Global Warming, CO2, and Coral

[Vene]

It looks like the increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere is having a negative effect on coral reefs. CO[sub]2[/sub] reacts with water to form Carbonic Acid, which means that the increase of CO[sub]2[/sub] makes the oceans more acidic. Coral is not able to handle the increase in acidity because the polyps anchor onto limestone, which dissolves in acid solutions (and the ocean is one big solution).

article, please read

 

[juvenissun]

It looks like the increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere is having a negative effect on coral reefs. CO[sub]2[/sub] reacts with water to form Carbonic Acid, which means that the increase of CO[sub]2[/sub] makes the oceans more acidic. Coral is not able to handle the increase in acidity because the polyps anchor onto limestone, which dissolves in acid solutions (and the ocean is one big solution).

article, please read

The increase of CO2 in air would have a host of consequences. The coral reaction is only one of them. These consequences are not surprising at all. They may be new to human beings. But it is nothing new to the earth.

 

[atomweaver]

The increase of CO2 in air would have a host of consequences. The coral reaction is only one of them. These consequences are not surprising at all. They may be new to human beings. But it is nothing new to the earth.

So, not only is the billions of tons of carbon humans pump into the air/ocean system not responsible for global warming, the measurable effect of anthropogenic CO2 on ocean acidity is "nothing new to earth"? Your level of naysaying in the face of simple math and basic investigations is astounding juvenissun. Why anyone would take your word about science when you routinely deny so much of it with barely a glance is a mystery for the ages. I think you should probably approach your nay-saying with a bit more caution.

From the article;

"The pH of the global surface ocean has already decreased about 0.1 pH units since preindustrial times," Manzello notes. "This doesn't sound like much, but keep in mind that if a change of this magnitude occurred in the human blood stream, we would die."

This has little to do with climate change. Its about pH change due to dissolved CO2, a much more direct link, and more easily evidenced...

You wouldn't be alone in not caring if the oceans reef systems dissolve away, but don't pretend that this isn't a direct man-made effect of the industrial age.

 

[Molal]

Although acidity will, indeed, impact the survival rate of coral, I think it is more a factor of the availability of carbonates in the ocean water. Increasing acidity, decreasing carbonate ions.

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html

 

[juvenissun]

So, not only is the billions of tons of carbon humans pump into the air/ocean system not responsible for global warming, the measurable effect of anthropogenic CO2 on ocean acidity is "nothing new to earth"? Your level of naysaying in the face of simple math and basic investigations is astounding juvenissun. Why anyone would take your word about science when you routinely deny so much of it with barely a glance is a mystery for the ages. I think you should probably approach your nay-saying with a bit more caution.

From the article;

"The pH of the global surface ocean has already decreased about 0.1 pH units since preindustrial times," Manzello notes. "This doesn't sound like much, but keep in mind that if a change of this magnitude occurred in the human blood stream, we would die."

This has little to do with climate change. Its about pH change due to dissolved CO2, a much more direct link, and more easily evidenced...

You wouldn't be alone in not caring if the oceans reef systems dissolve away, but don't pretend that this isn't a direct man-made effect of the industrial age.

Just take a "recent" example, the change of earth in the past 10,000 years has been much much more dramatic than what we can see today.

If you do not know the past history of the earth, you think we are monsters to environment today. But if you do, you will see what we did may not be significant at all. In comparison, I would worry much more about water pollution than air pollution. I think a lot more people would die of water poisoning rather than of global warming. For example, the dying of coral, the lowering of pH is ONE factor, I believe there are other factors, such as dissolved substance. And I am not sure the pH is the critical one.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Just take a "recent" example, the change of earth in the past 10,000 years has been much much more dramatic than what we can see today.

If you do not know the past history of the earth, you think we are monsters to environment today. But if you do, you will see what we did may not be significant at all. In comparison, I would worry much more about water pollution than air pollution. I think a lot more people would die of water poisoning rather than of global warming. For example, the dying of coral, the lowering of pH is ONE factor, I believe there are other factors, such as dissolved substance. And I am not sure the pH is the critical one.

