Are you ready for 2012?

Techciple

Junior Member
Messages
65
What I find amusing about the whole 'end times' hippy science thing is that it's so eclectic. Let's take a few quakes, add some natural disasters, and throw in some global warming(and don't research it enough to realise it's cyclic) for good measure and.. hey, we have the end of the world. I don't mean to be offensive but they really should do something constructive with they're lives instead of wishing the world to end. Call me old fashioned but I believe in science, so I'm sure this thread will be vacant after 2013 rolls around, because all the doomsayers will be concocting their next fantastic prophecy. See you in 2013 for your excuses.
 

Octavusprime

Member
Messages
461
Global warming and cooling is cyclical but we cannot accurately predict the effects of a man made warming of the globe. You can argue all you want about it being a natural cycle but the fact remains that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a direct result of human interaction. Increased CO2 is causing warming of the planet, acidification of the seas and all things associated with this carbon increase.

There is no indication that the CO2 increase will stop or even slow anytime soon.

In this case this "cycle" may not end until the human population is "balanced". Those who refute global warming as actually happening refute science and those who study it.

Will man kind survive? Yes, but at what cost?
 

Techciple

Junior Member
Messages
65
I respect your opinion, and this is what this site is for. Discussion. But really? Scientists, the non-politically aligned type, gather their data via the Troposphere, where the data is reliable and not a reflection of the 'Urban Island' effect. Which coincidentally, is also the area where first signs of anything are detected. In the last 25 years there has been no sign of any warming. And these satellite stations are accurate to 0.01%. The 'Oregon Petition' has 17000 Scientists who have signed and risked their reputations on the fact that human release of Carbon Dioxide, or any other gas, does not, will not, and can not cause any said catastrophe enabling change in global climate. Any projection of climate change is based on computer projection. They can't even sort an algorithm to predict natural disasters or predict the stock market, and we're supposed to put our faith in that?
 

Octavusprime

Member
Messages
461
Most of us live in the "urban island" this of concern to the human population more than the troposphere. So we are causing a warming of our living areas. Is that not alarming? Is that not a huge issue that needs to be addressed?

We are rebounding from the ice age and this cycle of heating is normal but should we exasperate it more? Balance is key in the natural world. If we are now pumping x times more CO2 into the atmosphere than our world (trees, oceans etc.) can utilize we are tipping the scale per say. There are consequences for our actions. Our children and grand children will pay for our mistakes and wonder why we didn't have the strength or foresight to make changes.

The acidification of the seas is preventing calcium dependent sea life from growing. If the worlds coral reefs are destroyed fishing is destroyed. The effects of CO2 in water drastically lowers the PH. Any shell producing animal cannot build their shells in these conditions.
 

Octavusprime

Member
Messages
461
I understand the issue with the urban islands. I agree that if 75% of the data comes from urban areas it could skew the data and misrepresent the actual increase in temperature for the earth as a whole. The flip side of that is you need to look at where the biggest changes are coming from, the so called hot spots, in order to catch it before it is in fact a global rate of change.

I will agree that the data may not be as bad as is often portrayed but, and it is a big but, our ever increasing emissions are effecting the rate of temperature increase world wide.
 

