM
Thank you for the helpful links guys.

Im just a college bio student trying to learn about the REAL world not some media hype scare tactics.

If phytoplankton do play a role in absorbing, then I wonder if creatures that feed on phyto also absorb the bad chemicals?

I wish biologists would investigate this stuff more. I mean, maybe they do. But I just dont see or hear about large funding to discover why giant squids are so rare or why sea stars are melting. Im also uninformed so maybe someone can revoke that statement, but the more we all know about our oceans and the world the better!

On a scary note, lets say hypothetically the ocean is getting more and more polluted, more variance in water params (no scientific data to back this up just a hypothetical) WELL what if it just builds up so much that the natural buffers are outweighed and a huge swing in params happens. PH down or up 5 points. We are talking about massive extinction here. This would ofcourse take millions of years.

billsreef
06/12/2014, 05:36 AM
I wish biologists would investigate this stuff more. I mean, maybe they do. But I just dont see or hear about large funding to discover why giant squids are so rare or why sea stars are melting. Im also uninformed so maybe someone can revoke that statement, but the more we all know about our oceans and the world the better!

Plenty of biologists wanting to study this stuff, funding though is the hard part. Considering how much of the planet is covered in ocean, and how much of our food still comes from the ocean, and the environmental considerations that mean we are all tied into the health of the ocean, and it's amazing how little funding is available.

Tiki God
06/12/2014, 08:48 AM
I didn't ask to be insulted guys, just shared my non-evolutionist, non-appacolyptic, beliefs. Thanks for your opinions :wave:

galleon
06/12/2014, 08:58 AM
Pointing out reality isn't insulting.

SloppyJ
06/12/2014, 09:37 AM
I didn't ask to be insulted guys, just shared my non-evolutionist, non-appacolyptic, beliefs. Thanks for your opinions :wave:

I can assume you have no science background. Thanks for playing. :headwally:

Tiki God
06/12/2014, 09:42 AM
I can assume you have no science background. Thanks for playing. :headwally:

I may not, but just being a scientist doesn't entitle you to any rights and doesn't mean any non-scientist is "unworthy" of participating in a discussion on global issues. Global warming and ocean acidification are possible, yes, but is it happening as quickly as "scientists" say? Not even close.

galleon
06/12/2014, 09:45 AM
Are we really doing this?

SloppyJ
06/12/2014, 09:56 AM
It really does seem like it.

Tiki God
06/12/2014, 10:05 AM
I guess. I said what I believed, then I made a comment to exit the conversation, but it was brought back up.

Randy Holmes-Farley
06/12/2014, 10:19 AM
Global warming and ocean acidification are possible, yes, but is it happening as quickly as "scientists" say? Not even close.

I'm confused. Ignoring the temperature sideshow, you are doubting ocean acidification is happening as fast as what? Is it a future prediction of ocean pH you are commenting on? Whose prediction?

I almost never hear anyone doubt the CO2/pH connection, nor are such predictions often discussed in most media. Just want to be sure I understand what you are claiming. It has nothing to do with global warming.

acesq
06/12/2014, 12:29 PM
Are we really doing this?

Yes, let's. Please. It will be fun to watch!

Seriously though, an intelligent, science based discussion will hopefully be instructive to some. We really need to move the dialogue forward from "whether" to "how can we stop this before the earth becomes uninhabitable to a large human population" (assuming of course we want the earth to support a few billion humans, which is another discussion altogether)

galleon
06/12/2014, 01:18 PM
I guess. I said what I believed, then I made a comment to exit the conversation, but it was brought back up.

So you choose to believe all of the chemistry and physics we know about CO2 and the ocean are incorrect? What is your basis for this belief?

Exiting the conversation is far from ideal, if you open your mind you might learn something. You have a belief. I am a scientific expert on the matter. Do you see the discrepancy here? If you had cancer, would you believe something about cancer that was directly opposite to what a an oncologist would tell you about your cancer? Why? The oncologist is an expert.

