Writing a paper on ocean acidification for a college class. Look up projected acidification in 2100 and its effects on sea life specifically pteropods if you wanna see a potential out come. There is also an experiment done by Justin Reis documenting their findings on how sea life is effected by a decrease in pH. Basically from what i read of the experiment some sea creatures die and others build thicker shells because there is more available carbon. However, one theory is that the sea creatures that can build larger shells will put more energy into building the shells and have less energy for growing larger or reproducing. i've got some pretty good sources going right now. i'm glad i read some comments though because i hadn't realized that the standard ocean pH is more basic than neutral. I had been writing my paper assuming ocean acidification was when the pH dropped below 7.
The problem with projected acidification is, it can't be projected. Not with any reasonable degree. The margin of error on any such calculation would be enormous.
When pH decreases, regardless of the resulting pH, this is termed acidification. Excess carbon dioxide dissolves into the ocean, forming bicarbonate ions which dissociate into H+, bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. H+ increase results in acidification. The reaction does indeed go both ways, this is the universal indication for a reaction in equilibrium.
@Vivian Hui. When the pH of an alkaline solution decreases it is correctly called neutralization not acidification. The equilibrium reaction of bicarbonate, carbonate and H+ ions is an effective buffer solution in the oceans. The pH is unlikely to go below 7 (look up the Bjerrum plot).
@@ZaphodBeeb1 Hi ZaphodBeeb1! I agree it is unlikely to go below 7, however, I'm afraid the issue is not whether the ocean is really turning to "acid" as we define it, it's that it does not need to in order to start impacting the wildlife that live there. (7 years ago, I was studying ocean acidification by reducing the pH of seawater and observing the effects on chemosensation (taste and smell) of snails. The control group was at pH 7.8 and the experimental groups were pH 7.6 and 7.3. So technically, you would be correct, it is not an "acid", but it didn't need to be to start impacting the chemosensation of the snails.)
@@JazzLassie6020 Well it's nice to get a climate scientist who actually understands the buffer mechanism of CO2 dissolved in seawater. I'm surprised you used the term snails as I think most scientists would have preferred molluscs. The chemosensation work interests me. In similar experiments on the effects of reduced pH on sea life, scientists have used HCL to bring down the pH. What method did you use ?
if CO2 levels were double 30 Million years ago that is entering the Miocene Epoch which started a large trend of glaciation. also, in 1750 no one checked the pH level of the oceans. considering how one can only check fluxing of pH by consist testing, the proclamation that ocean pH was 8.2 in 1750 is not true.
You got to wonder if CO2 levels were double 30 millions years ago then it can't be humans contributions as the politicians and scientists are lying to us :-)
@@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa pH wasn't even known about until 1909. Further, there is no way to get average pH as it has to be tested at each location and it will change right after testing. So, please explain how they tested pH back in the 1700s and just exactly where was this on the planet. FYI, coral bleaching has more to do with water temp than anything else.
Two points 1. The sea is alkaline 7-8 pH. 2. If the atmosphere going to 450 ppm will cause coral to die why didnt it die in the past when there was 5000ppm?
@@thepantsman1729. On what grounds do you say the buffering has little effect anymore. Which scientific paper describes this ? The Bjerrum plot shows the buffering to continue to work efficiently.
@del4830 He said century, and he pointed out that yes there are natural fluctuations, but in the last 100 years we have seen an increase that has been unlike the natural variance, the tolerance for which he gave.
those global average pH levels are not based on measurements but calculated based on predicted CO2 lvls. The actual measurements show that pH lvls vary a lot depending on location and temperature, in some places it can change way more in a day then the predicted 0.3 "catastrophic " change over the century. So acidification is another overhyped scare
I would hypothesise that the pH levels vary so much because of outputs from Human urbanisation on the coastal areas where measurements are taken. There is absolutely reason to be worried about acidification, all that has to change is annual averages, in order to have some sort of lasting effects say.... on the bleaching of coral. Oh, yeah that happens all around the world now!
YuppieScum you should do a bit more research if you think so. No one actually deny human impact on biosphere, the main point AGW and OA skepticts put out is that CO2 is not the most evil one we should really be worried about
Always with the "you should do more research" retort. Of course!! Everyone should be doing more fucking research, what an obvious thing to say. CO2 is important, perhaps not the most important, but it is still a fucking big one, and can easily be controlled with effort.
Do more research, do people say that to you a lot Yuppie? The diurnal and seasonal pH changes are well understood. Temperature, salinity, alkalinity, photosynthesis, upwelling, downwelling, and sediment supply all affect pH.
@Devinvollmer I would recommend the Aug 2010 issue of Scientific American; pg 66 had a write up on this topic that was very well put together. The diagrams made the chemistry clear even to someone like myself (I hated Chem in school). Basically atmospheric CO2 dissolves, then steals the H2 from water resulting in H2CO3... The article covers the problems this causes for various marine life and the potential environmental and economic impacts.
The only problem is there's a multitude of other chemical reactions that occur next and marine life can cope very well with slight pH changes. The ocean's pH is not easily changed due to a process known as pH buffering. This is caused by various salts that are contained in the ocean. It would take much more than a few thousand parts per million of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere to change the oceans pH by more than a few tenths.
This man reveals extremely poor knowledge of ph values. Most of what he presents has been debunked. He implies that a reduction in Base levels equals a rise in acidity. It doesn't. It is still alkaline.
15:18 Nope, this guy doesn't appear to understand basic chemistry so why would he understand marine chemistry? The surface waters of the world's oceans are alkaline with an average pH ranging as low as 7.5 but most of it is 8.0-8.2. This is a chemical basic solution, nothing about it at all is acidic, it has the complete opposite properties of an acidic solution, it has no spare H+ ions -- zero. This has never changed in the entire course of Earth history and will not change due to your air conditioner. Marine waters instead have available OH- ions and many other ions making the water salty - also highly buffering the water from changes in pH. The current ion mix favors precipitation of aragonite and high magnesium calcite -- CaCO3, and MgSO4 evaporites. During hothouse ages, like between 200-30 million years ago, the ion mix favors low magnesium calcite and KCl evaporites. These are the only significant marine chemistry changes that have occured since the Cambrian Explosion over half a billion years ago and it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 levels. These changes are caused by changes in hydrothermal cycling of deep ocean water into and out of the crust - slow during ice ages allowing for more Mg, fast in hothouse and exchanging Mg ions for Ca through reaction in the crust. The waters have always been supersaturated with respect to CaCO3 and that won't change any time soon. The waters are so supersaturated that these minerals precipitate inorganically as whitings, oolites, and cement. Organisms that build their shells with CaCO3, however, have a sure way of producing it by changing the chemistry at the site of growth and protecting their entire shell with organic substances, typically slime or mucus - that's why marine organisms are slimy. So if living organisms are protecting themselves from changes in their environment, which happen daily and seasonally, then what makes you think they will see an added source of CO2 as anything more than food, and indeed that's what's actually being measured on the global scale. Unprotected CaCO3 would be the first to be affected if their cute fairy tale were true, but alas we still have inorganic CaCO3 precipitating on its very own and CaCO3 sediment still building the best beaches in the world. And we have these places with water with a much lower pH than the oceans, we call them lakes and rivers, and lakes produce much more algae per volume than the oceans do. Sadly, you could learn much more by reading this post than you did from watching this video. This video is what I would call the opposite of learning unless you recognize it for what it is.
