Ocean acidifying at unprecedented rate

[westwall]

Within a couple years, we'll be rubbing it in their faces. You know, the way that the deniers here have been proven to be some of the biggest retards to ever inhabit planet earth, all because they were too weak-minded to resist the brainwashing of their political cult. The emotional reasons as to why they supported their cult so fervently, that's another topic.

No, we won't go easy on them. They weren't born stupid. They deliberately chose to make themselves stupid for the glory of their political cult, so they bear the responsibility for their stupidity.

Sure you will admiral. Just like you've been rubbing it in our faces for the last 30 years

 

[Dot Com]

All of us have to come together, INCLUDING the deniers to save the planet/avert the killing of the oceans!!!

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All of us have to come together, INCLUDING the deniers to save the planet/avert the killing of the oceans!!!

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

Save it from what?

 

[elektra]

The only way now to save the Earth is a Civil War against Conservatives.

The Science is settled, now its time for the propaganda war which will ferment the coming Social/Marxist Revolution.

Liberals and Democrats are here to save the World, and nothing is too extreme when you are speaking of saving the Earth.

we must save the earth, we must save the earth, we must save the earth, we must save the earth

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hysterical threads appearing at an unprecedented rate!

 

[polarbear]

Causticity | Define Causticity at Dictionary.com

caus·tic [kaw-stik] Show IPA
adjective
1.
capable of burning, corroding, or destroying living tissue.
2.
severely critical or sarcastic: a caustic remark.
noun
3.
a caustic substance.
4.
Optics.
a.
caustic curve.
b.
caustic surface.
Origin:
1350&#8211;1400; Middle English < Latin causticus < Greek kaustikós burning, caustic, equivalent to kaust ( ós ) burnt (verbal adjective of kaíein to burn) + -ikos -ic

Related forms
caus·ti·cal·ly, caus·tic·ly, adverb
caus·tic·i·ty [kaw-stis-i-tee] Show IPA , caus·tic·ness, noun
non·caus·tic, adjective
non·caus·ti·cal·ly, adverb
o·ver·caus·tic, adjective

I admit my mistakes. You? FCT? IanC? Westwall? SSDD? Skookerasshole? Any of you? Not so much, eh.

The more you go on the more it shows how full of b.s. you are.

Acidity and causticity, in this context, are simply directions. A pH value of 12 is more acidic than 13; 3 is more caustic than 2.

In chemistry by convention "caustic" is reserved for corrosive substances which are alkaline.

Sometimes the word 'caustic' is used as a synonym but, by convention,[citation needed] 'caustic' generally refers only to strong bases, particularly alkalis, and not to acids, oxidizers

Such as "caustic" NaOH, KOH etc..and there is no such thing as an acid which has a pH above 7 or a base which has a pH lower than 7.
But according to you they exist.
Right along these "ink molecules" your buddy mamooth mentioned just a few months ago ?

It`s obvious that you are mentally overtaxed. You triumphantly pasted this in here:

caus·tic ,adjective ,capable of burning, corroding, or destroying living tissue.

And then go on and say that a pH value of 3 is more "caustic" than pH 2...
So according to you an acid at pH 3 is more corrosive than at pH 2.
So tell us, what happens if we keep going up to pH 4, 5,6 and 7 ?
Does this new Abraham3 "causticity" index (the ability to corrode) still go up or did it stop at the at ph 3?
You should tell your municipality about this, that they should add enough acid to the water so that the pipes don`t corrode.

Instead of deflecting from the fact that you can`t even convert the [H+] (gr/liter) ion concentration to the correct pH value you furnished further evidence how phoney you are.

"Hey Bill, what's the pH in your aquarium"?
"Well Sue, the last time I checked hydrogen ion activity was 0.00031622
but I really need to get it into the 0.000125892 to 0.000199526 range

If you want to pretend that you know something about physics and chemistry then you should first quit pretending how erudite you are, using words you found in a dictionary which nobody schooled in this particular science would ever use.

