Ocean Acidification - a VERY scary scenario!

[caliban]

I stumbled onto this video on the web about ocean acidification and the future of fisheries:

I've been following the debates around climate change etc on and off, but I have to say this one scared the bejesus out of me! Basically this is NOT directly related to global warming, it has to do with the oceans absorbing all that CO2 we've been emmitting since the Industrial Revolution and which is ramping up dramatically. The data on CO2 levels seems pretty non-controversial and if the science is even half-way right in this video, then as fishermen we have a lot to be worried about. They are estimating the demise of most coral reefs within DECADES given the increasing acidity of the water and the impact this has on organisms like coral pollyps and krill that rely on a calcium carbonate exoskeleton. This also means the total collapse and extinction of most of the marine food chain. There is some stuff at the end of the video about marine sanctuaries - which to me seems pointless if the marine food chain and basic ocean chemistry is being rapidly destroyed!

I'm a fisherman with a family and I hate to think that in as little as 20 or 30 years we may not have a marine ecosystem to fish in and my kids may never see wild fish, sharks etc (let alone what this might mean for the global economy etc)!

Anyway, I'm hoping someone can tell me to relax - it's all a hoax etc etc. Otherwise I can only assume our governments are complicit in this silence and just trying to keep us all calm before the big calamity happens. If it is real then some sort of dramatic action to limit CO2 emissions would seem essential (irrespective of all the money we make out of digging coal out of the ground!)

Cheers,

Chris

[caliban]

Sorry video link is:

[Scott nthQld]

yep, and the video link, even without seeing it is full of BS.

That last volcanic eruption, ie the one the other week, released MORE CO2 than the man made industrial revolution has since man first figured out how to make a fire.

Don't believe anything they tell you, and if you are one of 'them', go jump in a lake

[Ozwald]

scott
you are spouting BS....

"Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions."
Oz

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/search/search.c...=co2+volcanoes

[TimiBoy]

Chris,

I believe you can sleep easy.

While I am not a chemistry expert, there are a few things I can raise that bring the acidification idea into BS status:

1. Coral evolved when CO2 was at 2000 ppm, about 400 million years ago.

2. Many experiments have been conducted. Some creatures will do badly, most will be fine, some will do very well. Equilibrium will be achieved, and evolution will do it's job. Indeed some creatures, totally against the hypothesis, actually thrive - the mechanism is not yet understood, but they believe Carbonic acid may actually be used as a catalyst somehow.

3. Of the total amount of CO2 emitted on the planet, man is responsible for about 3.6%, so if it's going up, it'll go up with or without our help. Here's a giggle - if we reduce by 20%, we will reduce total CO2 emissions worldwide by .7 of one percent. Possibly not even measureable. For this we detroy the Global Economy? Nature dwarfs us.

4. Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years and at the same time lower than at any time in history if we look at time scales longer than 50 million years.

So given we are at VERY low CO2 levels as compared to 20+ million years ago (yesterday in Geological terms) it's amazing the Planet didn't cook off back then, huh.

Cheers,

Tim

[Mike Delisser]

yep, and the video link, even without seeing it is full of BS.

That last volcanic eruption, ie the one the other week, released MORE CO2 than the man made industrial revolution has since man first figured out how to make a fire.

Don't believe anything they tell you, and if you are one of 'them', go jump in a lake

Do you have a reference for that?
According to Prof Plimer on the radio today that eruption is releasing less CO2 than humans are releasing at the same time, and he is Australias formost climate change sceptic (for want of a better term). He talking with Greg Carey on 4BC today.

[TimiBoy]

Do you have a reference for that?
According to Prof Plimer on the radio today that eruption is releasing less CO2 than humans are releasing at the same time, and he is Australias formost climate change sceptic (for want of a better term). He talking with Greg Carey on 4BC today.

Did he? Actually it's nice that Plimer has toned that one down. He's carried on in the past like a looney talking about volcanoes. I don't believe he has helped the Skeptics' cause.

The truth is that while they do emit quite a bit of CO2, it's far less than humans do, and it's mega mega MEGA pathetic when measured against the general global natural output.