Some of those proxies show very little difference between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice-Age. If we were able to go back and use modern instrumental techniques to measure temperature in situ we would get much larger extremes for those two periods.
Why does the time a temperature is measured or the age of the Instrumente change the value...? Regional temperature anomalies are not the same as global average temperatures. An those temperature graphes show us the averaged temperatures. Whats important is the warming trend we see currently and that hasnt occured since 100000years
Has anybody noticed that since December in the Northern hemisphere the days are getting longer? this must be because of more people driving electric cars like Tesla. I need $1'000'000'000.-- of public funding immediately to investigate this phenomenon.
@Atheistbatman the ozone hole is closing; for references see the wikipedia page on the ozone layer. It wasn't just aerosol cans that were banned either; all industrial production of CFCs was capped in the 1987 Montreal Protocol. I believe one of the main usages was as a refrigerant.
I just met him today. Very smart and very nice guy. I talked with him for 15-20 minutes about climate change, specifically methane clathrates. Quite frightening, honeslty. Outlook not looking good, but still not too late to limit the worst effects of climate change.
Bullshit. Tired of this propaganda. Earth didn't disappear when CO2 levels were much higher than today and it won't now. Stupid propaganda and fear mongering. You can't limit Co2 emissions unless crazy greenies think it's appropriate to reduce the human population drastically. Just enough of this. CO2 is not dangerous or toxic in any way.
@Agnotio Thank you...it wasn't a rhetorical question. But I don't really think changing the gas in hairspray cans is the level of change we require. Did we have the effect on the ozone by reducing fluorocarbons? I haven't seen any studies but I haven't looked for them either.
In agriculture lime is added to soil to raise pH. Is there anything which could be added to oceans to counteract the decrease in pH ? Probably the oceans are too vast. What would happen if limestone was crushed to powder and spinkled on oceans or dissolved and pumped into oceans, would that just release more carbon dioxide ?
Ocean acidification is another non problem. Ocean ph is set by the world ocean chemistry, it is very well buffered around 8. Natural CO2 fluctuations, which include levels up to several thousand parts per million, will not make the oceans pH change significantly from its current levels between the high sevens and the low eights.
Lol the billions of tons of shells and limestone would start to dissolve if the ph dropped low enough. This would halt the drop in acidification. This is on top of the natural buffering already in place.
It was b*ll*cks then, and it's b*ll*cks now. As regards ocean acidification, it is estimated that the ocean’s global mean surface pH may have declined (i.e., become less alkaline and thus more “acidic”) by -0.07 to -0.08 in the last 200 years - from pH8.12 during pre-industrial times to 8.04 to 8.05 today (Wei et al, 2015). N.B. The decline in pH occurred before 1930. However, and very importantly when you look the data after CO2 emissions began rising precipitously in the 1930s, the oceans have become less “acidic”!!! By way of comparison, from one season to the next, or over the course of less than 6 months, pH levels naturally change by ±0.15 pH units, or twice the overall rate of the last 200 years. On a per-decade scale, the changes are even more pronounced. Oceanic pH values naturally fluctuate up and down by up to 0.6 U within a span of a decade, with an overall range between 7.66 and 8.40. This is decadal rate of pH change is larger than the overall 200-year span (0.07-0.08) by a factor of 8.
It's not acidification if the oceans are still profoundly still alkaline. The proper term would be less alkaline or less basic. In the entire history of the Oceans, there is only one fairly short period of time (in geological timescales) where the Oceans were very moderately acidic. The average pH of the oceans over the last 300M years was 8.2pH It is now 8.1pH which is a change in pH of 1.2%. This includes all the extra CO2 that is in our atmosphere today. In order to get to a neutral pH of 7, the pH would have to change 12X fold the change already observed. So what is concern about the correlation of 400ppm in our atmosphere of CO2 potentially going to 800ppm? The Oceans would still pronouncedly alkaline. The forecast by climate alarmists models predicts the pH could go 7.8 by 2100. A drop of .3pH would actually be beneficial to fertility rates, growth, metabolism, calcification and the overall survival of carbonaceous marine life.
You need to understand the science better. For one, it is the rate of change. Two, we have impacting the food web which we all depend upon. Three, the warming is causing larger dead zones due to eutrophication. The list goes on. The oceans have't been this "low in alkline levels" - since you insist on pedantry for 2 million years.
This was an excellent presentation. If Al Gore wants to help the movement, he should but a bag over his head and broadcast a video of Dunbar talking on the front of it. Respectful, comprehensive, and data-driven. Now that said, the data that jumps up at the end is the Instrumental Record. That's NOT the same data as the historical records. And this will remain an issue because the scientific method does not allow for a change in techniques during a controlled experiment.
What would be the effect on the rest of the ecosystem though? You can't have that huge amount of new phytoplankton in the ocean without getting some kind of effect
@greenpogo Well, you only need high-school physics to know why: gas molecules, as all materials, have a particular spectrum of absorption. That is, they are transparent to certain wavelengths and not to others. Although both CO2, O2 and N are transparent to the visible spectrum, CO2 is particularly opaque for infrared wavelengths. If you had infrared vision, actually, you'd see that the atmosphere is getting progressively dark.
1. Strange he didn't take his temp graph back 2000 years, guess it would have been too difficult to explain? 2. Oceans are Alkaline and I doubt we could release enough C02 to effect them at all! 3. Most of the C02 is trapped in the sea floor and will be released by the natural heating heating trend we are in, not human emissions! 4. Before the industry of the 1950s surely we couldn't have effected the atmosphere! Why then was there such a steep rise at that time? 5. Why is the ice at the south pole getting thicker? Could it be the earth's orbit around the sun has changed slightly thereby cooling the south pole and warming the north pole? Everyone knows the plant is heating up, no one really knows why despite what they claim to know! We should focus on mitigating the effects, not bankrupting 1st world countries and destroying 3rd countries hopes development by chasing carbon emissions! These scientists are not doing good but doing evil, many many years from now the truth will be known but the damage to humanity will already have been done. The only pity will be they will all long gone and not be held accountable for there actions.
@Dave54600 There are CO2 vents in the ocean close to Naples, Italy that show the effects of too much carbon in the ocean, as life around these vents reduces drastically, especially when it comes to creatures with shells. On top of that decreases in the pH of the ocean have already been measured, so it does indeed seem true that oceans can get acidic, and the effects can be seen by the CO2 vents. If the ocean cannot get more acidic, how do you explain the decreasing of the pH values of the oceans?
Sorry for bombarding you, but another thing I should add. Global warming and Ocean Acidification are not two separate processes, they are the result of the same issue, increased anthropogenic (human-induced) carbon dioxide output, results in global warming due to increased greenhouse gas emission. Half of the human produced CO2 is deposited in the Ocean, but the trouble is that it also produces increased acidification as a result, especially affecting calcifying organisms.
