Go Back   Cruiser Log World Cruising & Sailing Forums > Cruising Forums > The Poop Deck
Cruiser Wiki Click Here to Login

Join Cruiser Log Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-26-2007, 11:24 AM   #15
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 84
Default

Let us see - 500 years ago the earth cooled a little and changed a lot of area that had to change crops. A lot of people died. I have not read why this happened. Now, the reverse is happening. Nobody has explained these 2 to me.

Humans did it? Maybe. No proof either way.
__________________

__________________
Cruising Bahamas
Lynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2007, 02:51 PM   #16
Moderator
 
JeanneP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,098
Default

"The articles claimed that G8 produced 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in getting to the G8 meeting and 7,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide just driving cars to the airport. "

What was actually said was that 30,000 tonnes would be produced by the G8 summit, of which over 7,000 tons would be created just going to and from the airport. You calculated the carbon produced from jet fuel using 30,000 tons of CO[sub]2[/sub] in place of the 7,000 for all transportation. I don't think your figures were deliberate misrepresentations, but as you can see, exaggeration exists on both sides of the argument, obscuring the science.

"I, and many others who perform mass spec analysis of gasses on a daily basis (yes, fuel cells emit far more species of gasses than water), assert that there is already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to absorb all of the radiation from the surface of the earth in the principal carbon dioxide absorption bands. Doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will only lower the altitude at which it is completely absorbed."

Now, to me that's a fact with no conclusion or analysis of what that means. Climatologists agree with the above, and assert that you now have the basis for global warming. The IR is not being radiated out of our atmosphere, but rather absorbed by CO[sub]2[/sub] and then trapped by the water vapor in our atmosphere, raising the temperature of the globe (yes, that's a very simplistic sentence). Since Mars' atmosphere is so thin, with a mean surface level pressure of 0.6 kPa compared to Earth's mean surface level pressure of 101 Pa (or 6/1000ths), and no water vapor, heat is not trapped. Isn't Venus a better model of what is happening on Earth?

"I am sure Chandler is a nice guy...." You might not mean to be patronizing, but that's how that sentence appears to me. More to the point, to imply that reporting what others have done is invalid, "I'm quite certain he has never actually performed an FTIR measurement for himself and then reported his findings." is holding journalists to a standard that is higher than what scientists are held to. Virtually every scientific paper will cite the research and findings of others, in order to refute them or to buttress their own arguments of the same conclusions using difference measurements or experiments. All of science builds upon work done by others. You don't have to rediscover carbon to use its properties yourself. A doctor need not do the research that developed a medication in order to prescribe it for his patients. We all rely on others to report developments outside our own field of expertise. FTIR measurements are not the only data used or needed to analyze the various effects on global climate, and expertise in this field does not make a person a climatologist.

It is not the politicians who are providing the evidence of global warming. In the US, the politicians in the current administration are the ones who have pooh-poohed global warming, have been accused of suppressing valid scientific evidence of the impact of CO[sub]2[/sub] on climate, and until only very recently have invested its entire political capital in the status quo. This political administration has done nothing like what you allege, "..shown by politicians in video clips to generate fear and then used as a political platform to get votes."

Did you ever see the Australian public service ad urging childhood vaccination for whooping cough? It shows an infant coughing itself to death because it caught whooping cough from an unvaccinated person. That's a video clip generating fear (or it should generate fear in all parents), and IMO it's a legitimate tactic to educate the public about the dangers of whooping cough in a society and an age where whooping cough and its damage is virtually unknown through experience.

Politicians are not my favorite people, and vote-getting in our society seems to be their primary occupation. That does not mean that all politicians are bad, or do things only to get votes or campaign contributions. There has been a lot of good done by legislation in this country. Besides, we all need somebody to hate, and politicians are the perfect candidates for that!

I probably won't be able to post anything more for quite some time. We set off in a few hours for Sweden, and it's a long, long haul! I will probably be quite cranky when we land in Stockholm 24 or more hours from now.

__________________

__________________
In 1986 we went cruising for a few years. After 20 years and 50+ countries and several oceans, we are STILL "cruising for a few years".

