Two degree rise could spark Greenland ice sheet meltdown: WWF

Finally, water front property!

The Final report of the IPCC 4th Assessment says this about Greenland ice sheet vulnerability (November 16, 2007):
"Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m if global average warming were sustained for millennia in excess of 1.9 to 4.6 industrial values. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.

Source: ACIA, Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 2004. Cambridge University Press. p.33
Available at: www.acia.uaf.edu....

[edit on 29-11-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Real science is more than computer programming and attempts to prove hypothesis while sitting at the keyboard. Real science is thinking critically and questioning the theories and hypothesis as they are presented.

You should be wary of confusing your pseudoscepticism with science.

Running a computer program is not an experiment; it is an observation tool to help predict results before spending time and expense on experimentation.

It's like lots an' lots of maths. Beats that little 'maths' you provide. That's why you post 'maths' and beer-bottle cargo cult science on ATS and they publish in top tier scientific journals.

Real maths? Where was a calculation in any of your links? Where was the raw data revealed? Where was the raw output? All I saw were conclusions, occasionally quantized, and predictions based on predictions fed into a computer. My son could have easily followed all the 'maths' in your links, and he is only now in Algebra. Mathematical calculations are not the same as reading numbers.

lol

Some were abstracts. I would bother taking the time to hunt down the actual scientific articles which were not readily available, but I've done that once already for you - I learned that there is no point.

How about a calculation as to the expected pH of the ocean's surface at a CO2 level of 500 ppmv, based on the observed rate of CO2 absorption by natural processes and the solubility of the gas? Or maybe a calculation on how deep the acidity differential will extend, based on diffusion constants? That's math, my friend.

If you actually paid attention to the articles available, you would find such results. Using maths based on physics and chemistry.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by melatonin]

I decided I would actually bother taking this post apart. It should be fun enough.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by majestictwo

CO2 has a minimal effect on oceanic acidity levels; this is simply another claim that cannot be supported by science. The chemical equation used here is OH- + CO2 --> HCO3-.

(1) H20(l) < - - > H^+(aq) + OH^-(aq)

(2) H20(l) + CO2(aq) < - - > H2CO3 < - - > H^+(aq) + HCO3^-(aq)

(3) HCO3^- (aq) < - - > CO3^2-(aq) + H^+(aq)

Add CO2, pH rises (i.e., concentration of free H+ ions increases). The first dissociation predominates (HCO3^-), with the second in lesser proportions. CO3^2- (from the second dissociation) is essential for marine biochemistry:

(4) CO3^2-(aq) + Ca^2+(aq) < - - > CaCO3(s)

However, the equation we (or the ocean organisms) need to worry about is:

(5) CO2(aq) + CO3^2-(aq) + H20(l) < - - > 2HCO3^-(aq)

This describes an important aspect of CO2 chemistry in the oceans. When we add CO2 to this equation, what happens? You might need to move on a chapter in your book. If you can understand this equation and its effects, you might just get the fundamental problem.

I actually despised aquatic chemistry.

In the first place, the reaction occurs with the OH- ion, not the H2O molecule. Water will contain a certain minuscule portion of H2O molecules that spontaneously 'split' into H+ (H3O+) and OH- ions. This is the mechanism water uses to be such a great solvent, and is responsible for also for most of the life processes. Present theory attributes this activity to the weakness of hydrogen bonding between molecules of H2O.

Sort of true, but totally irrelevant. One big red herring that attempts to say 'Look, I know a bit of high school chemistry, listen to moi'.

In the second place, the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere is 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv). That means you only find on average 387 CO2 molecules in every million molecules of O2, Ar, and N2.

Argument from small numbers. Another red-herring.

Carbonic acid is therefore one of the weaker of the acids.

True, but it doesn't matter. No-one is comparing to the effect of adding billions of tonnes of sulphuric acid to the oceans. The ocean is alkaline, any acidification will alter its chemistry in some way.

I'm drinking it right now.

'Look! CO2 is safe in liquid, I can drink it! Bet you wouldn't drink H2SO4! Take that science!'

lol

We call it 'carbonated water'. Every time you open a bottle of carbonated drink, that fizz you hear is CO2 escaping from the water, due to the sudden drop in pressure. The CO2 is put into the water under extremely high pressures in a factory, and using concentrated CO2. The head on a beer is made up mostly of CO2 molecules escaping for the same reason, although they exist in beer due to the yeast action during the brewing process. Neither condition (extreme pressure or high CO2 concentration) exists in the open atmosphere.

