• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seas absorb pollution, turning to acid

Jay GW

Unregistered
J
Seas Turn To Acid As They
Absorb Global Pollution

By Geoffrey Lean
Environment Editor
The Independent - UK
8-1-4

The world's oceans are sacrificing themselves to try to stave off global warming, a major international research programme has discovered.

Their waters have absorbed about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities over the past two centuries, the 15-year study has found. Without this moderating effect, climate change would have been much more rapid and severe.

But in the process the seas have become more acid, threatening their very life. The research warns that this could kill off their coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all marine life depends.

News of the alarming conclusions of the research - headed by US government scientists - follows the discovery, reported in Friday's Independent, of a catastrophic failure of North Sea birds to breed this summer, thought to be the result of global warming.

The disaster - forecast in The Independent on Sunday last October - appears to have been caused by plankton moving hundreds of miles to the north to escape from an unprecedented warming on the sea's waters. Sand eels - millions of which normally provide the staple diet of many seabirds and large fish - have disappeared, because they, in turn, depend on the plankton.

The new study warns of an even more alarming collapse throughout the world's oceans if climate change continues. It is the result of a mammoth research effort, which has taken and analysed 72,000 samples of seawater from 10,000 different places in the oceans since 1989.

Led by scientists working for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle, it has also involved teams of researchers from Australia, Canada, Spain, Japan, South Korea and Germany.

It has discovered, for the first time, that the seas and oceans have soaked up almost half of all human emissions of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

By doing so they have greatly slowed climate change, and almost certainly prevented it from already causing catastrophe.

"The oceans are performing this tremendous service to humankind by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," says Dr Christopher Sabine, one of the leaders of the research. But, he adds, this is coming at a great cost because the act of salvage "is changing the chemistry of the oceans".

The research concludes that "dramatic changes", such as have not occurred for at least 20 million years, now appear to be under way. They could have "significant impacts on the biological systems of the oceans in ways that we are only beginning to understand".

As the water naturally absorbs carbon dioxide from the air, it forms carbonic acid. And the acid then mops up calcium carbonate, a substance normally plentiful in the oceans that sea creatures use to make the protective shells that they need to survive.

The scientists say that if the world goes on producing more and more carbon dioxide, this shell formation will become increasingly difficult, while the world will heat up anyway.

The results are incalculable, because so may shelled creatures live in the seas, ranging from clams and corals to the plankton and other tiny creatures that form the base of the entire food chain of the oceans.

The surface waters and upper 10 per cent of the oceans - which contain most of the life - are the most acidic, the research shows. The acidity also varies around the world. The North Atlantic - the nearest ocean to the world's most polluting countries, is the most affected; the southern ocean that encircles Antarctica the least.

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/153845.php
 
Ya know, every time I hear some doomsayer wringing his hands and lamenting, "OMG, we're all gonna DIE!!" I have the feeling I've heard it all before.

And I have.

North Sea bird populations were already in trouble back in 1999, except that then, overfishing of sandeels by Big Bad Homo Sapiens and their Evil Trawlers was blamed. Looks like "Global Warming" is up as the villain this time. :roll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/563388.stm

The tune stays the same; only the words change.
 
Yeah, but it does bring up an interesting point: in global warming, the seas would be the first to get f'ed up.
 
And yet- when I think of warm oceans in the past, I think Mississippian, I think Cretaceous. I also think Carboniferous Limestone and Chalk.

Now either warm seas deposit more CaCO3 or they deposit less.

Which are we to believe?
 
Soapy Sam said:
And yet- when I think of warm oceans in the past, I think Mississippian, I think Cretaceous. I also think Carboniferous Limestone and Chalk.

Now either warm seas deposit more CaCO3 or they deposit less.

Which are we to believe?

It depends a whole lot on how much phosphorus and nitrogen they have available, as well as how much iron and some other traces, to some extent.

So the answer is "good question".
 
Science magazine issue for for 13 August highlighted progressing toward a hydrogen economy. One news article discussed the importance of finding something to do with the CO2 that will be produced by fossil fuel combustion in the meantime. It cited and earlier article (3 August 2001, p. 790) "And placing vast amounts of CO2 into the ocean creates an acidic plume, which can wreck havoc on deep-water ecosystems."

Ocean pH certainly affects the deposition of calcium carbonate (both chemically and by way of biomineralization), and the distribution of ocean pH would be affected by any climatically-induced changes in circulation. It is a bit more complicated than "either warm seas deposit more CaCO3 or they deposit less."
 
From the tone of that article it sounds like we all should give the nearest ocean a hearty "Thank you!" and a loving pat for being so selfless. Oh, and to think that plankton figured out what was going on and all agreed to head north to escape, that was clever of it. I wonder if it was put to a vote or how they decided that bit.
 
The answer is: the oceans are not turning acidic. Global warming proponents are getting desperate to produce a single testable consequence of their hypothesis that can withstand skeptical review.
 
The article in Science did not say the oceans were turning acidic. It said that IF carbon sequestration projects all placed the carbon dioxide that will be generated (and recovered) by fossil fuel combustion, then PLUMES of lower-pH water would develop in the ocean. The newspaper article may have presented its information in a somewhat more sensationalist manner, but that is hardly surprising.

Another Science article (16 July 2004, p. 362-366) discussed ramifications of oceanic uptake of CO2 during the past 2 centuries. The following article (p. 367-371) estimates a total uptake of anthropogenic CO2 of 118+/- 19 x 10^15 grams between 1880 and 1994. This, they claim, has changed the saturation state of of the oceans with respect to CaCO3, which can impact biominieralization. They go on to estimate future impacts; one that they cite is that surface water pH may decrease by about 0.4 units by the end of the century. This would significantly impact marine plankton.
 
I’m far from qualified to comment on the science presented in this article; but the ideas of the oceans (and the whole Earth) being some living being that is “doing the human race a favor” is the stuff of blazing morons.
 
Global warming proponents are getting desperate to produce a single testable consequence of their hypothesis that can withstand skeptical review.

They don't have to. Even ignoramuses know when the chemistry of the environment changes, life will be affected. They don't have to explain every change. If they were doing that, they would be busy explaining how they predict every lottery outcome from their beach mansion in the Caribbean. Testable hypotheses may have a few variables. They do not have thousands.

There are plenty of studies on how chemical changes in the environment affect living things. When a study is done, people like the poster above say something like this

"Well, that's a laboratory. It's not the real world."

:nope:
 
kedo1981 said:
I’m far from qualified to comment on the science presented in this article; but the ideas of the oceans (and the whole Earth) being some living being that is “doing the human race a favor” is the stuff of blazing morons.

It sounds like they are drunk on Gaia.
 

Back
Top Bottom