This is especially puzzling on a coral reef keeping website, where conservation of the organisms we care about requires an understanding of inorganic carbon and carbonate

Randy, you referred to warming as political and a sideshow, am I getting a vibe you are skeptical of anthropogenic warming? I sincerely hope not.

Randy Holmes-Farley
06/12/2014, 01:37 PM
Randy, you referred to warming as political and a sideshow, am I getting a vibe you are skeptical of anthropogenic warming?

:lol:

No, not at all. I was referring to his diversion of the thread into a global warming discussion as a sideshow to the pH issue that was being discussed. I think he may have thought them to be a package deal, where if one is true the other must be. But that isn't so. I just wanted to make that clear, and possibly have him reconsider whether he has actually ever seen anyone challenge the acidification of the oceans as happening because of CO2.

I've frankly have never seen such a thing that I can recall, but perhaps I don't pay enough attention to the right sources. :D

billsreef
06/12/2014, 01:53 PM
I've frankly have never seen such a thing that I can recall, but perhaps I don't pay enough attention to the right sources. :D

I expect the lack of such in regards to ocean acidification has to do more with very few outside the field marine science even seeming to pay attention to the subject.

KafudaFish
06/12/2014, 02:52 PM
Plenty of biologists wanting to study this stuff, funding though is the hard part. Considering how much of the planet is covered in ocean, and how much of our food still comes from the ocean, and the environmental considerations that mean we are all tied into the health of the ocean, and it's amazing how little funding is available.

You mean like ~$18B?

GreshamH
06/12/2014, 04:11 PM
You mean like ~$18B?

Funding of ~18B from whom?

NFS? Hardly... not even close to a single billion
Sea Grant? hardly... I think they hit a 1.7M mark last year

billsreef
06/12/2014, 05:29 PM
You mean like ~$18B?

Whose got that type of funding for marine research, and how do I tap into it?

GreshamH
06/12/2014, 05:37 PM
Whose got that type of funding for marine research, and how do I tap into it?

That's a ton of $300K Sea Grants

thenewguy997
06/12/2014, 06:28 PM
Ill study marine biology for 18b :)

pfish
06/12/2014, 06:32 PM
As far an NW shell fish and acidification.
The west coast of the U.S. has always had on shore up-welling do to the predominate on shore winds.
The pacific oyster crassostreas gigas is native to Japan and was introduce to the west coast because the native oysters were struggling from the pollution caused by pulp production. The pacific oyster is hardier but does not naturally spawn well in,our colder and more acidic waters caused by the up welling of co2 saturated water.
This problem with NW shell fish is species specific to Crassostre gigas and oyster growers have always depended on hatcheries for their spat. they used to get their spat directly from Japan.
This crisis is exaggerated as are most looming climate catastrophes.
The pH of the ocean is not stable and fluctuates just like our tanks. On most reefs the fluctuation is greater on a daily basis than the predicted 100 year lowering of pH.

billsreef
06/12/2014, 06:38 PM
You can't really point to problems with an introduced species not naturally taking to it's introduced area as a example of something not being a problem...it's like comparing apples to peanuts.

galleon
06/12/2014, 09:03 PM
You mean like ~$18B?

Care to cite a source for that figure?

Tiki God
06/12/2014, 09:07 PM
So you choose to believe all of the chemistry and physics we know about CO2 and the ocean are incorrect? I didn't say that, I said it's not happening as fast as we think. What is your basis for this belief?

Exiting the conversation is far from ideal, if you open your mind you might learn something. You have a belief. I am a scientific expert on the matter. Do you see the discrepancy here? If you had cancer, would you believe something about cancer that was directly opposite to what a an oncologist would tell you about your cancer? Why? The oncologist is an expert.

But how does arrogantly saying "I'm an expert" prove anything? And yes I would. Evolution is a great example, I don't believe it because I don't buy into twisted and manipulated evidence to prove a hypothesis. I'm a creationist, and I personally think that method of thinking explains things much better than evolution could ever do. But back to reefs, I believe differently than most do on these subjects because I don't want to believe something that, frankly, is just not true.