Peregrini

Member
Messages
465
Octavusprime;
Just a small correction.
The acidification of the seas is preventing calcium dependent sea life from growing. If the worlds coral reefs are destroyed fishing is destroyed. The effects of CO2 in water drastically lowers the PH. Any shell producing animal cannot build their shells in these conditions.
That is not exactly correct. I am not faulting you but your source.
It's hard to do scientific notation so I hope this still makes sense.
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water and dissociates 'reversibly' to H2CO3, carbonic acid.
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3
H2CO3 is diprotic, that means it has two acid dissociation constants.
The first one for the dissociation into the bicarbonate ion HCO3-... H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+ : Ka1 = 2.5×10-4 ; pKa1 = 3.6 at 25 C
The second for the dissociation into the carbonate ion CO3 2-... HCO3- = CO3 2- + H+ : Ka2 = 4.69×10-11 ; pKa2 = 10.329 at 25 C
A simple quick analysis of how much of something dissociates is how large the negative notation is or the larger the pKa number. A larger negative notation or larger pKa means LESS dissolution.
The Kh, hydration constant,(at 25 C) of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] = 1.70×10-3: This means the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid. It remains as CO2 molecules disolved in the water but not by a chemical reaction and not affecting the pH. H2CO3 is an amphoteric substance and can act as an acid or base, oddly enough, depending on pH of the solution. The oceans are mildly alkaline. A typical pH = 8.2 to 8.5, sea water contains about 120 ppm of bicarbonate ion.
So, the concentrations of H2CO3, and the ions HCO3-, bicarbonate, and CO3 2-, carbonate, depend on the pH of the solution they are dissociated in. Also the presence of "other" ions in the Ocean act as a buffer further reducing the action of CO2, not to mention, increased temperature (Global Warming) reduces the amount of CO2 'uptake' by the ocean.
In short, anthropogenic CO2 has very little (almost zero) to do with Ocean pH. There are far too many other sources to blame it on humans.

If you want to know more about atmospheric CO2 and the Oceans you can look here;
http://ocean.mit.edu/~mick/Papers/McKinleyetalGBC2004.pdf
 

Octavusprime

Member
Messages
461
Wow that was a difficult read. I forgot how bland scientific journals can be. I don't think that journal really applies to this discussion directly.

Your knowledge of the mechanisms of acidification are sound. Been awhile since I thought of such things in detail. You are correct that there are significant amounts of bicarbonate to buffer the acidification but at the levels now and predicted in the atmosphere there will still be changes to ph although minor in scale they have huge impacts on natural systems. I think the issue has less to do with PH but more to do with diminished levels of carbonate available for shell creation (calcium carbonate).
 

Peregrini

Member
Messages
465
There are so many factors involved with Ocean pH, carbonate availability for coral or other shell forming animals, atmospheric CO2 levels, Ocean temperatures, etc. etc. It takes several graduate level courses to begin to understand them all. I was only trying to present a simple discussion of it to show it isn't just "man-made" CO2 involved. The action of CO2, bicarbonate, carbonate, calcium carbonate, calcium hydroxide, etc all play a part and the coral "need" CO2. Increased and decreased growth of coral reefs has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years. Long before man showed up. While we don't harvest much ( I think Japan might still) calcium carbonate from live coral, the "huggers" would go berserk, no one even thinks about what we dig from the earth. That was once "living coral" and other calciferous organisms. It's just a matter of how you look at it.
 

Octavusprime

Member
Messages
461
I can agree with some of that.

The increases in population will only mean more cars, more cattle, more gases and chemicals being pumped into the air. Where does it go? What does this increase do to micro and macro climates and ecosystems. I get the whole "this shit happens and earth keeps spinning" view but I don't agree with it.

The biggest issue is people don't want to change their lifestyles. They don't want to think about the terrible things that this life of ours inflicts on the world around us. No one is willing to inconvenience their lives to make a single ounce of effort towards the obvious.

Hugger I am, hear me RAWR!
 

BlastTyrant

Senior Member
Messages
2,585
I can agree with some of that.

The increases in population will only mean more cars, more cattle, more gases and chemicals being pumped into the air. Where does it go? What does this increase do to micro and macro climates and ecosystems. I get the whole "this shit happens and earth keeps spinning" view but I don't agree with it.

The biggest issue is people don't want to change their lifestyles. They don't want to think about the terrible things that this life of ours inflicts on the world around us. No one is willing to inconvenience their lives to make a single ounce of effort towards the obvious.

Hugger I am, hear me RAWR!
Thats exactly it Octa, no one is willing to change the way they live or what they do even if they are aware of it they choose to ignore it. Or society for the most part is garbage : /
 

Top