Vivian, don't you mean decreased Alkalinity, because the ocean is actually alkaline. Also, there is no evidence to support the idea that slight changes in alkalinity will adversely affect calcifying marine life. One more thing, people use this term greenhouse effect without realizing it's an unproven theory. Too many so-called scientists use this term making people think that it's proven science and it's not. The greenhouse effect depends upon radiative effects for heat movement, while most heat movement in the Troposphere is convective.
@valken666 "Less than 1% of the population cares.." Its an total overstatement that you make here.. but I hear you and know about the problematic- and ...i said you exactly why this problem exists at all.
@socalledcollegelife Ofcourse it is has. That's my point. How else does a block of ice larger than you can possibly imagine melt? If not for abrupt change, then what? In fact, that is what this guy shows in his core samples. And what he says in his talk. Science points to abrupt climate change, by Rob's count, a total of 35 times in the last 4 millions years.
"@socalledcollegelife Ofcourse é tem. Esse é o meu ponto. De que outra forma um bloco de gelo maior do que você pode imaginar derreter? Se não for a mudança abrupta, então o que? Na verdade, isso é o que esse cara mostra em suas amostras de núcleo.... ...E o que ele diz em sua conversa. A ciência aponta para a mudança climática abrupta, pela contagem de Rob, um total de 35 vezes nos últimos 4 milhões de anos." (Google Translator) Isso ocorre naturalmente, sem interferência humana, segundo demonstrou o Sr. Rob através do gráfico com dados científicos até o ano 2000. Entretanto, o ele faz uma previsão para o ano 2009 baseando-se apenas em sua opinião, sem dados científicos. Essa conclusão carece de verdade e de ética.
All i know is that i wanna live on a clean and biologically friendly planet and i would like future lifeforms to enjoy the same. With so many people taking so many environmental liberties so sake of laziness and lack of creativity, I just hope that the necessary changes can happen in a logical and friendly way. We just need to design and create new infrastructure that the masses can use, and ignore the dumb-ass political disagreements.
Rob Dunbar really knows what he is talking about. An admirable scientist for sure. It just gave me a different outlook on global warming: although there are some geoengineering ideas that could solve the warming itself (you can see a video of that by Nathan Myhrvold), there hasn´t been proposed a solution to the acidification problem. Lets work together to find one soon!
@decentradical aren't global warming zealots denying that the earth's temperature is well within natural variability? Thereby proposing a radical unjustified course of action.
@GodofCider I don't know we could make corporations more responsible for the garbage that they create, or we could tax the rich more, tax vehicles more. Perhaps the countries of the world could actually agree on some environmental goals and then set up a separate global fund the environment. I'm not really sure though, I'm no expert.
How exactly is the ocean acidifying? It is anywhere from 7.8 to 8.3 ph. You're telling me that as the ocean warms.......and is releasing co2 into the air since warmer water hold less co2 that the ocean is then becoming acidic from absorbing co2. Um....yeah. That's complete nonsense! And totally impossible.
@BaileysBeads Using the highly politically and emotionally charged term 'deniers' to try to demonise dissenters is a fascist method, you shoud be ashamed of yourself. Address the issues rather than demonising anyone who doesn't agree simply because they don't agree.
Hold on! The strength of the climate change argument is that within the last 1000 years the temperate as risen 1 degree. But at the beginning of this talk Rob states that the Ice Sheet in Antarctica has been in flux over the past 4 million years. Show me the global temperate when the Antarctic ice sheet last melted...and I will show that climate change of this magnitude is due to perfectly natural causes. After all it's happened many many times in the last 4 million years.
@deprogramr Only a few countries are actually willing to do that. The rest just make a theatre out of international conventions, this includes presidents like Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Obama, they give empty speeches, make points that have nothing to do with the environment and don't change anything.
Hopefully from all the companies that are key contributors to the major problems, as well as from the governments in response to the massive issues this will cause to humanity.
the seas may in areas become less alkaline, but they are not becoming acid. To say that there is acidification is misleading at best, dishonest at worst
There is basically one significant factor determining the Earth's climate, that is the electric current density in space around Earth. The current density at the surface of Earth determines all of Earth's weather, tectonic activity, volcanic activity and drives virtually every dynamic system on Earth. CO2 is NOT causing the planet to warm up. This idiotic notion has been thoroughly refuted.
I agree, way too much CO2, it needs to come out NOW. Biochar is a doable way to sequester carbon, 1 ton of biochar takes 3 tons of CO2 out of the air. This is why I advocate for biochar programs in all countries and cities. biochar has beneficial uses in farming, water pollution and industry. I like this on youtube Biochar Bob goes to Costa Rica.. Seriously most folks know CC is real. promote a solution, a way out. BIOCHAR use it, make it, start a biochar program or promote it thru yor fav NGO
Not many people will tell you this, because it will probably be a waste of my time, but there is no way that 1 ton of anything can contain 3 tons of something, you've confused mass with volume probably.
I disagree with his main conclusion, that we must decrease ocean CO2. The ocean already contains 50 times more CO2 dissolved in the water than the total CO2 in the atmosphere. The pressure and temperature of the deep ocean allows the water to absorb fifty times more CO2 than the total CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean water already contains 4 times more carbon in the form of CO2 than the total global oil reserves still in the ground. He does not sound like a person who has studied this subject at all. But he gives a nice cruise to rich people, tvs, buffets, the whole thing...and a nice shirt. In fact the exact opposite of his main conclusion is true. The plants and biosphere are starving for more CO2, the optimum growth rates are with CO2 at 1400 ppm, where global crop yields will increase by 30 percent. We need to burn the sandstone and release CO2 back into the atmosphere and watch the animals grow to huge sizes.
Well most of what you wrote is wrong or plain stupid. So here we are. Should we listen to the qualified expert who tells us CO2 would lead to increased heat stress and other adverse effects that lead to a net loss for the ecosystem and has peer reviewed research to back it up .. or are we listening to the anonym dude from the interwebs who already made several mistakes in his claims and has no sources what so ever... "...its what plants crave..." Is that an satirical parody of that 'idiocracy' movie? "..Its exatly opposite like he says.." Nice arguments there mate 👍 And so well substantiated research.. oh wait.. Where is your paper, evidence, data?
@@NewPipeFTW Plants grow optimally at 1500 ppm CO2, is what i said, and I will say it again. Plants grow, flower, fruit optimally at 1500 ppm. Your direct quotes of my words are wrong.
@@AEJSensei Repeating a false statements doenst make it true, mate. And you still need some evidence/sources to proof anything. Global CO2 and has more negative effects on the earths flora and fauna than benefits. And we have the studies to show that. You cant compare closed laboratory settings with earths atmosphere.
@@RJones-Indy Ahh scientific semantics! Hold my warm CO2 rejecting beer. Alkaline. Basic/less basic/more basic - Historic atmospheric CO2 levels are estimated to have been much higher.
Starting his talk after 25 seconds with "solving the problem' (???) before even talking about facts and theories, can't be a scientist, but is an activist
What this guy is saying about ocean "acidification" is completely false! Ocean PH is alcaline and varies between 7,5 to 8,3 . For those who dont know Acid PH is below 7 . Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. The raise in atmospheric CO2 has been 0,012 % in 150 years. Oceans release CO2 when they warm. So you can make an idea about the crap this guy is saying!