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

Do a little math, study a little chemistry, and the fear disappears.

lol

'Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge'

[edit on 29-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Melatonin: Thanks for your input I wouldn’t have a clue what you’re saying I guess we each have an area of expertise. In easy to understand talk is the OP something still to worry about. Is the ocean acidity going to change and did you see my post of the photos of “The Wilkins Ice Shelf”

Originally posted by majestictwo
Melatonin: Thanks for your input I wouldn’t have a clue what you’re saying I guess we each have an area of expertise. In easy to understand talk is the OP something still to worry about. Is the ocean acidity going to change and did you see my post of the photos of “The Wilkins Ice Shelf”

Hey.

Without question the oceans are going to become more acidic as we add billions of tonnes of CO2. It's basic chemistry, no amount of obfuscation from some can change that. How fast and how far can be argued, but it will be almost certainly faster than seen for a long time, and will last for a very, very long time.

It's no great surprise to see Ice on the scale of the Wilkins falling apart, and arctic ice (greenland and ocean ice) will see the same with increasing temps. Just basic physics. Indeed, it is very rapid in parts of antartica and across the arctic. Sea ice coverage in the arctic shows this for the last few decades:


Updated for most recent data

ABE: bah! that looks naff. Available in all its glory here.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


So if CO2 drops in the atmosphere will it eventually disperse from the oceans? Is it likely to take longer to reverse if it’s ever possible? Uh - all questions

Originally posted by majestictwo
reply to post by melatonin

 

So if CO2 drops in the atmosphere will it eventually disperse from the oceans? Is it likely to take longer to reverse if it’s ever possible? Uh - all questions

If we assume we reach a state of no further anthro CO2 emissions, then the biosphere will attempt to recover. However, that will potentially take a long time. All the excess CO2 in its various forms will need to be taken up into long-term storage. The last time the earth saw such a release of carbon (as that we can achieve, if we want), it took at least tens of thousands of years (PETM event)

Essentially, it would need to go back to where we where originally a few hundred years back - billions of tonnes of carbon locked up out the biosphere. Until we next decide to dig up that carbon and liberate it.

ABE: talking about the PETM, ocean acidification, and recovery from high carbon atmosphere...

Science 10 June 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5728, pp. 1611 - 1615
DOI: 10.1126/science.1109004
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Rapid Acidification of the Ocean During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

James C. Zachos,1* Ursula Röhl,2 Stephen A. Schellenberg,3 Appy Sluijs,4 David A. Hodell,6 Daniel C. Kelly,7 Ellen Thomas,8,9 Micah Nicolo,10 Isabella Raffi,11 Lucas J. Lourens,5 Heather McCarren,1 Dick Kroon12

The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) has been attributed to the rapid release of 2000 x 109 metric tons of carbon in the form of methane. In theory, oxidation and ocean absorption of this carbon should have lowered deep-sea pH, thereby triggering a rapid (

Originally posted by adrenochrome
yes, a 2 degree Celcius rise, globally, would practically wipe out third-world agriculture as we know it, and therefore most of the third-world itself...

Ok, Mr. Alarmist, where exactly do you have evidence for that? No one can predict the how the world's weather patterns would change given a 2 C overall worldwide temp increase. The Sahara used to be green, what caused that?????

I can just as easily say that a 2 degree rise will increase water vapor which would result in more rain for Africa and that Siberia and the Plains of Northern Canada would become vast grain belts.

No one knows for certain what the weather will be 100 years from now, don't kid yourself.

reply to post by poet1b

When you are talking about miniscule amounts of CO2 in the ocean, then miniscule increases in the amounts of CO2 in the ocean can easily increase the amount of CO2 in the ocean by several fold. While you might fool the simpletons with this mathematical sleight of hand, those of us who understand how these things work are not fooled in the least.

I just did. For reasons of server bandwidth, and to prevent excessive quoting, the post is a few behind yours where I speak of carbonate concentrations and equilibriums at differing CO2 levels.

The link to that post is www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nowhere did I imply or claim that increases in global temperatures were linear, you are simply building a straw man argument of your own to knock down.