SY WATERMELON |
MV WATERMELON (New) | Cruiser's Dictionary, free ebook

= Cruiser's Dictionary, North America,
JeanneP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2007, 06:20 PM   #17
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanneP View Post
"The articles claimed that G8 produced 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in getting to the G8 meeting and 7,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide just driving cars to the airport. "

What was actually said was that 30,000 tonnes would be produced by the G8 summit, of which over 7,000 tons would be created just going to and from the airport. You calculated the carbon produced from jet fuel using 30,000 tons of CO[sub]2[/sub] in place of the 7,000 for all transportation. I don't think your figures were deliberate misrepresentations, but as you can see, exaggeration exists on both sides of the argument, obscuring the science.
Jeanne, you know I'm not going to let this one go.

If my calculation produces a ridiculous number based on jet fuel consumption, the same caluculation will simply produce an even more ridiculous number if the means of generating carbon dioxide are anything other than a jet since they burn fossil fuel faster and less efficiently than any other means known to man...or me at least. Let's do a non-specific, time weighted average calculation. The average American produces 21 tonnes of carbon dioxide in 1 year. That is approximately 115 pounds/day. This would mean that the equivalent of 214,493 Americans were members of the 2007 G8 conference. That is a lot of G8 members... 26,811 members per country! Hard to imagine how they all could be heard injust 3 days

Now, to me that's a fact with no conclusion or analysis of what that means. Climatologists agree with the above, and assert that you now have the basis for global warming. The IR is not being radiated out of our atmosphere, but rather absorbed by CO2 and then trapped by the water vapor in our atmosphere, raising the temperature of the globe (yes, that's a very simplistic sentence).

Wow! And here I thought I explained it as simply as possible...this must be a really hard concept to grasp without a physics background. Let me see if I can clarify with an analogy. Let's just say for the purposes of the analogy, that carbon dioxide absorbed all visible wavelengths of light. We then presently have enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to absorb all visible light. Therefore, for purposes of analogy, additional carbon dioxide will not make it any darker. As such, outside the analogy, it will not get any (or much) hotter as a result of having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Once those bands of energy are absorbed...the heating by CO2 is done.

Let me know if this helps. I don't think I can explain spectral absorption in much simpler terms.

If global warming is happening, it is due to increased solar activity resulting in increased IR levels (more energy passing through, ie Flux) which are being absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide. As the mean temperature rises, the water vapor levels will rise, CO2 levels will rise, and more IR energy will be trapped by the green house. This will continue until the deep sea ocean temperatures rise and suddenly release billions of tons of methane held in clathrates. At this point, global warming won't be an issue because we will all be dead...how is that for fear So, the mechanism of heating is increase flux of energy. It is all about flux levels. Increasing absorption is a second order effect...PERIOD.

Since Mars' atmosphere is so thin, with a mean surface level pressure of 0.6 kPa compared to Earth's mean surface level pressure of 101 Pa (or 6/1000ths), and no water vapor, heat is not trapped. Isn't Venus a better model of what is happening on Earth?

Ah, glad you mentioned Venus. The atmosphere of Venus is estimated to be 88 - 90 times thicker than Earth's and is 96% carbon dioxide. Thus, Venus carbon dioxide levels are approximately 300,000 times higher than on Earth. Venus however, is not 300,000 times hotter than Earth and carbon dioxide isn't the reason Venus is so hot. Venus is hot because it is 30% closer to the sun. Therefore, far more IR energy is produced in a single solar cycle i.e., energy Flux is greater. In addition, the atmosphere contains sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and hydrofluoric acid and thus, more of the IR spectrum is absorbed. Jone et a., "Optical constants of sulphuric acid in the far infrared", 1976.

Just learned this today: as the Martian polar CO2 caps freeze and evaporate, the atmospheric pressure of Mars increases and decreases as one would expect. What I didn't expect was how much...take a look!

MarsPressureProfile.gif

This means it fluctuates between 0.6kPa and 1.0kPa. Therefore, Mars and Earth could be much more alike than described below.


Here on Earth, the total current atmospheric carbon dioxide is 368,400 parts per billion, or 0.0368% of the atmosphere. If our atmosphere were made entirely of that 368 ppm carbon dioxide and we had the gravity of Mars, our atmospheric pressure would be 1.2kPa...only twice that of Mars. Earth would become the same frozen (thermally unstable) wasteland as Mars. Even if we tripled, quadrupled or increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by an order of magnitude, (assuming no oceans of course) Earth would behave like Mars in each case, approximately the same amount of IR is coming from the surface and the same amount is being absorbed...getting the picture?