Excuse me but climate scientists have considered the historic fluctuation argument and conclude that it does not account for what we are seeing. Shouldnt that give you pause? permanant ice is melting in decades what should take tens of millenia, dont tell me that isnt scary or is normal. The release of carbon trapped by permafrost is a real phenomena as is the greenhouse effect as is the current anthropogenic global warming trend. these are established scientific phenomena. There is lots and lots of global warming research out there and only tiny percentages of it could even be considered negative. If the data were showing us the opposite, then it would show up as a trend in the body of literature. The body of literature is overwhelmingly in favor of anthropogenic global warming. the evidence for it is increasing, not decreasing. Conspiracy and conflict of interest dont account for this trend either.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Simplistic arguments are a common tactic of denialism. The melting point of steel doesnt invalidate 9/11, lack of gas chamber vents dont invalidate the holocaust, and historical fluctuation doesnt invalidate global warming. These arguments are flawed because 1) they assume that these facts need to be brought to light (as if the experts arent already aware) and 2) that these are somehow enough to counter vast bodies of evidence to the mainstream position.

 

[Vene]

Just take a "recent" example, the change of earth in the past 10,000 years has been much much more dramatic than what we can see today.

If you do not know the past history of the earth, you think we are monsters to environment today. But if you do, you will see what we did may not be significant at all. In comparison, I would worry much more about water pollution than air pollution. I think a lot more people would die of water poisoning rather than of global warming. For example, the dying of coral, the lowering of pH is ONE factor, I believe there are other factors, such as dissolved substance. And I am not sure the pH is the critical one.

I take it chemistry is one more thing you don't understand.

 

[juvenissun]

Excuse me but climate scientists have considered the historic fluctuation argument and conclude that it does not account for what we are seeing. Shouldnt that give you pause? permanant ice is melting in decades what should take tens of millenia, dont tell me that isnt scary or is normal.

Normal or not needs to be considered by a time interval. What you said is not normal in 10e+4 years, but it may be part of a normal in 10e+6 years.

Try to see the climate change in the past 2x10e+6 years and plug what we see today into the curve. You do not even see a complete burp. Even you do, it would still be "normal".

 

[juvenissun]

Simplistic arguments are a common tactic of denialism. The melting point of steel doesnt invalidate 9/11, lack of gas chamber vents dont invalidate the holocaust, and historical fluctuation doesnt invalidate global warming. These arguments are flawed because 1) they assume that these facts need to be brought to light (as if the experts arent already aware) and 2) that these are somehow enough to counter vast bodies of evidence to the mainstream position.

Try to add the worst global warming data onto this diagram to see if it will create an "abnormal" peak.

 

[Vene]

Talk about missing the point. We are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. Carbonic acid dissolves limestone. Coral reefs are made out of limestone. Coral reefs are a source of vast biodiversity. Therefore, burning fossil fuels destroys biodiversity. This is not normal. Unless you can find somebody 2x10[sup]6[/sup] years ago burning coal and oil. If we humans can decrease the burning of fossil fuels the damage done can be slowed or even stopped.

 

[Chalnoth]

That there have been climate fluctuations in the past says nothing whatsoever about the causes of the current climate change. The usual suspects that have caused climate change in the past simply do not explain the recent climate change. In fact, nobody has successfully come close to explaining the current warming trend except by using the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere due to anthropogenic emission.

 

[juvenissun]

Talk about missing the point. We are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. Carbonic acid dissolves limestone. Coral reefs are made out of limestone. Coral reefs are a source of vast biodiversity. Therefore, burning fossil fuels destroys biodiversity. This is not normal. Unless you can find somebody 2x10[sup]6[/sup] years ago burning coal and oil. If we humans can decrease the burning of fossil fuels the damage done can be slowed or even stopped.

If the decrease of pH in the seawater is indeed due to the increase of CO2 in the air, then it is another very strong reason for the insignificance of CO2 for the global warming. The seawater is highly buffered in pH. If dissolved CO2 is the cause of carbonate dissolution by the lowering of pH (this idea itself is questionable), then the CO2 in the air should either be stabilized or decrease. I did not calculate, but I think there is not enough CO2 in the air to do that.