This is especially puzzling on a coral reef keeping website, where conservation of the organisms we care about requires an understanding of inorganic carbon and carbonate

Randy, you referred to warming as political and a sideshow, am I getting a vibe you are skeptical of anthropogenic warming? I sincerely hope not.

thenewguy997
06/13/2014, 01:51 AM
I dont think ph can fluctuate THAT much in the ocean, esp. With inverts. Im sure it does but not in big amounts

chema
06/13/2014, 03:20 AM
Here you have a review that addresses the problem of ocean acidification and its consequences.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed

The Annual Review of Marine Science has an impact factor of 14,4. You may thrust it.

KafudaFish
06/13/2014, 03:46 AM
Plenty of biologists wanting to study this stuff, funding though is the hard part. Considering how much of the planet is covered in ocean, and how much of our food still comes from the ocean, and the environmental considerations that mean we are all tied into the health of the ocean, and it's amazing how little funding is available.

Funding of ~18B from whom?

NFS? Hardly... not even close to a single billion
Sea Grant? hardly... I think they hit a 1.7M mark last year

Whose got that type of funding for marine research, and how do I tap into it?

Care to cite a source for that figure?

I believe that my point was lost that was what could be done with that much funding regarding marine research. The ~$18B was NASA's budget so if Bill wants to get in on it he will have to travel to another planet to get that kind of funding.

I am well aware of the differences between funding levels.

Do I still have to provide a source or are we good? I am sure NASA, the White House, and every space related website could be a source.

Randy Holmes-Farley
06/13/2014, 04:26 AM
On most reefs the fluctuation is greater on a daily basis than the predicted 100 year lowering of pH.

Even if that were true, if the low end of the fluctuation is moving downward and enters the zone where calcium carbonate skeletons dissolve, you don't see that as a concern?

There is a big difference between seawater at pH 8 and seawater at pH 7.5. It moves past the critical pH for such dissolution.

billsreef
06/13/2014, 05:02 AM
I believe that my point was lost that was what could be done with that much funding regarding marine research. The ~$18B was NASA's budget so if Bill wants to get in on it he will have to travel to another planet to get that kind of funding.

I am well aware of the differences between funding levels.

Do I still have to provide a source or are we good? I am sure NASA, the White House, and every space related website could be a source.

Ahh, now that makes sense. Yup, we spend a fortune on outer space, while ignoring our own planet. Though we do get to tap a very small crumb of that NASA budget occasionally when they want to train astronauts at Aquarius.

Tiki,

What sources do you have for stating changes of ocean acidification is happening much slower than claimed? Most legitimate scientific (i.e. not the media) sources I've seen suggest quite the opposite.

galleon
06/13/2014, 08:50 AM
Randy, you referred to warming as political and a sideshow, am I getting a vibe you are skeptical of anthropogenic warming?

:lol:

No, not at all. I was referring to his diversion of the thread into a global warming discussion as a sideshow to the pH issue that was being discussed. I think he may have thought them to be a package deal, where if one is true the other must be. But that isn't so. I just wanted to make that clear, and possibly have him reconsider whether he has actually ever seen anyone challenge the acidification of the oceans as happening because of CO2.

I've frankly have never seen such a thing that I can recall, but perhaps I don't pay enough attention to the right sources. :D

Hah! Ok, that's what I figured. ;)

seymour47
06/13/2014, 09:30 AM
I guess. I said what I believed, then I made a comment to exit the conversation, but it was brought back up.

Tiki,

The issue at hand is that you have made specific, detailed points about climate change and the environment. You are obviously not a scientist and there is nothing wrong with that. I applaud non-scientists getting in on the discussion. That is the way people learn.

The problem with your approach is that you did indeed cherry pick statements and provided no references for the sources of those statements. ANY statement about scientific 'fact' should always be suspect unless there are well established sources involved.

Your view of climate change is, sadly, not uncommon. I prefer to blame the media and their sensationalist headlines and accidental and PURPOSEFUL spread of misinformation. Social media is a prime suspect there as well.