 

[flacaltenn]

All of us have to come together, INCLUDING the deniers to save the planet/avert the killing of the oceans!!!

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

Good idea. 200 nuclear plants by 2016 will be a good start.

 

[Abraham3]

Yes they would.

 

[Dot Com]

All of us have to come together, INCLUDING the deniers to save the planet/avert the killing of the oceans!!!

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

Good idea. 200 nuclear plants by 2016 will be a good start.

your state open for accepting the waste?

 

[IanC]

Not this ignorant crap again.. We've had this discussion.. Let's test your memory..
Current change of pH is roughly from 8.2 (pre-industrial) to 8.1 today.. That does yield (in a very dishonest way) a 30% more acidic number.. HOWEVER -- lets' compare pre-industrial 8.2 to the pH of PURE FRESH GLACIAL WATER at 7.0..

8.2 - 7.0 = 1.2 and (10^1.2) - 1 = (about) 1400% So PURE glacial melt water is 1400% MORE ACIDIC than preindustrial seawater..

NOBODY in science linearizes that LOG relationship unless they are trying to lie about something.. Go wring your hands and cry with GoldiRocks somewhere not so public..

And you would be the one lying here. Life in the ocean has evolved for hundreds of millions of years in an environment with a very narrow and very stable pH. Variations as small 0.1 will have a significant and negative consequence.

Put any of the world's marine species in a tank full of your pure, glacial 7.0 meltwater and what will happen to them? They will die, immediately.

Acidity and causticity, in this context, are simply directions. A pH value of 12 is more acidic than 13; 3 is more caustic than 2.

Someone linearizes pH values in an attempt to show the public that small changes in log values can be significant - particularly in the face of denier propaganda saying it isn't. Hydrogen ion concentrations are presented as log values for convenience's sake and the response function of electrodes used to measure it, not because the scale is more descriptive of it's various affects.

"Hey Bill, what's the pH in your aquarium"?
"Well Sue, the last time I checked hydrogen ion activity was 0.00031622 but I really need to get it into the 0.000125892 to 0.000199526 range, wouldn't you think"?

So sayeth the "engineer" who also said in another post,that humid air isn`t lighter than dry air.
And now he invents new words, "causticity"...it`s alkalinity you bozo.
If you were an engineer in a field which requires chemistry as part of the curriculum then you should have known that.
Obviously you know s.f.a about chemistry:
First of all the pH is not the log value of the [H+] ion concentration but the NEGATIVE log of [H+] gram ions per liter.
Secondly, it had been defined as such long before we had pH electrodes.
3.rd A pH meter measures the emf between a H+ ion specific probe, such as Pt in a KCl solution and a Ag or Hg reference probe.

"Hey Bill, what's the pH in your aquarium"?
"Well Sue, the last time I checked hydrogen ion activity was 0.00031622
but I really need to get it into the 0.000125892 to 0.000199526 range

Which just goes to show that you have no clue how to get the log of a number. So it`s not just Chemistry that you know absolutely nothing about, but your math isn`t above basic grade school level either.
How the f- did you come up with these numbers?

I really need to get it into the 0.000125892 to 0.000199526 range

That`s in the pH range of 3.7 to 3.9...that you say a swimming pool should be at !

actually he said aquarium. I pity the fish

 

[Abraham3]

Do either of you have a point that applies to the issue of ocean acidification?

 

[IanC]

Do either of you have a point that applies to the issue of ocean acidification?

I think most of the points have already been made. there is large variation in pH, both within localities (especially coastal areas), and between localities. the life forms that live in the oceans do not drop dead because of an imperceptable change in the overall pH of the oceans because they are to busy dealing with the much larger natural variations they continuously encounter.

added in to that, most of the alarmist claims of this plant/animal suffering from pH change have turned out to be hoaxes, with other predominant causes doing the damage.

the more exaggerations, mistaken blame, and outright lies your side lays at the feet of CO2 the less anyone pays attention. I worry that no one will listen when a real problem needs to be addressed because climate science has frittered away all the banked respect that real science has accrued over the last few hundred years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do either of you have a point that applies to the issue of ocean acidification?