My apologies then.

Where is your evidence that global warming has peaked.

Where is your evidence that global temperature rise is accelerating?

Let me put this a bit more simply. Suppose you and all your neighbors had chicken-houses. Suddenly, you all noticed that you weren't getting as many eggs as you were used to getting. Everyone gets together and tries to find out why. One of your neighbors says "It's the chicken feed you've been feeding them. If you don't change chicken feed, your chickens won't lay any eggs, and they might all die!"

Now everyone is worried about getting 'good' chicken feed. That same neighbor buys a bunch of feed and puts it into colorful bags with the word "egg-producing" on the label, and begins selling it to you for twice as much. You're still not getting any more eggs, but you feel better because by now, everyone knows that the 'egg-producing' chicken feed is the solution.

I am not buying the new feed, because I went out and looked around my chicken house and saw a couple shed snakeskins.So instead of buying feed in a fancy bag, I bought wire and wrapped it around the bottom of my chicken house. I am getting more eggs now. So I try to tell you about the snakes, but by now you believe so much in the special chicken feed, you think I am crazy. To make it worse, all the neighbors seem to think this new feed is so great, everyone should buy it. So they want to ban the old chicken feed, except to the neighbor who re-bags it, of course.

So I have shown the shed snake-skins, I have proven that putting up a better fence fixes the problem, and all the evidence I have points to snakes. And yet, I am the problem, because the new feed, which is the old feed, has been sold to the public.

All the graphs I have seen on global temperature are showing a rapid increas e from ca.1955 through 2001, with the total rise being on the order of 0.6°C. From 2001 to present, the temperature is level, and still below the maximum which occurred in 1998. It took 45 years to get 0.6°C increase, another 7 to get no increase, and now more and more suggestions of a cooling trend are coming to light.

Where is your evidence?

TheRedneck

reply to post by melatonin

I decided I would actually bother taking this post apart. It should be fun enough.

Oh, goody! See, mel, you can play nice.

This describes an important aspect of CO2 chemistry in the oceans. When we add CO2 to this equation, what happens? You might need to move on a chapter in your book. If you can understand this equation and its effects, you might just get the fundamental problem.

That was actually a pretty good explanation. Now, let's see what's in the next chapter...

Ah! Equilibria!

Check the Kh for those reactions.

The hydration equilibrium constant at 25°C is Kh= 1.70×10−3: hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules. In the absence of a catalyst, the equilibrium is reached quite slowly.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

If the majority of CO2 was converted in carbonic acid, this would indeed be a problem. Actually, wait, no it wouldn't because life would not have developed. Again, you are missing out on the concept of photosynthesis. You know, the way those plants all breath CO2 in during the summer (before they breath it out in the winter. That's what Al Gore thinks, anyway). I understand, though, since that's way over in organic chemistry and they use real big 'maths' there. Funny looking symbols too.

Every single equation you referenced has a low Kh value, meaning (in simple terms) that the equation occurs in very small amounts. If one side of the equation is shifted (i.e. some of the dissolved CO2 is used by a different process), the equation itself shifts until the equilibrium point is reached. If CO2 is taken out of the water by photosynthesis, the remaining carbonate will change back into CO2 to balance the equation.

Sort of true, but totally irrelevant. One big red herring that attempts to say 'Look, I know a bit of high school chemistry, listen to moi'.

Er, mel, it wasn't high-school chem. It was 2nd year Honors Chemistry at a major college. Irrelevant to the discussion, but you seemed to be so hung up on the high-school argument, I thought I'd let you in on that secret.

I try not to talk over other people's heads whenever possible. It tends to anger them.

Er, you're not getting angry, are you?

True, but it doesn't matter. No-one is comparing to the effect of adding billions of tonnes of sulphuric acid to the oceans. The ocean is alkaline, any acidification will alter its chemistry in some way.

You seem to be a bit hung up on arguing against irrelevance based on 'small numbers'. Does that mean you think one molecule of CO2 will kill? Maybe one atom of arsenic is deadly? How about one atom of mercury?

There are acceptable levels of chemical contamination in everything. Sometimes that level is extremely low, but it does exist. Taking a leak at the beach does not change the entire ocean into a septic tank.

'Look! CO2 is safe in liquid, I can drink it! Bet you wouldn't drink H2SO4! Take that science!'