And yes, it really is that simple. The heated and highly debated scientific theories center on fractions of a percent of a degree Kelvin with respect to mechanics of heating and cooling in the upper atmosphere and whether or not CO2 contributions are bound as they are in the lower atmosphere i.e., is there a logarithmic relation or do we have potential for run away warming without additional flux. I think common scientific sense, even general common sense, would suggest the former and not the latter. We can continue into the scientific underbelly if you are interested...but be warned, climatologists have been know to include arguments as esoteric as quantum mechanics. When a scientist, especially a climatologist, throws the quantum card on the table, you know for sure he (or she) is all in
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2007, 06:34 PM   #18
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanneP View Post
Did you ever see the Australian public service ad urging childhood vaccination for whooping cough? It shows an infant coughing itself to death because it caught whooping cough from an unvaccinated person. That's a video clip generating fear (or it should generate fear in all parents), and IMO it's a legitimate tactic to educate the public about the dangers of whooping cough in a society and an age where whooping cough and its damage is virtually unknown through experience.
Fear has been the primary method of controlling the masses since the beginning of human culture...fear of God has worked for many centuries but now days is waning. Therefore, human culture needs a new religion, a Global Religion, one that everyone cares about and will abide by...

I've got one, how about fear of death on a really hot day, or guilt for displacing those poor lovable polar bears. They are cute after-all.

This is all tongue-in-cheeky...I'm really not trying to be a smart-***...so please don't take offense if you happen to be religious or are a member of PITA. Eventually I will relate all this to the health of our oceans.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2007, 09:47 PM   #19
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanneP View Post
You dismiss David L. Chandler as merely a journalist with no PhD. Yet he's not "merely" a journalist. Here's an excerpt from his biography: "[font="Times New Roman Times serif"]He has received the Media Award of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Award of Excellence of the Aviation/Space Writers' Association. He was listed in the Forbes MediaGuide directory of the 500 most influential journalists, and one of his stories was selected by the MediaGuide as one of the ten best science stories of the year (1993). He has been listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in Science and Technology, and Who's Who in Entertainment. One of his articles was listed in "America's Best Science and Nature Writing, 2003."

He was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999-2000, on a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship, and has since served as a judge for the fellowship's application process (for a mini-fellowship on genetics). "
Still doesn't make Haward Cosell a better athelete!

OK, I am being a smart arss...sorry.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 03:41 AM   #20
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 84
Default

Are we talking about the weatherman being RIGHT???
__________________
Cruising Bahamas
Lynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 06:21 AM   #21
Rear Admiral
 
Harbor_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 323
Default

Hi Lynx,

You were brave enough to ask clarification of the topic. If you ask, likely there are many more "lurking", reading and wondering something similar; what are we discussing here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx View Post
Are we talking about the weatherman being RIGHT???
I don't think so. In the very first post in this thread, Trim50 ask two questions:

1) Are humans responsible for global warming?

2) Do you believe humans can stop global warming?


His answers to his own questions are:

Q. Are humans responsible for global warming?

A. Yes, about 0.012%


He says Yes, but means NO! He means no, by the very small fraction he allows for human responsibility in the larger picture of the total reason(s) for Global Warming.

Q. Do you believe humans can stop global warming?

A. Not even a snow balls chance.
{In he*l}

He means NO!; not possible.

When he says:

"For those who believe they are well versed in this new religion,....."

He is not talking about worshiping gods or idols. He is referring to "of, or having a strong conviction, or belief in: what is the cause of global warming; man or other factors. This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with beliefs, especially those of strong opinion on the topic of global warming.

So far in this thread, he has not revealed what he thinks and believes is the cause of global warming. If he did, I missed it and have to re-read.

It appears to me, he will in time(**) , but first he is leading the readers through a series of debates, ready with a counter answer for most anything, one presents as proof, reasons, or opinion, supporting the statement: "Man is the main reason for global warming, or even makes a significant impact on global warming.

** Based on what he wrote in the first post:

< If this discussion goes in the direction that I have seen on a regular basis, everyone will learn something very worthwhile about our favorite topic on this web site. >

He also said:

< This should be interesting! Don't be shy...there are no wrong answers. >

So give it a whirl; but if you are of the school that believes, "Man is responsible for global warming, especially caused by CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), as a green house gas", be prepared to Spar (as in boxers practicing their sport).

I think he is having fun, by the ton, with this. It appears as his pet project; well at least sideline entertainment, when he is not busy supervising a team of engineers, inventing fuel cells that convert water to electricity, by extracting the H (hydrogen)(2 parts) from H2O (water), or busy rebuilding a very nice yacht as he prepares to go cruising (check out his BLOG to see it) (***).

