Arctic Ocean Acidifying Rapidly.

[Lenny_Bruce]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22408341

There was also a really good National Geographic Article recently about Ocean acidification.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/ocean-acidification/kolbert-text

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

[TimG]

Yawn.

The ocean is getting less alkaline.

It will never get 'acidic' even under the most ridiculous scenarios.

Claims that the ocean is 'acidifying' is pathetic propaganda.

The average pH is declining by about 0.02/decade on scale of 0 to 15.

The seasonal variation in average pH is at least 0.3.

IOW - we are talking about changes which are less than the seasonal variations!

The notion that ocean life is so fragile that such a small change will destroy it is absurd scaremongering.

Life adapts. That is why it exists.

Edited May 7, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

Seasonal variations have nothing to do with overall acidity. Seasonal variations can remain constant even though overall acidity is increasing. Life does adapt, unless the rate of change is to fast for it to adapt. That's what causes extinctions. Question is whether we could have a domino effect whereby the rate will accelerate. We might not know for sure until it is too late. Not enough to panic over at this point but not a yawn.

[TimG]

Seasonal variations can remain constant even though overall acidity is increasing.

You missed the point entirely. A change in the average by less than the seasonal variation is unlikely to have an measurable effect on life in the ocean since life in the ocean already is able to deal with the seasonal variations.

Question is whether we could have a domino effect whereby the rate will accelerate. We might not know for sure until it is too late. Not enough to panic over at this point but not a yawn.

A dinosaur killing meteor or a massive solar flare could hit us tomorrow and wipe civilization in a day but I don't lose sleep over those. Why should ocean 'neutralization' be a bigger concern? Edited May 7, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

You missed the point entirely. A change in the average by less than the seasonal variation is unlikely to have an measurable effect on life in the ocean since life in the ocean already is able to deal with the seasonal variations.A dinosaur killing meteor or a massive solar flare could hit us tomorrow and wipe civilization in a day but I don't lose sleep over those. Why should ocean 'neutralization' be a bigger concern?

The ph is steadily declining. Seasonal variations mean nothing and shouldn't even be part of the conversation.

A dinosaur killing meteor or a massive solar flare could hit us tomorrow and wipe civilization in a day but I don't lose sleep over those. Why should ocean 'neutralization' be a bigger concern?

Because it is an is, not a could.

[TimG]

The ph is steadily declining. Seasonal variations mean nothing and shouldn't even be part of the conversation.

Actually they are extremely important because they give a reference point for the magnitude of the changes. The changes out to 2100 are likely comparable to the seasonal variations - therefore any serious problem it is extremely implausible.

Because it is an is, not a could.

What *is* is a small decline that does not even exceed seasonal variations. You tried to rationalize the hype by listing bad things that *could* happen in the future. There is no difference between your "coulds" and a meteorite or a solar flare. i.e. hypothetical speculations about events that we cannot prevent if we knew they were going to occur. Edited May 8, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Life adapts. That is why it exists.

I'm not an expert on ocean pH levels, but that issue aside, humans have caused enough environmental damage to the earth to show we can destroy/degrade species populations to great degrees. Sometimes life can adapt to human environmental damage, other times life doesn't adapt and humans cause great harm including extinction of species. One of many examples.

[TimG]

humans have caused enough environmental damage to the earth to show we can destroy/degrade species populations to great degrees.

So? Species go extinct and other rise to fill the void - that is the way of life and humans are part of it.

The only question we should care about is if there are problems that undermine our ability to support the humans on the planet. There are many real environmental problems (such as air and water pollution) that we should talk about. We should not be talking about hypotheticals that would could not do anything about - even if we wanted to.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TimG

[Lenny_Bruce]

This might surprise you TimG, but humans are not the center of the universe, nor are we the center of life on Earth. It is no surprise with your disrespect for other species and nature, that your politics and environmental attitudes would be similar.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Lenny_Bruce

[TimG]

This might surprise you TimG, but humans are not the center of the universe, nor are we the center of life on Earth.

What does your religion have to do with science? (your statement is nothing but a declaration of your religious faith). My opinions are based on rational analysis and science. I do not form opinions based on a touchy-feely belief in a nature-god like you do.

You illustrate the biggest problem with the left wing thinkers today - they like to pretend that they are rational and areligious (often mocking believers in the process) but when the justify their opinions out pops religious mumbo-jumbo that is indistinguishable from a christian talking about jesus.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

Many chemical processes are binary in nature, either not occurring below a certain threshold, or occurring above it, rather than slowly ramping up (or vice versa). Seasonal variations add on top of the baseline. If the baseline shifts, then when the seasonal variations are added, the extremes of the seasonal range will have been shifted. As the extremes shift, some threshold can be passed, activating or preventing a key chemical process. For example, with the average pH now around 8.1, with a 0.3 seasonal variation, the lower extreme would be 7.95. Imagine that there exists a bifurcation point when pH reaches 7.90. Therefore, even with seasonal variations of 0.3 that life is adapted to, you would only need to reduce average pH by 0.05, thus letting the bottom of the seasonal variation hit 7.90, to trigger some event.