@PlayT0E Just remember that according to the UN 51% of greenhouse gases are emitted by the business of factory farming. We have the technology to stop using fosil fuels, we only need the will. We have a method for not eating meat (vegetarianism), but do we have the will?
in the 1990's a lot of the health food scalpers were pushing coral calcium from japan and talking about acidcification of the blood. edgar cayce also used to talk about it. everyone used to refer to the pH experiments of otto walburg a nobel prize winning jew who was allowed to continue working by the nazis. the other thing they always discussed was how the pH of the body was almost the same as the pH of the ocean
Ocean acidification is one of those boogeyman terms used to scare people. The oceans are alkaline and even if the concentration of CO2 went up to several thousand parts per million the oceans would still be alkaline. These so-called scientists think they know what the appropriate levels of CO2 are and they haven't even considered that the natural variation of CO2 is at one of its lowest levels.
OMG acidification is nonsense. The least PH of the oceans has been measured at 7.8. ALL sea life can handle that. The Red Sea gets higher than the average 8.2-3 PH. Ever hear of their coral reefs? Coral reefs get hit with Monsoonal rain and the PH drops almost to & or neutral. Doesn't hurt them. What does hurt them? Land based pollution and , get this, too low temperatures. Why are New Guinea's corals not dying? They are warmer than The Great Barrier Reef's.
@aerobique I say the truth, the truth hurts, that is why you answer me. Which is nice, pain makes people wake up. :) Less than 1% of the population cares, of these less than 1% really do something about it. Almost nobody.
Well more nuclear power, more electric mass transport and more efficient agriculture that also manufactures our bioplastics etc with genetically modified plants. Problem solved.
Wow, this guy is embarrassingly clueless. Co2 levels were 15 times higher than present when coral thrived. He used discredited graph of temperature. The oceans are alkaline, will never become acidic. It might get a little more or less alkaline, but never acidic. He studies oceans, but seems to have no idea about Henry’s law, a physics 101 topic. Oceans release co2 back into the atmosphere when they warm, which is why there is a correlation between global climate and co2. Co2 starts to rise about 800 years after the climate starts to warm. Humans account for only 5% of total co2 emissions every year, and it has an effect so small it cannot be measured. The man is not an honest person.
Now I’m so scientist but, when I hear one scientist tell me that increased CO2 will cause the oceans to become more acidic and other scientist tell me it isn’t. I have to use my own logic to determine who is more likely correct. My logic tells me current increases in CO2 cannot make the oceans more acidic. Here’s why. Atmospheric pressure varies at sea level but the generally accepted number is 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi). The amount of manmade CO2 that increased the CO2 in the last century is .008 % of the atmosphere. So manmade CO2 increase is 14.7 X .008 = .1176 pounds. Since oceans only cover 75% of the earth we can say .1868 pounds of CO2 is available to change the ocean’s pH or make it more acidic as they claim. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) list the average depth of the world’s oceans as 14,000 feet . oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean... A gallon of seawater weighs 8.55 pounds and weighs even more towards the bottom of the ocean. One square foot of space holds 7.48 gallons of water. There are 144 square inches in a square foot. One gallon 8.55 pounds times 7.48 gallons in a square foot = 63.954 pounds. So 63.954/ 144 square inches in a square foot = .444 pounds per square inch one foot deep. The average depth of the ocean is 14,000 feet so 14,000 X .444 pounds = 6,216 pounds of water. So is .011675 oz. (converting .1868 pounds to oz. of CO2 going to change the pH of 6,216 pounds of water? The more minerals in the water the more buffering capacity water has to resist pH change. Sea water is extremely high in minerals 30,000 to 50,000 ppm. From what I read and hear from scientist in videos is that earth currently from the stand point of being a plant the amount of CO2 pre industrial age was almost famish. So as CO2 increases plant life breaths a little easier and they are taking in more CO2 to grow faster and bigger (that’s why people growing plants use CO2 in their greenhouses). So a percentage of the manmade CO2 is being utilized in plants. So whatever the scientist find plants are permanently trapping you can take away from that .011675 oz of my figure. I hear it’s anywhere form 10% to 25% depending on which scientist you want to believe. Anyone one care to comment on my common sense approached to acidification of our oceans?
Are you for real? No one have seen any rising of the ocean. The beaches in the pacific looks the same as 50 years ago. There is no acidificasion either.
Writing a paper on ocean acidification for a college class. Look up projected acidification in 2100 and its effects on sea life specifically pteropods if you wanna see a potential out come. There is also an experiment done by Justin Reis documenting their findings on how sea life is effected by a decrease in pH. Basically from what i read of the experiment some sea creatures die and others build thicker shells because there is more available carbon. However, one theory is that the sea creatures that can build larger shells will put more energy into building the shells and have less energy for growing larger or reproducing. i've got some pretty good sources going right now. i'm glad i read some comments though because i hadn't realized that the standard ocean pH is more basic than neutral. I had been writing my paper assuming ocean acidification was when the pH dropped below 7.
LOTS OF JELLYFISH IN THE FUTURE.
What art class was this?
one word: evolution
The problem with projected acidification is, it can't be projected. Not with any reasonable degree. The margin of error on any such calculation would be enormous.
can i see the paper?
When pH decreases, regardless of the resulting pH, this is termed acidification. Excess carbon dioxide dissolves into the ocean, forming bicarbonate ions which dissociate into H+, bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. H+ increase results in acidification. The reaction does indeed go both ways, this is the universal indication for a reaction in equilibrium.
Wrong, retry chem 101.
You also need to learn more about ph buffering Vivian.
@Vivian Hui. When the pH of an alkaline solution decreases it is correctly called neutralization not acidification. The equilibrium reaction of bicarbonate, carbonate and H+ ions is an effective buffer solution in the oceans. The pH is unlikely to go below 7 (look up the Bjerrum plot).
@@ZaphodBeeb1 Hi ZaphodBeeb1! I agree it is unlikely to go below 7, however, I'm afraid the issue is not whether the ocean is really turning to "acid" as we define it, it's that it does not need to in order to start impacting the wildlife that live there.
(7 years ago, I was studying ocean acidification by reducing the pH of seawater and observing the effects on chemosensation (taste and smell) of snails. The control group was at pH 7.8 and the experimental groups were pH 7.6 and 7.3.
So technically, you would be correct, it is not an "acid", but it didn't need to be to start impacting the chemosensation of the snails.)
@@JazzLassie6020 Well it's nice to get a climate scientist who actually understands the buffer mechanism of CO2 dissolved in seawater.
I'm surprised you used the term snails as I think most scientists would have preferred molluscs.
The chemosensation work interests me. In similar experiments on the effects of reduced pH on sea life, scientists have used HCL to bring down the pH.
What method did you use ?
if CO2 levels were double 30 Million years ago that is entering the Miocene Epoch which started a large trend of glaciation.
also, in 1750 no one checked the pH level of the oceans. considering how one can only check fluxing of pH by consist testing, the proclamation that ocean pH was 8.2 in 1750 is not true.
Some of the pseudoscientists are so dumb they don't even recognize when they contradict every activist protest they make.
