Ocean Acidity
We all know that the Earth is warming. This is the hottest summer I've ever had to deal with and today I was hauling concrete around all day long (fun!). It's going to hit 100 tommorow here in the twin cities and I'm seriously thinking about moving to Canada.
Most people, including almost ALL climate scientists, and all peer reviewed climate studies are in agreement that this warming is caused by the pollution that human's have been pumping into the atmosphere for the last 200 years. But there will always be skeptics, including my friend Matt, who will likely try to debunk this entire post shortly after I write it.
From BBC News Online:
The UK's Royal Society has launched an investigation into the rising acidity of the world's oceans due to pollution from the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels.
The investigation by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science, will probe the potential impact of this rising ocean acidity on marine life - which at present is largely unknown.
Increasing use of fossil fuels means more carbon dioxide is going into the air. Most of it will eventually be absorbed by seawater, where it reacts to form carbonic acid.
The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission reports that some 20-25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are being added to the oceans each day.
Researchers believe such dramatic changes in the carbon dioxide system in surface waters have not been observed for more than 20 million years of Earth history.
Delicate balance
Experts currently predict that if this trend continues, ocean pH could fall by as much as 0.4 units by the year 2100.
"The thing about acidification is that it is happening at the same time that the oceans are warming, so organisms are going to have to deal with two major changes," working group member Dr Carol Turley of Plymouth Marine Laboratory told BBC News Online.
"Whether they balance each other, or whether they double or triple up is not known."
Scientists fear this increasing acidification could have a particularly detrimental effect on corals and sea creatures with hard shells.
Increasing acidity reduces the availability of calcium carbonate from the water - which the creatures rely on to produce their hard skeletons. Juvenile organisms could be most susceptible to these changes.
Acidification may also directly affect the growth and reproduction rates of fish, as well as affecting the plankton populations which they rely on for food, with potentially disastrous consequences for marine food webs.
According to research by Christopher Sabine of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) the ocean has taken up approximately 120 billion metric tonnes of carbon generated by human activities since 1800.
"The same pollution that we believe is heating the world's oceans through global warming is also altering their chemical balance," Professor John Raven, chair of the working group, said.
"This study will look at what impact increased acidity levels might have on marine life and re-emphasise the urgent need to respond to the spectre of climate change, an issue identified by the UK Government as a priority for its Presidency of G8 in 2005."
The issue was highlighted last year with a research paper published in the prestigious journal Nature by Ken Caldeira and Michael Wickett of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, US. Dr Caldeira is also a member of the Royal Society working group.
------
How would you explain this as just a natural fluctuation in the Earth's climate? I'm sure skeptics will bend over backwards trying to explain how this will somehow yield a 'positive' impact on the environment. I'm sick and tired of this debate. We need to change something about the way we live before it's too late.
From the Washington Post:
Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.
This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.
There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.
-----
Whether this is going to happen or not, where is our insurance? Better safe than sorry right? No one has a meteorological crystal ball and no scientist can predict the future. Based on the evidence that climate scientists have gathered thus far, this scenario seems all too likely to happen. We need to push for more realistic caps on CO2 emissions as a safeguard against our uncertain future.
Thom Yorke (singer in Radiohead, the best band in the world) is an active member of Freinds of the Earth. He just came out with a beautiful, solo album a couple of weeks ago called The Eraser. Here are the lyrics to the third track, The Clock:
Time is running out for us
But you just move the hands upon the clock
You throw coins in the wishing well
For us
You just move your hands upon the wall
It comes to you begging you to stop
Wake up
But you just move your hands upon the clock
Throw coins in the wishing well
For us
You make believe that you are still in charge
----
Time is running out. Tick, tock, tick, tock....
posted by Matt @ 8:30 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I thought the CO2 was going into the air? How can it be CO2 and carbonic acid at the same time?
.4 units per year? Thats a whole lot, and should be very easily disproven. Because of this, I'm gonna call shennanigans. Ocean water runs between 7.6 and 8.4. Tat would bring you out of the range of ocean water in two years. The amount of change required in order to actually see that change (besides locally) is simply too huge to possibly be attributed to humans. Surely you can appreciate the sheer size of the ocean and the amount of acid required to change the pH that much that fast?
I think what most of these scientists need is a healthy dose of logic and a little less mass hysteria. Tick tock, tick tock...we'll see if it happens. I'm betting it won't, and in ten years our kids will be learning about global cooling.
PS. This is far from the hottest summer on record. The two hottest in the U.S. were 1936 and 1934 (oddly enough,these were followed by a cooling cycle which led to the "New York will be under a glacier by 2010" hysteria in the '70s). London suffered a scorching summer and drought in 1911 that makes this one pale in comparison.
You're a big fan of history and applying it to current events -- do some digging. Then you can laugh at these "scientists" like me; its loads of fun!