It certainly is a lively debate.

That is my take on his post. If I am wrong, he will correct me. And that is just fine, as I have been wrong once before. Well OK than........ I lost count.

Back on your question, "Are we talking about the weatherman being RIGHT???"

Now that could make for another interesting and lively debate. If you feel so inclined, feel free to start a new topic on that subject. I will certainly take part in it as recently I became active in posting the Storm Warnings here on Cruiser Log.

Thanks for asking,

Jeff

P.S. This post perhaps has nothing to do with sailing, or at most very little; but he posted it in the correct Forum: The Poop Deck, where ALMOST anything else can be discussed (civilly), on a family web site.

*** EDITED TO ADD:

I failed to include the link to Trim's Blog:

http://www.sailblogs.com/member/trim50/
__________________
When in doubt, do the right thing.

Harbor_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 09:17 AM   #22
Admiral
 
Auzzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Home Port: Darwin
Vessel Name: Sandettie
Posts: 1,824
Default

Take heart Lynx, I thought your rhetorical question was funny

Cheese

David
__________________
"if at first you don't succeed....Redefine success"!


Auzzee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 04:18 PM   #23
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Yep, I enjoyed the rhetorical as well.

Is Jeanne back yet!?
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 04:52 PM   #24
Rear Admiral
 
Harbor_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trim50 View Post
Yep, I enjoyed the rhetorical as well.
Trim and Oz,

Oh Man! Now I am laughing at myself; in hind site, I taking Lynx's question at face value, delicately crafting an entry-level explanation, bringing Lynx up to speed as to what this post is about.

In my own defense, I did state that I have been wrong once before. Now this makes it TWICE! YIKES! .....spiraling out of control here.

If nothing else, we got a good chuckle from my mis-read on the intent of the question.

Trim,

Sorry for the brief interlude in the middle of your post.

Back to "The TOPIC",

Jeff
__________________
When in doubt, do the right thing.

Harbor_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 05:18 PM   #25
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

I'm going to do something that most people don't do when trying to make a point. It seems that the Royal Society of Science has spoken...and it looks like it is official, I am a Royal Blasphemer.

Here is their publication:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=4085

The paper is obviously intended for the lay person without much scientific reference. They make the standard statement that "any" additional greenhouse gas "causes Global Warming", so who am I to argue against the Royal Scociety?

Take note:

Even the “Scientists” have some great “specific terms” for defining their position.

we cannot explain

not yet fully understood,

almost certainly

could lead

climate models

simulations

There are so many unknowns

they are not, as yet, sufficiently well-developed

This one still kills me! I will need to use this wording sometime. From the renowned authority on Global Warming IPCC

From the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group

"Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors".

In other words, we know what we want to find. We haven’t found it yet. However, we know it is somewhere in the error margins of measurements.

Funny thing is, one of my primary references for my argument about acid seas (still to come)comes from the Royal Society. One of my professors was a co-author. He doesn't think I'm a Royal Blasphemer...just a Royal Pain in the Arss.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 06:05 PM   #26
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanneP View Post
I am curious about your opinion of the theories put forth in that article by Mr. Caldeira. We know there is global warming, we know that CO[sub]2[/sub] levels have risen significantly, but where is the evidence that the excessive rise in CO[sub]2[/sub] in our atmosphere is being absorbed by the oceans? From reading your summary, to say that the oceans will eventually absorb the CO[sub]2[/sub] appears to me to be an unsubstantiated and unproven theory. The conclusions drawn seem to be that the excessive CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbed by the oceans will cause catastrophic changes in the ecology of the oceans. I assume you are not proposing that this paper is a refutation of the theories of global warming, but rather just another theory of what might happen with unrestrained burning of fossil fuels and release of such high levels of CO[sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere. Am I correct in that assumption?
1) Yes, it appears we are in a warming trend...no doubt at this point.

2) Yes, carbon dioxide level are rising...and faster than ever. Just wait till China kicks into high gear!

3) Atmospheric gases are always in a solubility equilibrium with the oceans. Henry's Law, 1st year Chem 101, no theory needed. It's a law now after all.

Henry's Law

The solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas. The most common solvent is water.