You got to wonder if CO2 levels were double 30 millions years ago then it can't be humans contributions as the politicians and scientists are lying to us :-)
@@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa pH wasn't even known about until 1909. Further, there is no way to get average pH as it has to be tested at each location and it will change right after testing. So, please explain how they tested pH back in the 1700s and just exactly where was this on the planet. FYI, coral bleaching has more to do with water temp than anything else.
@@Mordalo the guy is simply lying
@@Mordalo Time travel
Two points 1. The sea is alkaline 7-8 pH.
2. If the atmosphere going to 450 ppm will cause coral to die why didnt it die in the past when there was 5000ppm?
14;30 ocean acidification
It's a hallmark of these 'scientists' that they understand nothing of chemistry. Especially of buffering
Rob Manzoni buffering has little to no effect anymore
@@thepantsman1729. On what grounds do you say the buffering has little effect anymore. Which scientific paper describes this ?
The Bjerrum plot shows the buffering to continue to work efficiently.
@del4830 He said century, and he pointed out that yes there are natural fluctuations, but in the last 100 years we have seen an increase that has been unlike the natural variance, the tolerance for which he gave.
those global average pH levels are not based on measurements but calculated based on predicted CO2 lvls. The actual measurements show that pH lvls vary a lot depending on location and temperature, in some places it can change way more in a day then the predicted 0.3 "catastrophic " change over the century. So acidification is another overhyped scare
I would hypothesise that the pH levels vary so much because of outputs from Human urbanisation on the coastal areas where measurements are taken. There is absolutely reason to be worried about acidification, all that has to change is annual averages, in order to have some sort of lasting effects say.... on the bleaching of coral. Oh, yeah that happens all around the world now!
YuppieScum
you should do a bit more research if you think so. No one actually deny human impact on biosphere, the main point AGW and OA skepticts put out is that CO2 is not the most evil one we should really be worried about
Always with the "you should do more research" retort. Of course!! Everyone should be doing more fucking research, what an obvious thing to say. CO2 is important, perhaps not the most important, but it is still a fucking big one, and can easily be controlled with effort.
How can CO2 easily be controlled with effort?
Do more research, do people say that to you a lot Yuppie?
The diurnal and seasonal pH changes are well understood. Temperature, salinity, alkalinity, photosynthesis, upwelling, downwelling, and sediment supply all affect pH.
@Devinvollmer I would recommend the Aug 2010 issue of Scientific American; pg 66 had a write up on this topic that was very well put together. The diagrams made the chemistry clear even to someone like myself (I hated Chem in school). Basically atmospheric CO2 dissolves, then steals the H2 from water resulting in H2CO3... The article covers the problems this causes for various marine life and the potential environmental and economic impacts.
The only problem is there's a multitude of other chemical reactions that occur next and marine life can cope very well with slight pH changes.
The ocean's pH is not easily changed due to a process known as pH buffering. This is caused by various salts that are contained in the ocean. It would take much more than a few thousand parts per million of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere to change the oceans pH by more than a few tenths.
This man reveals extremely poor knowledge of ph values. Most of what he presents has been debunked. He implies that a reduction in Base levels equals a rise in acidity. It doesn't. It is still alkaline.
15:18 Nope, this guy doesn't appear to understand basic chemistry so why would he understand marine chemistry? The surface waters of the world's oceans are alkaline with an average pH ranging as low as 7.5 but most of it is 8.0-8.2. This is a chemical basic solution, nothing about it at all is acidic, it has the complete opposite properties of an acidic solution, it has no spare H+ ions -- zero. This has never changed in the entire course of Earth history and will not change due to your air conditioner.
Marine waters instead have available OH- ions and many other ions making the water salty - also highly buffering the water from changes in pH. The current ion mix favors precipitation of aragonite and high magnesium calcite -- CaCO3, and MgSO4 evaporites. During hothouse ages, like between 200-30 million years ago, the ion mix favors low magnesium calcite and KCl evaporites. These are the only significant marine chemistry changes that have occured since the Cambrian Explosion over half a billion years ago and it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 levels. These changes are caused by changes in hydrothermal cycling of deep ocean water into and out of the crust - slow during ice ages allowing for more Mg, fast in hothouse and exchanging Mg ions for Ca through reaction in the crust.
The waters have always been supersaturated with respect to CaCO3 and that won't change any time soon. The waters are so supersaturated that these minerals precipitate inorganically as whitings, oolites, and cement. Organisms that build their shells with CaCO3, however, have a sure way of producing it by changing the chemistry at the site of growth and protecting their entire shell with organic substances, typically slime or mucus - that's why marine organisms are slimy.
So if living organisms are protecting themselves from changes in their environment, which happen daily and seasonally, then what makes you think they will see an added source of CO2 as anything more than food, and indeed that's what's actually being measured on the global scale. Unprotected CaCO3 would be the first to be affected if their cute fairy tale were true, but alas we still have inorganic CaCO3 precipitating on its very own and CaCO3 sediment still building the best beaches in the world. And we have these places with water with a much lower pH than the oceans, we call them lakes and rivers, and lakes produce much more algae per volume than the oceans do.
Sadly, you could learn much more by reading this post than you did from watching this video. This video is what I would call the opposite of learning unless you recognize it for what it is.
so what are your qualifications and/or sources?
HAIKU
I hatch! Crawl! And swim!
Oh how I love my sweet life,
But-why’s the sea so warm?
-A Green Sea Turtle
Warm is a relative term.
@@RClarke3660 dude shut up lmao
Some of those proxies show very little difference between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice-Age.
If we were able to go back and use modern instrumental techniques to measure temperature in situ we would get much larger extremes for those two periods.
Why does the time a temperature is measured or the age of the Instrumente change the value...?
Regional temperature anomalies are not the same as global average temperatures.
An those temperature graphes show us the averaged temperatures.
Whats important is the warming trend we see currently and that hasnt occured since 100000years
Has anybody noticed that since December in the Northern hemisphere the days are getting longer? this must be because of more people driving electric cars like Tesla. I need $1'000'000'000.-- of public funding immediately to investigate this phenomenon.
There's nothing wrong with a little acid. I'm on it right now!!
Man cannot put the brakes on anything when it comes to climate physics PERIOD..
@Atheistbatman the ozone hole is closing; for references see the wikipedia page on the ozone layer. It wasn't just aerosol cans that were banned either; all industrial production of CFCs was capped in the 1987 Montreal Protocol. I believe one of the main usages was as a refrigerant.
I just met him today. Very smart and very nice guy. I talked with him for 15-20 minutes about climate change, specifically methane clathrates. Quite frightening, honeslty. Outlook not looking good, but still not too late to limit the worst effects of climate change.
Seems like peddling to me, but you'd better act now before its too late and realize you are being taken for a ride, one day time will run out.
Bullshit. Tired of this propaganda. Earth didn't disappear when CO2 levels were much higher than today and it won't now. Stupid propaganda and fear mongering. You can't limit Co2 emissions unless crazy greenies think it's appropriate to reduce the human population drastically. Just enough of this. CO2 is not dangerous or toxic in any way.
You spoke to Chicken Little 1 year ago, did you run for the cave yet?