 

[Vene]

If the decrease of pH in the seawater is indeed due to the increase of CO2 in the air, then it is another very strong reason for the insignificance of CO2 for the global warming. The seawater is highly buffered in pH. If dissolved CO2 is the cause of carbonate dissolution by the lowering of pH (this idea itself is questionable), then the CO2 in the air should either be stabilized or decrease. I did not calculate, but I think there is not enough CO2 in the air to do that.

Again, carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. This is fact. This has been done in the lab. This is observed. I've done the reaction and measured it, I have witnessed this reaction. It happens. To say otherwise is ignorant of how chemistry works and, frankly, stupid. And the limestone is being dissolved, there are greater amounts of carbonic acid in the ocean than the past, and carbonic acid forms from carbon dioxide. Unless you can give a better explanation as to why reefs are dissolving increased carbon dioxide makes the most sense. Especially when you consider the vast amounts of fossil fuels being burned. Just so you know, one of the products is carbon dioxide.

Really juvi, your ignorance of chemistry is showing. This isn't even the hard stuff, it's a simple reaction. In fact here it is:
H[sub]2[/sub]O+CO[sub]2[/sub]-->H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub]
Or
Water+Carbon Dioxide-->Carbonic Acid

 

[juvenissun]

Again, carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. This is fact. This has been done in the lab. This is observed. I've done the reaction and measured it, I have witnessed this reaction. It happens. To say otherwise is ignorant of how chemistry works and, frankly, stupid. And the limestone is being dissolved, there are greater amounts of carbonic acid in the ocean than the past, and carbonic acid forms from carbon dioxide. Unless you can give a better explanation as to why reefs are dissolving increased carbon dioxide makes the most sense. Especially when you consider the vast amounts of fossil fuels being burned. Just so you know, one of the products is carbon dioxide.

Really juvi, your ignorance of chemistry is showing. This isn't even the hard stuff, it's a simple reaction. In fact here it is:
H[sub]2[/sub]O+CO[sub]2[/sub]-->H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub]
Or
Water+Carbon Dioxide-->Carbonic Acid

What you said is true, but is only on lesson 1.
What I said is on the last chapter, if not on another advanced course.

 

[Vene]

What you said is true, but is only on lesson 1.
What I said is on the last chapter, if not on another advanced course.

Right, you mean your yelling of 'buffer!' Buffers are not perfect, they can be overcome with enough acid (or base). So tell me, what has changed that would drastically lower the ocean's pH? On one hand there is CO[sub]2[/sub] being released into the air. A lot of it, and 40% of the carbon dioxide humans have released in the last 200 years has gone right into the ocean (link). That does produce an acid. That does lower the pH. Do you have something else that can explain the increase in acidity? Or are you denying that the pH has changed?

 

[juvenissun]

Right, you mean your yelling of 'buffer!' Buffers are not perfect, they can be overcome with enough acid (or base). So tell me, what has changed that would drastically lower the ocean's pH? On one hand there is CO[sub]2[/sub] being released into the air. A lot of it, and 40% of the carbon dioxide humans have released in the last 200 years has gone right into the ocean (link). That does produce an acid. That does lower the pH. Do you have something else that can explain the increase in acidity? Or are you denying that the pH has changed?

Oceanic water is never acidic (< 7). Why would carbonate "dissolve" in alkaline solution?

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[Naraoia]

Oceanic water is never acidic (< 7). Why would carbonate "dissolve" in alkaline solution?

Well, I'm not a chemistry guru but I happen to have a bottle of mineral water in the fridge. It has a fortunately informative label that tells me both the pH and the ion content of the thing. Says HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] 400 mg/l, pH 7.4. Does bicarbonate in an alkaline solution count?

 

[Vene]

Juvenissun, stop shifting the goalposts. Are you so dense as to not realize what chemical equilibrium is? Are you so dense that you think an acid can't dissolve in a basic solution? The pH of the ocean has lowered. I have already told you reactions that would decrease ocean pH. I have given a source for the carbon dioxide. Do you have another explanation? Or do you think that the pH didn't change?