As for the rest of us that may have a scientific background or are in fact scientists, like myself, it is on us to not overreact to posts from people that are just misinformed. It is OUR job to instruct and inform, but not be jerks about it. I ask that you consider that the next time you respond to someone on a climate change post.

TL : DR - Misinformation is a problem. Legitimate information sources are the solution. And, don't be a jerk about it. :wavehand:

seymour47
06/13/2014, 10:05 AM
In regards to pH fluctuation in the ocean, the pH IS dropping and CO2 in the atmosphere IS rising. This is just a basic, physical fact. See the Mona Loa Observatory for daily/historical atmospheric CO2 data.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

The ocean is the largest sink for atmospheric CO2. As we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, more of it ends up in the oceans. This, invariably, produces Carbonic Acid through the combination of CO2 and H2O. This is a physical fact. Undeniable. Irrefutable. The question everyone likes to point to is whether the rise in CO2 (and thus temperature) is our fault or whether it is related somehow to Milankovich Cycles (minute fluxuations in the Earth's orbit that cause the very slow rise and fall of global temperatures).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles (yes, wikipedia is a very good source for information)

Temperature aside, we were talking about ocean pH. A previous poster pointed out that pH in the oceans can vary more than the worst predicted long term pH changes. This is absolutely correct. The key here (as with any climate change topic) is a matter of rate. Consider a barrier reef, such as in Australia. We all know what tides are and what they do. They cause the local water level to rise and fall. When tides are low, you restrict water flow in shallow areas and can stop flow all together. All those critters living in that water are still respiring and pumping additional CO2 into the water. This can locally drop pH levels to relatively extreme levels. Sounds pretty bad, right? Well, it's not THAT bad. Over millions of years these organisms have found ways to cope with these short perturbations in pH. When the tide comes in, the bad water is flushed out, the pH returns to normal, and everyone is happy again.

Here's the problem. That was a SHORT time. The pH changes involved in wholesale ocean acidification may seem small (they are not because pH is a logarithmic scale http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/184ph.html), but these are long term changes that most organisms are not equipped to handle.

The other point that is often brought up in these discussions is that CO2 used to be higher in the past and pH lower and everything did just fine. That's absolutely true, but again it's a question of rate. Organisms have millions of years to adjust and change to deal with those very slow changing conditions. The Earth's organisms are not getting those millions of years this time. What happens when there are sudden (geologically speaking) changes in environmental conditions? We get an extinction event. There have been 5, that we know of, in Earth's history.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events)
What these all have in common is that they were all sudden, again, geologically speaking.

The change in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution has been staggering when compared to the normal change in CO2 throughout geologic history. This rate of change is only increasing as we burn fossil fuels. Much of that CO2 ends up in the oceans, causing increasing ocean acidification. This is a very real problem and will have very real consequences in the coming decades.

Here are a few papers/links that could be of interest for further reading.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
http://nuweb2.neu.edu/rieslab/Hoenisch_et_al_2012_Science_Geologic_history_of_ocean_acidification.pdf
http://nuweb2.neu.edu/rieslab/Ries_2011_Nature_Climate_Change_Acid_Ocean_Cover_Up.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/418.full.pdf

Here is how I look at the overall climate change debate. We can try and do what we can about it and not ignore it. If climate scientists are wrong, all we have done is improve the world. If climate scientists are right, we may have saved our children and their children and so on down the line.

Lastly, I apologize if some of those articles are behind a paywall. I'm posting this from a university system, so I have access to most journals by default.

Randy Holmes-Farley
06/13/2014, 10:59 AM
Yup, we spend a fortune on outer space,

FWIW, I consult on a Mars program, and the government doesn't let consultants like me charge my normal rate, so they are getting advice cheap. :D

That said, when we find aliens on Mars before they find us, you'll think it was money well spent. :D

thenewguy997
06/13/2014, 11:57 AM
Can we keep aliens in a 75g reef? :)

SloppyJ
06/13/2014, 01:00 PM
Depends on what kind of water we find there. :)


Seymour, great posts. Thanks for the contributions and the time.

disc1
06/13/2014, 01:16 PM
Here is how I look at the overall climate change debate. We can try and do what we can about it and not ignore it. If climate scientists are wrong, all we have done is improve the world. If climate scientists are right, we may have saved our children and their children and so on down the line.


