An oft ignored element of this discussion is the acidification of the oceans due to the increased amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the world's oceans.
Many skeptics believe that humanity's contribution to the current global warming is minute, but what about the acidification of the oceans?
2007-11-12 10:08:16 · 8 answers · asked by SomeGuy 6 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Dana, that's what I've been thinking about. If global warming skeptics accept the relatively simple science behind ocean acidification, they must essentially accept that the same steps proposed to limit anthropogenic global warming, which many vehemently oppose, must be taken. This seems to place them in a rather tight spot.
2007-11-12 10:43:27 · update #1
nsprdwmn, Thanks for the kudos.
Acidification is simply the process of making a substance acidic. An acid is any substance that, when dissolved in water, yields free H+ ions, and lowers the pH of the substance.
In this case, acidification is resulting from the dissolution of anthropogenic (human caused) carbon dioxide in the world's oceans. This chemical reaction results in carbonic acid, which is harmful to calcifying organisms, such as coral and shellfish.
2007-11-12 11:27:19 · update #2
Dr. Jello, I can't find the numbers for the 1930's, but pH has decreased by 0.075 since the ninetenth century.
2007-11-12 12:25:32 · update #3
A very important consequence of the acidification of oceans (due to increased oceanic CO2 absorption, which is due to increased atmospheric CO2, which is due to human emissions) is the death of coral reefs, which play a very important role in the oceanic ecosystem.
Even if you're skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, you can't really deny this negative consequence of human CO2 emissions.
2007-11-12 10:19:09 · answer #1 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
The supposed acidification of the oceans is on the order of 0.1 pH. Unless that small change can be attributed entirely to carbonic acid increases, there really isn't convincing evidence to cause skeptics to change their minds. Moreover, even if that entire 0.1 pH could be attributed to carbonic acid, what sort of new mindset are skeptics supposed to adopt? For example, one proposed technique for mitigating global warming is direct ocean injection of carbon dioxide to form carbon dioxide hydrates. The use of such a technique could increase the acidity of oceans by 0.3 pH. So, if you are so concerned about ocean acidification, would not the cure be worse than the disease? Another consideration is that people are worried that global warming is melting polar ice caps and will increase mean sea level and flood coastal areas. Would not that enormous release of water into the oceans dilute any acid present so as to help cancel out ocean acidification, such that global warming would actually be the solution to your worries about ocean acidification? If either of those scenarios were to play out, would it not be just as environmentally friendly, if not more so, for someone to remain a global warming skeptic than to worry about global warming and perhaps even advocate an environmentally harmful so-called "solution" to global warming?
2007-11-12 11:28:44 · answer #2 · answered by Rationality Personified 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it truly is truly worth pointing out that alarmists additionally mentioned that CO2 and AGW have been killing coral reefs some cases, yet each and every time they did a protracted term study, they stumbled on that the reefs made a "marvelous comeback." And, whilst CO2 does look to break shellfish (or so says your source. I did no longer see very many numbers and truly data on your source. Makes you ask your self how the outcomes truly got here out, eh?), you're an evolutionist, are not you? So, in accordance on your theory, the shellfish will evolve to accomodate the becoming quantities of CO2.
2016-10-02 05:31:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Acid what ? Thank you for this question and thank people who can relate on a level than to say it is a hoax. Tell us more about this Stuff because some of us don't understand everything.... that why we need you. I know about a fish tank and how the water needs to be balanced is something like that?
2007-11-12 10:49:04 · answer #4 · answered by nsprdwmn 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is really complicated it is important though because if this was minute anartica alaska and greenland are all melting if they happen to melt then it would cause a massive flood because there would be to much carbon dioxide wich is not good for us thats why we breath it out and an extra 100 ft would be added to our ocean and we already have a lot of floods in america
2007-11-12 10:28:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Another set of non-answers to a real measurable effect humans are having on the environment.
The mindset to adopt is simple. We have to de-carbon the economy specifically, and reduce our footprint / impact / ecological burden generally.
2007-11-13 00:48:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yea, what is the ph of the oceans now? What were they in the 1930's?
Somehow I doubt there will be any difference no matter how much you panic.
2007-11-12 12:08:50 · answer #7 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Oh goody, more foolishness to worry about. The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
2007-11-12 10:44:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