Actually, there's probably a few molecules of sulfuric acid in my Mountain Dew. And I'm still alive!

That was an example to show the difference between carbonic acid and other acids, like sulfuric, hydrochloric, hydrofluoric... sheesh, I'm trying to not go over your head here...

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

An explanation of how carbonic acid is formed industrially is completely irrelevant?

Weren't we discussing carbonic acid?

edit to add: you posted this to majestictwo, but I have a question on it:

If we assume we reach a state of no further anthro CO2 emissions, then the biosphere will attempt to recover.

In your opinion, is there an acceptable level of anthro CO2 emissions? Or is one molecule one molecule too much?

TheRedneck


[edit on 29-11-2008 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck

Well, it took four tries, but we finally have some information on an actual experiment. Now my question becomes: what were the conditions of the experiment? Was there a control? What elevated CO2 levels were used? 400 ppmv? 4000 ppmv? 40,000 ppmv? What were the observed pH levels of the water under test at what CO2 levels?

My question would be what happens when the system reaches equilibrium. An increase in CO2 stimulates an increase in plant life and an acceleration of growth that absorbs the increase in CO2. Works sort of like a buffer does in chemistry. Also everyone ignores the OTHER acids. As I found out the hard way thanks to trying to de-ionize Merrimac River water, swamps produce lots of different organic acids. Is our allowing beaver to produce swamps increasing the pH of the ocean? It sure increased the pH of the Merrimac river. And yes it was complex organic acids, I had analysis done.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by adrenochrome

yes, a 2 degree Celcius rise, globally, would practically wipe out third-world agriculture as we know it, and therefore most of the third-world itself...

Maybe I've been growing things wrong, but last time I checked, a rise in temperature actually helped increase agriculture. Isn't that why we grow crops during the warmer months?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

TheRedneck

Correct, the warm period of the Middle Ages allowed crops to be grown all year round (in Europe, anyway). Three crops were produced instead of the usual two. The weather was mild, wonderful, and did not have violent storms. I do think that it wasn't easy making the change into that warm period. I suspect that the weather patterns were quite abnormal during the transition to the warm period of the Middle Ages.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That was actually a pretty good explanation. Now, let's see what's in the next chapter...

Yeah, I know it was.

Ah! Equilibria!

Aye.

If the majority of CO2 was converted in carbonic acid, this would indeed be a problem. Actually, wait, no it wouldn't because life would not have developed. Again, you are missing out on the concept of photosynthesis. You know, the way those plants all breath CO2 in during the summer (before they breath it out in the winter.

That's what Al Gore thinks, anyway). I understand, though, since that's way over in organic chemistry and they use real big 'maths' there. Funny looking symbols too.

If we add components to one side of an equilbrium, what happens? It's a very basic process in this sort of chemistry.

Every single equation you referenced has a low Kh value, meaning (in simple terms) that the equation occurs in very small amounts. If one side of the equation is shifted (i.e. some of the dissolved CO2 is used by a different process), the equation itself shifts until the equilibrium point is reached. If CO2 is taken out of the water by photosynthesis, the remaining carbonate will change back into CO2 to balance the equation.

By adding CO2 we perturb the equilibrium. If we add CO2 to the oceans what happens. We have lots to play with, around 25% of what we pump out every year gets absorbed there. If we add to the left, then...what?

(1) CO2 + H20 < - - > H2CO3 < - - > HCO3^- + H^+

(2) HCO3^- < - - > CO3^2- + H^+

(3) CO2 + CO3^2- + H2O < - - > 2HCO3^-

I like the attempt at further obfuscation. Number 3 is very important though.

Er, mel, it wasn't high-school chem. It was 2nd year Honors Chemistry at a major college. Irrelevant to the discussion, but you seemed to be so hung up on the high-school argument, I thought I'd let you in on that secret.

Because it just basic stuff that people might find interesting, well over the less educated head, but is totally irrelevant to the issue.

'Oh, look, water self-solvates, but only a bit, blah blah.'. The point is pretty simple. If I take pure degassed water at room temp and pressure, we have close to pH7. Leave it open to atmosphere, it will equilibrate to somewhere below pH6 fairly quickly. The magic of water and CO2.

All the blah was just obfuscation...