This + a million

Even if we are dead wrong about what causes the temperature change, even if we are dead wrong about whether or not the temperature change is real, even if we are dead wrong about the whole thing...

It still doesn't hurt to clean things up.

galleon
06/13/2014, 07:03 PM
I didn't say that, I said it's not happening as fast as we think.

Then that's exactly what you said.

But how does arrogantly saying "I'm an expert" prove anything? And yes I would. Evolution is a great example, I don't believe it because I don't buy into twisted and manipulated evidence to prove a hypothesis. I'm a creationist, and I personally think that method of thinking explains things much better than evolution could ever do. But back to reefs, I believe differently than most do on these subjects because I don't want to believe something that, frankly, is just not true.

You do believe something that, frankly, is just not true. Evolution is a fact. It's as plain and simple as that. You can say, think, even believe a giraffe is a zebra. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a giraffe.

The fact that you think evidence is twisted and manipulated is a statement that highlights ignorance. That's not an insult; again, it's a statement of fact.

And it's a serious problem that 1) people think expertise is arrogance and 2) ignorance deserves the same status of gravity regarding topical discussion as does expertise on the topic. And, 3) that being called ignorant is an insult.

Thales
06/13/2014, 07:17 PM
Maybe another view of expertise will help:
"So, what would happen if I showed up at a physics conference and said,"String theory is bogus. It doesn't resonate with me. It's not how I chose to view the universe at a small scale. I'm not a fan." (Laughter) Well, nothing would happen because I'm not a physicist; I don't understand string theory. I'm the Ted Bundy of string theory. (Laughter) I wouldn't want to belong to any string theory club that would have me as a member.

But this is just the point. Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise. That is what it is for knowledge to count." - Sam Harris

Climate change is happening and impacting the ocean life. Ocean acidification is happening and impacting ocean life. Why anyone who has kept a reef tank, who knows how sometimes even slight shifts in water chemistry can impact ocean life isn't on trying to deal with the problems of climate change and ocean acidification is stunning to me.

Even more stunning is how a reef keeper will add Marc Weiss products (or a plethora of magic in a bottle products' to their tank to save their animals based on some 'expert' testimony they found on the net, yet at the same time will discount the overwhelming understanding of people who are actually experts on climate change.

Tiki God
06/13/2014, 09:47 PM
Honestly since everyone here is apocalyptic, and doing the whole EOTWAWKI thing, I'll stop bothering you. Good vibes only :D

SloppyJ
06/13/2014, 10:54 PM
Tiki can believe what he wants to believe. It's everyone's right. We all believe something different based on scientific evidence and our own observations. Just because someone doesn't believe those things that we know are true doesn't make them a bad person.

I understand the frustration. I feel it too. You just want to slap the crap out of someone until they wake up and understand it. Not everyone sees things as logical as we do. No matter how hard you try, some people just won't believe dinosaurs were real or that the earth is billions of years old. Just accept the fact that he doesn't seek the answers or he has his own set of answers that don't make sense to us because they cannot be proven or duplicated.

Maybe one day he will want to branch out and open his mind to a different way of thinking that's outside of the media/religious affiliations. I'm sure more than a few of us would be willing to help. Please don't take anything personal it's just a heated subject that gets frustrating when people won't acknowledge the facts at hand.

thenewguy997
06/14/2014, 02:43 AM
Some ppl think dinosaurs werent real? No offense to anyone..

But lets keep this friendly guys i started this thread jusr for info and respect any and all opinions.

You learn the most from taking in all sides

Tiki God
06/14/2014, 08:29 AM
Please don't take anything personal it's just a heated subject that gets frustrating when people won't acknowledge the facts at hand.

