backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Aug 25 at 2:40 PM

Earth's oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide and turning acidic

Global warming is a sticky subject and many climate scientists that think global warming is real are also convinced that it was caused by human activities like burning fossil fuels, which led to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

Researchers have constructed new computer scenarios that show how the rapidity and timing of carbon dioxide emission cuts will affect ocean acidification in the future. According to Dr. Toby Tyrrell from the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science, a third of these carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the Earth's oceans, which is helpful in the case of global warming, but it is still negatively affecting the planet. The oceans are becoming acidic, which could eventually affect the biogeochemistry and ecosystems of the oceans.

Climate models have been made to understand how decreased carbon emissions will affect the Earth's climate, but now, Tyrrell, Dan Bernie (Met Office Hadley Centre), Jason Lowe (University of Reading) and Oliver Legge (SOES) have created a new model that simulates the different effects of mitigation scenarios on ocean acidification. Climate, ocean chemistry, and ocean-atmosphere interactions are taken into account to create these simulations. Such research could be helpful to policy makers because it helps form a timeline of what could result in what period of time with certain mitigation scenarios.

According to this research, a decrease in pH means an increase in acidity. In 1750, the global mean ocean surface pH was at 8.2, and now it is at 8.1. If carbon dioxide emissions are not cut, the researchers' simulations predict that the pH could decrease to as low as 7.7 by 2100. On the other hand, if carbon dioxide emissions are controlled, the simulations predict that the pH won't fall below 8.0 by 2100. Research indicates that there will be an emissions peak in 2016, then it will decrease by five percent each year after. 

"As far as we know, such a rate of change would be without precedent for millions of years, and a concern must be whether and how quickly organisms could adapt to such a rate of change after such a long period of relative stability in ocean pH," said Tyrrell. 

The study, "Influence of mitigation policy on ocean acidification" was published in Geophysical Research Letters in August 2010. 

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Yawn
By HostileEffect on 8/24/2010 8:46:22 AM , Rating: 2
I don't recall even one accurate model for global warming or is it climate change?

**** changes, handle it.




RE: Yawn
By hughlle on 8/24/2010 9:23:05 AM , Rating: 1
Does get rather long in the tooth after a while. Needs to be an ice age, see how well their c02 tax and carbon footprints stop that one :D


RE: Yawn
By TheEinstein on 8/24/2010 9:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Ok so like, I have solid scientific proof in the form of 10 million pages of data that proves if we try to adjust the atmosphere, or so called 'stave off Global Warming' then all of humaity, and all life on Earth will perish.

This proof will be held for only those have supporting evidence, but will not be open for general review, after all this evidence is for only the utmost talented people to see.

I will need more funds to help reduce the innaccuracies of my formula's, which while I can prove the main thesis I cannot prove when we will kill ourselves off.

Therefore you all need to follow my ideals immeadiately and start pumping out carbon dioxide as quickly as possible to stave off the end of all life on our planet.

Oh and I have some beach front property for sale, only a hundred million dollars for a 10 mile stretch. Upon payment you can be shown your purchase.


RE: Yawn
By nstott on 8/24/2010 10:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
What is "Al Gore playing both sides of the 'climate change' debate?"

I'll take "Junk Science Farces" for 400, Alex...


RE: Yawn
By mattclary on 8/24/2010 10:45:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh and I have some beach front property for sale, only a hundred million dollars for a 10 mile stretch. Upon payment you can be shown your purchase.


Hey!!! Al Gore will take that off your hands! A little rise in the sea levels doesn't bother him!

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/29/al-gore-has-a...


RE: Yawn
By 3minence on 8/24/2010 1:03:30 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, our governments eceonomics policies are guided by economic models, very simillair to climate models. Kinda explains the current state of the economy, doesn't it?


RE: Yawn
By milkyway4me on 8/24/2010 1:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
More trash being peddled in the name of "science" to tax and control.

If we took half the money that we spent on career climate alarmists and instead invest it towards more resilient infrastructure we would be much better off.


RE: Yawn
By kattanna on 8/24/2010 2:14:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In 1750, the global mean ocean surface pH was at 8.2


in 1750AD? really, didnt know we had fleets of ships sailing all around the worlds oceans back then taking pH measurements, which would be hard considering the term pH came about in the early 1900's.


RE: Yawn
By rcc on 8/24/2010 2:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
Time travel... it's not just for killer robots anymore!!!