Oh my god.... how can it be CO2 and carbonic acid at the same time? Wow.
Did you actually read my post?
Here are some facts that you should probably read a second time:
Experts currently predict that if this trend continues, ocean pH could fall by as much as 0.4 units by the year 2100.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels.
The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission reports that some 20-25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are being added to the oceans each day.
Researchers believe such dramatic changes in the carbon dioxide system in surface waters have not been observed for more than 20 million years of Earth history.
-----
Where did it say anywhere that the Ph level would drop .4 units per year? CO2 emissions are absorbed by the atmosphere and the ocean... there's no where else for it to go. It's not just one or the other. And you say OTHER PEOPLE need a healthy dose of logic?
-----
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Environmental Sciences Division
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm:
Since 1751 roughly 305 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s. The 2003 global fossil-fuel CO2 emission estimate, 7303 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 4.5% increase from 2002.
Globally, liquid and solid fuels accounted for 76.7% of the emissions from fossil-fuel burning in 2003. Combustion of gas fuels (e.g., natural gas) accounted for 19.2% (1402 million metric tons of carbon) of the total emissions from fossil fuels in 2003 and reflects a gradually increasing global utilization of natural gas. Emissions from cement production (275 million metric tons of carbon in 2003) have more than doubled since the mid 1970s and now represent 3.8% of global CO2 releases from fossil-fuel burning and cement production.
----
You really should start doing more research and stop only listening to the skeptics, because they're giving you shitty information. You're only talking about local temps.
THIS YEAR IS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD GLOBALLY.
From LiveScience.com:
The average temperatures of the first half of 2006 were the highest ever recorded for the continental United States, scientists announced today.
Temperatures for January through June were 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average.
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri experienced record warmth for the period, while no state experienced cooler-than-average temperatures, reported scientists from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. [Heat Map]
Scientists have previously said that 2005 was the warmest year on record for the entire globe.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere climbed to a record 381 parts per million last year, an increase sure to spark further debate on global warming.
The reading was up 2.6 parts per million, according to preliminary calculations, David J. Hofmann of the Office of Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday.
-----
I'm sorry Matt, as long as there's a possibility that this could happen I'm never going to find it funny. This is serious shit. I hope to god it doesn't happen, but until it's disproven I'll hold my breath. Every time I do a comment on global warming I'm going to finish it like this:
Do you believe in crazy, wild coincidences? In 1900, there were 1 billion people on the planet. In 2000, there were 6 billion. Fossil fuel burning has increased exponentially, following close behind population expansion. Fossil fuel burning is the backbone of our industrial society. The planet is getting hotter every year if you look at global AVERAGE temperatures. You say it's all a big coincidence, and I don't like coincidences.
Misread the sentence about pH. .4 in 90 years is a lot more reasonable than .4 per year, but still a lot of acid.
How do you take the global average temperature now? Thermocouples and thermometers reporting from all over the world? Check, I buy that.
How do you take the global average temperature from any time prior to 1900? Something to do with ice samples from Antarctica or Greenland, analysis of gasses trapped, etc, right? Should be as fool proof as carbon dating. Oh...wait.
Researchers believe such dramatic changes in the carbon dioxide system in surface waters have not been observed for more than 20 million years of Earth history. I believe it too...because 20 million years ago, there was no one around to observe it. We can't even know what anyone ate for lunch last Tuesday, and they're talking about CO2 levels 20 million years ago?
My point remains. Science is a lot of "rah rah" all the time about various things. At any given time you can find about 15 different scientists to tell you how we're going to die in the next 50 years. Even Stephen Hawking jumped on the doomsday bandwagon a few weeks ago, telling us we're all gonna die.
You're just seeing the effect of media hype, scientific piggybacking and the like.
There are many questions we simply can't answer. I have a few for the big global warming bogeyman fearmongers:
Why are glaciers in advance if the earth is getting warmer? (Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)
How does human energy output compare to that of the sun? I.e., is it possible that eccentricity of our orbit is a bigger culprit than CO2 emissions?
How do the numbers line up with regard to incident solar radiation? Are we receiving more / less on a year-by-year basis? Is the radiation balance increasing, or decreasing?
How does increased CO2 levels impact plant life?
Has cloud cover as a percentage of the atmosphere increased with temperature? This would be significant, as higher temperatures lead to more free water, which would lead to more clouds and / or higher ocean levels.
How much of an impact could local effects have on climate "models"?
No one answers these questions for me. Its distressing.
Those are very good questions and I'm sure there are many different answers out there. I'll have to do a post that tries to explain each and every one because I know I've read about all of those nagging questions. I'm not sure I buy into the whole, "glaciers are actually advancing" argument, I've heard it disputed many times. Will you please start citing the facts that you put up here? I could take your word for it but it's harder for me to believe them without seeing where they came from.