Volcanoes actually have a generally cooling effect, short term because of the particulate clouds they produce, and SO2. If the Icelandic eruption continues and intensifies, we may well have a cool Summer next year...

Cheers,

Tim

[caliban]

So just ignore it and it will go away - boy I hope you are right!

You might want to watch the video though - because when the world's leading marine biologists tell me the ocean's chemistry is changing radically that is kind of alarming.

[caliban]

Tim,

Thanks for the response. Perhaps I can relax now?

Have you got any refs for the human contribution to total CO2 emissions - 3.6% does seem pretty minimal.

Chris

[TimiBoy]

So just ignore it and it will go away - boy I hope you are right!

You might want to watch the video though - because when the world's leading marine biologists tell me the ocean's chemistry is changing radically that is kind of alarming.

Yes I know.

Follow the money. You can bet your ar$e and mine too he's totally addicted to grant money that kinda helps him decide where he wants his research to go. Huh. Post Modern Science, they're calling it.

In other words, if you want to publish something saying the World is not about to go to hell in a handbasket, you will lose your funding. Bingo, outcome assured.

The major Skeptic Scientists (and there are thousands) are mostly self funded or retired. There's no money in not getting on the AGW boat. And don't be fooled, the acidification bit is every bit part of the AGW furfy. Oh, and if anyone says my view is BIG OIL funded, they are on drugs. Big Oil funding is miniscule, and over. The last documented case of Oil funding was in 2003 to the HEartland Institute to the tune of $23 million. Kinda tiny compared to the BILLIONS going to AGW research. Big Oil is lining up to make $$$$ out of Carbon Trading. They don't care, they will just find another way to rape your wallet.

Google Walter Stark. He's a World Leading Marine Biologist too. A good spot to start getting some reality into your head.

By the way, no, I don't think we should ignore pollution. We should aggressively tackle it. There's a definition problem, though. CO2 is not a pollutant. Period. And, as I said, Man's output of CO2 is almost statistically insignificant compared to Nature's.

Cheers,

Tim

[FNQCairns]

I would be more worried over O2, boy o boy do we cut that survivable range very thin!

[TimiBoy]

Tim,

Thanks for the response. Perhaps I can relax now?

Have you got any refs for the human contribution to total CO2 emissions - 3.6% does seem pretty minimal.

Chris

I've dug them up in the past - I don't have a list. You should find it fairly easily if you do some research, but if I find it I'll let you know.

Cheers,

Tim

[TimiBoy]

Actually that number (or very close to it) is not disputed, but the warmists will talk about it being "additional" - that it buggers up the "equilibrium".

Um, equilibrium? There's another impossible to prove hypothesis: Post Modern Science again.

Don't be scared. Don't be in a hurry to hand over extra taxes to achieve what will be a null outcome.

Cheers,

Tim

[lampuki]

I cant wait....when in 2030 (if im still allowed to by law), I come home with some fish, take some photos, and place them on Ausfish.....I hope that footage is still on youtube so that I can add it to my thread and have a giggle.

This is nothing more than an advanced marketing campaign for those with a conncern in renewable energy and a pull on the heart strings by extremist envionmentalists.

Chris, you said it yourself....the video poses the question: What can we do about ocean adicification.....the first answer the video provides is marine parks...

Can someone please explain to me how the chemistry of the water is afftected by applying a marine park?

Very little science provided and the majority of it is emotive crap...The crying fisherman at the end was offensive!

After spending weeks reading scientific documentation on global warming, Ill be damned if I spend any significant time researching this issue.....If I am provided with clear fact, and a reasonable conclusion drawn from those facts, then I will listen.....according to video, within 20 years, we will know the answer.

[PinHead]

to be perfectly honest..I have had a gutfull of all this CO2 talk...some scientist says we are i ntrouble..some say we aren't and some don't have any idea.

As far as i am concerned , I am over it and a lot of people I know are of the same mind. You can find some scary stuff and then stuff that negates it all.

Just go out and enjoy yourself..take your rubbish home and have a good life.

Stuff the scientists..I am over them.