@Agnotio Thank you...it wasn't a rhetorical question. But I don't really think changing the gas in hairspray cans is the level of change we require.
Did we have the effect on the ozone by reducing fluorocarbons? I haven't seen any studies but I haven't looked for them either.
In agriculture lime is added to soil to raise pH. Is there anything which could be added to oceans to counteract the decrease in pH ? Probably the oceans are too vast. What would happen if limestone was crushed to powder and spinkled on oceans or dissolved and pumped into oceans, would that just release more carbon dioxide ?
Ocean acidification is another non problem. Ocean ph is set by the world ocean chemistry, it is very well buffered around 8. Natural CO2 fluctuations, which include levels up to several thousand parts per million, will not make the oceans pH change significantly from its current levels between the high sevens and the low eights.
Lol the billions of tons of shells and limestone would start to dissolve if the ph dropped low enough. This would halt the drop in acidification. This is on top of the natural buffering already in place.
the ice age warming trend called the interglacial started 20000 yrs ago and with that the melting of fresh water from >>>>glaciers /ice sheets
It was b*ll*cks then, and it's b*ll*cks now. As regards ocean acidification, it is estimated that the ocean’s global mean surface pH may have declined (i.e., become less alkaline and thus more “acidic”) by -0.07 to -0.08 in the last 200 years - from pH8.12 during pre-industrial times to 8.04 to 8.05 today (Wei et al, 2015). N.B. The decline in pH occurred before 1930.
However, and very importantly when you look the data after CO2 emissions began rising precipitously in the 1930s, the oceans have become less “acidic”!!!
By way of comparison, from one season to the next, or over the course of less than 6 months, pH levels naturally change by ±0.15 pH units, or twice the overall rate of the last 200 years. On a per-decade scale, the changes are even more pronounced. Oceanic pH values naturally fluctuate up and down by up to 0.6 U within a span of a decade, with an overall range between 7.66 and 8.40. This is decadal rate of pH change is larger than the overall 200-year span (0.07-0.08) by a factor of 8.
It's not acidification if the oceans are still profoundly still alkaline. The proper term would be less alkaline or less basic. In the entire history of the Oceans, there is only one fairly short period of time (in geological timescales) where the Oceans were very moderately acidic.
The average pH of the oceans over the last 300M years was 8.2pH It is now 8.1pH which is a change in pH of 1.2%. This includes all the extra CO2 that is in our atmosphere today. In order to get to a neutral pH of 7, the pH would have to change 12X fold the change already observed. So what is concern about the correlation of 400ppm in our atmosphere of CO2 potentially going to 800ppm? The Oceans would still pronouncedly alkaline.
The forecast by climate alarmists models predicts the pH could go 7.8 by 2100. A drop of .3pH would actually be beneficial to fertility rates, growth, metabolism, calcification and the overall survival of carbonaceous marine life.
You need to understand the science better. For one, it is the rate of change. Two, we have impacting the food web which we all depend upon. Three, the warming is causing larger dead zones due to eutrophication. The list goes on. The oceans have't been this "low in alkline levels" - since you insist on pedantry for 2 million years.
This was an excellent presentation. If Al Gore wants to help the movement, he should but a bag over his head and broadcast a video of Dunbar talking on the front of it. Respectful, comprehensive, and data-driven.
Now that said, the data that jumps up at the end is the Instrumental Record. That's NOT the same data as the historical records. And this will remain an issue because the scientific method does not allow for a change in techniques during a controlled experiment.
Try this scientific method. Check ph levels yourself
Interesting how the CO2 graph shows millions of years, while the temperature graph, again, is fitted for 1,000 years.
What would be the effect on the rest of the ecosystem though? You can't have that huge amount of new phytoplankton in the ocean without getting some kind of effect
@greenpogo Well, you only need high-school physics to know why: gas molecules, as all materials, have a particular spectrum of absorption. That is, they are transparent to certain wavelengths and not to others. Although both CO2, O2 and N are transparent to the visible spectrum, CO2 is particularly opaque for infrared wavelengths. If you had infrared vision, actually, you'd see that the atmosphere is getting progressively dark.
Nicely done.
great talk, important stuff
spread this.. people
I'm sorry Rob I can't hear you over how loud your shirt is.
Shit... this is going to be bad isn't it.
Lifeintakes yup
1. Strange he didn't take his temp graph back 2000 years, guess it would have been too difficult to explain?
2. Oceans are Alkaline and I doubt we could release enough C02 to effect them at all!
3. Most of the C02 is trapped in the sea floor and will be released by the natural heating heating trend we are in, not human emissions!
4. Before the industry of the 1950s surely we couldn't have effected the atmosphere! Why then was there such a steep rise at that time?
5. Why is the ice at the south pole getting thicker? Could it be the earth's orbit around the sun has changed slightly thereby cooling the south pole and warming the north pole?
Everyone knows the plant is heating up, no one really knows why despite what they claim to know! We should focus on mitigating the effects, not bankrupting 1st world countries and destroying 3rd countries hopes development by chasing carbon emissions!
These scientists are not doing good but doing evil, many many years from now the truth will be known but the damage to humanity will already have been done. The only pity will be they will all long gone and not be held accountable for there actions.
@midare It is impossible for enough CO2 to enter the sea water to make it acid, as at any given pressure, the water will only take only so much CO2.
@BaileysBeads - They weren't deniers. They were Justin Bieber fans pissed that it wasn't a new Bieber song.
I just checked ph levels by the golden gate bridge
Mikel Tafuna what were the levels
@@erikamaro8466 8.1 last time i checked. Iv'e never seen it under 7 ya know what i mean?
@FreedomForMankind Do you have an alternate proposal to such vital mechanics of our present society? Outside of an infinite resource setting?
i gotta get one of them shirts :P
Continuing Cooling earth cycle...how long will it last ?
@del4830 Climate change has never happened this dramatically in this short amount of time before.
I’m a Climate Change scientist and I approve this message.
That is too bad as it is wrong.
@Dave54600 why is it impossible?
@Dave54600 There are CO2 vents in the ocean close to Naples, Italy that show the effects of too much carbon in the ocean, as life around these vents reduces drastically, especially when it comes to creatures with shells. On top of that decreases in the pH of the ocean have already been measured, so it does indeed seem true that oceans can get acidic, and the effects can be seen by the CO2 vents. If the ocean cannot get more acidic, how do you explain the decreasing of the pH values of the oceans?
Yet it doesn't change the weather (or does it?) and the oceans are alkaline (or are they?). And CO2 is less soluble in water when water warms.
The temperature (weather) is what changes the ocean.
Sorry for bombarding you, but another thing I should add. Global warming and Ocean Acidification are not two separate processes, they are the result of the same issue, increased anthropogenic (human-induced) carbon dioxide output, results in global warming due to increased greenhouse gas emission. Half of the human produced CO2 is deposited in the Ocean, but the trouble is that it also produces increased acidification as a result, especially affecting calcifying organisms.
This sounds smart. It isn't. I check ocean ph balance everyday and guess what anybody can do it. See the results for yourself.