Of course there are going to be a million different scientific opinions out there on global warming. But I'm telling you once again that the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists can agree that it's warming because of the increase in CO2 emissions. This isn't some liberal doomsday scare tactic, it's scientifically valid. Let me assure you that Stephen Hawking is 1,000,000 times smarter than you or I will ever be. Read A Brief History of Time, the most famous astronomy/physics book ever, and maybe you'll start taking him a little more seriously. He's a genius, no doubt about it. If you don't take one of the smartest guys on the planet seriously, who will you ever take seriously?!?!?!? This is the same guy who expanded on Einstein's Theory of Relativity more than any other physicist since it was published. You only listen to the guys who say it's not happening, and laugh at the ones who say we should be worried about it... Even though they include some of the most intelligent scientists and scholars on Earth.
Great Article:
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/shifting1
...ten years ago, global warming wasn't a controversial issue either. In 1995, the UN's panel on international climate change released its consensus report, finding that global warming was a real and serious issue that had to be quickly confronted. The media covered the scientists' research and the population agreed, leading President Clinton to say he would sign an international treaty to stop global warming.
Then came the backlash. The Global Climate Coalition (funded by over 40 major corporate groups like Amoco, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and General Motors) began spending millions of dollars each year to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to help reduce global warming. They held conferences entitled "The Costs of Kyoto," issued press releases and faxes dismissing the scientific evidence for global warming, and spent more than $3 million on newspaper and television ads claiming Kyoto would mean a "50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax."†
The media, in response to flurries of "blast faxes" (a technique in which a press release is simultaneously faxed to thousands of journalists) and accusations of left-wing bias, began backing off from the scientific evidence.† A recent study found only 35% of newspaper stories on global warming accurately described the scientific consensus, with the majority implying that scientists who believed in global warming were just as common as global warming deniers (of which there were only a tiny handful, almost all of whom had received funding from energy companies or associated groups).†
It all had an incredible effect on the public. In 1993, 88% of Americans thought global warming was a serious problem. By 1997, that number had fallen to 42%, with only 28% saying immediate action was necessary. [^1] And so Clinton changed course and insisted that cutting emissions should be put off for 20 years.
On my first global warming post, I mentioned something about solar radiation increasing and the possibility of that having a bigger effect on warming. There are studies that say radiation is increasing, but then again some say the amount of sunlight reaching earth is decreasing. Not sure if the "amount of sunlight" is the exact same as solar radiation or not though. I've admitted a hundred times on my blog that there are many factors to investigate, but that there is also an overwhelming concensus on the fact that CO2 plays the biggest role in the greenhouse effect. Besides, why wouldn't we focus on CO2, a gas that we emit constantly everyday and can control?
Dropping the Ph level by .4 units in 94 years does kind of seem like alot... until you do a quick calculation. 20-25 million tons of carbon dioxide are being added to the oceans everyday, so 20,000,000 X 365 X 94 = 686,200,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide will be added by 2100. That's assuming that the carbon output by human's remains constant, not factoring in industrial expansion. China and India are the fastest growing economies in the world. They're also the most populated. What would happen if they all hopped in cars and started driving around? I think that would change the amount of CO2 being pumped into the air slightly.
It's EXTREMELY HARD for me to believe the other side of the argument on global warming when many skeptics actually have to be PAID to deny it:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2242565
Ever wonder why so many people still seem confused about global warming?
The answer appears to be that confusion leads to profit -- especially if you're in some parts of the energy business.
One Colorado electric cooperative has openly admitted that it has paid $100,000 to a university academic who prides himself on being a global warming skeptic.
Intermountain Rural Electric Association is heavily invested in power plants that burn coal, one of the chief sources of greenhouse gasses that scientists agree is quickly pushing earth's average temperature to dangerous levels.
Scientists and consumer advocates say the co-op is trying to confuse its clients about the virtually total scientific consensus on the causes of global warming.
ABC News has obtained a copy of a nine-page document that IREA general manager Stanley Lewandowski Jr. addressed to the more than 900 fellow members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
The document is a wide-ranging condemnation of carbon taxes and mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions that Lewandowski writes would threaten to "erode most, if not all, the benefits of coal-fired generation."
The letter also says that in February of this year, IREA contributed $100,000 to Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
Michaels is one of about a DOZEN academics who for years have cast doubt on the science surrounding global warming while downplaying the scientifically accepted idea that humans are causing it.
----
There are over 900 PEER-REVIEWED climate studies over the last 15 years... and NOT ONE DISPUTES THE FACT THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.
Yes, but like I've said, a scientific consensus means nothing.
Hawking is a genius, I'll give you that. And yet, he has known to have been wrong (the famous Penthouse bet) and says that he believes that if humans do not colonize space we'll be wiped out as a species. Intelligence isn't a free pass on correctness.