Now, I don't know if there really are any key processes that transition from active to inactive in the range between say 7.5 - 8.0 pH, but I am merely illustrating a mechanism whereby even with an adaptation for pH swinging by 0.3 seasonally, a slowly drifting pH value over time could still be problematic.

The same kind of phenomenon can be seen with temperatures. For example, you need to reach a certain low extreme each winter to ensure a certain organism doesn't survive (i.e. pine beetles). There can be 40 C temperature variation from summer to winter and it doesn't matter, as long as the winter temperature reaches, say, for example, -10.0 C every winter at least for a little while. But raise the average temperature from 9.9C to 10.1 C, and with that same 40 C temperature range, it never reaches -10.0 C anymore, and the organism can survive in a new area, disrupting its ecosystem.

A lot of natural processes have these kinds of bifurcations rather than being smoothly varying / linear functions, therefore, given the right circumstances, small changes, even small compared to seasonal variations, can sometimes have dramatic effects.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Bonam

[TimG]

A lot of natural processes have these kinds of bifurcations rather than being smoothly varying / linear functions, therefore, given the right circumstances, small changes, even small compared to seasonal variations, can sometimes have dramatic effects.

But the vast majority of natural processes are continuous and a small change is not going be disruptive because natural systems that do have the behavior you describe tend to fall apart without any help from humans. Your example of the pine beetle not evidence a natural system collapsing but of a natural system that changes to find a new equilibrium (i.e. the pine beetles will die off as their food supply decreases - note that they still have a forest industry in the southern US where the southern pine beetle is a problem).

When one looks at the extreme variations that the earth has gone through in the last 100,000 years it is even harder to given any credence to those that claim the eco-system is so unstable that a small perturbation is going to destroy life on earth.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

So? Species go extinct and other rise to fill the void - that is the way of life and humans are part of it.

Look at the Deep Water Horizon oil rig going down, and the amount of chemicals tossed out in the Gulf of Mexico to get rid of the oil. The result of this is that many fishermen are coming back to shore with their nets empty.

Look at commercial fishing that countries do, oceanic populations are declining in certain species. One solution is genetically modified fish and massive fish farms. Destroying fishing grounds is 'part of life' as you say, but these fishing grounds also support human life.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/27/us/gulf-disaster-fishing-industry

About two-thirds of U.S. oysters come from the Gulf Coast, the source of about 40% of America's seafood catch. But in the three years since the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon blew up and sank about 80 miles south of here, fishermen say many of the oyster reefs are still barren, and some other commercial species are harder to find.

"My fellow fishermen who fish crab and who fish fish, they're feeling the same thing," Barisich said. "You get a spike in production every now and then, but overall, it's off. Everybody's down. Everywhere there was dispersed oil and heavily oiled, the production is down."

The only question we should care about is if there are problems that undermine our ability to support the humans on the planet. There are many real environmental problems (such as air and water pollution) that we should talk about. We should not be talking about hypotheticals that would could not do anything about - even if we wanted to.

Getting rid of the pollution is one say that will help us as humans, and at the same time helping the planet that sustains us. But since we are overfishing ect, to cause huge declines in certain fish populations, by that we are undermining the planet's ability to sustain us.

How many species need to go extinct from human activity before you think it's a problem?

[TimG]

But since we are overfishing ect, to cause huge declines in certain fish populations, by that we are undermining the planet's ability to sustain us.

Where did I say that over fishing was not a concern?

What I said was this:

There are many real environmental problems (such as air and water pollution) that we should talk about. We should not be talking about hypotheticals that would could not do anything about - even if we wanted to.

If we wanted to invest money in solving an ocean pollution related issue I would look at the nitrogen problem which is actually causing problems today (deadzones) and potentially something we could do something about. Ocean neutralization is a purely hypothetical problem.

Aside: the chances of getting any accurate information about the effects of the Horizon spill is basically zero since there is too much money at stake (lawsuits, compensation, aid etc). The incentive to exaggerate or fabricate problems is huge.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Where did I say that over fishing was not a concern?

The moment you talked about extinction of species due to human activity.

What I said was this:If we wanted to invest money in solving an ocean pollution related issue I would look at the nitrogen problem which is actually causing problems today (deadzones) and potentially something we could do something about. Ocean neutralization is a purely hypothetical problem.

Why not create a market for trading ocean credits? Seems to 'work' for the AGW crowd.

Aside: the chances of getting any accurate information about the effects of the Horizon spill is basically zero since there is too much money at stake (lawsuits, compensation, aid etc). The incentive to exaggerate or fabricate problems is huge.

They did not exaggerate the problem. They exaggerated their effectiveness of their solutions. You cannot dump that much corexit in a large body of water without seeing some wide spread effects on the Gulf's ecosystems.

Also how much pollution from our shipping industries are contributing to the decline of the oceans?

[TimG]

Why not create a market for trading ocean credits?

Any such scheme is a recipe for cronyism and corruption.