Vivian, don't you mean decreased Alkalinity, because the ocean is actually alkaline. Also, there is no evidence to support the idea that slight changes in alkalinity will adversely affect calcifying marine life.
One more thing, people use this term greenhouse effect without realizing it's an unproven theory. Too many so-called scientists use this term making people think that it's proven science and it's not. The greenhouse effect depends upon radiative effects for heat movement, while most heat movement in the Troposphere is convective.
@valken666
"Less than 1% of the population cares.."
Its an total overstatement that you make here.. but I hear you and know about the problematic- and ...i said you exactly why this problem exists at all.
@socalledcollegelife Ofcourse it is has. That's my point. How else does a block of ice larger than you can possibly imagine melt? If not for abrupt change, then what? In fact, that is what this guy shows in his core samples. And what he says in his talk. Science points to abrupt climate change, by Rob's count, a total of 35 times in the last 4 millions years.
"@socalledcollegelife Ofcourse é tem. Esse é o meu ponto. De que outra forma um bloco de gelo maior do que você pode imaginar derreter? Se não for a mudança abrupta, então o que? Na verdade, isso é o que esse cara mostra em suas amostras de núcleo....
...E o que ele diz em sua conversa. A ciência aponta para a mudança climática abrupta, pela contagem de Rob, um total de 35 vezes nos últimos 4 milhões de anos." (Google Translator)
Isso ocorre naturalmente, sem interferência humana, segundo demonstrou o Sr. Rob através do gráfico com dados científicos até o ano 2000. Entretanto, o ele faz uma previsão para o ano 2009 baseando-se apenas em sua opinião, sem dados científicos. Essa conclusão carece de verdade e de ética.
Fantastic presentation!
CO2 will never be capped until there are too few people to run the factories. Have humans ever made preemptive changes for anything?
All i know is that i wanna live on a clean and biologically friendly planet and i would like future lifeforms to enjoy the same. With so many people taking so many environmental liberties so sake of laziness and lack of creativity, I just hope that the necessary changes can happen in a logical and friendly way. We just need to design and create new infrastructure that the masses can use, and ignore the dumb-ass political disagreements.
@Atheistbatman yes, on the ozone hole.
Rob Dunbar really knows what he is talking about. An admirable scientist for sure. It just gave me a different outlook on global warming: although there are some geoengineering ideas that could solve the warming itself (you can see a video of that by Nathan Myhrvold), there hasn´t been proposed a solution to the acidification problem. Lets work together to find one soon!
Check the ph levels yourself. Anyone can do it Any solutions come to mind in the past 8 years
@LukeScientiae Only because they are under pressure. and only as long as they are under pressure.
thats scary
Rob Dunbar shared this talk 4 years ago. more relevant that ever and worth rewatching
Wrong conclusion...is this guy a scientist.?
drno Professor of Earth Science at Stanford
@RoyStewart Are or aren't global warming deniers denying global warming?
Are you denying their beliefs
@decentradical aren't global warming zealots denying that the earth's temperature is well within natural variability? Thereby proposing a radical unjustified course of action.
@GodofCider I don't know we could make corporations more responsible for the garbage that they create, or we could tax the rich more, tax vehicles more. Perhaps the countries of the world could actually agree on some environmental goals and then set up a separate global fund the environment. I'm not really sure though, I'm no expert.
Neither is the government
How exactly is the ocean acidifying? It is anywhere from 7.8 to 8.3 ph. You're telling me that as the ocean warms.......and is releasing co2 into the air since warmer water hold less co2 that the ocean is then becoming acidic from absorbing co2. Um....yeah. That's complete nonsense! And totally impossible.
I just checked ph balance in S.F
@BaileysBeads Using the highly politically and emotionally charged term 'deniers' to try to demonise dissenters is a fascist method, you shoud be ashamed of yourself. Address the issues rather than demonising anyone who doesn't agree simply because they don't agree.
See my vest!
Free trip good for you.
Hold on! The strength of the climate change argument is that within the last 1000 years the temperate as risen 1 degree. But at the beginning of this talk Rob states that the Ice Sheet in Antarctica has been in flux over the past 4 million years. Show me the global temperate when the Antarctic ice sheet last melted...and I will show that climate change of this magnitude is due to perfectly natural causes. After all it's happened many many times in the last 4 million years.
@deprogramr Only a few countries are actually willing to do that. The rest just make a theatre out of international conventions, this includes presidents like Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Obama, they give empty speeches, make points that have nothing to do with the environment and don't change anything.
@deprogramr The trouble though, is where the funding is going to come from, for such an endeavor.
Hopefully from all the companies that are key contributors to the major problems, as well as from the governments in response to the massive issues this will cause to humanity.
Funny how i'm listening to someone concerned for his planet and i look across and see 7,231 views lol !
the seas may in areas become less alkaline, but they are not becoming acid. To say that there is acidification is misleading at best, dishonest at worst
There is basically one significant factor determining the Earth's climate, that is the electric current density in space around Earth. The current density at the surface of Earth determines all of Earth's weather, tectonic activity, volcanic activity and drives virtually every dynamic system on Earth.
CO2 is NOT causing the planet to warm up. This idiotic notion has been thoroughly refuted.
Well you're at least half right.
I agree, way too much CO2, it needs to come out NOW. Biochar is a doable way to sequester carbon, 1 ton of biochar takes 3 tons of CO2 out of the air. This is why I advocate for biochar programs in all countries and cities. biochar has beneficial uses in farming, water pollution and industry. I like this on youtube Biochar Bob goes to Costa Rica.. Seriously most folks know CC is real. promote a solution, a way out. BIOCHAR use it, make it, start a biochar program or promote it thru yor fav NGO
Not many people will tell you this, because it will probably be a waste of my time, but there is no way that 1 ton of anything can contain 3 tons of something, you've confused mass with volume probably.
He did not say a ton of biochar contains 3 tons of CO2. Biochar removes 3 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.
@valken666 Indeed. And whatever is done then, will be too little, too late.
You are talking nonsense, an alkaline liquid cannot be described as acidic.
@RustyRazor2010 Is that all you took away from this video? Let's focus on the issue at hand and not make ad hominem attacks.
need more nuclear power plant's!!!
I disagree with his main conclusion, that we must decrease ocean CO2. The ocean already contains 50 times more CO2 dissolved in the water than the total CO2 in the atmosphere. The pressure and temperature of the deep ocean allows the water to absorb fifty times more CO2 than the total CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean water already contains 4 times more carbon in the form of CO2 than the total global oil reserves still in the ground. He does not sound like a person who has studied this subject at all. But he gives a nice cruise to rich people, tvs, buffets, the whole thing...and a nice shirt. In fact the exact opposite of his main conclusion is true. The plants and biosphere are starving for more CO2, the optimum growth rates are with CO2 at 1400 ppm, where global crop yields will increase by 30 percent. We need to burn the sandstone and release CO2 back into the atmosphere and watch the animals grow to huge sizes.
Well most of what you wrote is wrong or plain stupid.
So here we are.
Should we listen to the qualified expert who tells us CO2 would lead to increased heat stress and other adverse effects that lead to a net loss for the ecosystem and has peer reviewed research to back it up ..
or are we listening to the anonym dude from the interwebs who already made several mistakes in his claims and has no sources what so ever...