I think most of the points have already been made. there is large variation in pH, both within localities (especially coastal areas), and between localities. the life forms that live in the oceans do not drop dead because of an imperceptable change in the overall pH of the oceans because they are to busy dealing with the much larger natural variations they continuously encounter.

added in to that, most of the alarmist claims of this plant/animal suffering from pH change have turned out to be hoaxes, with other predominant causes doing the damage.

the more exaggerations, mistaken blame, and outright lies your side lays at the feet of CO2 the less anyone pays attention. I worry that no one will listen when a real problem needs to be addressed because climate science has frittered away all the banked respect that real science has accrued over the last few hundred years.

Wait until he tells you about the oysters!

 

[Abraham3]

the life forms that live in the oceans do not drop dead because of an imperceptable change in the overall pH of the oceans because they are to busy dealing with the much larger natural variations they continuously encounter.

No has has suggested they will drop dead, have they Ian. They have suggested they will suffer health degradation: that they will have difficulty fixing carbonates and that there will be metabolic and reproductive effects.

added in to that, most of the alarmist claims of this plant/animal suffering from pH change have turned out to be hoaxes, with other predominant causes doing the damage.

Hoaxes? Hoaxes?!?!? I missed that. Could you identify a few of these hoaxes?

because climate science has frittered away all the banked respect that real science has accrued over the last few hundred years.

I disagree, of course, and find it incredibly ironic that anyone on the denier side of this discussion (that would be the folks who vociferously argue that 97% of the world's climate scientists are either lying thieves are utterly incompetent) would express unhappiness at a perceived loss of respect for science among the public.

 

[polarbear]

Do either of you have a point that applies to the issue of ocean acidification?

I think most of the points have already been made. there is large variation in pH, both within localities (especially coastal areas), and between localities. the life forms that live in the oceans do not drop dead because of an imperceptable change in the overall pH of the oceans because they are to busy dealing with the much larger natural variations they continuously encounter.

added in to that, most of the alarmist claims of this plant/animal suffering from pH change have turned out to be hoaxes, with other predominant causes doing the damage.

the more exaggerations, mistaken blame, and outright lies your side lays at the feet of CO2 the less anyone pays attention. I worry that no one will listen when a real problem needs to be addressed because climate science has frittered away all the banked respect that real science has accrued over the last few hundred years.

@Abraham3
The point I was making is that you don`t have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to pH, log and exponential functions and even basic physics like moist versus dry air density.
Ocean "acidification" has as IanC said, already been discussed here numerous times long before you showed up here.
You haven`t added anything new to this subject nor to any of the other ones discussed in the environment category.
All you do is parrot the same crap over and over again while ignoring that much of it has been "corrected" or "revised" by the IPCC years ago.
Ocean "acidification" is as far from being "settled science" as the rest of CAGW.
The Ocean's Carbon Balance : Feature Articles

After 30 years of measurements, the ocean carbon community is realizing that tracking human-induced changes in the ocean is not as easy as they thought it would be. It wasn&#8217;t a mere matter of measuring changes in carbon concentrations in the ocean over time because the natural carbon cycle in the ocean turned out to be a lot more variable than they imagined. &#8220;We discovered that natural processes play such an important role that the signals they generate can be as large as or larger than the anthropogenic signal,&#8221; says Feely.