They did not exaggerate the problem.

I don't believe it. When money is up for grabs people will say whatever they need to say to get a share. Getting reliable information about the effects of the oil spill is an impossibility at this time.

[eyeball]

The only question we should care about is if there are problems that undermine our ability to support the humans on the planet.

Like the absence of biodiversity?

So? Species go extinct and other rise to fill the void - that is the way of life and humans are part of it.

We'd never have evolved without an abundance of biodiversity, so your question becomes, have we adapted to the point that we can now survive without it?

[TimG]

Like the absence of biodiversity?

Sorry - biodiversity does not require that every species living today continue to exist forever. Species go extinct all of the time without any help from humans. A position that any extinction is bad is nonsensical and has nothing to do with the ability of the planet to support humans. Edited May 8, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

What does your religion have to do with science? (your statement is nothing but a declaration of your religious faith). My opinions are based on rational analysis and science. I do not form opinions based on a touchy-feely belief in a nature-god like you do.

You illustrate the biggest problem with the left wing thinkers today - they like to pretend that they are rational and areligious (often mocking believers in the process) but when the justify their opinions out pops religious mumbo-jumbo that is indistinguishable from a christian talking about jesus.

It seems a lot more real than the Cornucopian believe system that passes for the economy. The only thing that will promote long term gains for our society is the sustainability that accrues from cultivating a social conscience towards the environment. We are expected to apply the same ethic towards our economy and behave in financially responsible ways in our pursuit of short-term monetary gain but the problem is we've divorced our economy from the environment - the environment exists outside of it instead of the other way around.

Natural ecosystems can exist and function all on their own with nary a human economy in sight, but there is no way on Earth a human economy can exist without the natural ecosystems of our planet to provide the natural capital that precedes and underwrites our economy. This is not religious mumbo-jumbo it's...physics.

[TimG]

Natural ecosystems can exist and function all on their own with nary a human economy in sight, but there is no way on Earth a human economy can exist without the natural ecosystems of our planet to provide the natural capital that precedes and underwrites our economy. This is not religious mumbo-jumbo it's...physics.

This is a perfect example of the religious mumbo jumbo I am talking about. First: nothing humans do can destroy the ability of this planet to support life (i.e. there will always be eco systems - they may change but they will exist). The only question that matters is if these ecosystems can continue support human needs. IOW - what makes an eco-system important is its worth to the human economy. The idea that environmentalism has value outside of a discussion of the human economy is a religious belief.

[eyeball]

You seem to be of the opinion that we have reached the economic singularity - that we are now invulnerable. Your thinking seems completely and totally delusional to me.

[TimG]

You seem to be of the opinion that we have reached the economic singularity - that we are now invulnerable. Your thinking seems completely and totally delusional to me.

But that is not what I am saying. All I am doing is making a distinction between the eco-religion that underpins many environmental arguments and the rational arguments for concern about the environment. The rational arguments are those that focus ensuring the environment can continue to serve the needs of the human economy.

That said, I am not against people having a religious belief in the environment as long as they acknowledge that they are speaking of their religion and their opinion is equal to the opinion of a christian arguing that life begins at conception.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

The rational arguments are those that focus ensuring the environment can continue to serve the needs of the human economy.

Fishing communities are to our economy as canaries are to a coal miner and the canaries are all pretty much dead or dying - mostly due to the inability of the environment to serve coastal economies everywhere around the planet. Much of this inability accrues directly to pollution, mismanagement of fisheries, land and foreshore development, deforestation, agriculture, marine and aquatic acidification, etc.

Do you really think it is irrational for society and our economy to not account for the draw down of natural capital these have caused? Do you even know what I'm talking about?

[GostHacked]

TimG, on 08 May 2013 - 10:22, said:

Any such scheme is a recipe for cronyism and corruption.I don't believe it. When money is up for grabs people will say whatever they need to say to get a share. Getting reliable information about the effects of the oil spill is an impossibility at this time.

Well the fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico are coming back with near empty holds 3 years after the disaster. If that is not an in your face effect, I am not sure what would convince you. As it seems 40% of the USA's seafood comes out of the Gulf.

It's not impossible to get the reliable information, but it's hard because of the cover up by BP and the US government to conceal the real facts. They sure as hell know the results, but you and I are not being told.

One article on the effects.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/corexit-bp-oil-dispersant_n_3157080.html

Explanation and toxicity of corexit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit

[TimG]

Much of this inability accrues directly to pollution, mismanagement of fisheries, land and foreshore development, deforestation, agriculture, marine and aquatic acidification, etc.

Excuse me? aquatic acidification? total BS. The other points you mention are plausible factors but your willingness to throw in meaningless buzz words completely undermines your argument.

I was listening to CBC yesterday and they talked about the decline of fishing communities.

They listed two factors: mechanization means fewer hours are available for fishing which means fewer people can make their living from it. The second surprised me: the price of a salmon is 1/2 what it was 20-30 years ago! That is hardly a sign of scarcity and environmental destruction.

Edited May 8, 2013 by TimG