"...its what plants crave..."
Is that an satirical parody of that 'idiocracy' movie?
"..Its exatly opposite like he says.."
Nice arguments there mate 👍
And so well substantiated research.. oh wait..
Where is your paper, evidence, data?
@@NewPipeFTW Plants grow optimally at 1500 ppm CO2, is what i said, and I will say it again. Plants grow, flower, fruit optimally at 1500 ppm. Your direct quotes of my words are wrong.
@@AEJSensei
Repeating a false statements doenst make it true, mate.
And you still need some evidence/sources to proof anything.
Global CO2 and has more negative effects on the earths flora and fauna than benefits.
And we have the studies to show that.
You cant compare closed laboratory settings with earths atmosphere.
The ocean is not acidic. It is alkaline. Even the title is stupid.
Are you trying to say the ocean is not acidifying?
@@RJones-Indy Ahh scientific semantics! Hold my warm CO2 rejecting beer. Alkaline. Basic/less basic/more basic - Historic atmospheric CO2 levels are estimated to have been much higher.
@@channel1_channel Yes, and so has global temps. Your point?
@@RJones-Indy Pal review science sucks.
Starting his talk after 25 seconds with "solving the problem' (???) before even talking about facts and theories, can't be a scientist, but is an activist
@UntrustedSource Hail!
What this guy is saying about ocean "acidification" is completely false! Ocean PH is alcaline and varies between 7,5 to 8,3 . For those who dont know Acid PH is below 7 . Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. The raise in atmospheric CO2 has been 0,012 % in 150 years. Oceans release CO2 when they warm. So you can make an idea about the crap this guy is saying!
Totally wrong! Here we are 8 years from this talk and Antarctica has been gaining in ice since then. WRONG!
@PlayT0E Just remember that according to the UN 51% of greenhouse gases are emitted by the business of factory farming. We have the technology to stop using fosil fuels, we only need the will. We have a method for not eating meat (vegetarianism), but do we have the will?
@futureboy00
Excellent...
@greenpogo
Google "electromagnetic absorption co2 climate change"
in the 1990's a lot of the health food scalpers were pushing coral calcium from japan and talking about acidcification of the blood. edgar cayce also used to talk about it. everyone used to refer to the pH experiments of otto walburg a nobel prize winning jew who was allowed to continue working by the nazis. the other thing they always discussed was how the pH of the body was almost the same as the pH of the ocean
Great science! - Thank you
Pure BS you mean. There is no such thing as ocean acidification. Itis impossible.
K
Ocean acidification is one of those boogeyman terms used to scare people. The oceans are alkaline and even if the concentration of CO2 went up to several thousand parts per million the oceans would still be alkaline. These so-called scientists think they know what the appropriate levels of CO2 are and they haven't even considered that the natural variation of CO2 is at one of its lowest levels.
ruclips.net/video/4bJjBo5ICMc/видео.html
OMG acidification is nonsense. The least PH of the oceans has been measured at 7.8. ALL sea life can handle that. The Red Sea gets higher than the average 8.2-3 PH. Ever hear of their coral reefs? Coral reefs get hit with Monsoonal rain and the PH drops almost to & or neutral. Doesn't hurt them. What does hurt them? Land based pollution and , get this, too low temperatures. Why are New Guinea's corals not dying? They are warmer than The Great Barrier Reef's.
The GBR happens to be dying in places where it is being exposed to air due to uplift.
@aerobique I say the truth, the truth hurts, that is why you answer me. Which is nice, pain makes people wake up. :) Less than 1% of the population cares, of these less than 1% really do something about it. Almost nobody.
Come on it was a fraud in the 70 and nothing has changed! Why isn't he in prison?
Well more nuclear power, more electric mass transport and more efficient agriculture that also manufactures our bioplastics etc with genetically modified plants. Problem solved.
Wow, this guy is embarrassingly clueless. Co2 levels were 15 times higher than present when coral thrived. He used discredited graph of temperature. The oceans are alkaline, will never become acidic. It might get a little more or less alkaline, but never acidic. He studies oceans, but seems to have no idea about Henry’s law, a physics 101 topic. Oceans release co2 back into the atmosphere when they warm, which is why there is a correlation between global climate and co2. Co2 starts to rise about 800 years after the climate starts to warm. Humans account for only 5% of total co2 emissions every year, and it has an effect so small it cannot be measured. The man is not an honest person.
Nonsense!
@FreedomForMankind How about a utopian idealistic fantasy land?
how much methane is produced by the fast food industry ???
Now I’m so scientist but, when I hear one scientist tell me
that increased CO2 will cause the oceans to become more acidic and other
scientist tell me it isn’t. I have to use my own logic to determine who is
more likely correct. My logic tells me current
increases in CO2 cannot make the oceans more acidic. Here’s why.
Atmospheric
pressure varies at sea level but the generally accepted number is 14.7 pounds
per square inch (psi). The amount of
manmade CO2 that increased the CO2 in the last century is .008 % of the
atmosphere. So manmade CO2 increase is
14.7 X .008 = .1176 pounds. Since oceans only cover 75% of the earth we can say
.1868 pounds of CO2 is available to change the ocean’s pH or make it more
acidic as they claim. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) list the average depth
of the world’s oceans as 14,000 feet . oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean... A gallon of seawater weighs 8.55 pounds and
weighs even more towards the bottom of the ocean. One square foot of space holds 7.48 gallons
of water. There are 144 square inches in
a square foot. One gallon 8.55 pounds
times 7.48 gallons in a square foot = 63.954 pounds. So 63.954/ 144 square
inches in a square foot = .444 pounds per square inch one foot deep. The average depth of the ocean is 14,000 feet
so 14,000 X .444 pounds = 6,216 pounds of water. So is .011675 oz. (converting .1868 pounds to
oz. of CO2 going to change the pH of 6,216 pounds of water? The more minerals in the water the more
buffering capacity water has to resist pH change. Sea water is extremely high in minerals
30,000 to 50,000 ppm.
From what I read and hear from scientist in videos is that
earth currently from the stand point of being a plant the amount of CO2 pre
industrial age was almost famish. So as
CO2 increases plant life breaths a little easier and they are taking in more
CO2 to grow faster and bigger (that’s why people growing plants use CO2 in
their greenhouses). So a percentage of
the manmade CO2 is being utilized in plants.
So whatever the scientist find plants are permanently trapping you can
take away from that .011675 oz of my figure.
I hear it’s anywhere form 10% to 25% depending on which scientist you
want to believe.
Anyone one care to comment on my common sense approached to
acidification of our oceans?
Now I'm "no" not "so"
Are you for real? No one have seen any rising of the ocean. The beaches in the pacific looks the same as 50 years ago. There is no acidificasion either.
funny how im listening his grim news about the oceans and then i look over and see "666" views! lol
2 deniers didn't like this video.
"Deepest geologic borehole ever drilled" Buahahahahahahahahahaha That's a good joke mister.
Hail Lucifer.
53 seconds in and I'm done.
@deprogramr fascist
Bull!
666
What a load of CRAP!!
i'm sorry, but this is so boring... its like being in geography class again... BAHH