(Y axis = PgC per year)
When Le Quéré plugged atmospheric measurements from the Southern Ocean between 1981 and 2004 into her model, she was startled by the result&#8212;something far more interesting than the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave. &#8220;The Southern Ocean carbon sink has not changed at all in 25 years. That&#8217;s unexpected because carbon dioxide is increasing so fast in the atmosphere that you would expect the sink to increase as well,&#8221; says Le Quéré. But it hadn&#8217;t. Instead, the Southern Ocean held steady, while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations climbed. Why?
....In essence, while the ocean may be taking up more anthropogenic carbon to keep pace with levels in the atmosphere, it&#8217;s also venting more carbon than it did in the past, and that changes the size of the overall sink.

 

[Abraham3]

What I added was in the lead post and covered research which found that the current rate of acidification was unprecedented in 300 million years. I haven't seen anyone address that particular point. All I've seen is folks trying to tell us that ocean acidification is harmless. In response to that I quoted a chunk of Wikipedia's article on the topic including a fairly extensive list of peer reviewed journal articles showing that it is NOT harmless. Like most mainstream scientific evidence, you all rejected all of that out of hand.

 

[bripat9643]

All of us have to come together, INCLUDING the deniers to save the planet/avert the killing of the oceans!!!

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

Good idea. 200 nuclear plants by 2016 will be a good start.

your state open for accepting the waste?

Unfortunately my state is as full of loons like you as any other state. Your ilk are the only thing preventing nuclear waste from being disposed of.

 

[Abraham3]

When Le Quéré plugged atmospheric measurements from the Southern Ocean between 1981 and 2004 into her model, she was startled by the result—something far more interesting than the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave. “The Southern Ocean carbon sink has not changed at all in 25 years.

The pH of the ocean as a whole has dropped by 0.1.

5.4.2.3 Ocean Acidification by Carbon Dioxide <>
The uptake of anthropogenic carbon by the ocean changes the chemical equilibrium of the ocean. Dissolved CO2 forms a weak acid.[1] As CO2 increases, pH decreases, that is, the ocean becomes more acidic. Ocean pH can be computed from measurements of DIC and alkalinity. A decrease in surface pH of 0.1 over the global ocean was calculated from the estimated uptake of anthropogenic carbon between 1750 and 1994 (Sabine et al., 2004b; Raven et al., 2005), with the lowest decrease (0.06) in the tropics and subtropics, and the highest decrease (0.12) at high latitudes, consistent with the lower buffer capacity of the high latitudes compared to the low latitudes. The mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline (pH > 7) even after these decreases. For comparison, pH was higher by 0.1 unit during glaciations, and there is no evidence of pH values more than 0.6 units below the pre-industrial pH during the past 300 million years (Caldeira and Wickett, 2003). A decrease in ocean pH of 0.1 units corresponds to a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ in seawater, assuming that alkalinity and temperature remain constant. Changes in surface temperature may have induced an additional decrease in pH of <0.01. The calculated anthropogenic impact on pH is consistent with results from time series stations where a decrease in pH of 0.02 per decade was observed (Figure 5.9). Results from time series stations include not only the increase in anthropogenic carbon, but also other changes due to local physical and biological variability. The consequences of changes in pH on marine organisms are poorly known (see Section 7.3.4 and Box 7.3).

5.4.2.3 Ocean Acidification by Carbon Dioxide - AR4 WGI Chapter 5: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level

 

[bripat9643]

What I added was in the lead post and covered research which found that the current rate of acidification was unprecedented in 300 million years. I haven't seen anyone address that particular point. All I've seen is folks trying to tell us that ocean acidification is harmless. In response to that I quoted a chunk of Wikipedia's article on the topic including a fairly extensive list of peer reviewed journal articles showing that it is NOT harmless. Like most mainstream scientific evidence, you all rejected all of that out of hand.

That claim is obviously specious because science has no way to measure changes in ocean PH that occur over intervals as short as 50 years.

 

[Abraham3]

Good idea. 200 nuclear plants by 2016 will be a good start.

your state open for accepting the waste?

Unfortunately my state is as full of loons like you as any other state. Your ilk are the only thing preventing nuclear waste from being disposed of.

Disposed of? Don't you mean "interred" or "placed in long term storage"?