I apologize for being frustrating, but we ALL have rights to our beliefs. (Btw, I believe dinosaurs were real! And they must have been freaking cool ;) )

galleon
06/14/2014, 08:47 AM
I apologize for being frustrating, but we ALL have rights to our beliefs.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Thales
06/14/2014, 08:48 AM
Honestly since everyone here is apocalyptic, and doing the whole EOTWAWKI thing, I'll stop bothering you. Good vibes only :D

That is a terrible representation of what has been said in this discussion. It's like you have already made up your mind and are doing everything you can to not actually have a discussion about the various topics while trying to make yourself look and feel like you are taking the high road.

I apologize for being frustrating, but we ALL have rights to our beliefs.

This is a red herring. No one is saying you don't have the right to believe whatever you want. Discussing the topics and saying that you are wrong is in no way treading on your rights.

CHSUB
06/14/2014, 09:48 AM
Then that's exactly what you said.



You do believe something that, frankly, is just not true. Evolution is a fact. It's as plain and simple as that. You can say, think, even believe a giraffe is a zebra. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a giraffe.

The fact that you think evidence is twisted and manipulated is a statement that highlights ignorance. That's not an insult; again, it's a statement of fact.

And it's a serious problem that 1) people think expertise is arrogance and 2) ignorance deserves the same status of gravity regarding topical discussion as does expertise on the topic. And, 3) that being called ignorant is an insult.

evolution is NOT a fact.....

galleon
06/14/2014, 09:54 AM
Of course it is. That you disagree doesn't change that.

billsreef
06/14/2014, 10:52 AM
Let's stick to the discussion of ocean acidification ;)

CHSUB
06/14/2014, 11:09 AM
Of course it is. That you disagree doesn't change that.

whether i agree or disagree is not relevent. ocean acidifacation is a fact, evolution is a theory...from wiki 'Thus, to say that evolution is not proven is trivially true,....'

billsreef
06/14/2014, 11:26 AM
Let's stick to the discussion of ocean acidification ;)

Don't make me pull over this thread....

Thales
06/14/2014, 11:30 AM
whether i agree or disagree is not relevent. ocean acidifacation is a fact, evolution is a theory...from wiki 'Thus, to say that evolution is not proven is trivially true,....'

Are you confusing the term Scientific Theory with the colloquial use of the word theory? A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Is gravity a fact or a theory?

Oh, and to keep Bill happy - ocean acidification!

thenewguy997
06/14/2014, 12:50 PM
Theorys are also changing all the time, we hardly know anything.

Much more for us to know

disc1
06/14/2014, 01:55 PM
Back on the topic of acidification...

Can't we just run the skimmer intake outside?

billsreef
06/14/2014, 01:58 PM
Back on the topic of acidification...

Can't we just run the skimmer intake outside?

Think we'll get enough low CO2 air intake from space? :D

thenewguy997
06/14/2014, 02:03 PM
Lol! Lets just run like 10 million skimmers outside, the perfect plan! Then shoot the waste into space!

seymour47
06/14/2014, 03:37 PM
It may seem like a joke, but people have been looking into dosing the oceans with bicarbonate as a way to combat OA. I'm afraid I don't have a good source on that one.

Iron fertilization is another area of investigation for driving plankton blooms to sequester CO2.

On a side note, I'm a proponent of sending all our nuclear waste into the sun.

syrinx
06/14/2014, 06:00 PM
I think it is good personal policy to limit our impact on the earth. There is no good reason not to. I do not agree with making it a political situation though- whether it be in the form of regulation, or favoring grants to results based studies. Whatever the case- I do not think it will make much difference anyway. The earth will do what it will- and if we had no human greenhouse gas output- then termites, volcano activity or some other natural act will take over. Our main problem is that we are nostalgic and want things to stay the same-which defies the basic law of nature.

Randy Holmes-Farley
06/14/2014, 06:16 PM
I think it is good personal policy to limit our impact on the earth. There is no good reason not to. I do not agree with making it a political situation though- whether it be in the form of regulation, or favoring grants to results based studies. Whatever the case- I do not think it will make much difference anyway. The earth will do what it will- and if we had no human greenhouse gas output- then termites, volcano activity or some other natural act will take over. Our main problem is that we are nostalgic and want things to stay the same-which defies the basic law of nature.