RE: Yawn
By JediJeb on 8/24/2010 3:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909[4] [5] and revised to the modern pH in 1924


Yup, kinda makes their claims of knowing what the ocean pH was in 1750 utter nonsense.


RE: Yawn
By JediJeb on 8/24/2010 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909[4] [5] and revised to the modern pH in 1924


Yup, kinda makes their claims of knowing what the ocean pH was in 1750 utter nonsense.


RE: Yawn
By Moishe on 8/24/2010 3:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I was thinking that after all the mistakes and outright lies, there is no way I would absolutely believe another model just because some scientist says it's true.

They should admit that they are fishing in the dark.


So riddle me this
By Denigrate on 8/24/2010 9:16:05 AM , Rating: 1
Basically when CO2 levels were 10 times what they are now, we had one of most thriving ecologies in the history of our planet. How did we end up with all the life we now see on the planet after the CO2 levels dropped and we had massive die offs? Oh, that's right, Evolution. People need to decide which religion they really believe in, AGW or Evolution.




RE: So riddle me this
By gamerk2 on 8/24/2010 12:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Both; not one serious scientist has ever argued GW would kill all life on the planet, but it could certainly wipe out humanity (At least as a high-tech civilization). Lets not forget once upon a time, O2 was a poisen that killed off about 97% of all life...


RE: So riddle me this
By drycrust3 on 8/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: So riddle me this
By tdawg on 8/24/2010 2:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
This makes me laugh. Thanks.


RE: So riddle me this
By Moishe on 8/24/2010 3:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it could certainly wipe out humanity

Wow... you just made that up, kinda like the model from TFA!


RE: So riddle me this
By AnnihilatorX on 8/24/2010 1:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Basically when CO2 levels were 10 times what they are now, we had one of most thriving ecologies in the history of our planet.


But it was the planktons not the shell fishes or any ocenaic organisms with calcium carbonate shells.


RE: So riddle me this
By FaaR on 8/24/2010 1:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
What are you TALKING about? Absolute NONSENSE!

What the ecology was like when CO2 was 10x of present levels has NOTHING to do with what the ecology is like NOW.

There's no opposing relationship between AGW and evolution, because they're two entirely different things. BACK TO SCHOOL WITH YOU!


RE: So riddle me this
By shin0bi272 on 8/25/2010 10:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
I remember when I was in school I learned that plants breathe co2 and exhale oxygen... so I would guess that a lack of clear cutting and a large "food" supply for plants to thrive on would be the reason that the plants thrived.


Crazy Article
By rikulus on 8/24/2010 8:52:11 AM , Rating: 1
Where to even begin with this article. Your first sentence makes it sound like there is still a realistic argument about whether global warming is happening at all - aren't we way beyond that? Argue away about whether it's anthropogenic, how much/fast it will continue, and how terrible the consequences might be... but don't make it sound like it's not happening.

And ocean acidity is of course related to CO2 concentration in the air: CO2 concentration in air will be directly related to CO2 concentration in the ocean, will be directly related to carbonic acid concentration. That's just chemistry. But it's not directly related to global warming, I don't think any quotes in the article even suggest that, so the headline doesn't exactly ring true. Leveling off CO2 levels would level off ocean acidification. Then we get to argue about whether it would affect global warming or if something else is to blame.

And isn't it well documented that the increased acid level is already having an effect on life in the oceans? Weakening coral reefs and what not?




RE: Crazy Article
By Sazabi19 on 8/24/2010 9:25:11 AM , Rating: 2
ZOMG! Don't say that... you'll attract the Al Gore! He is totally serial about global warming...and manbearpig.


RE: Crazy Article
By Reclaimer77 on 8/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Crazy Article
By JediJeb on 8/24/2010 3:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
But a pH of 8.1 is alkaline not acidic. Any pH above 7 is alkaline, 7 is neutral and below 7 is acidic. Add carbonate to water in the form of calcium carbonate ( lime ) and you will raise the pH. So if an alkaline pH of 8,1 dissolves seashells ( which I doubt) then the carbonate from those shells which would have formed limestone should raise the pH instead of lowering it.

Besides with this little tidbit of trivia:

"The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909[4] [5] and revised to the modern pH in 1924"

Kinda makes their claims of knowing the pH of the ocean in 1750 utter nonsense.