4) You are correct, I am in no way claiming that Caldeira et al. refutes any theories of global warming. It is only an introduction to what I believe to be the real issue.
__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2007, 08:37 PM   #27
moneypit
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ernst Beck has published a highly controversial paper about the chemical measurements of CO2 is the past two centuries with chemical measurements and the problems thereof:

Beck, E-G, 2007; 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods; Energy & Environment, Vol 18 No. 2, 2007

ABSTRACT

More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection.


http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

This guy is German to debunk the idea that it is only Americans rejecting IPCC.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2007, 06:29 PM   #28
Admiral
 
Trim50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Home Port: Who cares really...
Vessel Name: T
Posts: 1,215
Send a message via Yahoo to Trim50
Default

(Sorry, I haven't figured out how to get subscripts and superscripts to work) (Painfully fixed!)

And now what I view as the real problem with man made carbon dioxide. Hopefully someone will find this interesting….

So how does carbon dioxide affect the acidity of the oceans and what are the consequences?

The acidity or pH of an aqueous solution is a measure of the concentration of H+ ions in the solution, with low pH meaning high H+ concentration. The scale is between 1 and 14. A pH 0-6 is acidic, from pH 8-14 is basic, and pH 7 is neutral, between the two extremes, so it is neither acidic nor basic (alkaline). The more H+ ions that are present, the more acidic the product will be. The scale is logarithmic, meaning that each pH unit has 10 times more H+ ions than the one above it. This is important to remember, because what appear to be small numerical changes in pH, are actually substantial changes in ion concentration.

What’s the link between CO[sub]2[/sub] and the death of coral reefs?

Acidifying the ocean is particularly detrimental to organisms that secrete shell material made of CaCO[sub]3[/sub], such as coral reefs and a type of phytoplankton called coccolithophorids [Kleypas et al., 1999]. Carbon dioxide, CO[sub]2[/sub], combines with water, H[sub]2[/sub]O, to form carbonic acid, H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub]. As an acid H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub] releases H+ ions into solution to form HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] and CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] and therefore, adding CO[sub]2[/sub] to water causes the pH to drop. Most of the carbon in seawater is in the form of HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup], while the concentrations of CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] and dissolved CO[sub]2[/sub], are one and two orders of magnitude lower. The equilibrium reaction for CO[sub]2[/sub], in seawater is given by:

CO[sub]2[/sub] + CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] + H[sub]2[/sub]O ↔ 2 HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup]

CO[sub]2[/sub] and CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] are inversely related to each other. In other words, if the concentration of one increases, the other decreases by nearly an equal amount. Therefore, increasing the acidity of the ocean through the addition of carbon dioxide, decreases the concentration of CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] ions.

Coral reefs are built from limestone, CaCO[sub]3[/sub], by the reaction;

Ca[sub]2[/sub][sup]+[/sup] + CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] ↔ CaCO[sub]3[/sub].

Acidifying the ocean decreases the concentration of CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] ions, which shifts the equilibrium toward the left, dissolving CaCO[sub]3[/sub].

The oceans have a tremendous buffering capacity as long as the rate of CO[sub]2[/sub] increase is slow, on the order of 1000's of years. However, when the increase occurs over a period of 5 -10 years, the buffering mechanism associate with deep sea currents can not compensate for what is happening in the shallow waters. Therefore, acidification of the shallow waters goes unbuffered causing a run away imbalance in natural chemistry. When this man made effect is coupled with natural global warming, major segments of the shallow water biological food chain will be irreversibly damaged and possibly lost in a very short period of time...maybe as fast as 10 years.

OK, my final point and reason for starting this thread.

The Earth is an enormous equilibrium machine. It has experienced far, far, worse things than the pitiful nibbling of humans at the outer microns of its surface. It will always establish equilibrium with whatever perturbation affects its operation. The magnificence of the balancing act is achieved entirely through the universal solvent, water. The oceans will eventually absorb every chemical, gas and solid we produce during our stay or until we exhaust all the convenient sources of carbon. Along the way however, we will soon wake to the fact that our influence on metastable life of essential biological systems has disappeared, and with it, the ability to recover biological equilibrium. The Earth will heat and cool, with or without our help.

My recommendation...sail the world and see for yourself. I plan to.
__________________

__________________
[
Trim50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Grib ~ Free Access To Global Weather Data. Eclipse General Weather Discussion 8 10-13-2010 02:58 AM
Cruising And Religion Trim50 General Cruising Forum 5 04-09-2007 04:18 PM
What kind of boat will take me global thinking General Cruising Forum 5 07-12-2005 11:01 PM

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0