In the first place, the reaction occurs with the OH- ion, not the H2O molecule. Water will contain a certain minuscule portion of H2O molecules that spontaneously 'split' into H+ (H3O+) and OH- ions. This is the mechanism water uses to be such a great solvent, and is responsible for also for most of the life processes. Present theory attributes this activity to the weakness of hydrogen bonding between molecules of H2O.

rofltroffle

Er, you're not getting angry, are you?

Nah, I'm actually laughing. Harvesting lulz is great fun. I particularly loved the chicken story.

You seem to be a bit hung up on arguing against irrelevance based on 'small numbers'. Does that mean you think one molecule of CO2 will kill? Maybe one atom of arsenic is deadly? How about one atom of mercury?

lol

An argument from small numbers is as bad as one from big numbers. Just diversionary rubbish that might convince the less than capable.

Actually, there's probably a few molecules of sulfuric acid in my Mountain Dew. And I'm still alive!

Oh lordy! It's a miracle.

That was an example to show the difference between carbonic acid and other acids, like sulfuric, hydrochloric, hydrofluoric... sheesh, I'm trying to not go over your head here...

But it's totally irrelevant. Just more diversion.

An explanation of how carbonic acid is formed industrially is completely irrelevant?

Weren't we discussing carbonic acid?

TheRedneck

Heh, yeah, talking about how we make fizzy drinks is really getting to the crux of the problem, lol.

Arrehenius called his original paper "on the influence of carbonic acid on the temperature of the earth'. Science has been discussing it for a long time, so seeing deniers still perseverating on beer bottles and self-solvation is very, very funny.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by crimvelvet

My question would be what happens when the system reaches equilibrium.

It would depend on where equilibrium is reached. There is definitely a point where the equalized pH would be too acidic to allow for the life processes. I just don't think we are close to reaching that point. So far, all of the IPCC conclusions (as well as those that are based off IPCC predictions) seem to ignore the photosynthetic effects of aquatic life.

The carbon dioxide/carbonic acid equations are slow, and I would expect the effect of excess CO2 on aquatic plant life would be slow as well. Thus there will be a delay in equilibria. I'm actually happy to see that some attention os being paid to oceanic acidification, because there is always the chance that anyone is wrong on this.

Also everyone ignores the OTHER acids.

And therein lies the greatest danger IMO. Any time people become fixated on one particular component of a problem, it seems other and potentially greater aspects are ignored. China is becoming industrialized right now at an astronomical rate, with absolutely no ecological control. Industry is responsible for a myriad of acids much stronger and less biodegradable than carbonic. Sulfuric and hydrochloric do not dissipate nearly as easily, both due to their greater solubility and the fact that sulfur and chlorine are not used in large amounts in the life processes.

Great points, and well-presented. A star for you, sir.

TheRedneck

reply to post by melatonin

'Look! CO2 is safe in liquid, I can drink it! Bet you wouldn't drink H2SO4! Take that science!'

YEAH right. Look up the difference between a WEAK acid and a STRONG acid. Carbonic acid is a weak acid. Strong (non-organic) acids have a pH of 1, 2, 3, or so Take the HCl in your stomach with a pH of between 1 and 3. www.isnare.com...

The solubility of CO2 is lower in salt water than in fresh water AND SOLUBILITY DECREASES WITH AN INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE!!! Thats right Global COOLING will INCREASE the amount of CO2 in the ocean not GLOBAL WARMING sciencelinks.jp...

Originally posted by crimvelvet
YEAH right. Look up the difference between a WEAK acid and a STRONG acid. Carbonic acid is a weak acid. Strong (non-organic) acids have a pH of 1, 2, 3, or so Take the HCl in your stomach with a pH of between 1 and 3. www.isnare.com...

Heh.

Aye. Strong acids exhibit greater dissociation. When we are adding millions of gallons of HCl to the oceans, get back to me. It might then become relevant.

The solubility of CO2 is lower in salt water than in fresh water AND SOLUBILITY DECREASES WITH AN INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE!!! Thats right Global COOLING will INCREASE the amount of CO2 in the ocean not GLOBAL WARMING sciencelinks.jp...

Well done. However, it's not as if global cooling is an issue. Unless you think that reduction in the current warming trend somehow equals a reduction in temperature.

The bold and caps suits you, sir!