RE: Crazy Article
By Moishe on 8/24/2010 3:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hey you... stop with the facts! stop!


Message to fish everywhere:
By mattclary on 8/24/2010 10:42:51 AM , Rating: 3
Adapt or die, b1tches.




RE: Message to fish everywhere:
By nonmose on 8/24/2010 2:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
And if they die, then we eat...?


RE: Message to fish everywhere:
By JediJeb on 8/24/2010 3:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Cows


Bad Farm Practices
By DoeBoy on 8/24/2010 9:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
I think overuse of fertilizers in the Midwest all the way down south following the Mississippi river will most likely have a much greater effect on the ocean than a bunch of CO2 in the air. This is even more evident when you look at all the algal blooms and very low oxygen amounts. When the algae dies off it essentially is what is releasing all this co2 into the ocean. Co2 is slightly acidic in water and most of it will come from the breakdown of organisims in the water not from the air. To me the CO2 in the air means bigger and greener plants which we can use to feed the overwhelming population that is currently residing on the planet.




RE: Bad Farm Practices
By Lerianis on 8/24/2010 3:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not really an 'overwhelming' population considering that only 1% or less of the land on the planet has a human or humans living on it.


RE: Bad Farm Practices
By JediJeb on 8/25/2010 2:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
I saw where someone calculated a while back that the entire population of the Earth standing more or less shoulder to shoulder would only cover an area of about a moderate sized county in a state in the US, which on a global scale is very tiny. If every person on Earth had a room to live in that was 15 feet by 15 feet then that area may cover an entire state in the US, still small on a global scale.

The other worry that people have that is really unfounded is that we can not feed a larger population than what we have now. But consider this, if you take all of the food resources that are wasted on snacks, candy and other treats and put those towards regular nutritional foods, we would easily be able to feed double or triple the current population without increasing our need for cropland by very much at all. Take the land used to grow sugar beets and sugar cane and instead grow rice and wheat and you could feed millions of people from just that. Stop building cities on fertile crop lands and you will also increase the potential food supply. Fear mongering about overpopulation and lack of food is one of the biggest examples of FUD known to mankind.


Where does the acid come from?
By drycrust3 on 8/24/2010 1:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Earth's oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide and turning acidic


If I recall my elementary lessons in biology correctly, pretty well any plant or algae or bug with chlorophyll inside it takes carbon dioxide + water + sunlight and produces starch + oxygen. No acid.
So where does the acid come from? Oh, don't bother explaining. It's like asking what are the weather predictions for September? When we ask for evidence that this theory is actually credible the evidence just doesn't appear. "OH, BUT THE WEATHER IN ONE HUNDRED YEARS ...".
All they've proved is they don't understand the basics of science. If they did, they would know the first thing to do is check your theory against known facts, and the second is to make predictions that can easily be verified. And where is the model's predictions for the weather for the first 6 months of this year and a comparison with the real weather? My guess is it was so wildly wrong for the first 6 months of 2010 that the model was obviously flawed.
And the predictions for the last 6 months of 2010? Since none have been made public, my guess is they are also so obviously wrong that to release them would have justifiably seriously discredited their model that no one would care about what it says will happen in 100 years time.




RE: Where does the acid come from?
By nonmose on 8/24/2010 2:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, I had to create an account just to reply to this single post.

quote:
If I recall my elementary lessons in biology correctly, pretty well any plant or algae or bug with chlorophyll inside it takes carbon dioxide + water + sunlight and produces starch + oxygen. No acid. So where does the acid come from? Oh, don't bother explaining.


No, you see I have to explain. A quick check of a famous search engine reveals that H20 + CO2 <=> H2C03 <=> H+ + HC03-

So Carbon Dioxide dissolved in water is in an equilibrium with Carbonic acid - hence the pH drops. This is true for all fizzy drinks.

And then you say

quote:
they don't understand the basics of science. If they did, they would know the first thing to do is check your theory against known facts


Please, tell me you're a professional comedian?


RE: Where does the acid come from?
By FaaR on 8/24/2010 2:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
If you'd just taken a chemistry class in school, you'd have learned that some of CO2 when dissolved into water reacts and creates carbonic acid. Hence the acidification.

It has nothing to do with photosynthesis, or algae, so instead of bashing the knowledge of trained scientists (while displaying your own incompetence), maybe you should, like, open up a textbook on the subject or something and READ IT. Ok?