So you don't think that polluting a common area (like the atmosphere) should be controlled at all?

That I can pollute it all I want because, in the end, termites and volcanoes will destroy the earth anyway?

I now see from this thread why I rarely venture into this forum. Unfortunately, the title of pH in the ocean caught my eye. :(

billsreef
06/14/2014, 07:15 PM
or favoring grants to results based studies.

I'm always confused when I hear people say this. Does this mean you'd prefer throwing grant money at researchers that do such poor work that they can't produce results :confused:

Our main problem is that we are nostalgic and want things to stay the same-which defies the basic law of nature.

If wanting things like clean air to breath, clean water to drink and clean oceans is nostalgic, than call me nostalgic. Personally I find it appalling what we dump in our oceans, and there's no reason for it other than being cheap and lazy humans. Just because the planet will go on for a few million years past our existence is not something I find is sufficient reason for us to disengage our brains and ignore the obvious.

syrinx
06/14/2014, 07:48 PM
As my first lines stated- I am all for people limiting their impact. And no I do not believe in pollution- the laws in place have radically changed the way things are compared to the sixties. As society became aware of the effects on the enviorment- they changed behaviors. We used to collect beer cans from the ditch- now you seldom see them in great numbers. People are more careful about what detergents and chemicals they use. Most of us recycle. As people become more educated, they are making lifestyle changes to lessen carbon emissions. This is all good. I am all for the gov when it comes to clean air and water legislation and the like. However, I do not think overall the gov is capable of dealing with the issue in a non partisen fashion. I see more knee jerk feel good regs that do little other than cost money, whether to the consumer or the taxpayers. But thats just my personal view.

So to clarify to the people that didnt understand my original post. We all should help the earth and not expect someone else to do it. But whatever we do- the earth will continue to change and "evolve". In no way shape or form did I say or intimate that we should just pollute because of any other force of nature.

GreshamH
06/16/2014, 03:11 PM
http://crosscut.com/2014/06/16/environment/120507/aboard-rv-melville-ocean-acidfication-baskin/

Acid seas threaten creatures that supply half the world's oxygen

Ocean acidification is turning phytoplankton toxic. Bad news for the many species - us, included - that rely on them as a principal source of food and oxygen.

Randy Holmes-Farley
06/16/2014, 05:09 PM
Bad news for the many species - us, included - that rely on them as a principal source of food and oxygen.

No wonder your company's profits aren't increasing. You are probably eating the phyto as fast as the lab guys make it. :D

GreshamH
06/16/2014, 05:26 PM
Bad news for the many species - us, included - that rely on them as a principal source of food and oxygen.

No wonder your company's profits aren't increasing. You are probably eating the phyto as fast as the lab guys make it. :D

:lol: I don't think I could eat in my lifetime the amount we produce in a week :D

But yes, phyto does live in a special part of my heart!

fla2341
06/17/2014, 05:04 PM
And read: Discount the source if you like.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/17/obama-will-reportedly-expand-protected-areas-pacific-ocean/

In addition broad statements not backed up by citing actual research should always be avoided as being presented as "Facts". They become "beliefs" which are a fish of another color.
I agree the oceans are changing at a rapid pace.
I agree that there have been several ELE in the past.
These have been established in this thread by the links provided/cited.
In addition several species potentially go extinct each year and have since time immorial - all on their own.(look it up/Google it if you must)

Additional reading:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/downloads/Petit_et_al_1999_copy.pdf
in this last above pay attention to the charts.

The planet does go through warming and cooling trends/cycles as well as fluctuations in the corresponding CO2. I hesitate to assume that the pH of the oceans fluctuated during these times but one can infer it. Please also keep in mind that human record keeping doesn't go back far enough for us to rely upon it solely as a source while speaking in geologic time.

Main question: how does/will all this effect our hobby?

disc1
06/17/2014, 05:18 PM
Main question: how does/will all this effect our hobby?