[edit on 29-11-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

By adding CO2 we perturb the equilibrium. If we add CO2 to the oceans what happens. We have lots to play with, around 25% of what we pump out every year gets absorbed there. If we add to the left, then...what?

Then the equation shifts to the right, as you demonstrated.

Now, what happens when oceanic flora growth increases due to the excess of CO2? Increased growth leads to increased CO2 intake, and removes CO2 from the left. That shifts the equation to the left.

Because it just basic stuff that people might find interesting, well over the less educated head, but is totally irrelevant to the issue.

'Oh, look, water self-solvates, but only a bit, blah blah.'. The point is pretty simple. If I take pure degassed water at room temp and pressure, we have close to pH7. Leave it open to atmosphere, it will equilibrate to somewhere below pH6 fairly quickly. The magic of water and CO2.

All the blah was just obfuscation...

Hmmm, you have used the word 'obfuscation' more times than I can count. Perhaps a bit of definition is in order:

ob⋅fus⋅cate
   /ˈɒbfəˌskeɪt, ɒbˈfʌskeɪt/ [ob-fuh-skeyt, ob-fuhs-keyt]
–verb (used with object), -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing.
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.

Source: dictionary.reference.com...

I can only assume you speak of definition number 2. I contend that underlying scientific concepts, no matter how simplistic, are far from 'extraneous', They are the underlying principles that allow us to make further developments, just as the foundation of a house is what allows for the construction of the supported floors. Irf you remove the foundation from underneath your home, the rest will collapse, and if you remove the underlying scientific principles from science, what is left will collapse in on itself as well.

I would say, then, that according to definition 3, you would be the obfuscator. When you try to show how the basic principles of science are somehow no longer applicable, you create confusion on the issues at hand and darken the ability of others to understand what is happening. But then again, you have good company in this: the IPCC has been doing it for some time.

Nah, I'm actually laughing. Harvesting lulz is great fun. I particularly loved the chicken story.

Aw, thanks mel! I liked writing it as well. It's nice to know I brought a smile to your face.

An argument from small numbers is as bad as one from big numbers.

I agree. Like this:

Originally posted by melatonin
Essentially, it would need to go back to where we where originally a few hundred years back - billions of tonnes of carbon locked up out the biosphere.

But it's totally irrelevant. Just more diversion.

Well, at least we have a new word...

The acidity of carbonic acid is not irrelevant if we are talking about oceanic acidification because of it.

Heh, yeah, talking about how we make fizzy drinks is really getting to the crux of the problem, lol.

Carbonic acid is carbonic acid. There is not man-made carbonic acid and then natural carbonic acid. There is not man-made CO2 and then natural CO2. No chemical acts one way if created by man and another way if not created by man.

Ah, here's a nice little set of calculations that show man-made contributions to CO2 levels to be 3.225% of the total CO2 released.
www.geocraft.com...
The chart is about halfway down the page.

Now if we are to assume then that man-made CO2 is responsible for oceanic acidification, then we would have to also assume that somehow those man-made CO2 molecules are going around doing things that the natural CO2 molecules would never do. In other words, we have 'evil' CO2 and 'good' CO2.

Sorry, folks. That's called 'mythology'. It's a great way to explain why we should all pay more for pieces of paper issued by the government in order to drive to work, but that's about all.

Actually, I highly recommend that link. It makes for some pretty good reading, and is well-sourced (the numbers used to develop that statistic came from the DOE).

TheRedneck

reply to post by crimvelvet

The solubility of CO2 is lower in salt water than in fresh water AND SOLUBILITY DECREASES WITH AN INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE!

Oooh, nice catch! I can't believe I never bothered to look up that temperature dependence. That's another star...

I bet it will be irrelevant, though... oh, there's mel's post already. I guess I'm psychic.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Then the equation shifts to the right, as you demonstrated.

Excellent. Then adding CO2 to the oceans will result in acidification. That's what we know, and have known for quite a while.

Considering the oceans are at just above pH8, and that marine biochemistry is a tension between the presence of the different carbon/carbonate species, altering the dynamics of this system is likely to be a problem for many species.

Now, what happens when oceanic flora growth increases due to the excess of CO2? Increased growth leads to increased CO2 intake, and removes CO2 from the left. That shifts the equation to the left.