I'll go on the record to say right now that I don't believe that there is a global majority or even a conclusive majority of scientists who believe in global warming as caused by humans. Even if scientists agreeing on something meant anything (which it most certainly does not, throwing out theories is one of the fundamentals of science) I think a more accurate statement would be to say "there is a majority of people in the media who believe in global warming" or "there is a very large, loud group of people who believe in global warming" or even "people who don't believe in global warming get very little credibility or face time for their efforts".
I don't think its a left/right issue at all. I know liberals who think its a crock, and staunch conservatives who are on board with greenhouse reducing emissions. I'm not even saying I don't think we're having an impact. I just refuse to go as far as all these folks and say that we're contributing more than, say, the sun.
It just seems like somewhere along the way someone said "I've decided: its over" and everyone went along with it. This bugs me.
Objective research on this topic is, by and large, dead and gone.
Provide evidence of your claims. You have every right to have your own opinion, but I back mine up with "cold hard facts". I'll take you seriously when you can find me a credible source that says there isn't a scientific concensus on the fact that we're pumping too much CO2 into the air. Up until now, I've shown you several articles and studies that back up my 'crazy, paranoid' global warming claims. Sure, intelligence isn't a free pass on correctness, but you'll admit that it helps right? I'm guessing I don't have to come up with an alternative scenario to convince you that intelligence does help in some situations.
Your right about hawking losing that bet. He actually bet against himself that blackholes didn't exist, after he had spent his whole life trying to mathematically prove their existence. It was his insurance policy of sorts. He was wrong, but he was SOOO RIGHT.
You said: I don't believe that there is a global majority or even a conclusive majority of scientists who believe in global warming as caused by humans.
And I'll repeat myself once again...
There are over 900 PEER-REVIEWED climate studies over the last 15 years... and NOT ONE DISPUTES THE FACT THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.
You think I'm a paranoid, I think you're a conspiracy nut. There would have to be a giant scientific conspiracy the world over to accomplish this concensus on a subject that you say is "laughable". How much more proof do you need? Conspiracies and coincidences.... wow, great argument.
Public opinion and manipulation is hardly conspiracy. I don't think there's a conspiracy to promote global warming at all. Conspiracy means cloak and dagger, and has a purpose or aim. I think its more along the line of "this is sexy, popular, good for selling magazines, making movies, and writing journal articles."
To support some of what I'm saying, here is a very well written cited paper on global warming and flawed science:
http://www.john-daly.com/
hockey/hockey.htm
(copy + paste and delete the break to follow the link)
Right now, at this moment, you are doing precisely what everyone else is: shouting numbers to make them true. Where are these 900 peer-reviewed climate studies? Do you have a list? You're surely citing Naomi Oreskes' search of the ISI database, yes?
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Naomi Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it. - The Wall Street Journal
Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, at MIT has this observation:
"...then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen."
Having published peer-reviewed papers, I can tell you it doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. Here's how it goes: you send a list of people you suggest to review your paper along with your paper to a journal. The editor reads your paper, decides if its "of interest" or "relevant" to the journal. He usually selects one name from your list and another from his list to review your paper, as well as reviewing it himself. They then read your paper and agree or disagree with the methodology not necessarily the results or conclusions. These results are usually sent to you in a letter, and the editor allows you to rebut or accept their criticisms. You don't have to change anything based on the peer review. You only have to satisfy the editor that you are presenting honest data or legitimate findings. A peer-reviewed study isn't the end-all-be-all of hard science.
I don't think you're paranoid. I just think you're misinformed.
There's a great blog that I've found to be useful called World Climate Report. The guy is a very good researcher, cites thoroughly, and writes very well.
www.worldclimatereport.com
Should check it out.
This guy has a clear bias and some strange reasoning. Here's what he said about acid acidification:
Heard this before. With regard to global warming, simply substitute any object (oceans, pandas, humans) and add the words “greatly harmed.” Amazing, though, that the planet has warmed for 100 years and human life expectancies have doubled, isn’t it?
--- Is this guy serious??? You're kidding me right? You want me to take this guy seriously. This must be a joke.
His commentary is snarky, but his reviews / papers are right on (read: professional in tone).
I wasn't put off by the snarkiness, i was put off my his half serious statement at the end about how its funny human life expectancies have doubled "even though" the earth has been warming for (more than) 100 years. Either he's not that funny, or his reasoning is completely out of whack. I'll give him another chance...
I don't think I'll ever really realize that I'm misinformed as you say, as long as there are exremely smart people on my side of the aisle. I've seen the factor of climate scientists who whole-heartedly believe in global warming to ones that don't: 10,000 to 7 (give or take 7). In fact, I'm about to post the editorial that I got that factor from.
Post a Comment
<< Home