Can't we just run the skimmer intake outside?

disc1
06/17/2014, 05:20 PM
I actually didn't mean that as a joke. I've heard a few tales of outside air not helping with pH because it had such a high CO2 content in certain urban areas. I don't know if there's an truth to it, but there it is.

Not to mention that if we lose the reefs, we lose the diversity we collect from. Then any creature we can't propagate in a tank will be lost forever.

fla2341
06/17/2014, 05:40 PM
"Not to mention that if we lose the reefs, we lose the diversity we collect from. Then any creature we can't propagate in a tank will be lost forever."

I furvently agree with this statement.

However, in reference to my first link, there is a fine line between proper informed management and the wholesale shutting down of a region/regions based upon knee jerk political motives and not real life actualities and proper research. The belief that what we, as a nation, do will have any impact globally by it's self is at best naive. To have any lasting global impact it must be a golbal effort. While we can "lead" we can not have much, if any, effect acting alone.

thenewguy997
06/17/2014, 06:01 PM
If biodiversity goes then everything goes..

disc1
06/18/2014, 11:49 AM
"Not to mention that if we lose the reefs, we lose the diversity we collect from. Then any creature we can't propagate in a tank will be lost forever."

I furvently agree with this statement.

However, in reference to my first link, there is a fine line between proper informed management and the wholesale shutting down of a region/regions based upon knee jerk political motives and not real life actualities and proper research. The belief that what we, as a nation, do will have any impact globally by it's self is at best naive. To have any lasting global impact it must be a golbal effort. While we can "lead" we can not have much, if any, effect acting alone.


So what you're basically saying is that unless everyone is going to participate then nobody should do anything? That turns circular really quick since it leaves no room for anyone to be first.

Everyone else throws their trash out the car window, so I guess I should too. Is that the idea here?

fla2341
06/18/2014, 03:47 PM
What I said:
"While we can "lead" we can not have much, if any, effect acting alone."

We see too much our elite who endorse environmental change but only as far as the US is concerned. We can "lead" however they need to look beyond the US borders to use our influence with other countries to effect a real global change and not a feel good localized token which makes for good news bites but is a drop in the ocean against the overall world's population which contributions to the whole of the problems we face.

muttley000
06/20/2014, 06:20 PM
We see too much our elite who endorse environmental change

Heck yea, as they fly around in their personal jumbo jets to tell us our light bulbs aren't efficient enough.

I have enjoyed the discussion in this thread.

I believe the earth is warming, and this is probably caused in part by co2 which is also changing ocean ph. I am quite skeptical that this is a event caused solely, or significantly by human activity. I don't say pollute as you desire, I drive a Prius, but it is as much because I am a cheap sob though, not because I feel it is my environmental duty. When the last ice age receded, I don't think coal burning or cars were much the issue. Maybe it was excess mastodon breath:wave:

syrinx
06/20/2014, 06:33 PM
Everyone else throws their trash out the car window, so I guess I should too. Is that the idea here?


Again back in the sixties there was a commercial on TV where someone threw a bag of trash at an Italian actor dressed as an indian. He started to cry at the shame of pollution-and millions of people responded in a positive manner. I think if the subject of CO2 was brought to the public in a similar positive fashion, people would have responded in kind. However it has been turned into a political issue by the gov- and thus it is more dividing. And it does not help that there is almost a religious fervor among the believers that damns to hell those who question in any form.

I think we should lead by our personal actions-and hope others follow. That being said unless there becomes a world gov-or individual powers put poor countries back into colonial rule, it will be difficult for us to make a large impact. If the cost of our being the leaders exceeds the benefit, then we will become a weaker force in world economics - and thus be able to exercise less influence on the rest of the world.

acesq
06/20/2014, 08:00 PM
Scary. Sad too. But mostly scary. If you are not a climatologist, please, please trust the climatologists. (If you are a climatologist, you know we are experiencing significant potentially devastating climate change and human are contributing significantly to it) It's pretty simple. If you, or I or this country can do anything, we need to do it. If you were in a leaky boat with 50 people and 30 of them refused to bail, would you stop?