Fair enough. But where's the evidence that photosynthesis is going to somehow outweigh the billions of tonnes of CO2 that will be finding its way there? Indeed, many of the species that you are relying on depend on carbonate chemistry to survive (i.e., calcification). See equation 3.

I can only assume you speak of definition number 2. I contend that underlying scientific concepts, no matter how simplistic, are far from 'extraneous', They are the underlying principles that allow us to make further developments, just as the foundation of a house is what allows for the construction of the supported floors. Irf you remove the foundation from underneath your home, the rest will collapse, and if you remove the underlying scientific principles from science, what is left will collapse in on itself as well.

Heh.

I would say, then, that according to definition 3, you would be the obfuscator. When you try to show how the basic principles of science are somehow no longer applicable, you create confusion on the issues at hand and darken the ability of others to understand what is happening. But then again, you have good company in this: the IPCC has been doing it for some time.

Yer ma!

Aw, thanks mel! I liked writing it as well. It's nice to know I brought a smile to your face.

You do.

I agree. Like this:

Essentially, it would need to go back to where we where originally a few hundred years back - billions of tonnes of carbon locked up out the biosphere.

You think my quote which is just a basic statement, and this...

In the second place, the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere is 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv). That means you only find on average 387 CO2 molecules in every million molecules of O2, Ar, and N2.

...are comparable?

lol

The acidity of carbonic acid is not irrelevant if we are talking about oceanic acidification because of it.

Round and round we go.

Carbonic acid is carbonic acid. There is not man-made carbonic acid and then natural carbonic acid. There is not man-made CO2 and then natural CO2. No chemical acts one way if created by man and another way if not created by man.

lol

Ah, here's a nice little set of calculations that show man-made contributions to CO2 levels to be 3.225% of the total CO2 released.
www.geocraft.com...
The chart is about halfway down the page.

I can show you why that's misleading if you want.

Now if we are to assume then that man-made CO2 is responsible for oceanic acidification, then we would have to also assume that somehow those man-made CO2 molecules are going around doing things that the natural CO2 molecules would never do. In other words, we have 'evil' CO2 and 'good' CO2.

Sorry, folks. That's called 'mythology'. It's a great way to explain why we should all pay more for pieces of paper issued by the government in order to drive to work, but that's about all.

Oh no, it's all carbon dioxide. Just that some of it was stored away from the carbon cycle.

Actually, I highly recommend that link. It makes for some pretty good reading, and is well-sourced (the numbers used to develop that statistic came from the DOE).

TheRedneck

It does not surprise me in the least that you find such arguments convincing.

reply to post by melatonin

Fair enough. But where's the evidence that photosynthesis is going to somehow outweigh the billions of tonnes of CO2 that will be finding its way there?

Considering that photosynthesis itself (the overall process; we are only now starting to understand the chemical reactions involved) has been understood for quite some time, I presume you are talking quantitatively instead of qualitatively.

In that respect, I have no evidence, because it hasn't happened yet. Neither has oceanic life been thoroughly destroyed due to oceanic pH, so your evidence would be as suppositional as mine. That's why I make no argument about monitoring ocean acidity and its effects as we proceed. My argument is over knee-jerk reactions over the death of a mussel.

We have evidence that plant growth increases dramatically with elevated CO2 levels. We have evidence that accelerated plant growth utilizes more CO2 as a result. We have evidence that increasing atmospheric concentrations will lead to increased oceanic concentrations. We have evidence that increased CO2 levels in solution increases acidity. We have no clear evidence (at this time) of the quantitative overall results at specific atmospheric CO2 levels.

I also have an argument over spending all of our resources on the assumption that the only possible cause is CO2. Carbonic acid is not the only acid around, and is by far weaker than the others. I will admit that CO2 is far more prevalent in our environment than any other acid-forming substance, but a complete picture of the situation is needed if we are to solve any problems we find. What would be the benefit of trying to solve a coral bleaching problem in one area if we only concentrate on CO2 and fail to look for any industrial waste that may or may not be entering the ecological system in that area? Would you disagree with that?

Round and round we go.

Yes.

I can play the obfuscation/childish generalization/diversionary game just as well as you, my friend. I would prefer to stick to science, but, hey, you call the rules, I'll play by 'em.

I can show you why that's misleading if you want.

Please, feel free. I expect my sources to be analyzed.

TheRedneck