Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/14/2009 11:21:06 AM PST by markomalley
As the world struggles to reach an agreement on global warming, the UK Environment Secretary said pollution is having a particularly damaging effect on the two thirds of the world covered by oceans.
He explained that carbon dioxide is being absorbed at a faster rate than at any time in the previous 21 million years, causing ocean acidification.
The process dissolves the shells and skeletons of key marine life and is in danger of destroying whole ecosystems.
“Why should we worry about this?” he asked “Because there is marine life that is affected by that change. In particular animals and plants that have a calcium carbonate skeleton and that other marine life feed on. When you think that one billion people depend on fish as their principle source of protein this is something we should worry about.”
Mr Benn’s comments follow a UN report that warned ocean acidification is an “underwater time bomb”, which cannot be reversed in less than tens of thousands of years. It is predicted 70 per cent of cold water corals could be exposed to corrosive water by 2100.
The report was released at the Copenhagen climate summit in order to put pressure on world leaders to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being released by cars and factories as part of a new deal on global warming.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Yep, nature loves equilibrium. You can’t force the ocean to absorb more gas by just having more gas in the air. The ocean will always absorb a specific amount of gas according to its temperature and the outside air pressure.
However, if the available gas has a higher concentration of CO2, then the ocean should absorb more CO2 than before, and have a corresponding lower oxygen and nitrogen concentration.
But do realize that the change recorded so far is .075 pH since the 1700s. This is a very, very tiny fraction of the difference in pH between orange and lemon juice. And over such a span of time I’d be careful of blaming it on one specific factor given the complexity of ocean systems and our limited understanding of it.
Aren’t these the same whacked-out libs claiming several decades ago that overpopulation was going to destroy the earth? Shouldn’t they be glad about the higher death rate?
“You seem knowledgeable about carbonate equilibria and the ocean. Is there any evidence that the ocean is actually becoming more acid”
I know only what I read on the internet. ;-)
The ‘ocean acidification’ is actually a claim that the ocean will go from 8.1 pH to ... 7.8 pH. BFD!
I learned up on the topic here:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
One word why ocean acidification is not a problem: CALCIUM.
(The ocean has a lot of it, and it buffers the acidification like a TUMS will cure your acid stomach).
“It is thought that the carbondioxide in the sea exists in equilibrium with that of exposed rock and bottomsediment containing limestone CaCO3 (or sea shells for that matter). In other words, that the element calcium exists in equilibrium with CO3. But the concentration of Ca (411ppm) is 10.4 mmol/l and that of all CO2 species (90ppm) 2.05 mmol/l, of which CO3 is about 6%, thus 0.12 mmol/l. Thus the sea has a vast oversupply of calcium. It is difficult therefore to accept that decalcification could be a problem as CO3 increases. To the contrary, it should be of benefit to calcifying organisms. Thus the more CO2, the more limestone is deposited. This has also been borne out by measurements (Budyko 1977). “
“”animals and plants that have a calcium carbonate skeleton”
Extra carbon in the water will make for bigger, better skeletons for these critters. Excuse me while I dislodge this 30 foot lobster... “
Well, these predictions are from the same geniuses who claim that more CO2 - the source of all life on earth, and which causes an increase in biomass- will cause ‘famines’ and drought. Even though precipitation will rise.
That sounds like a significant decrease, but I would like to see real observational data, not the prediction of someone’s “modeling.” We’ve all seen how the AGW crowd finagle the data to make their models give the right result. Anyway, there are lots of mechanisms which take up CO2. Something like 1/4 or more of the land surface of the U.S. is underlain by limestone, which takes up CO2 as it weathers. Weathering of silicate rocks does also, but usually at a slower rate. Then of course there is photosynthesis and solution of CO2 in the oceans.
The notion that CO2 will dissolve the shells of ocean life is totally wrong. At the beginning of the Cretaceous era, atmospheric CO2 was 2000 ppm, SIX TIMES what it is today. Yet, the Cretaceous is the period marked by the formation of thousand-foot deep limestone formations. Idiots.
I would guess that the total mass of dissolved carbonate species was much higher then, so that the stockpile available for precipitation was larger. Am I right? How can they estimate the CO2 level in the Cretaceous? Incidentally, what was the O2 level at that time?
“Why, oh why, are climate “scientists” so ignorant of every other science?”
I have always wondered about that. It almost appears as if the GW researchers are programmers that lost their jobs during the DotCom blowout. Just chucking data in to the ‘chines and tailoring their output to the highest bidder. Customer service, dontcha know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.