You my friend are a glaring example of what is wrong with America today. Total ignorance + big loud gabbing mouth on the internet = fail on massive scale.


'Fossil' fuels?
By TerranMagistrate on 8/24/2010 9:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
Slightly off topic but the idea that all naturally occurring fuels originate from decomposed organic matter seems really silly to me, personally. In regards to petroleum specifically, the abiogenic theory sounds much more plausible.




RE: 'Fossil' fuels?
By Sazabi19 on 8/24/2010 9:25:52 AM , Rating: 2
Slightly?


Warming v CO2
By zozzlhandler on 8/24/2010 2:20:19 PM , Rating: 3
I seem to remember hearing that warming was causing CO2 to come out of the ocean and into the atmosphere, thus accelerating the warming. If this is true, then warming should help get the pH back to normal (less acidic). If its not happening, then one of the mechanisms for warming is wrong.

Anyway, we need to understand the planet better, not shout out the sky is falling yet again...

It may well be foolish to put CO2 into the atmosphere in an unconstrained manner. More study will help us know. In the meantime, maybe we should build nuclear power plants.

When we have models that accurately predict events before they happen, we will know the models are good...




Phew
By Sazabi19 on 8/24/2010 9:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
As long as the North Atlantic current doesn't hit a critical desalinization point we should all be fine. If it does though i have about 5 days to move... I'm just North of that red line on the map! :o!!! We must all flee to Mexico!!




Ideas for new topics
By Staples on 8/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ideas for new topics
By rcc on 8/24/2010 3:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
Cigarettes are great for you, really, smoke em if you got em.

Uh, can I have your stuff when you croak?


By phxfreddy on 8/24/2010 5:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
......more histrionics about a made up "crisis". That's Tiffany alright!

Liberals and conservatives both believe in gravity because that is SCIENCE.

Liberals believe in global warming and conservatives do not because that is POLITICS.

Thus when you hear a liberal say "the science is settled" you can translate that to "the issue is settled please shut up now"




Can of Coke
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/24/2010 10:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
When you warm up water it holds less CO2 (and other gases) in solution. Like my reservoir engineering prof said, think of gas in solution like a can of coke.

Its funny how everything AGW related that makes the news is negative (true or otherwise), yet the fossil record indicates a greater abundance of life when the earth is warmer.




Little problem with this
By Lerianis on 8/25/2010 10:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming, which is better called NATURAL climate change (seeing as how most of the temperature change CANNOT be blamed on man-kind) cannot be stopped by man, nor SHOULD it be stopped by man.




By shin0bi272 on 8/25/2010 10:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
James Cameron challenged global warming skeptics to a debate and he chose 3 of them to debate then demanded that the thing be turned into a round table discussion, then demanded that it be closed to the public, then demanded it be closed to the press, then demanded that it not be recorded.. all of which the skeptics agreed to. Then finally Cameron pulled the plug on the entire thing. Apparently the inability for Cameron to edit the results to his liking were too risky for him to invest in.




The Green Depression worsens
By bill4 on 8/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: The Green Depression worsens
By Nutzo on 8/24/2010 12:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if I'd say destroying the US is the goal of most Environmentalists, although I'm sure that for some of the leadership it is. Most of them are just too short sighted, and want to feel good about doing something, to see the results of their actions.

The results of most these "feel good" environmental regulations, is the opposite what was intended.

Most these regulation just shift the type or location of the pollution to somewhere else & raise the cost for the consumer.

How much extra pollution is caused by the manufacturing of the batteries for Hybrids?
And how many years does it take to “break even” on the pollution over a gas power car?

How much illegal dumping takes place because we've made it to expensive to properly dispose of hazardous products?
How many more people die on the roads due to the high mileage standards?
How many birds die due to wind turbines?

How many people will get sick due to bacteria in their “reusable” grocery bags once plastic and paper bags are outlawed or restricted?
And how much is that going to cost the health care system?


RE: The Green Depression worsens
By 3minence on 8/24/2010 1:01:34 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, politicians have destroyed the US economy, be they Republicans or Democrats.


RE: The Green Depression worsens
By tdawg on 8/24/2010 2:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Truer words...

An economic policy predicated primarily on consumerism is too fragile to sustain a society. It depends on the creation of sector bubbles to keep it afloat.


RE: The Green Depression worsens
By Moishe on 8/24/2010 4:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
You are very correct.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki